HomeMy WebLinkAboutDEER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT 1998UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
WILDLIFE SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Management of White-tailed Deer Conflicts in
the City of Iowa City
State of Iowa
December 1998
Prepared By:
United States Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Wildlife Services
2407 Industrial Dr.
Columbia, Missouri 65202
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
ANIMAL AND PLANT WILDLIFE SERVICESINSPECTION SERVIF
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is authorized by law to protect American
agriculture and other resources from damage associated with wildlife. The primary authority for
the Wildlife Services program (WS) (formally known as the Animal Damage Control [ADC]
program) is the Animal Damage Control Act of March 2, 1931, as amended (7 U.S.C. 426-426c;
46 Stat. 1468) and the Rural Development, Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
of 1988 (P.L. 100-202). WS activities are conducted in cooperation with other federal, state, and
local agencies, as well as with private organizations and individuals.
Wildlife damage management, or control, is defined as the alleviation of damage or other
problems caused by wildlife (Leopold 1933, The Wildlife Society 1990, Berryman 1991). The
WS program uses an Integrated Wildlife Damage Management (IWDM) approach (sometimes
referred to as "Integrated Pest Management", or IPM) in which a variety of methods may be used
or recommended to prevent or reduce damage caused by wildlife. IWDM is described in Chapter
1 of the Animal Damage Control Program Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (U.S.
Depart. Agri. 1994). These methods include the alteration of cultural practices, as well as habitat
and behavioral modification to prevent damage. The management of wildlife causing damage may
also require that the offending animal(s) be removed or that populations of the offending species
be reduced through lethal methods.
This EA documents the analysis of the potential environmental effects of management activities to
reduce human -white-tailed deer conflicts in urban areas of Iowa City in the State of Iowa. This
analysis relies in part on existing data contained in published documents, primarily the Animal
Damage Control Prouam Final Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Dept. Agri. 1994) to
which this EA is tiered. The purpose of an Environmental Assessment (EA) is to "briefly provide
sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact
statement or a finding of no significant impact" (40 CFR § 1508.9).
WS activities are undertaken in compliance with relevant laws, regulations, policies, orders, and
procedures, including the Endangered Species Act. Notice of the availability of this document
will be made, consistent with the Agency's NEPA procedures, in order to allow interested parties
the opportunity to obtain and review this document.
PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of this EA is to evaluate alternative methods and approaches for reducing human -
deer conflicts in Iowa City, Iowa. Urban areas certainly represent unique situations with respect
to wildlife threats. Nevertheless, available techniques for reducing
conflicts in urban areas are similar from one part of the country to another.
Nationwide, human -deer conflicts are on the rise. A recent issue of the Wildlife Society Bulletin
(WSB 1997, volume 25(2)) devoted solely to deer overabundance attests to this point. Iowa is
certainly no exception. In 1997, stemming largely from concerns of deer damage, the Iowa
Legislature passed a law requiring the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) to
establish a depredation program, which required the hiring of two biologists. Additionally, after
previously opposing sharpshooting, the IDNR recently reversed its stance and has approved
sharpshooting to reduce deer numbers in Iowa City. Furthermore, no less than 5 Deer Task Force
committees are in existence in Iowa's major cities (Des Moines, Cedar Falls/Waterloo, Cedar
Rapids, Iowa City, Dubuque). Each Task Force is composed of local stakeholders, including
individual citizens, representatives from local organizations (e.g., animal welfare groups, Audubon
Society, Iowa Bowhunters Assn., County Conservation Boards), and City employees. Each Task
Force is charged with defining the problem and evaluating and/or recommending solutions to their
urban deer problems.
In the past 10 years, the number of deer killed annually on Iowa roadways has increased by 75%,
with over 11,000 deer -vehicle collisions in Iowa during 1995 (Iowa Dept. Natural Resources,
unpubl. Data). Estimated damage was in excess of $22.5 million. Iowa City police have reported
39 accidents so far this calendar year with estimated damages totalling over $44,000. These are
just the reported accidents and several had left the scene before any damage estimates could be
made. The police report that deer -vehicle accidents in the city have been rising each year.
Overabundance of deer in urban areas can also cause damage to vegetation, both landscaping
plants and natural vegetation in parks and natural areas. White-tailed deer selectively forage on
vegetation (Strole and Anderson 1992), and thus can have substantial impacts on both particular
herbaceous and woody species and overall plant community structure (Waller and Alverson
1997). DeCalesta (1994) found that intermediate canopy -nesting birds declined 37% in
abundance and 27% in species diversity at higher deer densities. Five species of birds were found
to disappear at densities of 38.1 deer per square mile and another two disappeared at 63.7 deer
per square mile. Waller and Alverson (1997) hypothesize that by competing with squirrels and
other fruit eating animals for oak mast, deer may further affect many other species of animals and
insects. In Iowa, numerous parks and natural areas which traditionally were closed to hunting
have been opened for controlled hunts, to, among other things, reduce the impact of
overbrowsing on the plant and animal communities therein. Approximately 9 special deer hunts
will be conducted this year. Additionally, most of the Deer Task Force committees in Iowa
explicitly state that reducing damage to natural vegetation is an important, and in some cases the
primary, reason for attempting to reduce deer numbers.
NJ
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources deer biologist conducted an aerial survey of deer
populations in Iowa City on January 31, 1997. Snow conditions were just right for the aerial
survey and the count represented the minimum number of deer seen on that day. The city was
divided into 15 subdivisions (see attachment ?). Nine of the fifteen subdivisions had deer counts
of less than 25 deer per square mile. Four of the fifteen subdivisions had deer counts of 25-50
deer per square mile. Two of the fifteen subdivisions had deer counts of over 50 deer per square
mile. The city council has recommended that their goal is to have less than 35 deer per square
mile in all areas. This number was decided on due to recommendations from the Iowa DNR. For
the city to reach this goal a number not to exceed 240 deer would need to be removed. Another
aerial survey is planned for the winter of 1999 to reassess the population.
The cultural carrying capacity, more recently referred to as the Wildlife Acceptance Capacity
(WAC), is defined as the maximum density of a given species that can coexist compatibly with the
local human population (Decker and Purdey 1988). This term is useful because it defines when
conflicts with deer have exceeded an acceptable level, and provides managers with a target for
establishing management objectives. Certain factors may influence the WAC, such as landscape
or vegetation impacts, threats to public safety, the potential for illegal killing of deer, and personal
attitudes.
WS has always provided technical assistance to landowners, land managers, and city managers on
ways to reduce deer conflicts. Additionally, WS has received increasing requests for assistance
from urban municipalities, and the likelihood of direct operational assistance in some areas is
increasing. Clearly, the need exists to evaluate methods for reducing these conflicts.
METHODS AND ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
The Methods considered in this section summarize the best technology that has evolved from
continued development and refinement by professional research and wildlife management
biologists. Examples of specific control technologies under each method considered are provided.
Alternatives were developed for consideration using the ADC Decision Model as described in
Chapter 2 (Section D.2.b), Appendix J (Methods of Control), Appendix N (Examples of ADC
Decision Model, and Cost Comparison), and Appendix P (Risk Assessment of Wildlife Damage
Control Methods Used by the USDA Animal Damage Control Program) of the Animal Damage
Control Program Final Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Depart. Agri. 1994). The
proposed alternative was selected based on the ability of that strategy to efficiently and effectively
address and resolve the human/deer conflicts identified in this EA, and on the environmental
consequences of each alternative.
3
Methods Considered:
Physical Exclusion -
Fencing, netting, or other barriers around airports, yards, parks, individual plants, and
high-risk roadways can limit deer access. There are several types of fences that can inhibit
deer access (e.g., temporary electric, high tensile electric, woven wire, chain-link, and
solid wall fencing). Several types of barriers (e.g., woven wire cylinders) have proven
effective in reducing antler -rubbing damage to shrubs and trees.
2. Cultural and Habitat Modifications -
Enforcing a "no feeding" policy can help reduce concentrations of deer in urban areas.
Modifying or eliminating habitat utilized by deer may change deer behavior and reduce
some deer -human conflicts. This could include reducing vegetative cover, forage crops,
or utilizing less palatable landscape plants.
3. Frightening Devices -
The proper use of frightening devices and harassment techniques including sirens, flashing
lights, electronic distress sounds, pyrotechnics, propane exploders, dogs, and rubber
projectiles fired from a shotgun could help reduce conflicts. These devices, used alone or
in conjunction with one another might keep deer away from conflict areas.
4. Chemical Repellents -
Chemical repellents applied to vegetation (i.e., contact repellents) have been used to
discourage deer from browsing (see, e.g., Mason 1997). Area repellents, which are
designed to repel deer by odor alone, could be considered around airport perimeters.
Results of commercially available and "home remedy" deer repellents have met with
varying success. Area repellents are generally considered less effective, and the
effectiveness of contact repellents may depend on deer densities and the availability of
alternative food.
5. Supplemental Feeding -
Supplemental feeding would involve providing acceptable deer foods (e.g. corn or a
balanced ration diet) either during certain annual periods when deer browsing on
ornamental plantings and flowers is most severe, or on a year-round basis. This method
could also be used to try and draw deer away from airports.
6. Population Stabilization (contraceptives) -
Contraceptives for deer can be grouped into four categories: surgical sterilization, oral
contraception, hormone implantation, and immunocontraception (the use of contraceptive
vaccines). This technique would require that deer receive either single, multiple, or
possibly daily treatment to successfully prevent conception. The use of this method would
be subject to approval by Federal and State Agencies.
7. Population Reduction (capture and translocation) -
This method would provide for the live capture and translocation of deer to other
locations. The application of this method would have to comply with Federal and State
regulations pertaining to the relocation or importation of deer.
8. Population Reduction (lethal) -
Lethal control methods could be used selectively to remove deer that are creating hazards
to safety or causing damage to a facility, and to reinforce other methods of management.
Lethal management techniques could include (subject to pertinent regulations) capture
with subsequent euthanasia and shooting (including the use of archery and/or firearms).
Discussion of Methods Eliminated from Further Consideration
Supplemental feeding would be expensive and may even promote an increase in deer density.
Deer would still have access to problem areas and might continue to browse native and
ornamental vegetation even with supplemental feeding. Therefore, supplemental feeding of the
deer herd is not included in any of the alternatives.
Contraceptives have proven to be effective in preventing deer reproduction in controlled
experiments. However, a number of complications currently limit the effectiveness of this
technique on free -ranging deer (see Kreeger (1997) for an overview of contraceptive methods).
Some problems with the use of contraceptives include: frequency of treatment needed, necessity
to treat a large percentage of the population, immigration of deer from areas surrounding a
treated deer herd, marking of treated deer for identification to prevent repeated treatment, effects
on nontarget species, legal questions regarding capture of deer, legal questions regarding
secondary effects on humans (Warren and Lance 1993), and effects on deer behavior and
population dynamics (Muller et al., 1997). Even in situations where contraceptives could be
effectively and economically utilized, it would take several years before a reduction in deer density
and associated conflicts with deer could be achieved. The use of contraceptives is regulated by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Presently, there are no contraceptives approved for use on
free -ranging white-tailed deer. Therefore, the use of contraceptives is not considered at this time.
Population reduction achieved through capture and relocation is labor intensive, would most
likely have to be implemented annually to be effective, and would be costly ($273-$2876/deer)
(O'Bryan and McCullough 1985, Bryant and Ishmael 1991). Physiological trauma and deer
mortality during capture and transportation would be high and deer mortality after translocation
has ranged from 25-89% (Jones and Witham 1990, Mayer et al. 1993). Although translocated
deer usually do not return to their location of capture, some do settle in familiar suburban habitats
and create nuisance problems for those communities (Bryant and Ishmael 1991). The American
Veterinary Medical Association, The National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians,
and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists opposes relocation of mammals because
61
of the risk of disease transmission (U.S. Dept. Agri. 1993). High mortality rates of translocated
deer, combined with the manner in which many of these animals die, make it difficult to justify
translocation as a humane alternative to removal methods (Bryant and Ishmael 1991).
Alternatives Considered:
1. No Action
This alternative would preclude any management activity by WS directed at preventing or
reducing human conflicts with deer.
2. Integrated Deer Damage Management - (Proposed strategy for managing white-tailed
deer conflicts in urban areas and on airports in Iowa)
This alternative would utilize an integrated damage management program to address
conflicts with deer in urban areas. The utilization of an integrated wildlife damage
management approach would provide for the application of practical methods of damage
prevention and control to reduce conflicts with deer while minimizing harmful effects of
management techniques on humans, other species, and the environment. This alternative
would utilize methods 1,2,3,4 and 8 in the "Methods Considered" section. Nonlethal and
lethal damage management methods would be used as appropriate. This alternative
recognizes nonlethal methods and gives them first consideration in the formulation of each
damage control strategy. The steps involved in formulating this integrated management
process are listed in detail in Volume 2, Chapter 2, pages 15-37 of the ADC programmatic
EIS.
A number of nonlethal management methods have been implemented at various problem
areas within the State. Chemical repellents, harassment, habitat management, exclusion
barriers and the prohibition of feeding deer have been utilized; however, alone, and in
particular over larger problem areas (e.g., cities), they do not often reduce damage to
acceptable levels. Many cities, for example, are implementing various lethal control
approaches to complement nonlethal efforts.
The effectiveness and acceptability of harassment methods is site-specific, depending on
factors such as acceptability of loud noises and flashing lights and the likelihood of deer
moving to other areas where they will continue to create problems. In general, the
propensity of animals to acclimate to harassment often makes the effectiveness of
harassment methods alone short-lived. Additionally, on airports or near highways, there is
a concern that harassing or friglitening animals may cause them to run across runways or
roadways. Extreme caution is needed when using these techniques. Nevertheless, in the
appropriate situation, harassment techniques can be an effective complement for reducing
problems caused by deer.
11
While fencing may provide varying degrees of exclusion, a truly deer -proof fence must be
a minimum of eight feet in height to be effective (Craven 1983). Electrical fencing (either
temporary or high tensile) in urban areas would be of minimal value because of legal and
human safety concerns. The cost-effectiveness and aesthetic acceptance of other types of
"deer -proof' fences would need to be evaluated for individual problem areas. For
example, extensive perimeter fencing may be more logistically and cost-effectively applied
to airports.
Where deemed appropriate, public officials would be encouraged to reduce speed limits on
problem roads to decrease the potential and severity of deer/vehicle collisions. Current
research is underway by the Iowa Dept. of Transportation and Iowa State University to
better evaluate methods for reducing deer -vehicle collisions. Deer crossing signs and/or
visual or physical barriers may be erected along problem roads to help reduce problems.
Habitat management to reduce the attractiveness of problem areas to deer would include
recommendations for planting of less palatable plant species and/or the removal of
forested areas. However, forested areas provide multiple benefits and their removal would
depend on the value of the area to the local public and wildlife. Recommending removal
of forested areas would only be considered when deer are creating significant threats to
human health and safety, where endangered plants and animals are not present, and when
other methods are ineffective.
The use of chemical repellents as browsing deterrents has been extensively studied and
several products are approved by the Environmental Protection Agency for this use.
Laboratory and field studies have shown that repellents can be costly, may require
frequent reapplication, are not effective in all situations, and may diminish in effectiveness
as deer densities increase or deer adapt to them (Palmer et at. 1983, Conover 1984,
Matschke et al. 1984, Hygnstrom and Craven 1988, Swihart and Conover 1990, Andelt et
al. 1991, Beringer et al. 1994, and Fargione and Richmond 1995). The effectiveness of
repellents is generally related to deer density, palatability of the plant species, availability
of alternate food sources, season of the year, and weather.
Lethal methods would be used, subject to pertinent laws and regulations, to reduce local
deer populations to an acceptable density when appropriate.
3. Nonlethal Management
This Alternative would utilize methods 1, 2, 3, and 4 identified in the "Methods
Considered" section above. No lethal deer damage management methods would be
implemented to prevent or reduce conflicts at problem areas.
4. Nonlethal Management Attempted Prior to Lethal Management
This Alternative would utilize the nonlethal methods 1, 2, 3, and 4 identified in the
"Methods Considered" section above before lethal control measures would be utilized. If
rA
these nonlethal methods fail to provide acceptable reduction in conflicts with deer, then
method 8 would be implemented.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The WS program evaluated the environmental consequences and cumulative impacts of these
management methods in the ADC programmatic EIS. In the development of the EIS, issues
concerning biological, economic, sociocultural, and physical impacts for these alternatives were
identified and results are listed in Volume 2, Chapter 4, Table 4-42 of the EIS. The analysis of
environmental effects which could be expected from the alternative actions takes into account WS
decision process procedures and the mandates of applicable WS policy directives. Cumulative
impacts, as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.7), are impacts on the
environment that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of who undertakes such other
actions (U.S. Dept. Agri. 1994).
Alternative 1: No Action
This alternative would preclude any management activity by WS directed at preventing or
reducing conflicts with deer in urban areas. No action to manage deer problems in
affected areas would lead to continued conflicts with deer and the likelihood of increased
property damage, deer -vehicle collisions, hazards to aviation, environmental degredation,
and increased illegal killing of deer and the associated safety hazards. Additionally, high
deer densities in urban areas might lead to increased risks of lyme disease transmission to
humans. Alternative 1 would not provide the means for affected parties to successfully
resolve problems, and is therefore not the preferred alternative.
Alternative 2: Integrated Deer Damage Management (Proposed action for management of
white-tailed deer conflicts in urban areas and on airports in Iowa)
Integrated wildlife management strategies and methods selected for use under this
alternative would ensure maximum results with minimal adverse impacts to the
environment. This alternative would allow the integration of proven effective
management methods and techniques, both lethal and nonlethal, for the reduction of
damage and safety hazards caused by deer. WS would not be restricted to any single form
of management to address deer damage concerns; instead, an integrated management
program would be available to respond to immediate and long-term public safety hazards
and property damage. Lethal management would be used to address immediate conflicts
when necessary, and the use of other integrated methods would minimize the long-term
need for lethal management. Lethal management, used in conjunction with non -lethal
methods, would be the most effective and cost efficient management approach. Local
population reductions of white-tailed deer in problem areas would have no significant
long-term impacts to the regional deer population (W. Suchy, IDNR, pers. comm.).
'°1` :r• l4 s
Fencing areas to reduce deer access can substantially reduce threats to human safety,
property damage, and damage to natural vegetation. However, fencing may be
aesthetically displeasing to certain individuals, may reduce opportunities to view other
wildlife excluded by the fence, and may disrupt the natural movements of other wildlife
populations. Barriers around individual plants will reduce damage caused by deer, but
may reduce an individual's enjoyment of the landscape.
The use of frightening devices (e.g., noise makers, flashing lights) to repel deer can be an
effective part of a management program designed to reduce deer problems. However, loud
noises and/or bright lights can be very displeasing to the public and may, if used for
extended periods, detract from the quality of living in an area.
The type, quality, and quantity of habitat available has a direct relationship with the
diversity of other species of wildlife utilizing an area. If forested areas were recommended
for removal to reduce the attractiveness of an area to deer, it would likely have a negative
impact on the other species of forest wildlife inhabiting the area, and may reduce
recreational opportunities for some individuals. Recommending removal of forested areas
would only be considered when deer are creating significant threats to human health and
safety and where endangered plants and animals are not present.
The use of chemical repellents can reduce damage to landscaping plants and natural
vegetation, and may improve the aesthetic and/or ecological value of an area to people and
wildlife. However, the application of repellents alone would not likely reduce the
presence or density of deer in a problem area and could thus result in additional deer
damage to vegetation that is not treated.
The selective removal of deer by trained professionals utilizing firearms, archery and/or
capture and euthanasia would be successful in reducing damage and safety hazards when
integrated with selected non -lethal methods described above. Meat from such animals
would be donated to charitable organizations when feasible, provided that the method of
euthanasia did not involve drugs dangerous to humans. In areas where deer have had a
negative impact on the vegetative community, population reductions of deer may increase
public opportunities to view plants and wildlife negatively affected by high deer densities.
Firearms would only be used by trained and approved WS employees and not by the
general public. Safety would be the primary concern of these trained professionals, and
the discharge of firearms would only take place at pre -determined locations. Rifles may
be equipped with a sound suppressor to reduce the noise heard by the community.
Management would be conducted in compliance with all applicable local, State, and
Federal laws and regulations. Shooting is species-specific, effective, and cost-effective.
However, this alternative may not be preferred by some individuals who oppose the use of
lethal management to reduce wildlife damage. Opportunities for the public to view deer
may be reduced in areas where population reductions occur.
Beneficial impacts to be expected would be a reduced safety threat from deer -aircraft
collisions, reduced damage to ornamental vegetation and vegetation in parks and natural
areas, a reduction in deer -vehicle accidents in problem areas, and a reduced risk of lyme
disease transmission in urban areas.
Federal and State regulatory wildlife agencies were contacted concerning this alternative
and its potential for adverse impacts, including impacts upon threatened and endangered
species. No threatened or endangered species are likely to be impacted by implementing
the proposed integrated deer damage management alternative (Appendix A).
Additionally, as indicated in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 Biological
Opinion of the ADC program issues on July 28, 1992 (U.S. Dept. Agri. 1994), this
proposed action would have no effect on threatened or endangered species or critical
habitats.
The risk assessment of wildlife damage management methods used by WS is provided in
Appendix P of the ADC programmatic EIS. This assessment includes potential risks to
nontarget animals, WS employees, and the public. The impacts associated with these
methods have been identified as low.
Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative because it provides a timely and effective
response to damage caused by deer with minimal environmental effects, thereby
minimizing public safety hazards and reducing property damage.
Executive Order on Environmental Justice:
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low -Income Populations requires Federal agencies to analyze
disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects of proposed actions on minority
and low-income populations. WS has analyzed the effects of the proposed actions and
determined that implementation of the preferred alternative would not have adverse human
health or environmental impacts on low-income or minority populations. None of the
existing problem areas are located near predominately low-income or minority
populations. Deer meat (venison) would be donated to needy individuals or charitable
organizations for distribution to low-income populations in accordance with all State
health regulations.
Alternative 3: Nonlethal Management
Restricting management methods to only nonlethal techniques would only provide
moderate and short-term reductions of safety hazards and property damage, and damage
10
would continue to increase with time. Threats of lyme disease transmission would, at best,
only be reduced in the short-term.
Although several nonlethal techniques are applicable at problem areas, they alone are not
adequate to reduce conflicts caused by deer to an acceptable level. It has been shown that
the exclusive use of nonlethal techniques provide, at best, only short-term damage
reduction (Bomford and O'Brian 1990).
Adverse impacts to the deer might include deteriorating health resulting from poor
nutrition as populations increase. Other wildlife species would be adversely impacted due
to continued and increased competition for food and the resulting habitat degradation that
comes with deer overpopulation.
The risk assessment associated with the wildlife damage management methods used in this
alternative is identical to that identified in alternative 2 of this document.
Nonlethal methods alone have not, and are unlikely to, be effective in reducing conflicts
with deer where high deer densities exist. Alternative 3 would not provide the means
necessary to reduce conflicts with deer to an acceptable level, and is therefore not the
preferred alternative.
Alternative 4: Nonlethal Management Attempted Prior to Lethal Management
The Nonlethal Management Attempted Prior to Lethal Management Alternative is similar
to alternative 2, but with the emphasis on attempting nonlethal management methods prior
to lethal techniques. Alternative 2 recognizes nonlethal methods as an important
dimension of the ADC Decision Model (U.S. Dept. Agri. 1994). This Decision Model
gives nonlethal methods first consideration in the formulation of each control strategy and
uses them when practical before using lethal methods. The important distinction between
this alternative and alternative 2 is that this alternative would require that nonlethal
methods be tried in all circumstances before any lethal methods are used. A multitude of
nonlethal deer damage management methods have been implemented at problem areas and
conflicts with deer have nevertheless increased in many areas. Under this alternative,
many deer conflicts could not be resolved in a timely manner, and damage would likely
continue. Some persons are completely opposed to lethal management and would oppose
this alternative.
The risk assessment associated with the wildlife damage management methods used in this
alternative is identical to that identified in alternative 2 of this EA. Alternative 4 would
not provide the means necessary to resolve deer -human conflicts in a timely manner, and
to an acceptable level, and is therefore not the preferred alternative.
11
CONSULTATIONS
Federal, State, and county agencies, and interested organizations were contacted during
preparation of this Environmental Assessment.
Polk Co. Deer Task Force
Iowa City Deer Task Force
Iowa Dept. of Transportation
Iowa Farm Bureau
Linn County Deer Management Task Force
Vern Fish
Allen Farris
Willie Suchy
Jerry Bade
Kim Bogenshutz
Ron Fort
Jeff Telleen
Tim Thompson
Jim Jansen
Hartman Reserve Nature Center
Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources
Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Iowa Dept.
of Natural Resources
Iowa City Police Department
Iowa Dept.
of Natural Resources
Iowa Dept.
of Natural Resources
Iowa Dept.
of Natural Resources
Jim Mertens U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
APPENDIX A
Correspondence with State and Federal Agencies regarding the proposed Alternative for
managing white-tailed deer conflicts in urban areas and on airports in the state of Iowa.
•.TUU/111/Uo inu ,.v.Iv .....-,.....
UUosad Stites Annrml
beparh�Agricu um or JngWCrKnntNMH scrvioe
pgricusurc Inape
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Atte_ Field Supervisor
4469 48th Ave. Ct-
RockIsland, IL 61201.
Dear SirRvWam:
1Mrdli(e serriccs 711 E Ltmeoln Avenue
P. 0. Box OSS
Ames, lw" 60010
(616) 2139130
(1113) 233-9171 (ill
August 31,1998
Consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the
USDA/APMS/Wildlife Services Program (hereafter "WS'� is currently preparing an
Environmental Assessment (EA) for projects in the State of Iowa related to the management of
human -deer conflicts in urban areas and on airports. The impetus for preparing this EA stems, in
Part; from an increase in requests for WS to provide direct operational assistance is problem
areas. The proposed alternative (see below) will serve to guide WS' activities in managing
conflicts wheh MY srsvices are requested WS' activities are undertaken in compliance with
relevant laws, regulations, policies, orders, and procedures, including the Endangered Species
Act.
The proposed alternative utilizes an integrated wildlife damage management approach to address
problems. Specific management techniques in this alternative which WS' employees may
employ include:
1. Frightening Devices -
The including sirens,
The proper use of frightening devices and harassment tecbniq
flashing lights, electivnic distress sounds, pyrotechnics, propane exploders, dogs, and
rubber proiectiles fired from a shotgun could help reduce conflicts. These devices, used
alone or is conjunction' with one another might keep deer avvav from conflict areas.
2. Chemical Repellents -
Chemical repellents applied to vegetation (Le., contact repellents) have been used to
discourage deer from browsing- Area repellents,v.hich are designed to repel deer by odor
alone, could be considered around airport perimeters. Results of commercially available
and "home remedy" deer repellents have met witn varying success. Area repellents are
genemily considered Tess effective, and the effectiveness of contact repellents may
depend on deer densities and the availability of alternative food -
3. Population Reduction (lefnal)-
Lethal control methods could be used selectively to remove deer that a e creating hazards
to safety or causing damage to a facility, and to reinforce other methods of management.
APHISPro[cctiny Amerman Agr�uRure ' � \9qd
rcP
Lethal management techniques could include (subject to pertinent regulations) capture
with subsequent euthanasia and shooting (including the use of archeFy and/or firearms).
Additionally, the following methods may be discussed with affected parties; however,
implementation of such methods would strictly be the responsibility of the appropriate authority.
1. Physical Exclusion -
Fencing, netting, or other barriers around airports, yards, Parks, individual plants, and
high-risk roadways can limit deer access. There are several types of fences that can
inhibit deer access (e.g., temporary electric, high tensile electric, woven wire, chain-link,
and solid wall fencing). Several types of barriers (e.g., woven wire cylinders) have
proven effective in reducing antler -rubbing damage to shrubs and trees.
2. Cultural and Habitat Modifications -
Enforcing a "no feeding" policy can help reduce concentrations of deer in urban areas.
Modifying habitat utilized by deer may change deer behavior and reduce some deer -
human conflicts. This could include reducing vegetative cover, forage crops, or utilizing
less palatable landscape plants.
It is our opinion that the proposed alternative (and the methods therein) would not affect any
endangered species within the State of Iowa - lethal removal is species-specific; chemical
repellents are registered with the EPA; and harassment techniques can be implemented in a
species-specific manner, in localized areas, and in a non -lethal manner.
I would appreciate your response to my conclusion that the proposed action to reduce safety
hazards and property damage caused by deer in urban areas and on airports would not adversely
affect endangered species occurring in the State. Due to the need to process this EA in a timely
manner, we respectfully request that we receive your agency's written response within 3 weeks
of your receipt of this request. If you have any additional questions, please contact me at the
numbers listed on the letterhead.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
John Erb
Wildlife Biologist
STATE OF
]C <
TERRY I- EIRANSTAD. GOVERNOR
September 28, 1998
A
John Erb
USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services Program
711 East Lincoln Avenue
P.O. Box 844
Ames, Iowa 50010
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
LARRY J. WILSON. DIRECTOR
RE: Preparation of Envir nme�ntalssessmen fManagement of Human -Deer
Conflicts in Urban Area and onirpos
Dear Mr. Erb:
Thank you foinv,-iting our comments on the impact of'the above referenced
project on pro ctealrspeF es and rare natural communities.
We have reg
egd your
rare natuial�communitie`(s. While o7dr data arl
surveys, based on the informao'n proved
alternativewrll ffect protected,' pecies or raj
do not recommend field surveysof the sites:
communities�ar found during xPlanning or
studies and/or mitigation may -required ,r 4
This letter 'is a record o#!e"view for pr"o'
s. chemical
x2i.oLiinpact on ustp species or
not the result of.. Thorough field
W do not think the project
Ana ural4i ommudfiesl'firThus. we
communities for your proposed management alternatives. It
a permit and before proceeding with individual projects, you
permits from the DNR or other state and federal agencies.
cies or rare
and rare natural
does not constitute
may need to obtain
{•
if you have any questions about this letter or if you require further information,
please contact Kim Bogenschutz at (515) 281'=8675.
Sinc ly,
FRY J. WILSON; L RECTOR
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
LJW: ksb
98-487L.DOC
F M O `1001.
1997 Deer Aerial Survey as conducted by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
NOV-30-98 132SB FROM -City o£ IOWA CITY ID.31936B6009 PAGE 4/9
Iowa City / Coralville 1997 Deer Survey Information
An aerial survey by helicopter was conducted 31 January 1997 under the following co aditions:
Temperature 45 degrees F
Wind 15 to 30 mph SW
Sky Clear & sunny
Snow cover 5 inches and melting
Conditions were good to start but high temperatures lead to melting snow.
Counts represent the minimum number of deer seen on that day. Acreage listed is approximate.
Deer/ sq. mi. is rounded to the nearest whole number. Willow Creek, Manville, East IC, and SF -
IC do not have much vegetative cover, so only a quick fly through was conducted on t.rese sites.
t
APPENDIX C
Copy of 1998-99 Deer Management plan for Iowa City as prepared by the Deer Task Froce.
WINTER OF 1998/99 DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR IOWA CITY
1. The City of Iowa City will proceed with an educational program that will provide residents with
information on deer habits and guidelines for limiting localized deer damage through the use of
screening, alternative plantings, and other techniques. The Winter 1998/99 Deer Management
Plan will be included. Educational materials will be distributed through a variety of methods
including public informational meetings, pamphlets, and government television programs.
2. The City of Iowa City will evaluate the need for and, where appropriate, install or petition the State
or County to install on roadways under their jurisdiction warning signs and/or reflectors that may
reduce the likelihood of vehicle/deer accidents. The City will prepare an annual report on the
effectiveness of deer reflectors. In addition, thoughtful consideration will be given to deer
migratory paths as transportation improvement projects are approved by the City Council.
3. In order to prevent irreparable damage to the ecosystems in Iowa City and to prevent significant
injury or damage to persons or property, the City Council has set the maximum deer population
density to be thirty-five (35) per square mile per City -designated management district. Actual
numbers were unable to be collected via helicopter count due to inadequate snow cover during
the late winter season of 1997/98. Therefore, an estimate of population growth must be used to
determine number of deer to be killed.
4. In order to attain its population goal of thirty-five (35) deer per square mile per management
district, the City of Iowa City received authorization from the Department of Natural Resources to
establish a special deer population management area for Iowa City under the following conditions,
limitations, and procedures:
a. The special deer management area is defined as all public and private land in Iowa City as
designated by the City Council of Iowa City.
b. The City Council directs a number not to exceed 240 deer be killed during the winter of
1998/1999, unless actual numbers determined by helicopter count indicate that fewer deer
killed will allow the City to reach the desired goal of 35 deer per square mile, within the time
period authorized by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, via the following methods:
(1) The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) will utilize sharpshooting with
centerfire rifles equipped with silencers for the lethal removal of deer. Bait may be used
to attract deer to the sites. City and USDA officials will determine locations, training, and
all other conditions for the sharpshooting activities. The City and USDA will comply with
all applicable state laws.
(2) The City will utilize City personnel to use baited traps to capture and kill deer in locations
determined by City officials.
(3) All deer killed by sharpshooting and/or trapping operations will be processed for human
consumption and distributed free of charge. Processing locker(s) participating in the
plan will be allowed to keep and utilize the deer hide.
(4) No licenses will be required for the City and no fees will be charged.
c. The Deer Management Committee will convene in the spring/summer of 1999 to review
educational material, deer. population numbers (current and projected), Winter 1998/1999 deer
kill effectiveness, and to recommend methods to manage deer during the winter of 1999/2000.
Approved by Deer Management Committee — October 21, 1998
A report of the results 1998/1999 management plan will be prepared and submitted to the
Department of Natural Resources.
Approved by Deer Management Committee — October 21, 1998
LITERATURE CITED
Andelt, W. F., K. P. Burnham, and J. A. Manning. 1991. Relative effectiveness of repellents for
reducing mule deer damage. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:341-347.
Beringer, J., L. P. Hansen, R. A. Heinen. and N. F. Giessman. 1994. Use of dogs to reduce
damage by deer to a white-pine plantation. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 22:627-632.
Berryman, J. H. 1991. "Biodiversity: ... a word of caution." Southeast Assoc. Fish and Wildl.
Agencies 45:13- 18.
Bomford, M. and P. H. O'Brian. 1990. Sonic Deterrents in Animal Damage Control: A Review
of Device Tests and Effectiveness. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18:411-422.
Bryant, B. K., and W. Ishmael. 1991. Movement and mortality patterns of resident and
translocated suburban white-tailed deer. Pages 53-58 in L.W. Adams and D.L. Leedy,
eds. Wildlife conservation in metropolitan environments. Natl. Inst. Urban Wildl. Symp.
Ser. 2, Columbia, Md.
Craven S. R. 1983. Deer. pp.D23-D33 in: Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. Coop.
Ext. Serv. Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln.
Conover, M.R. 1984. Effectiveness of repellents in reducing deer damage in nurseries. Wildl.
Soc. Bull. 12:399-404.
DeCalesta, D. 1994. Effect of white-tailed deer on songbirds within managed forests in
Pennsylvania. J. Wildl. Manage. 58(4):711-718.
Decker, D. J., and K. G. Purdy. 1988. Toward a concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in
wildlife management. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16:53-57.
Fargione, M. J. and M. E. Richmond. 1995. Advancing deer repellent performance: Fine-tuning
Hinder applications and potential uses for insecticidal soaps. Proc. East. Wildl. Damage
Control Conf. 6:137-144.
Hygnstrom, S. E. and S. R. Craven. 1988. Electric fences and commercial repellents for reducing
deer damage in cornfields. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16:291-296.
Jones, J. M. and J. H. Witham. 1990. Post-translocation survival and movements of metropolitan
white-tailed deer. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18:434-441.
Kreeger, T.J., Editor. 1997. Contraception in wildlife management. USDA Technical Bulletin
No. 1853. U.S. Dept. of Agriculhire, Washington, D.C. 272pp.
r .y T
Leopold, A. S. 1933. Game Management. Charles Scribner's Sons. New York, New York.
481pp.
Mason, J.R., Editor. 1997. Repellents in wildlife management. USDA, National Wildlife
Research Center, Fort Collins, CO. 447pp.
Matschke, G. H., D. S. DeCalesta, and J. D. Harder. 1984. Crop damage and control. pp. 647-
654 in L. K. Halls, ed. White-tailed deer: ecology and management. Stackpole Books,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 870pp.
Mayer, K. E., J. E. DiDonato, and D. R. McCullough. 1993. California urban deer management:
Two case studies. pp. 17-18 in: Urban Deer Symposium. St. Louis, MO 54pp.
Muller, L. I., R. J. Warren, and D. L. Evans. 1997. Theory and practice of immunocontraception
in wild mammals. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25:504-514.
O'Bryan, M. K. and D. R. McCullough. 1985. Survival of black -tailed deer following relocation
in California. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:115-119.
Palmer, W. L., R. G. Wingard, and J. L. George. 1983. Evaluation of white-tailed deer repellents.
Wildl. Soc. Bull. 11:164-166.
Strole, T.A., and R. C. Anderson. 1992. White-tailed deer browsing: Species preferences and
implications for central Illinois forests. Nat. Areas J. 12:139-144.
Swihart, R. K. and M. R. Conover. 1990. Reducing deer damage to yews and apple trees:
Testing Big Game Repellent, Ro-Pel, and soap as repellents. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18:156-
162.
U. S. Department of Agriculture 1993. Animal Damage Control Policy Manual. Anim. Plant
Health Inspection Serv., Anim. Damage Control. Hyattsville, MD.
-----. 1994. Animal Damage Control Program, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Anim.
Plant Health Inspection Serv., Anim. Damage Control. Hyattsville, MD. Volume 1, 2 &
J.
Waller, D. M., and W. S. Alverson. 1997. The white-tailed deer: A keystone herbivore. Wild.
Soc. Bull. 25:217-226.
Warren, R. J. and W. R. Lance. 1993. Management of urban deer populations with
contraceptives: Practicality and agency concerns. pp. 164-170 in J. B. MCAninch ed.
Urban Deer: A Manageable Resource. Proc. Symp. 55th Midwest Fish Wildl. Conf.
175pp.
Wildlife Society, The. 1990. 'Responsible human use of wildlife." The Wildlifer, Issue No.
243. The Wildl. Soc., Washington, D.C.
A DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN
• 'l
F.W. KENT PARK
JAY MCANINCH AND MICHELLE STRADTMANN
TDS, 1521 SOUTHRIDGE ROAD
NEW ULM, MINNESOTA 56073
February 8, 1995
Ccn?
btl
az
o
y
c1�
N
JAY MCANINCH AND MICHELLE STRADTMANN
TDS, 1521 SOUTHRIDGE ROAD
NEW ULM, MINNESOTA 56073
February 8, 1995
PREFACE
If the original F.W. Kent Park vegetation management plan
was to establish forest communities that could be left to
naturalize into stable, yet diverse plant and animal communities,
then that plan has been seriously stalled. The impacts and
developments that can be observed today have been the result of a
Park vegetation management plan being driven largely by the feeding
behavior of an abundant white-tailed deer population. Further,
many new and varied demands are being expected of the park, leaving
the staff in need of a long range vision or mission statement to
guide their everyday activities. In this climate.of transition and
searching to satisfy many interests, the Johnson County Board
(similar to most public land agencies) faces an urgent need to
inventory and understand the limits of the Park's resources and
focus on the extent to which those assets can be managed to provide
ecological, cultural and social benefits to the public.
Clearly, the greatest challenge for the Johnson County
Conservation Board is to develop and communicate to the public the
landscape goals they wish to accomplish at Kent Park. These goals
have to be accompanied by a set of precise, yet compatible
objectives for the plant and animal communities found on the
property and the diverse users of the Park. Within these
objectives, the role of deer in the plant and animal communities at
the Park must be made clear. In addition, the value of deer as a
resource for management and an ecological asset for human use and
enjoyment must also be determined. once these assessments are
complete, the management of deer will become clear and will be an
' integral part of a set of goals that will perpetuate balance and
diverse plant and animal communities at F.W. Kent Park.- ui
C-, m
D= m '
_M m
' ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS C3 —p
We would like to thank members of the F. W. Kent 'ParkvDeer
Management Committee for their valuable insights into the history
of Kent Park and the local deer populations, their patience and
participation during meetings and their comments and suggestions
provided on the draft of this plan. To us the committee acted as
' representatives of the various interests the deer management
program must serve and thus, they were invaluable critics of our
work.
We would also like to thank the staff at F.W. Kent Park for
their help in providing us access to records and general
' information about the park. We are particularly indebted to Park
Director Rod Dunlap for his tireless support of our efforts and to
Rod and Charlotte Dunlap for their gracious hospitality during our
visits.
i
Maintenance
Method
- Bowhunting..............37
En
Cooperative Deer
Population
Control
—_
Eno
-n
:! c:
rri
W
TABLE OF CONTENTS
n-=.
N3
Kent
Park and Environs
...................................m
--+ .:
1
Deer
Population
Dynamics ...............................
:L:-
cn
Na
IDeer
Population
Carrying Capacity .............................6
Deer
Impact on
Kent Park and Environs .........................9
■
Deer
Population
Control Options..............................10
Population
Control Criteria .............................10
IPopulation
Control Methods..............................11
Sharpshooting...........................................11
Trap and Kill...........................................13
' Firearms Hunting........................................15
Archery Hunting.........................................17
IContraception...........................................20
Current Status of Methods and Recommendations ........... 22
Deer Population Assessment Recommendations ...................24
Deer Impact Assessment Recommendations .......................26
Deer Population Control Recommendations ......................30
Population Reduction - Option 1: Firearms Hunting....... 30
Population Reduction - Option 2: Sharpshooting and
Trap and Kill.......... 34
Population
Maintenance
Method
- Bowhunting..............37
Cooperative Deer
Population
Control
Programs.................40
IDeer Habitat Management......................................41
Deer Technical Assistance....................................42
Deer Education and Information...............................44
Summary of Findings and Recommendations ......................46
' Literature Cited.............................................47
' Bibliography.................................................49
N
o _n
C-� fel
03
KENT PARK AND ENVIRONS -
`r7,
' GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS o c
r �
Deer in the Kent Park area are very much a product of deir
' environment. Agriculture is the primary land use around the park
and includes corn, soybeans, forage crops, and pasture. Permanent
cover (usually forest vegetation) is found in wooded strips along
property boundaries, waterflows, and around homesteads. Cover is
also provided by Conservation Reserve Program acreage on some
farms. Development has occurred in the area but is currently
limited to a few residences on small parcels. Annual variations in
' the pattern of croplands are the most dynamic landscape feature.
LAND USE
Results of a 1994 survey sent to farmers within 1 mile of Kent
Park provide a characterization of the landscape and management
activities that currently exist in the area. The average landowner
had just over 440 acres and had roughly 75% of the land involved in
agricultural production. Corn was the dominant crop and was found
on over 40% of the acreage in 1994. Corn, soybeans and small
' grains occupied nearly 75% of the cropland in the area while
alfalfa was reported on about 10% of the acreage. Pasture, timber
and waste areas were reported as other common uses of the land.
' Only 1/3 of the non -crop areas were composed of forests or
wetlands with woody cover covering over 30% of these lands.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and pasture were the most common
I uses of non -croplands. A few residential developments were present
but occupied a very small percentage of the total land area.
RENT PARK
The 1030 acre Kent Park is clearly the dominant feature in the
landscape for deer. The park provides ample permanent cover in all
seasons for deer and is in close proximity to cropland and grazing
areas. The interspersion of open and woody cover types throughout
the park is ideal habitat for deer.
DEER POPULATION DYNAMICS
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
In Johnson County, as in much of the Midwestern farmland, deer
are generally in excellent condition due to the availability of
agricultural crops. These foods typically result in deer that
exhibit rapid growth rates, reproduce in their first year, and
survive all but the most severe winters. Farmland deer populations
are generally limited by the availability of forest lands for
winter cover although alternatives such as wetlands and
conservation reserve lands offer good to excellent habitat. For
many of the reasons described above, the population potential of
deer in agricultural landscapes similar to the Kent Park area is as
high as anywhere in the range of white-tailed deer.
PRODUCTIVITY
The annual productivity of deer populations in farmlands is,
' again, as high as can be found for white-tailed deer. Haugen
(1975) and Gladfelter (1980) found around 70% of fawn does, over
90% of yearling does and about 95% of adult does were pregnant.
' For those does that were pregnant, fawn does typically had a single
fawn and, on occasion, had twins. Pregnant yearling and adult does
typically had twins with a few having single fawns or several
' having triplets. Recruitment of farmland deer occurs in late
summer or early fall when fawns are weaned and become independent
members of the population. Due to the high rate of reproduction of
farmland deer, populations in these areas have a potential annual
' rate of increase of 50 - 70%.
Kent Park is likely experiencing rates of reproduction and
population increase within the range described here.
Unfortunately, no productivity data are available from the Kent
Park area, and thus we have to assume rates are similar to those
reported by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IA -DNR) for
1 the Johnson County area.
MORTALITY
tLegal kills by hunters represent the single greatest mortality
factor for deer in the Kent Park area. Hunting mortality rates of
25-40% are common in farmland areas where management programs
I strive to balance deer populations with the demands of intensive
production agriculture. 'File rate of non -hunting mortality
decreases with age, particularly after recruitment (0.5 years or
older). Non -hunting mortality for deer in Iowa has been attributed
to roadkills, disease, poaching and predation.
' From discussions among Kent Park Deer Management Committee
members, hunter kill was considered the most significant type of
deer mortality for deer exposed to hunting during the annual fall
seasons. A 1994 survey of surrounding landowners found hunting was
allowed on nearly every property. Annual deer kill, particularly
of antlerless deer, was not high and was likely a result of limited
antlerless permits being available to hunters, limitations on the
' number of hunters hunting neighboring properties and hunters
selectively hunting for antlered male deer. Despite these
problems, hunter kills remain the most significant mortality factor
for the Kent Park deer population. u
Kent Park Deer Management Committee members described geriri]
field observations on and around Kent Park over the last few years=;
I and felt the most important non -hunting mortality factors 'were
d
2 0 0
f y CA
N
vehicle collisions, accidents (such as with farm equipment, fences,
etc.), and deer killed and unretrieved during hunting activities.
A long list of other causes of death were observed and included
poaching, predators, disease, train accident, snares, and unknown.
ABUNDANCE
Deer abundance refers only to the number of deer found on and
around an area of concern, such as Kent Park. Abundance is usually
expressed as deer per mix and often has to be accompanied by
statements about the potential biases that might have impacted the
number(s) being used to make decisions about population trends.
Deer population estimates are not available for the area and
likely never will be completed. Estimates require multiple surveys
during a sampling period (typically winter) with adjustments for
deer observability, observer bias and other factors. Typically,
estimates are reported with a mean and intervals that provide
measures of the statistical reliability of the data.
Aerial deer counts on and immediately around Kent Park have
been the data used to evaluate changes in deer abundance since
1985. Counts have been conducted by the IA -DNR using fixed -wing
aircraft, flying at 400-500 feet above ground level at 75-80 mph.
Two or 3 experienced counters have recorded deer numbers observed
within 600-700 ft swaths along north -south transects. The
transects cover all of Kent Park and a small portion of adjoining
lands. Counts have typically been flown in February after at least
2 or more inches of snow has covered the ground.
The Kent Park deer counts can be considered as a minimum index
to deer abundance at the time of the survey. The biases commonly
affecting aerial deer counts (presence of conifer cover, deer
outside the survey area, and deer missed by the observer) are
errors of omission and addition. In addition, Ludwig (1981) in
Minnesota found up to 25% of the deer presence during aerial
surveys were not counted thus providing further support for the use
of aerial counts as minimum deer abundance figures.
Annual variations in deer abundance often occur and are due to
fluctuating mortality rates, primarily hunter kills and car/deer
accidents. on small areas (<5 mix) changes in the number and sex
and age of deer killed can be affected by local crop harvest,
weather, hunting pressure, selectivity of hunters and hunter
success. The result of variations in these factors is that
abundance values will fluctuate from year to year and must be
viewed over several years to portray useful trend information.
' Because annual fluctuations do occur, data such as aerial
count data are used as indices of change in deer populations er
' time. Other indices used to track deer population changes ave
M
o,
cn
1 N
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Z
included numbers of roadkilled deer and deer observed on roadside
surveys. These techniques are used by the IA -DNR as indices to
deer population change in Johnson County. Typically, several years
of these data are viewed together and a general population trend is
then developed. For the aerial deer count data such as that
currently available at Kent Park, deer abundance can be considered
to be increasing, decreasing or stable.
The aerial counts for the Kent Park area were 72 in 1985, 66
in 1988, 120 in 1989, 122 in 1990, 201 in 1991, 144 in 1993 and 197
in 1994. Due to poor snow conditions, surveys were not flown in
1986, 1987 and 1992. Only a single survey was flown each year
which means each count represents the number of deer observed
during a 1 hour survey of the Park. Because additional counts
could not be completed, an estimate of the variability inherent in
the surveys is unavailable. This problem means we do not know if
the survey is within 5 or 25% of the actual number of deer present
on the area at the time of the survey. While we recommend the
numbers be taken as a crude indicator of population trends, we
caution those who might overstate the inference that can be drawn
from these 7 data points.
DEER POPULATION AREA OF INFLUENCE
The theoretical area of influence of the Kent Park deer
population would be those lands surrounding the Park on which deer
that were born in the Park have become part-time or full-time
residents. Due to the potential for a few young deer to disperse
long distances (from 10 to 20 miles), the absolute area of
influence for all deer born in the Park would cover at least 1000
mit. Most of these long distance movements would be the result
movements by juvenile males and/or regular movements from winter
areas to fawning sites of a small number of adult females.
Data from IA -DNR movement studies by Jackson (1986-1992) at
Springbrook State Park found about 70% of all deer established home
ranges within 1 mile of the park. Of the adult females that were
in the Park, 90% did not leave the park. Annual home ranges of
deer ranged from 200 to 400 acres in these studies and only about
one-third of the annual use area of individual deer was outside the
park. Nearly all deer that left the park were juvenile males and
females that were dispersing as young of the year. Most movements
were in spring and fall and coincided with periods of significant
transition in the agricultural landscape.
The area most influenced by Kent Park deer would be the area
inhabited by the primary, permanent resident deer, namely adult
females. Based on the data summarized above, lands within 1 mile
of the Park would be significantly impacted by the same u%eer
population. Taking the 1030 acres of the Park and cons i&rinW,the,,
Park to be 2/3 of the area used by resident deer, th!, r" of;;
N ,-
4
o� o
Gn
I
J
I
I
J
J
J
I
I
influence would be approximately 1545 acres. Spring, summer and
fall would be the periods during which impacts on surrounding lands
would be most significant. The movements of deer to areas of
permanent cover during winter would result in deer numbers
increasing in the Park as crops are harvest and cover is reduced.
Therefore, winter would be the period during which the impact of
Kent Park deer would be the most restricted.
Based on the above discussion, we consider the area of
influence of the Kent Park deer population to be a approximately 2
mit (1280 acres) in winter and 4 mit (2560 acres) in summer. These
distances are arbitrary but will be used to provide a focus for
assessing the impact of future management activities.
We recommend the Kent Park staff and others familiar with the
adjoining landscape be consulted and asked to devise a specific map
of the properties to be considered for inclusion in a Kent Park
deer management unit. For simplicity we suggest the larger summer
range area be used as the basis for the unit boundaries although
care should be taken to remember the more restricted influence of
deer in winter. The Kent Park deer management unit should not only
relate to deer seasonal movements but must emphasize land use
patterns. Ideally, this geographic unit would be a dynamic and
flexible tool, useful in managing the area deer population as well
as the impacts caused by deer throughout the unit. Moreover, this
unit should serve as the basis for cooperative management efforts
between Kent Park and surrounding landowners.
STATUS OF THE KENT PARK DEER POPULATION
Based on the aerial survey data, deer abundance appears to
have been increasing from 1985 until 1990 after which time numbers
seem to have been stable to slightly rising through 1994. Given
the precautions discussed above, we believe the winter deer
population on Kent Park in 1994 was between 200 and 250 deer. This
is based on the aerial count and, particularly on the comments
recorded by the Kent Park staff and the aerial observers that deer
they observed in concealed locations were known to have been missed
by the survey.
The 200-250 deer estimated to be in Kent Park during February,
1994 would have resulted in a summer, 1994 population, after
fawning, in excess of 300 deer (assuming at least a 50$ rate of
increase). Thus, the 1994 summer deer density was likely at least
75 deer per mit over the estimated 4 mit area of influence. The
February, 1995 winter deer density likely approached 100 deer per
mit, again assuming the area used in winter was a total of 2.0 mit
(which includes the Park). Assuming mortality from the 1994
hunting season was similar to past years, we believe deer kDuc�1
population abundance in 1995 will continue to follow t& gr4ual
increasing trend which appears to have begun in 1993.E a
O p
C.n
N
J
I
I
I
I
r
J
I
n
I
J
DEER POPULATION CARRYING CAPACITY
GENERAL CARRYING CAPACITY CONCEPTS
Carrying capacity for deer has been expressed using several
terms. The biological carrying capacity (BCC) for deer is the
maximum number of deer that a specific landscape can support in
good condition. This concept suggests that, given natural rates of
mortality and reproduction, the quantity and quality of available
cover and food are the only limits on deer populations. Typically,
deer densities are managed well below SCC due to conflicts with
man's use of the land (damage, car collisions, etc.).
BCC is rarely used in practice as a management goal but
rather, serves as an estimate of the upper limit of deer population
growth. Thus, BCC can vary from densities of a few deer per mit in
northern forested landscapes where winters are severe and food is
limited in quantity and quality to Midwestern agricultural
landscapes where unlimited, high quality food and mild winters
could potentially support several hundred deer per mit.
The maximum number of deer that can exist within the limits of
human tolerance and use of landscapes has been considered to be the
cultural carrying capacity (CCC) of a landscape. Goals based on
human compatibility criteria recognize the inherent conflicts of
land uses such as agriculture and forestry with free -ranging deer
populations. Generally, these objectives are countered by human
demands to enjoy deer recreationally and as well as aesthetically.
Recreation can be nonconsumptive (feeding deer, photographing deer,
or observing deer), consumptive (hunting), or both. The indirect
appreciation of deer as an ecological and aesthetic resource adds
to the pressure to maintain minimum deer population densities.
In nearly all deer management situations, CCC represents a
meaningful program goal in theory and in practice. For example,
management goals in agricultural areas can range from <5 deer per
mit to 10-15 deer per mit. In forested areas goal densities range
from 10 to 30 deer per mi' and vary depending on forest management
needs and recreational demands for deer. In urban areas, density
goals have been between 15 and 35 deer per mit and have reflected
the variability of urban residents tolerance for deer. In summary,
this wide range in goal densities that have been used for deer
populations has been due to the inherent differences in the
tolerance for deer of people who live in each landscape.
The density of deer that will satisfy the
recreational demands
of people for deer has
not been clearly defined. Since, in most
areas, deer abundance has
recently increased,
the positive values
and benefits of having
more deer have accrued to people as Ebby-
product of populations
being unmanaged. As a
consequence ofuthis
recent trend, the range
of densities at which
people will optAize,.,
w Ed
I
I
I
I
7
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
J
I
I
I
or maximize recreational and aesthetic benefits is unknown. Thus,
if populations are to be reduced to mitigate the negative impacts
of deer, then efforts to monitor the decline in positive values of
deer must be part of a deer management program.
The biodiversity carrying capacity (BDCC) is a relatively new
concept (Jones et al. 1993) and is the maximum number of deer that
can exist in an area without causing excessive impacts on plant and
animal communities. As with BCC, BDCC suggests a deer density goal
where the upper limit represents a condition of imbalance between
deer and a local plant and animal community. This imbalance may
result in the local extinction of plant and animal species that,
except for the excessive impact of deer, would be present in
numbers limited by a combination of other factors.
Deer density changes from 10 to 20 per mit in a Pennsylvania
study (Jones et al. 1993) were shown to decrease wildflower
abundance, woody species diversit, and songbird abundance. When
deer densities were 64 deer per mi, wildflower abundance decreased
by 3 times while songbird abundance was reduced by over 30%.
Unfortunately, the impacts of BDCC are not well documented in most
landscapes and typically go unnoticed by all but the most
experienced observers. Increasing professional and citizen
awareness will undoubtedly lead to biodiversity interests becoming
more important in decisions regarding the management deer in
landscapes such as Kent Park.
Perhaps the most important concept about deer carrying
capacity in a particular landscape is that population goals must
adjusted periodically to reflect the dynamic and changing nature of
land use and ecological processes. Population density goals should
be revisited at least every 5 years to evaluate the degree to which
management objectives are being satisfied. This type of adaptive
management strategy will insure that the Kent Park deer population
continues to provide benefits to Johnson County residents while not
jeopardizing the land use interests of the neighboring landowners.
DEER POPULATION GOAL DENSITY RECOMMENDATION
In the Kent Park landscape, BCC would be nearly limitless
given the good interspersion of woody cover among acres of
cropland. In light of this fact, the Johnson County Board will
have to select a carrying capacity goal that does not allow deer
unlimited access to agricultural crops nor allow deer to consume
any and all woody vegetation in the Park. Thus, BCC is not a
practical measure to use in setting management goals for the Kent
Park deer population.
The goal deer population density should satisfy cultural and
biodiversity carrying capacity concerns at Kent Park and i", he
deer management unit described earlier. For the purposes of-#ahis
- 1�'7 Y
7
O m
O _a
�y N
W
rdeer management plan, the goal density will be expressed as deer
per miZ in winter. The convention of using winter densities is that
aerial counts are usually made on winter populations and these are
the numbers used to develop models for evaluating past and future
population trends.
We believe the optimum density for the agricultural landowners
near Kent Park would be no higher than 15-20 deer per mit. If the
intensive forest management program continues as in past years at
Kent Park, then a reasonable goal density would be 20-30 deer per
mil. If the deer density ever exceeds 30-40 deer per mil, then
significant impacts on plants such as wildflowers and animals such
as songbirds would occur.
Currently, we perceive a diminished commitment to continue the
extent and intensity of traditional timber management practices
(forest seedling establishment and maintenance) that characterized
the first 20 years of development of the Park. Institutional
discussions seem to be focused on maintaining the existing
seedlings and saplings while promoting the development of a wider
variety of plant and animal communities. The recent establishment
of prairie vegetation on 2 sites in the Park and the proposal to
create a wetland community are signs of increasing interest in
developing and maintaining diverse plant and animal communities.
Based on the preceding discussion, we recommend a winter goal
density of 30-40 deer per miZ be set for the Kent Park deer
population. This density would translate into a winter population
in the Park of between 60 and 80 deer, if the wintering area is
considered to be 2 miZ. This density may be slightly higher than
the optimum density for the agricultural landowners and for
programs of intensive timber management. Alternatively, this goal
will provide an excellent initial deer population density objective
for a period in Park history during which the development,
management and protection of native plant and animal communities
may become a primary, long-term goal of the Park.
Given that the deer population in winter, 1995 will likely be
in excess of 100 deer per miZ, our proposed goal density represents
_ a population reduction of over 60%. If a population control
program is implemented in 1995 the goal density should be attained
by 1998. At that time, we recommend the deer population be
maintained within the goal density range for a period of at least
2-3 years, after which an evaluation can be conducted that might
result in a revised density goal. Data on plant and animal
populations and deer recreational and aesthetic benefits, developed
during the years the population is within the goal density range,
will markedly improve the ability of Park staff, the Johnson County
Board, neighboring landowners and Johnson County citizens tojdapt
future deer density goals to best satisfy the needs ofcall.-n
C- m
>-7 CO �®
C71 N g
8-.:. X1. rs
LII
CO
i
I DEER IMPACT ON KENT PARK AND ENVIRONS
BROWSING IN KENT PARK
Plant species inventories and surveys of deer feeding patterns
have not been conducted on the Park and thus, a quantitative
assessment of the impact of deer on individual species and
communities of both woody and herbaceous vegetation are not
available. Despite the lack of data, evidence of extensive deer
browsing on woody vegetation was observed throughout Kent Park.
Many early successional communities exhibit evidence of repeated
deer browsing which has resulted in reduced growth rates in
- seedlings and saplings. In addition, casual observations in older,
mature stands indicate little evidence of regeneration of common,
native woody seedlings. In fact, the common species that have
become established including black locust, prickly ash, boxelder,
and gray-stemed dogwoods, are typical of disturbed sites. Impacts
on herbaceous species are more difficult to discern as significant
portions of the plant are often consumed when deer feeding occurs,
leaving little or no evidence to be found.
Natural areas have been extensively planted with seedlings of
several native woody species. Between 1970 and 1988, 82 sites were
planted with over 210,000 seedlings at an estimated cost of nearly
$700,000. At least 27 sites have been significantly damaged by
deer thereby delaying the development of the trees such that the
prospects of a closed canopy forest ever being established are
remote. At least 22 other sites have been browsed enough to cause
the mortality of some seedlings while delaying the growth of many
others.
Throughout the park there are seedlings and saplings of
desirable species have survived and some have reached dominant
status. Despite these occasional survivors, we believe the low
densities and restricted distribution of species that are adapted
to repeated browsing by deer, has created an extremely variable
landscape with many unstable and disjunct plant and animal
communities.
DEER DAMAGE TO CROPS
Deer damage to crops on neighboring properties has been
reported for several years to both Johnson County and IA -DNR staff.
In 1993 an estimated $27,000 of damage to area crops was documented
with 80% of the losses attributed to deer in consumption of corn.
Small amounts of soybeans, oats and wheat were reportedly damaged.
In 1994 a survey conducted by Kent Park staff found 85% of the
neighboring landowners had deer damage to their crops. This group
reported nearly $23,000 in damage to corn, soybeans, forage c9ops,
oats, and straw bales. As in 1993, over 70% of the damage wets to
m
9 r
1-,. cn
' corn. The losses were unacceptable to 588 of the landowners, 338
considered the damage tolerable and only 88 found deer damage of no
concern. The urgency of most neighboring farmers to see some form
of deer control implemented is likely related to the fact that 608
of these landowners derive over 908 of their income from the farm
and another 208 realize at least half of their income from farming.
DEER/CAR COLLISIONS
Data on deer/vehicle collisions has not been systematically
collected. The number of deer killed on the roads adjacent to the
" Park that were handled by the Park Rangers varied from 9 to 16 deer
a year between 1987-1992. There is no record of deer kills handled
by state or county authorities, leaving an incomplete picture of
the importance of deer/vehicle accidents. Certainly, the number of
kills, given the very short distance of Highway 6 that adjoins the
Park, is relatively high and is cause for concern for residents who
frequently drive through the area.
DEER POPULATION CONTROL OPTIONS
POPULATION CONTROL CRITERIA
Many options for controlling deer populations have been or are
being developed and have been discussed at length by many groups.
To aid in the selection of the best methods for use in Kent Park,
several questions about the development, implementation and
evaluation of control options must be considered. These
considerations include:
r1. What federal and state laws and regulations pertain to any
aspect of the use of the method?
2. What state and county policies and programs pertain to the use
of the method?
3. What is the site suitability for implementation of the method?
4. What responsibilities will federal, state, county and other
local agencies have in the development, implementation and
evaluation of the method? Who bears legal responsibility?
5. What are the staff roles and duties required to implement the
method?
6. What equipment and supplies are required to implement the
method?
7. Are procedures available for successfully implementinv the
method? -n
- sa 3 rn
10
b�
^'
O
D cn
W
8. What is the efficiency in deer removed, contracepted or killed
per hour or day?
9. What is the effectiveness of the method in causing the desired
net population change per year?
10. What is the cost of the method per deer removed, contracepted
or killed? What is the cost of the method per unit change in
population density or change in impacts of deer on people?
11. What considerations must be assessed to insure the safety of
the public?
12. What is the public acceptability of the method?
POPULATION CONTROL METHODS
SHARPSHOOTING
_ Sharpshooting is the killing of deer by professionals who are
trained to efficiently and humanely shoot deer that are drawn to
baited areas. Sharpshooters are usually either police officers,
conservation officers or park rangers and have had training in the
— safe handling and discharge of high-powered rifles. Usually,
shooters qualify with their rifle which demonstrates their
proficiency with the firearm under a variety of shooting
situations.
• The efficiency of this technique is enhanced by the use of
bait to attract deer to areas where shooting can be conducted
safely. Bait sites are usually established in late fall and are
maintained through the end of winter or until the deer kill quota
is met. In the Midwest, bait is often ear corn or other raw
vegetables such as carrots or sugar beets.
Shooters are usually stationed in elevated platforms in trees
or in vehicles situated in a safe shooting position relative to the
bait site. Shooting stations are located with a clear shooting
lane to the bait site area. All deer are shot in the neck to
eliminate any chance of the animal moving away from the site.
Shooting generally is conducted within 1 hour of sunset and
continues with the aid of spotlights or night -vision equipment for
a few hours into the evening. During shooting periods all access
to the area is limited with signage and/or gates. Shooters will
often spend at least an hour at each site before moving to a second
_ site, if there is no deer activity. Most shots are taken from as
close a distance as is possible.
Sharpshooters select for older antlerless deer first, then any
antlerless deer and finally any deer available. By winter antlers
cn
C:) -+n
11 n Co 48
- F- w
�A-
Y W
W
have fallen from male deer and thus, sex selection is often not
possible. All deer killed are usually prepared for processing on
the site and are then discharged to a destination determined by the
state wildlife agency.
CONSIDERATIONS
1. There are no Federal or state laws or regulations governing
this activity although animal cruelty statutes may apply.
2. This method will require permission from the IA -DNR if the
practice is allowed within their policies and is considered an
acceptable management program.
3. Kent Park would be suitable for this method as bait sites could
be located throughout the park during the winter months. The road
network allows extensive access to all corners of the property and
nearly all bait sites can be located and designed for safe and
humane shooting of deer.
4. If permission were granted by the state, Johnson County would
bear the responsibility for implementing the program. The state
would provide oversight to insure that all aspects of the program
were completed professionally and humanely.
5. This program would require the time of at least 2 park rangers
to select sites, conduct shooting operations, kill, remove and
transport deer to a holding area. The time of 1 or 2 maintenance
staff to transport bait to the sites, distribute the bait and
replenish bait on a weekly basis will be needed. Finally, staff
will have to transport meat, hides and carcasses to a destination
selected by the IA -DNR.
6. This method would require the purchase of at least 1 high-
powered rifle unless one is available from staff or others
associated with the Park. Ammunition, spotlights, and other
special equipment for seeing and shooting deer in low light would
have to be obtained. Bait can be purchased from local farmers.
7. Procedures for the placement of bait are available from a
number of locations and principally involves the selection of sites
where deer can be shot safely. Guidelines for shooters are also
available from several cities although the primary concerns are
- killing the deer humanely with neck shots and adherence to a number
of safety precautions commonly followed by law officers.
_ 8. Sharpshooting efficiency ranged from 0.35 to 0.82 deer per hour
with park rangers doing the shooting in Hyland Park, Minnesota
(Stradtmann 1994). Other shooting programs have reported kills of
0.07 to 0.39 deer per hour (Ishmael and Rongstad 1984, With and
Jones 1992, Drummond 1993).
L C co
Tr —c ro
12 `=
o�
cn
w
• 9. Sharpshooting methods have been considered very effective at
meeting annual deer population reduction goals. Most programs have
met their kill quotas within the time period allowed and without
safety problems.
10. The cost per deer killed in Hyland Park, Minnesota ranged from
$99 to $138 per deer (Stradtmann 1994). Other programs have
reported costs ranging from $74 to $288 per deer (Ishmael and
Rongstad 1984, Witham and Jones 1992, Drummond 1993).
11. The safety of sharpshooting is the primary reason many cities
have used this technique to reduce deer populations. The
flexibility to locate bait sites in safe shooting areas and the use
of park rangers or other officers to conduct shooting operations
have added to the near perfect safety record of these operations.
12. Public acceptance of sharpshooting has been higher than for
any other lethal deer population control method. Citizens seem to
feel comfortable when a few experienced shooters are directed to
conduct shooting operations under controlled conditions.
TRAP AND RILL
I Trap and kill is the capture of deer in live traps and then
killing selected deer with firearms at close range. Traps are
either wooden box traps, generally called a Stephenson trap, with
drop -doors at both ends (McBeath 1941) or a net, corral trap called
• a Clover trap which has a net drop -door at 1 end (Clover 1956).
Traps are located in areas of deer activity, positioned with the
doors locked open and supplied with ample quantities of bait for
several days. Deer captured in these traps are calm and are often
bedded when personnel arrive at the site. Deer can be shot a short
distance from the trap as long as the shooter can be sure the deer
will be killed humanely. Shooting should occur as quickly as
possible after personnel are within close proximity of the trap to
minimize the potential for deer to become excited.
The Stephenson traps are larger (usually 10 ft long, 3-4 ft
wide and 4 ft tall) and, because of the hard wooden walls, can
result in minor abrasions to deer. Clover traps are virtually
harmless to deer as well as being light and easy to transported.
Both traps are commonly used by professional wildlife biologists to
humanely and efficiently capture deer and either will work well if
' used in any deer management program.
The deer are killed with a firearm instead of being drugged
which allows the meat to be donated to charitable organizations.
The use of drugs to kill deer would require that the carcass be
destroyed in most states. Trapping usually occurs in fall and
winter using apples, corn or vegetables for bait. Traps are
located in areas where deer pressure is greatest and are trig&ered
o rn
13
o%
in late afternoon and checked at dawn. Traps are usually locked
open and baited for several days prior to the beginning of
capturing activities. Generally, all deer captured are killed but
deer of particular sex and age groups can be selectively killed
while others are released. Disposition of the carcasses would be
at the direction of the state wildlife agency.
CONSIDERATIONS
1. There are no Federal or state laws or regulations governing
this activity although state animal cruelty statutes may apply.
2. This method will require permission from the IA -DNR if the
practice is allowed within their policies and is considered an
acceptable management program.
3. Kent Park would be suitable for this method as traps could be
located anywhere on the property and deer captured in traps could
be safely and humanely killed in most locations.
4. If permission were granted by the state, Johnson County would
bear the responsibility for implementing the program. The state
would provide oversight to insure that all aspects of the program
were completed professionally and humanely.
5. This program would require at least 2 staff members to select
sites, set up and bait traps, and kill, remove and transport deer.
The program would be initiated in mid-December and continue through
the end of February.
6. This method would require the purchase or construction of at
least 10 live traps. Clover traps have been available from private
contractors while Stephenson traps can be constructed from locally
available materials. At least 1 ton of corn or other commercially
available bait will have to be purchased. Access to a suitable
firearm and ammunition for killing deer would also be required.
7. Procedures for the placement and operation of live -traps are
available from a number of individuals. Guidelines for the
handling of deer are also available from several cities currently
using trap and kill as a control method.
8. Traps set in good locations, prebaited for several days,
maintained with plenty of bait are usually the most efficient at
capturing deer. Deer captured per day per operating trap has
ranged from 0.35 to 0.75 (Jordan et al. 1993). Areas where winters
with extended periods of snow on the ground and cold temperatures
are common, typically feature very efficient deer capture programs.
9. Trap and kill methods can be very effective when trapping
begins after the firearms deer season and continues through Urly
11 T.=l
14
._
46v~ Gid
r iJ�
spring (often April 1). The deer kill quota established in most
situations has been met easily within the time frame allowed.
10. The cost per deer killed and removed would vary depending on
the difficulty of capturing and handling deer and experience of the
staff. In urban situations, private contractors typically submit
I bids of $175-$300 per deer captured (Parker pers. communication).
These bids have not included the costs of processing and disposal
of deer.
11. Live traps represent a very low safety risk both to deer and
humans. Placement of the traps in locations out -of -sight of the
public would reduce the likelihood of vandalism as well as the
possibility of people tampering with the traps. Non -target animals
1 other than deer can be released if captured.
12. The public has accepted the use of the trap and kill technique
because it provides for the capture and killing of deer under
controlled circumstances. In addition, in some urban situations,
the placement of traps allows only the deer causing a problem to be
removed. Finally, the traps are a safe, humane way for capturing
and holding deer until they are killed and removed from the site.
FIREARMS HUNTING
This method involves the use of shotguns or rifles by citizens
licensed by the state to hunt deer according to state regulations.
Firearms hunting usually occurs during fall seasons of specified
length and the number of deer killed depends upon the success of
hunters in filling tags purchased for either antlered or antlerless
deer.
CONSIDERATIONS
1. There are no federal laws that would pertain to firearms
hunting in Kent Park. State laws and regulations regarding
firearms hunting of deer would apply to the length of seasons, kill
limit, hunting hours and sex and age of deer that can be killed.
At Kent Park, hunters would be restricted to the use of shotguns
with slugs during firearms hunting seasons. In addition, proposals
to hold special hunts at times other than during the regular
hunting season or to increase the kill limit may be considered,
particularly to initiate aggressive reductions in populations.
2. IA -DNR policies and programs support hunting as the deer
population control method of choice. State policies governing the
use of firearms in parks and refuges must be considered as
presently, hunting is not allowed in parks. County park policies
on the use of firearms and the compatibility of hunting with the
mission of Kent Park will also have to be considered.w
cn
C:) _n `gib
7WW N s
15
7
v^ U7
W
3. Given adequate safety measures are taken around the residences,
offices and recreation facilities of the park, and that the park is
closed during any hunts, firearms hunting would be suitable for
application at Kent Park.
4. An Iowa firearms deer hunting license would have to be
purchased and would allow hunters to be eligible to participate in
a hunt at Kent Park. All state statutes and regulations regarding
deer hunting seasons would be in effect, unless waived by the IA -
DNR. Proposals for special hunting privileges would have to be
submitted to the IA -DNR. Johnson County would bear the
responsibility and liability for all aspects of the hunt.
5. Staff would be required to develop hunt program guidelines,
locate parking areas, install signage, communicate with park users
about the hunt, convene hunter orientations and proficiency
sessions, regulate hunters during each day of the season and
collect data from all deer killed. Staff would also be expected to
insure the safety of employees, the hunters, and the public as well
as enforce the hunt program rules. Depending on the level of
control desired, the time of 1-2 staff members for a few weeks
before and after as well as during the hunting season will be
needed. Administrative time will also be necessary for a wide
variety of communications needs including mailings and handling
telephone inquiries.
6. Minor amounts of equipment and supplies would be required to
operate the hunting program. Materials for parking and access
control, signage for boundaries and to provide information would
need to be acquired and a location to be used as a check station
for deer and hunters would have to be established.
7. Procedures are available from a number of sources for
implementing firearms hunting programs. The IA -DNR would have
information and suggestions as would several neighboring state
agencies. organizations that have successfully implemented
controlled firearms hunting programs include the Smithsonian
Institution in Front Royal, Virginia and the Trustees of
Reservations in Ipswich, Massachusetts.
8. Hunting efficiency will depend on weather, the number of days
of hunting allowed, deer population density, the effort and
experience of hunters participating in the program and the number
and type of licenses available to hunters. In many firearms hunts
involving special permits or hunting conditions, hunter success has
been 100$ or higher. Hunters typically kill 1 or more deer in
hunts where additional permits or licenses have been made available
and where efforts to control and limit the hunting group have been
exercised. Great effort should be expended to enhance the success
of hunters in the program as the cost of a hunt will be the*ame
whether 5, 50 or 500 deer are killed. o m
m
16
r -a
E3;;7 E5
v U
W
9. With experience, firearms hunts have been effective in causing
significant population reductions to achieve goals within a 2-3
year period. By selectively allowing the use of hunting permits,
the sex and age composition of the residual population can also be
controlled.
10. Depending on the type of firearms hunting program developed,
costs can range from less than $100 per deer killed to over $300
per deer (Stradtmann 1993, Parker pers. communication). With
experience and by using performance criteria to select hunters,
many programs have achieved results which have lowered the cost per
deer killed. In addition, many controlled hunting programs have
produced revenues through fees charged to hunters.
11. By using appropriate signage and controlling access to the
park, the safety of the public as well as staff will be properly
addressed. Maintaining an enforcement presence and through
interaction with hunters, safety will be accepted by the
participants as a major objective of the program.
12. Firearms hunting has been met with mixed acceptance in a
variety of deer management settings. In urbanized situations
questions of residential safety, the control of hunters and the
efficiency of taking deer have lowered the acceptance of this
method. By comparison, firearms hunting has had greater acceptance
in more rural situations where safety concerns are reduced, hunters
have relatively large areas on which to hunt yet the hunting
pressure was sufficient to efficiently take deer.
ARCHERY HUNTING
This method involves the use
licensed by the state to hunt deer
Hunting usually occurs during fall
the number of deer killed depends
filling tags purchased for either
CONSIDERATIONS
of archery equipment by citizens
according to state regulations.
seasons of specified length and
upon the success of hunters in
antlered or antlerless deer.
1. There are no federal laws that would pertain to bowhunting in
Kent Park. State laws and regulations regarding the hunting of
deer would apply to the length of seasons, kill limit, hunting
hours and sex and age of deer that can be killed. In addition,
proposals to hold special hunts at times other than during the
regular bowhunting season or to increase the kill limit may be
considered, particularly to initiate aggressive reductions in
populations.
2. IA -DNR policies and programs support hunting as the deer
population control method of choice. State policies governio the
use of archery equipment in parks and refuges must be coo idered
17 F
—� a8
(Ji
✓' W
• presently, hunting is not allowed in parks. County park policies
on the use of archery equipment and the compatibility of hunting
with the mission of Kent Park will also have to be considered.
3. Bowhunting is very safe largely because arrows fired by bows
are projectiles that have a typical range of less than 50 yds.
Missed shots are not a safety hazard as most shots are taken from
elevated stands at an angle toward the ground which nearly
eliminates the possibility that arrows will be lost. Further,
bowhunters do not typically shoot arrows at deer that are more than
30 yds away. Given adequate safety measures are taken around the
residences, offices and recreation facilities of the park,
bowhunting would be suitable for application at Kent Park.
Depending on the extent and intensity of bowhunting programs
_ implemented, the Park would remain open with few restrictions.
4. An Iowa archery deer hunting license would have to be purchased
and would allow hunters to be eligible to participate in a hunt at
Kent Park. All state statutes and regulations regarding archery
deer hunting seasons would be in effect, unless waived by the IA -
DNR. Proposals for special hunting privileges would have to be
submitted to the IA -DNR. Johnson County would bear the
responsibility and liability for all aspects of the hunt.
5. Staff would be required to develop hunt program guidelines,
locate parking areas, install signage, communicate with park users
about the hunt, convene hunter orientations and proficiency
sessions, maintain contact with bowhunters during the season and
collect data from all deer killed. Staff would also be expected to
work with employees, hunters, and the public to enforce the hunt
program rules. Depending on the level of control desired, the time
_ of 1 staff member for a few weeks before and after as well as
during the hunting season will be needed. Administrative time will
also be necessary for a wide variety of communications needs
including mailings and handling telephone inquiries.
6. Minor amounts of equipment and supplies would be required to
operate the hunting program. Materials for parking and access
control, signage for boundaries and to provide information would
need to be acquired and a location to be used as a check station
' for deer and bowhunters would have to be established.
7. Procedures are available from a number of sources for
' implementing bowhunting programs. The IA -DNR would have
information and suggestions as would several neighboring state
agencies. Organizations that have successfully implemented
controlled bowhunts include Kings Point, Minnesota and Rock Cut
' State Park, Illinois.
8. Hunting efficiency will depend on weather, the number of days
hunting is allowed, deer population density, the effort and
® rn
,e C, rn
18 r<<
GJ
experience of hunters participating in the program and the number
and type of licenses available to hunters. In many hunts involving
special permits or hunting conditions, hunter success has been as
high as 100%.
Bowhunting has been considered inefficient because of
allegations that the number of deer wounded and unretrieved by
bowhunters is nearly as high as the number of deer successfully
retrieved (Benke 1989, Pacelle 1990). Alternatively, bowhunting
has been used to control deer populations based on evidence that
unretrieved deer numbers have been reported to be between 98 and
11% (Lohfield 1979, Herron 1984).
9. Bowhunters have been commonly used to stabilize or slow the
rate of growth of populations by killing moderate numbers of deer.
significant reductions in deer numbers are not usually planned for
bowhunts and thus these programs have often been used to
selectively kill deer of specific sex and age groups (usually adult
females or antlerless deer). Bowhunting has also been used to
effectively control localized damage by killing specific deer
causing problems (McAninch 1993). The efficiency of these programs
is related to the reduction of impacts of deer rather than the deer
killed per hunter.
10. Depending on the type of hunting program developed, costs have
ranged from about $83 per deer killed (Ver Steeg et al. 1993) to
over $200 per deer (Witham 1991). With experience and using
performance criteria to select hunters, bowhunts can reduce impacts
and/or deer numbers at a low cost. These hunting programs have
produced revenues through fees charged to hunters which have offset
Iprogram costs.
11. By using appropriate signage and controlling access to the
I park, the safety of the public as well as staff will be properly
addressed. Maintaining an enforcement presence and through
interaction with hunters, safety will be accepted by the
participants as a major objective of the program.
12. Bowhunting has been met with mixed acceptance in deer
management settings (McAninch 1993). Bowhunting has been accepted
in parks with limited space and high numbers of users largely
because the firing of arrows does not create any sound. Thus, the
concerns associated with the sound and safety of gunshots are not
likely to develop among users and staff. In addition, bowhunters
typically hunt alone from a single location and remain stationary
during their hunting efforts. Thus, the activities and movements
of bowhunters to and from hunting areas and while hunting are less
conspicuous to park staff and users. Bowhunting has been
unacceptable for use in some parks because of concerns abouter
lie
unretrieved by bowhunters as cited above in 8. p -n
iEc-) rn
Co
19
Ln
W
CONTRACEPTION
This method involves the administration of chemical agents to
female deer to render each animal infertile for a period of usually
1 year. The most promising contraceptives capitalize on
immunological modes of action to control fertility (Kirkpatrick and
Turner 1985, Warren et al. 1994). Recently, a vaccine called PZP
has been used on a trial basis in penned and highly controlled
free -ranging situations. The PZP method presently requires 2
vaccinations per female each year fertility control is desired.
In free -ranging situations, female deer must be vaccinated by
remote injection on 2 occasions during the fall. This technique
requires some mode of marking deer so animals with 1 vaccination
can be recognized. Baiting techniques similar to the sharpshooting
option described above might be used to enhance opportunities to
vaccinate deer.
Fertility control has been projected to have the best chances
' for success when the target deer population is small (100
individuals or less), the area inhabited by the deer is small (less
than 1 mit) , the population generally is restricted from moving
outside the area, and deer are relatively accessible to be
vaccinated (can be approached within 30-50 yds). In addition,
simulation model projections indicate approximately 60% of the
productive females would have to be contracepted to effectively
stabilize a deer population similar to Kent Park. Thus, fertility
control has been considered primarily a technique for stabilizing
deer numbers or slowing the rate of growth of populations.
Contraception techniques are expected to change rapidly as
' experimental research continues to produce new results.
CONSIDERATIONS
' 1. Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorization is
required to use any of the fertility control agents. The PZP
vaccine has been authorized under an Investigative New Animal Drug
(INAD) permit issued to the Humane Society of the United States
(HSUS) and others which allows research and evaluation to occur on
sites approved by the FDA. PZP could be used at Kent Park
investigators with a current INAD would seek approval to conduct
research on the site.
' There are likely no state statutes that govern the use of
contraceptives although since the authority for management of deer
is vested in the IA -DNR that may be interpreted to include
' fertility control. Certainly a proposal to use contraception at
Kent Park would have to be approved by the IA -DNR. v,
2. State policies governing animal welfare and crueltypfuay Gis
that would impact the use of contraceptives. County policies and -
20_ o
Iprograms pertaining to the use of contraceptives likely do not
exist but would have to be developed to facilitate the successful
implementation of this program.
3. According to Allen Rutberg of the HSUS, Kent Park would be a
suitable site for the application of PZP as a deer control method.
We believe the size of the Kent Park area, the density of the deer
population, the free -ranging attributes of the deer population, the
ample cover for deer, and the recommendation to reduce the deer
population by nearly 70% severely limit the suitability of the area
for successful fertility control.
4. The FDA would have oversight responsibilities through the INAD
` permit granted to the investigators. The state, if permission is
f granted to use contraceptives at Kent Park, would likely hold the
program accountable for accomplishing management goals while
monitoring potential impacts of the program. The county would bear
responsibility for the development, implementation, and evaluation
of the program.
5. Staff roles to carry out the program would depend on the needs
not met by the investigators and trained volunteers. The HSUS is
prepared to train staff (the timing and availability of
investigators to conduct training programs is in question) to
assume some responsibilities while other duties could be done by
volunteers. Possibly, contractual agreements could be developed
with fertility control investigators to accomplish the technical
portions of the program.
_ Certainly at least 1 staff member would be needed to develop
bait sites, vaccinate and mark deer and evaluate the impacts of the
program. Drug darting techniques identical to those used to
deliver contraceptive vaccines usually require at least 1 trained
staff to effectively inject deer.
6. This method would require the purchase of vaccine, darting
equipment (gun, powder charges, darts, etc.), marking supplies (to
be determined by the investigators), and bait, if used. If
biodegradable projectiles are available, the cost of these
materials would replace the darting supplies. Additional equipment
and supply needs would have to be detailed by the investigators.
7. Procedures for implementing all phases of the method would have
to be developed by the investigators. These procedures will change
significantly if a single shot vaccine is developed which will
eliminate the need to mark deer and vaccine each individual a
_ second time. Protocols for attracting deer to bait sites to
facilitate vaccinations should be similar from year to year.
cn
8. The efficiency in the number of female deer vaccinat(�pe'aon
or day and the number contracepted per year would h' bl���JJ%b
N ss
21 N
Y U1
F
provided by the investigators. These estimates should be used to
set contraception goals for each year as well as to plan for the
number of years required to achieve the Park's management goal.
9. The effectiveness of the method measured in the years required
to achieve the population management goal would have to be
described by the investigators. Estimates of the number of female
deer that would have to be contracepted to achieve the management
goal over a prescribed number of years could be obtained from the
IA -DNR.
10. The cost of the method per deer contracepted and the cost to
reach the population management goal would have to be estimated by
f the investigators. We believe the costs of contraception would be
f at least as high as those incurred to sharpshoot deer since both
techniques would have to use bait to attract deer, deer would have
to be shot from shooting stations, and deer could be shot at
similar distances. Under these assumptions, contraception would
cost an estimated $280-$450 per adult female deer vaccinated (from
Stradtmann and McAninch 1994). This cost does not include the cost
to mark deer and conduct a second vaccination nor does it include
the lost investment in deer vaccinated once but not again.
11. Safety considerations would have to be developed and
implemented by the investigators. The primary concerns would be
the recovery of darts from all vaccination operations and the
■, assurance that the vaccine (including the adjuvant) would meet the
1Y standards of professional veterinary practice for use on deer.
12. Public acceptance of this method can not be assessed as only
1 location involving free -ranging deer in a community (Fire Island,
New York) has implemented the method. Sites on which the program
has been implemented and experienced by the public will be
developed over the next few years. To date, no rural site similar
to Kent Park has implemented contraception as a deer population
control method.
CURRENT STATUS OF METHODS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The IA -DNR currently has approved firearms and archery hunting
as deer population control and management measures. Sharpshooting,
trap and kill and contraception methods have not been proposed or
approved for use by the agency and thus, detailed proposals would
have to be developed and submitted to the IA -DNR for approval.
We have prepared a comparison of the population control
options reviewed in the previous section (Table 1). Each entry for
under a particular option for each criteria is rated in comparison
to the other options reviewed. These judgements were based on both
quantitative and qualitative information available as of this
writing.
Ln
22 - cn
I
rn
l rCo
n a
N
I C
cm
I i i i I i i i i i i
Table 1. Comparison of criteria for assessing deer population control options.
Firearms Archery
Hunting Hunting Sharpshooting Trap and Kill Contraception
Federal
Restrictions
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
Permit required
State
Legal with
Legal with
Status
Status
Status
Restrictions
regulations
regulations
unknown
unknown
unknown
Site
Suitability
Good
Good
Excellent
Excellent
Fair
Efficiency
Good
Good
Excellent
Good
Fair
Effectiveness
Excellent
Good
Excellent
Good
Fair
Cost
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
High
Humaneness
Fair
Fair
Excellent
Good
Excellent
Social
Acceptance
Good
Fair
Excellent
Good
Excellent
Public Safety
Fair
Good
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Practicality
Excellent
Good
Excellent
Good
Poor
'NA —lot applicable
833 S6
23
43,.`�Of''
IWe recommend that the list of potential methods for deer
control in Kent Park include firearms and archery hunting,
sharpshooting and trap and kill methods. We recommend
contraception not be considered as a potential management option.
Currently, contraception can not be compared to hunting,
sharpshooting or trap and kill methods since there are no reports
or data on contraception programs that have been evaluated after
being implemented for a 2-3 year period.
A responsible approach to considering contraception methods
would be to wait until the delivery systems (either 1 or 2 -shot
vaccines with marking techniques) and detailed procedures for
implementation have been more refined. In addition, data on
changes in population numbers should be available from sites
where contraception has been implemented for at least 2-3 years.
Both of these precautions would allow the Board to evaluate data
using standards similar to those applied to other control
methods.
DEER POPULATION ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
The effectiveness of any population control method(s)
implemented will be measured, in part, by changes in deer
abundance. We suggest monitoring efforts be increased to produce
more and better data with which to evaluate the outcome of
management programs. The current data, while acceptable when no
management program was being implemented, needs to be augmented
in response to questions about the accuracy of the aerial surveys
and questions about the impact of deer on a variety of factors.
AERIAL COUNTS
The current aerial surveys should continue as the aircraft
and observers have built a standing record of count data, the
cost of the survey to the county is low, and, when conducted in
winter with snow on the ground, this method is an efficient and
cost-effective way to count deer. We suggest the surveys
continue to be conducted in February or when snow permits, and
that flights along the current transects using 2 observers will
provide accurate data. We do suggest a member of the Kent Park
staff become involved in the counts both as observers and
navigators. Individuals with an intimate knowledge of the
property will insure the areas sampled are identical from year to
year and can call on their experience to anticipate where deer
may be sighted. In addition, a larger pool of observers will
protect against counting variability that could result from
changes in staff, particularly inexperienced observers.
We suggest that helicopters be considered as the aircra,Q,t of
choice in conducting counts (Stoll et al., 1991). The incre*ped
cost of helicopter use would be offset by the ability to_crupe _1
rQ
24 =, p
O O
T' cn
transects at speeds slower than the present 75-80 mph and to
descend to altitudes of 300 feet or less. Slower speeds will
allow for larger groups of deer to be counted more accurately
and, when combined with lower altitudes, will allow more tenuous
observations to be confirmed. In addition, observers hovering at
altitudes of less than 300 feet will be able to cause deer groups
in dense cover such as conifers to move enough to enhance
visibility.
We also suggest the survey area be enlarged to include lands
up to 1 mile from Kent Park. Observations of deer in the
farmland up to 1 mile from the Park will provide a better
perspective on the number of deer wintering in and around the
park as well as the movements and habitat use of these deer. If
the IA -DNR staff are willing, counts within the present survey
area should be continued and compared to past years as another
index to population change.
ROADSIDE COUNTS
Counts of deer taken along roads have been used to provide
indices to deer abundance. These counts typically involve
observers driving along prescribed routes during specific times
of the year and day and recording the sex and age of deer
sighted. These methods have great utility over a period of years
when trends can be established and evaluated.
The road system at Kent Park provides reasonable access to
most of the property, except the eastern portions which would
_ have to be monitored by use of a trail. The best time to conduct
counts would be from October 15 - December 1 or the period after
leaf fall and crop harvest and before the annual hunting season
occurs on neighboring properties. During this period, deer are
visible and movements are maximized due to deer breeding season
activities. The accuracy of these observations to calculate
adult sex ratios and fawn/doe ratios has been considered good.
Counts should be conducted over a route that covers all
portions of Kent Park that can be viewed from a road or trail.
This often means many trails will need to be mowed to minimize
noise and care will need to be taken to not double count any
areas or deer. The route should be designed with 3-5 points
located at equal intervals along the route that can be used as
different starting points. Routes should be completed several
times during the counting period and successive counts should be
commenced by starting at a different starting point. This
procedure precludes the same deer being seen at the same time on
each count. �0
Counts can be completed in
around dawn or can be conducted
_ U,
the early morning begin&lAg A ori
at night using spotligho", p
25
rr
i • Evening counts should begin 30 minutes after sundown. Lights
with a narrow, direct beam and operating at 300,000 candlepower
or more are recommended. The IA -DNR has experience in conducting
roadside and spotlight counts and should be a source of helpful
information.
The counts could be conducted by a driver familiar with the
property with 1 observer using binoculars on each side of the
vehicle. Counting from high observation points such as standing
in the back of a pickup truck will optimize the ability to locate
and identify deer. Observers should cruise roads at speeds that
allow for observers to confidently report on the presence or
absence of deer in their search area. Observers should
continuously scan the roadside in the same direction rather than
search for deer by random roving of the eyes. Continuous
scanning insures all areas are searched equally well.
Deer observed should be recorded as bucks (antlered males),
does (large antlerless deer), fawns (definite young of the year),
unknown antlerless (antlerless deer of unknown age) or unknowns
(sex and age not discernable). Conditions at the time of the
counts should be recorded including moon phase, temperature,
visibility, wind direction and speed, and precipitation.
DEER IMPACT ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
DEER/VEHICLE ACCIDENTS
The number of deer/vehicle collisions are a concern of the
public and the Conservation Board and can be monitored by
continued access to police accident reports and by information
compiled by the Kent Park rangers. Data may also be available
from the nearest law enforcement dispatcher in the form of
blotter notes or reports of calls about deer/vehicle incidents.
We recommend the information continue to be reviewed each year
and be used to promote public awareness about safe driving along
the Park boundary. In addition, the information could be used to
encourage road authorities to increase efforts to use signs,
lights, reflectors or fencing to reduce deer/vehicle accidents.
DEER CROP DAMAGE
Crop damage information from landowners should be collected
and used to evaluate the impact of deer population reductions on
deer feeding in the surrounding area. This effort should be
coordinated with the area IA -DNR office so damage complaints are
compiled and considered when permit quotas and population
management goals are set for the area. The impact of the
reductions will likely decrease the total number of farmers with
_ damage only slightly but will definitely decrease the amount and
extent of damage suffered by individual farmers. Unfortuna6e-ly,
o � ca `a
_• 26 N"
O:. p
= Cn
V,
I
damage will still exist on neighboring properties when
populations are at 30-40 deer per mit and will need to be
addressed with hunting and technical assistance programs.
DEER DAMAGE TO ORNAMENTAL VEGETATION
Damage to planted vegetation in the Park should be
monitored, but only on newly established materials. Data should
be taken below l.m or 4 ft on all stems with growth from the
current year and on tree trunks. Damage could be recorded as
present or absent and, if present, as light (a few lateral stems
browsed), moderate (many lateral stems browsed) or severe
(browsing of the terminals and laterals). Reasonable criteria
for judging the severity of damage will have to be developed and
will vary depending on the architecture and vulnerability of
individual species.
These data would reveal the impact of population reductions
on the incidence and extent of damage which should, in turn, be
used to help determine if the 30-40 deer per mit is an acceptable
population density. In addition, damage data on planted
materials would identify where specific damage control techniques
could be applied. Monitoring previously established plants for
browsing will likely not produce data useful in evaluating
current damage levels as multiple browsing by deer is uncommon
and the rate of deer browsing on older plant material is highly
variable.
DEER DAMAGE TO NATIVE AND PLANTED VEGETATION
Regeneration and browsing of woody vegetation should be
monitored in several areas in the Park. The natural forest stand
near the Park headquarters and any of the mature planted stands
would be sites where changes in woody species regeneration and
browsing rates should occur if the deer population is reduced.
In addition, many of the early successional areas as well as the
managed prairie sites could be monitored for herbaceous and woody
species regeneration and deer browsing rates.
We recommend that data on herbaceous and woody species
importance, deer browsing, and vegetation regeneration be
monitored in at least a few of the plant communities found within
the Park. Although many of these communities exhibit great
heterogeneity, the monitoring data will be useful in quantifying
the impact of deer population reductions on vegetation species
importance, diversity and regeneration rates. In addition,
transects used for generating vegetation data could be used to
develop data on populations such as songbirds or small mammals.
Depending on the interests in biodiversity goals at the Park,
multiple plant and animal species data could serve as important
reference points for future deer management decisions.
En
co -^
27 Co
girt
C-
• We recommend a woody vegetation and deer browsing survey be
implemented as soon as possible. Knowledge of the distribution,
abundance, importance and deer browsing of woody species will
provide a basis for assessing the impact of deer population
management efforts. In addition, these data will provide
information useful in understanding the basic composition of many
plant communities found on Kent Park.
We also recommend that methods for sampling herbaceous
vegetation, songbirds, small mammals and perhaps other species be
investigated. Data on the composition of plant and animal
communities found on the Park will enhance education and
information programs and provide a basis for planning and
evaluating management and protection strategies. The sampling
techniques outlined below can be adapted for use in surveying a
number of plant and animal species.
VEGETATION SAMPLING
The vegetation sampling techniques for assessing deer
browsing and species importance rely on measurements taken at
points distributed within each plant community. Points are
located randomly within strata to insure the data are
representative spatially yet are random with respect to location
within a particular area of the community.
�• This sampling pattern is accomplished by randomly locating
transects that traverse the community across gradients such as
elevation and aspect, and are spaced at intervals of at least
20m. Depending on the heterogeneity within the community as well
as the type characteristics of adjoining communities, a buffer at
least 10m wide around the edge of the plant community should be
observed. Transects within the community type can be located by
r placing the first transect across the middle of the type and then
locating additional transects on either side of the middle
transect until the community is covered. Transects should be
divided into sections at least 20m in length. Within each
section of each transect, a point should be randomly selected
along the transect that is at least 5m. from the end of the
section. When completed, a sampling point should be randomly
located within each section of all transects and the points
should provide adequate representation of all areas of the
community.
Plots for sampling deer browsing should be circular and 10m
in diameter in areas of sparse numbers of woody stems and should
be 5m in areas where woody stems are dense. If the plant
community being sampled is less than 100 acres, then 1 plot
should be established at each sampling point. When only 1 plot
_ is established detailed maps of the stems located in each plat or
the use of metal tags to identify selected or important En
M
03
. 28 ^'
o o
c
-9-
individual stems should be used so data can be continuous from
year to year.
If the plant community is more than 100 acres, then a plot
should be established in the each of the 4 cardinal directions
from the sampling point at a distance of 8m from the sampling
point. The use of 4 browse plots will allow for plots to be
sampled in successive years so that any particular plot will be
sampled only once every 4 years. This sampling strategy will
allow for the effects of browsing in any given year to have
minimal impact on the browsing data collected in subsequent
years.
Within each plot, tree saplings of the species of interest
between 0.5m and 2.Om tall should be studied. The species and
number of twig tips that were available during the previous
season and that are within the plot should be counted. In
addition, the species identity and number of twig tips removed by
deer during the past season should be recorded. Browsing from
previous seasons or years should not be included even if it can
be identified. Data collection should occur immediately after
winter or summer, depending on the season of browsing interest.
The number of species sampled should be reduced or after a
year or two of data collection. Limiting the number of species
sampled in the first year will depend upon the experience of the
staff and the vegetation data available on the reserve.
Generally, species or species -groups (grouping species such as
the oaks, ashes and hickories may be done) should be sampled that
_ have high relative importance values and are representative of
heavy, moderate and lightly browsed species. sampling species
based on variable browsing characteristics will increase the
potential for detecting changes in the impact of deer when
management programs are implemented.
BROWSING DATA COLLECTION
Available and browsed twig tips should be summed for each
species within each plot and then averaged for each transect and
for each community. Relative use, defined as the number of tips
browsed divided by the number of tips available, should be
calculated for each species by plot, transect and community.
Frequency and density can also be calculated for each species.
iBrowsing intensity, defined as the amount of use of a given
plant species relative to the expected amount of use, can be
_ calculated by first determining the expected number of browse
tips for each species if all species were used in proportion to
their abundance, and then dividing the actual use of that species
by the expected use. Ratios greater than 1.0 indicate a more
intensively browsed species, while ratios less than 1.0 indicate
�^
CD -q
29rn °41
co
c -n
F
_ a lower rate of consumption. The significance of differences in
consumption of species can be detected using Chi-square tests.
Caution must be taken in interpreting consumption data as
being indicative of deer selection or preference for a particular
species. Data taken at the end of a season reflect cumulative
browsing over a period of months. During this time period,
preference for species changes in response to the declining
condition of deer over the course of a winter. In addition,
preference changes in relation to the amounts of different foods
available, including woody species. Thus, the concept of
preference or selection can not be easily interpreted and should
not be taken from cumulative browsing data.
DEER POPULATION CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS
The deer control program at Kent Park should be viewed in 2
phases: first, as a 3 -year reduction effort to decrease the
winter population density to 30-40 deer per mit; and, second, as
a maintenance program to control impacts and/or to stabilize the
rate of growth of populations within the range of 30-40 deer per
mit. Annual goals for the sex and age of deer to be killed for
_ each year of the 3 -year reduction program can be obtained by
working with Willie Suchy, the deer research biologist with the
IA -DNR. Model simulations should be updated each year with data
from aerial counts, mortality information, and productivity
estimates taken from the deer killed in the control program.
I
I
I
The population maintenance phase of the program could begin
after the winter deer population is reduced to the recommended
30-40 deer per miz. The deer population should be maintained
within the goal density range for another 3 years to permit the
assessment of the acceptability of the impacts that result from
this new population density. To this end, population maintenance
methods should be implemented that slow the rate of population
growth and/or stabilize impacts such as damage to croplands.
Our recommendations for the population reduction program
include the use of firearms hunting (Option 1), which can be
implemented immediately, and sharpshooting supplemented by a trap
and kill program (Option 2). Option 2 would have to be approved
by the IA -DNR before implementation. We also recommend that
bowhunting be used for population maintenance which can be
implemented immediately.
DEER POPULATION REDUCTION
OPTION 1 - FIREARMS HUNTING
Hunting using shotguns with slugs would be an effective,
population reduction method if implemented during the regul3W
_ -�
30 a' N
(� ^ E5 rtY
�r
I
J
J
I
I
I
firearms hunting season. Hunting in Kent Park while the regular
season is underway would eliminate deer use of the park as a
refuge which will insure that deer will have increased
vulnerability to hunters.
A hunt at Kent Park should be developed as a controlled,
limited hunt. In these hunts a prescribed number of deer are
killed in a highly controlled program situation. In addition,
hunters have limited access to the program as they will be
expected to complete a number of requirements before being
eligible to be considered for a permit to hunt on Park property.
Controlled, limited hunts have successfully met the objectives of
the management agency but only when the decision -makers have
recognized that the degree of success is directly related to the
effort expended. Typically, these hunts have achieved efficient,
effective, safe and humane population reductions in a manner
compatible with the concerns of the responsible organization.
SEASON FRAMEWORK
The present season framework in Johnson County includes a 5
day antlered deer only hunt that begins the first Saturday in
December followed by a 9 -day any -sex hunt which begins the second
Saturday in December. Within this framework, we suggest Kent
Park schedule 2 separate, weekend hunts during the 9 -day season
to maximize the opportunity to take antlerless deer. This
framework would create adequate hunting pressure in the Park at
the same time that hunting pressure outside the Park would be
high. This approach would eliminate deer use of the Park as a
refuge and maximize the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the
hunt. During future years of the 3 -year reduction program, the
number of hunting days allowed can be varied based on the
experienced gained in each year.
We recommend the number of hunters, based on the Park
landscape, should not exceed 30 individuals on any given day.
Such a hunter density would provide each individual with
approximately 35 acres or more on which to hunt, depending on
whether hunters hunt alone or in groups. This density would be
in keeping with the general guidelines suggested by most state
agencies but could be adjusted each year based on an evaluation
of the efficiency, effectiveness and safety of the program.
To maximize the number of deer taken by each hunter, we
recommend the Park request antlerless permits (bonus permits) be
issued for Kent Park to be used during the Park hunts. These
bonus permits would be good only on Park property and hunters
should be required to use these permits before using their any -
sex license. By initially limiting opportunities to shoot
antlered deer, hunters in these programs have an incentive to
shoot an antlerless deer quickly and to hunt intensively enoWh
cn
_
CD_ W
`
31
`J N
G
C=?
to kill 2 deer. In most situations where any -sex licenses are
used to tag a second deer, 50% or more of the hunters kill an
antlerless deer instead of an antlered deer. A proposal to
implement this or a similar program that maximizes the deer kill
would have to be submitted to the IA -DNR for approval.
HUNTER MANAGEMENT
Hunts such as described here require that eligible hunters
possess an Iowa firearms deer hunting license and any additional
permits available for use on Kent Park. The Park further limits
the hunters who participate by issuing a permit to individuals
_ who satisfy all the eligibility requirements imposed by the Park.
In most states a permit results in the hunter acting as an agent
of the Park and thus, permits can be denied or revoked if hunters
violate any of the requirements for access.
Each hunt could utilize different hunters although there
would be advantages to allowing unsuccessful hunters from the
first hunt to participate in the second hunt. For example, if
the program occurs as described in the previous paragraph, we
recommend individuals who did not kill antlerless deer in the
first hunt be allowed to hunt during the second hunt on days when
the hunter density is expected to be below 30 individuals. A
similar provision could be made for hunters from the second group
to be selected to hunt in the first hunt . To implement this
provision, hunters are placed on call who are willing to respond
on short notice to a call to come participate. openings are
discovered by asking hunters at the end of the first day if they
intend to hunt the next day.
A number of requirements should be considered as a means to
elicit cooperation from the hunters who participate in the
I program. Requirements for a valid application to hunt in the
park should be possession of a firearms hunting safety
certificate and a pledge that Kent Park will be the primary
location of their hunting efforts. Individuals should be
selected to hunt based on their attendance at a Kent Park deer
hunt orientation program and a passing mark on a shooting
proficiency test. Preference should be given to hunters who
reside in Johnson County and who have more years of hunting
experience. In the second and third year of the program, hunter
selection criteria can be changed based on the first year's
experiences and the hunting efficiency of each hunter.
Implementing any or all of these criteria will likely result in
hunters being selected who are committed to hunting at Kent Park
and who take seriously their role in the deer management program
at the Park.
The Park orientation program should introduce huaers-+to the
Kent Park deer management program and the Park, commuxrlEatl@the�
7v 9
1 32 n`a
o
iy n
. goals of the hunting program, and familiarize hunters with the
procedures to be used to operate the hunt. In essence, the
orientation must clearly inform hunters about what will be
expected of them and what they can expect from the Park program.
A primary message of the orientation is that the objective of the
hunt is to reduce the deer population safely and that their
recreation is a by-product of that effort.
The shooting test could be patterned after programs at the
' Crane Reservation, Massachusetts and the Cary Arboretum, New
York. These tests require a hunter to hit a 10 -inch diameter
circle with a shotgun slug at 30, 40, and 50 yards and the
I shooter has 5 shots to complete the task. Shooting scores are
calculated by measuring the distance from the center of the
target to the center of each shot hole and then adding all the
values for each shot that hit the target. Shots that are outside
' the target and misses are given the same score as the distance
from the center to the edge of the target. Hunters are ranked by
their scores and these ranks are used to select hunters if all
' other application criteria are considered equal.
Hunters should be asked to check in and out on a daily
basis and park in designated locations. Checking in and out
provides staff with opportunities to monitor hunter effort and
behavior as well as to be sure all hunters are accounted for at
the end of each day. Use of designated parking, particularly if
'• parking areas are evenly distributed throughout the park, will
serve to achieve a relatively even distribution of hunters. With
hunters evenly distributed, the probability that the deer kill
will be evenly distributed will increase.
An enforcement presence should be on the Park during all
hunting hours. These staff can serve to answer questions and be
available to deal with any situations that arise.
Records of hunter activities at Kent Park should be
recorded, especially during the initial years when these data
could be used to eliminate hunters who have been uncooperative or
were considered ineffective. In addition, hunter efficiency
(measured as deer killed per day) can also be used to evaluate
the need to alter season length, the number, type and use of
permits and licenses, or the number and location of access points
(parking sites).
As experience with the administration and operation of the
hunt improves, adaptations should be made that best suit the
needs of the Park. Efforts to solicit feedback from hunters
should be made as there may be future needs to reduce deer
numbers and the cooperation of these individuals will be
necessary.
CD
rn
33 10
r Co
Gil
I
ICOST OF THE PROGRAM
Depending on the choices for how the program is administered
and operated, the total cost to implement a hunting program to
remove 75-100 deer will range from $5000 to $8,000 dollars per
year. The first year of the program will likely be the period of
highest costs while the ensuing years will realize cost
efficiencies gained through experience in operating the program.
Of course the success rate of the hunters will drive the final
costs per deer in all years.
OPTION 2 - SHARPSHOOTING AND TRAP AND KILI.
SHARPSHOOTING
Sharpshooting by park rangers would be the most efficient
and safe method for killing deer at Kent Park. In addition,
sharpshooting would likely be compatible with a number of park
activities. This method would effectively achieve the management
goals but would cost more than hunting because the rangers are
paid staff, the deer would have to be shot over bait during an
extended time period and the Board would have to pay to have the
deer processed and delivered to recipient organizations.
General Procedures
Sharpshooting would be most efficient if initiated following
the firearms deer hunting season and continued through March 15.
Areas for shooting should be established where park rangers can
safely and efficiently shoot deer from parked vehicles or from
elevated stands. Shooting from parked vehicles along roads or
trails would minimize the potential to frighten deer as most deer
are used to vehicular traffic on the roads of the park. In
addition, rangers can shoot from a sitting position with the gun
braced which will increase the accuracy of the shots.
Typically, deer are attracted to baited areas to insure that
shooting can be done in a safe and predictable manner. Shooting
lanes from the spot where the vehicle or stand will be located
should be established and should have a safe background against
which shots could be taken. A safe and effective stand is one
within 50 yards of a baited area that is slightly elevated so the
shooter can fire into the ground behind the deer.
Immediately after the firearms season, at last 10-15
shooting sites should be established and supplied with ample
quantities of bait for at least 2 weeks preceding sharpshooting.
Bait such as ear corn should be supplied initially in quantities
approximating a pickup load and spread in a linear fashion much
like livestock feeding bunkers are arranged. Maximizing the
amount of feeding access to the bait will reduce social_ cin
C) -n
rn u 8
. CA
34
C.n
CJ7
I
intolerance among deer by controlling the number of deer able to
feed at one time. Maintaining bait and replenishing bait as
needed should be the job of a maintenance employee familiar with
the park grounds.
Based on feeding activity, the most active sites would be
the first at which shooting should occur. Shooting is
recommended to begin within 1 hour before sunset and continue
after sunset using high candlepower spotlights. On occasion,
shooting at sunrise has proven to be effective and should be
considered after observing deer feeding behavior. In winter,
deer might become very active during daylight hours and thus,
shooting should be scheduled to optimize times when deer are at
the bait sites. Sites should be visited daily until deer are no
longer found at the bait or when deer flee at the approach of a
vehicle. Bait sites should be developed in advance of use so the
shooters can continue to rotate sites for maximum efficiency.
Shots should be taken first at deer standing within the safe
shooting lane but the greatest distance from the bait. Shooting
deer that are feeding directly on the bait is not recommended
until all the deer around or in the vicinity of the bait are
shot. All deer should be shot in the neck using high caliber
rifles. Neck shots should be the only shots allowed as this will
_ insure the most humane, quick kills and the animals will
typically not move beyond their original position.
Sharpshooting from elevated stands should be attempted in
areas where vehicle access is limited or the vehicles will cause
deer to flee. Stands should be established in trees where a view
of the baited area is unobstructed and where the baited area is
upwind of the stand. Stands should be stable and allow for the
shooter to brace against the tree for safe and accurate shooting.
Deer killed should be removed from the baited area and
eviscerated at a predetermined site selected for preparing deer
for processing. The manner in which deer are to be processed and
the final disposition of the meat, hide and carcass will be done
at the direction of the IA -DNR.
Sharpshooter Training
The shooting could all be done by the 2 professional park
rangers already on staff at the park. The rangers should be
oriented to the strategies described above for effective shooting
of deer over baited areas. Rangers should be instructed to never
shoot deer in the thoracic cavity as even a killing shot in that
area can result in deer running several yards before dying and
thus, risking the potential of losing the animal. Shooters
should be observed while on duty to insure all specific %,o
guidelines regarding shooting from vehicles or standsZ�Ire *ring
C7. CO
35,
oT o
Cnn
I
followed. Individuals who vary the protocols established for
sharpshooting without prior approval are increasing the safety
risks of the operation and lowering the efficiency of the effort.
In short, when sharpshooters begin to behave as if they are on a
hunt, the effectiveness of the operation has been compromised.
Shooters should be instructed to shoot the largest
antlerless deer available first, followed by any antlerless deer
and finally, any deer. When faced with a choice of shooting a
large antlerless deer close to the bait or a small antlerless
deer away from the bait, shooters should always shoot the large
antlerless deer. Efficiency will depend on shooting deer within
a reasonable time period at each stand. Shooting efficiency
should be at least 0.35 to 0.50 deer per hour.
Cost of the Program
The total program cost to remove 75-100 deer from Kent Park
would range from $10,000 to $16,000 per year. The major variable
in the cost of the program is the processing of deer which can be
done by Park staff or privately bid for $35-$60 per deer. Unless
the shooters exhibit unpredictable patterns of success, the cost
of these programs is usually quite stable and should be similar
in all years. Because this program would use existing Park
staff, the personnel costs would be the time lost to alternative
duties rather than direct salaries paid to new individuals.
- Thus, the most of the estimated costs above would already be in
the Kent Park budget.
TRAP AND KILL
With the implementation of sharpshooting, trap and kill
methods could effectively supplement the deer kill. This
technique would simply involve the placement of live traps at
sharpshooting bait sites where deer would then be captured,
killed and removed to be processed. This technique can be highly
efficient particularly if the staff working on the sharpshooting
program also assist with the baiting and trap monitoring. This
effort would run concurrent with the sharpshooting program.
General Procedures
The establishment of trap sites would be as described for
the sharpshooting operation. At each bait site, a Clover trap
would be set as described for the trap and kill method. After
deer feeding activity has been sufficient established during a
prebaiting period, the trap would be set and checked morning and
evening for captured deer.
Traps can be obtained on loan or by purchase from private
vendors. At least 10 traps will be enough to effectively c`�r+
CD -n
c; rri m
> - m dd
36 N
•.=�, �, .•may
D- Ut
Cn
Isupplement the sharpshooting program. Traps should be located in
areas of dense cover or adjacent to trails where deer activity
has been high. To be most efficient, additional trap sites could
be located in areas not accessible to shooters or not safe enough
to conduct sharpshooting operations.
When deer have been captured in the trap, the trap should be
approached with care and the deer shot in the neck from a
distance where the shooter can be certain of the accuracy and
safety of the shot. The distance should be several yards as this
will insure the deer is calm and likely will be bedded in the
` trap. Once dead, deer are removed from the trap and taken to the
processing location for final disposition.
Generally, trap and kill programs require only one person to
set up each trap, monitor the trap, shoot deer and remove deer to
the central handling area. If there are 2 rangers conducting
sharpshooting operations, the trap and kill program is
recommended as it will increase the efficiency of the use of
personnel.
Cost of the Program
Usually, trap and kill programs result in a final cost per
deer of $175 to over $300 per animal. The program outlined above
would be implemented only in the first and possibly the second
year of population reduction efforts to supplement sharpshooting.
As staff are maintaining bait sites for sharpshooting, the time
and costs of maintaining trap sites and bait would be reduced.
In addition, the removal of deer from traps in morning and
evening are also times when shooters would be out and thus, this
is also an efficient use of their time.
Given the efficiencies described above, we believe a trap
and kill effort, implemented concurrently with a sharpshooting
program, would cost less than $100 per deer or about the same as
the cost of sharpshooting. We also feel the trap and kill effort
would shorten the period of deer removals, thus, allowing the
Park to resume activities on a regular schedule.
POPULATION MAINTENANCE METHOD
BOWHUNTING
Bowhunting would be an effective means Of
controlling
damage
to surrounding properties and slowing the rate
of growth of
deer
populations once they have been reduced to 30-40
deer per
miz.
This form of hunting could be used to kill deer
moving directly
from the Park to the neighboring croplands and
thus reduce
the
potential for damage to crops. Such a program
will also result
in added mortality for population control purposes.
Lo
Ui
37
O
-n
a. _
, ;-
CA
J
iThe bowhunt should be developed and implemented as a
controlled, limited program similar to the firearms hunt. When
hunter management is intensive, hunter behavior has been more
responsible and cooperative with the objectives of the landowning
agency. In addition, hunter success has been maximized in these
situations while wounding rates have been minimized. Typically,
' well-managed hunts have achieved efficient, effective, safe and
humane deer kills in a manner compatible with the concerns of the
responsible organization.
ISEASON FRAMEWORK
The season framework we recommend for Kent Park would begin
with the opening of the Iowa bowhunting season in mid-September.
If hunters are properly oriented to the program and access is
carefully designed, hunting can effectively be limited to the
extreme boundary of the park during the fall. This approach
would allow for continued recreational use of the Park through
the end of the fall color season. In addition, bowhunting would
occur during the period of greatest deer hunting success rates
and when deer damaging adjoining crop areas would be vulnerable
to hunting. We recommend the bowhunting program continue through
the end of the Iowa bowhunting season.
' We suggest Kent Park apply to the IA -DNR to provide
authorized bowhunters with an antlerless permit in addition to
their regular, any -sex license. With this framework the Park
should require an antlerless deer be killed before the any -sex
license could be used. This approach would maximize the
efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the hunt and provide
' incentives to hunters to kill antlerless deer while still
maintaining the specific goal of concentrating the kill on deer
leaving the Park.
' We recommend the bowhunters be limited to hunting from
elevated stands. All stands should be within a prescribed
' distance of the boundary (perhaps 50 yards) which will restrict
hunters to killing deer likely using neighboring properties. We
also suggest stands be located on specific sites to maximize the
familiarity of staff and hunters with the location of individuals
during the hunting season and to minimize hunters walking within
the park and competing with each other for hunting opportunities.
t Based on the nature of the Park landscape, we suggest the
number of bowhunters be limited to no more than 10 hunters per
day and 20 hunters for an entire season. Depending on the
' permits available to these hunters, annual hunting mortality
would be at least 20-30% of the fall population which would
achieve the purpose of stabilizing or slowing the rate of
population growth. The number of bowhunters allowed to hunt
could be adjusted each year based on an evaluation of the cn
38 ro
Un
Ul
efficiency, effectiveness and safety of the program and on the
permits available to the hunters.
' HUNTER MANAGEMENT
Bowhunters must possess an Iowa archery deer hunting license
' and any additional permits available for use on Kent Park. The
Park should issue a permit to individuals who satisfy all the
eligibility requirements developed by the Park. These permits
should be administered as suggested for the firearms hunt.
We recommend the number of hunters accepted into the program
include alternates who can be called to replace individuals who
have not hunted by the end of the second weekend of hunting. In
addition, alternates could replace hunters who have indicated
they have quit hunting for the season.
Requirements for a valid application to bowhunt in the park
should be possession of a bowhunter education certificate and a
' pledge that Kent Park will be the primary location of their
hunting efforts. Individuals should be selected to hunt based on
their attendance at a Kent Park deer hunt orientation program and
a passing mark on a shooting proficiency test. Preference should
be given to hunters who reside in Johnson County and who have
more years of hunting experience. As with the firearms program,
the bowhunt should be adapted based on the experience gained with
' each year's program.
The Park orientation program should be identical to the
firearms program. The shooting test should require a hunter to
hit a 10 -inch diameter circle with 5 arrows at 20 yards.
1 Shooting scores are calculated the same as for the firearms test
and scores should be used when needed to choose between 2
eligible hunters who have completed all other criteria.
Hunters should be asked to call to check in and out on a
I daily basis and park in designated locations. Although the
number of deer to be killed will not be specifically prescribed,
there should be an expectation that the deer shot will be
predominantly larger antlerless animals. Bowhunters should be
expected to keep records of their hunting hours at Kent Park and
should be sure to contact Park staff to register any deer shot.
This process will insure that the kill is accurately recorded and
' that data on the success of individual hunters and stand
locations can be evaluated.
COST OF THE PROGRAM
The cost per deer killed by bowhunters would be less than
$100 and likely less than $50. These costs could be minimiz
with time and experience in administering the program. zinc--"
39
eY�
Y-.
N
V`
eY�
this method is not being recommended for the reduction phase of
the population control program, costs have not been projected for
75-100 deer to be removed.
COOPERATIVE DEER POPULATION CONTROL PROGRAMS
This program is an important supplement to any population
control that might be implemented on Kent Park. This program
involves efforts by Kent Park staff to urge neighboring
landowners to maximize the deer kill on their properties during
the regular archery and firearms hunting seasons. An aggressive
kill program on private property will complement any control
efforts at the Park and will assist in reducing landowners damage
concerns.
We suggest landowners or land managers within 1-2 miles of
the park be invited to an annual cooperative deer management
meeting held at Kent Park. This meeting should be hosted by the
Park Director and include a series of presentations about the
Park's deer management programs. The agenda should also include
time for landowners to voice their concerns about damage or other
deer impacts and to detail their plans for the hunting seasons.
Open discussions about mutual objectives of hunting efforts and
the need to maximize the antlerless deer kill. Plans should be
made for a post -season review of the deer kill, hunting
effectiveness and efficiency, and safety and enforcement problems
observed during the season in the area.
IA -DNR staff attendance at the meeting will allow landowners
to provide input on future hunting recommendations in the area,
access to IA -DNR deer population and management data for the area
and advice on operating hunting programs on private property.
Questions about the number of hunters that can be safely allowed
access and methods for finding adequate numbers of hunters could
also be discussed. Kent Park staff could also facilitate
communication between hunters and landowners by referring
-- inquiries by prospective hunters to landowners.
— Finally, an annual cooperative deer management meeting will
afford an excellent opportunity for Kent Park staff to offer
adice on technical assistance to landowners. Many individuals
— will be interested in repellent and fencing information and
should be advised about the utility of damage control techniques,
including food plots, used in the Park.
Through this cooperative program, the impact of any Kent
Park management efforts will be optimized as landowners will be
urged to cooperatively manage their damage problems.
Alternatively, if cooperative hunting efforts are not conducted
effectively, then the damage complaints of individuals not
maximizing their deer kill can be taken less seriously. Ing
o -n
_ C-;• rn
Co
40
- r-..
L Cn
c.n
-7
essence, farmers with damage problems can not afford to provide
recreational hunting for their family and friends and then
complain to the IA -DNR or the Park staff about too many deer.
ARCHERY HUNTING
In this program landowners would allow bowhunters access to
hunt and urge them to take an antlerless deer. Hunters should be
encouraged to hunt intensively and to locate their stands near
the park boundary. Park staff can encourage hunting adjacent to
the park and offer cooperation in locating stands and recovering
deer that might be hit and travel onto Park property. Landowners
should strive to attract enough participants to have at least 1
bowhunter hunting on their land on a daily or at least weekly
basis.
Hunters should be asked to register their deer with the
landowner or with the Park staff. Knowledge of the sex, age and
location of all deer killed on or near the park will be important
for conducting population assessments.
FIREARMS HUNTING
Landowners should be encouraged to allow hunters onto their
property during the firearms seasons. Hunters should be asked to
take antlerless deer, if possible, and should be told to register
' deer with the landowner or Park staff.
Hunters should be allowed access to the property to hunt,
provided they understand the importance of shooting antlerless
' deer and do not present an unacceptable safety risk to the
landowner. Hunting densities should be at least 1 hunter for
every 40 acres and hunting should not be limited to relatives,
family and friends. In fact, hunters familiar to the landowner,
are often more resistant to hunting as intensively as needed to
reduce damage concerns and usually object to efforts to maximize
the number of hunters allowed access. In addition, landowners
should encourage hunters to apply for any antlerless or any -sex
permits that might be available in the future.
DEER HABITAT MANAGEMENT
Opportunities to manage habitats within the Park to impact
deer movements or feeding behavior are limited. This is due to
the wide variety of plants deer consume in all seasons, their
large annual home range and their ability to utilize a diversity
of habitats for cover and behavior needs. Deer populations
should be at the 30-40 deer per mit before food plot programs are
established as success will be limited until deer densities,,pre
much lower.
yr
N
41 �-
p� O
un
r' G31
'• If populations are reduced to the recommended goal
densities, food plots could be used to reduce deer damage to
crops in late summer and fall, deer feeding on herbaceous
vegetation in summer and deer browsing on woody vegetation in
winter. Numerous sites around the periphery of the park exist
where plots ranging in size from 5 to 20 acres could be
' established. Long, narrow plots adjacent to permanent cover,
particularly conifers, make ideal feeding sites for deer.
When larger plots can be established, the site should be
planted to 50-70% legumes and 30-50% corn. The best legumes are
an alfalfa or clover mix used by farmers in the area for grazing
livestock. These forage stands can be easily established and
will produce vigorous stands for 3-5 years. Mowing should occur
once per summer, preferable in late June or early July. Managed
on this basis, maximum growth should be available to deer in fall
(September -December) and spring (March -June).
Supplementing the plot with corn will provide a food source
' that would be available during late summer, fall, and winter.
Corn would be the only forage available during periods where snow
conditions would inhibit deer from feeding on the ground.
' While food plots will not eliminate crop damage (in some
years no change in damage will be observed), deer will increase
their use of food plots and, in time, this action will definitely
reduce damage on private lands. General recommendations for food
plots, in addition to those offered here, can be obtained from
the IA -DNR.
' DEER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
_ Information on techniques to control damage to crops and
planted vegetation and to reduce deer/vehicle accidents should be
provided to neighboring landowners and to appropriate agencies.
This responsibility is important for Kent Park staff to accept as
the Park should serve as a local resource for useful damage
control information or, further, assistance in implementing
control measures. These efforts would provide neighboring
landowners and County residents with evidence of the Park taking
responsibility for the impacts caused by the Kent Park deer
population. When technical measures are implemented and impacts
are reduced, the capacity of the Park for deer is maintained and
reduction demands become less urgent.
PLANT DAMAGE CONTROL
Techniques to control damage to crops and planted vegetation
and to reduce deer/vehicle accidents should be implemented in
conjunction with a population reduction program. Unfortunately,
effective methods for controlling damage in field corn have r&ot
cn
C) _n
c CO
42 �.- w
Y
�+ cn
un
I
been developed and thus, the best control techniques are
population reductions, shooting of deer using particular fields
and the use of food plots as alternative feeding areas. As
described in earlier sections, reductions are recommended for the
park, bowhunting has been proposed for use particularly on the
perimeter of the park, and food plots, if established, will also
1 reduce some of the pressure on private lands.
Planted woody vegetation on the Park and on neighboring
properties should be protected from spring and summer damage by
using Hinder (Uniroyal Inc., Brea, CA). Seedlings or plants
being planted should be dipped or sprayed with Hinder 1:10 and
then additional spraying of Hinder 1:20 should occur at 2 week
intervals or when new growth has reached 6 inches since the last
spray. Established plants should receive an initial spray at the
first evidence of bud swelling or at "green tip". Spraying
should continue through July or until growth slows and buds begin
to form.
Fall and winter protection can be provided by spraying the
plants with Hinder. An application of Hinder 1:10 should occur
immediately after leaf fall and be followed by applications of
Hinder 1:1 at least once each month on a day when temperatures
will be at least 400, there will be ample sunlight to dry the
spray and little if any wind will be blowing. Monthly spraying
should continue during the winter but only if the conditions
described earlier exist.
Fall and winter browsing protection can be also gained by
spraying Deer -Away repellent. Deer -Away is the most effective
winter repellent on the market although use should be limited to
the highest priority plants as the product is more expensive than
Hinder. Winter protection sprays should be applied during late
fall or early winter when the spray conditions described above
will occur.
If repellents are not chosen as the recommended deer damage
control method, individual specimen plants can be protected with
burlap wrapping or wire mesh cages. This method is labor
intensive but will provide an effective means of controlling
damage to valuable ornamental plants established in vulnerable
deer browsing areas.
Finally, antler rubbing on young saplings can be deterred
with concentrated sprays of Hinder (at least 1:1). Applications
should be made to valuable saplings that are at least 3 inches in
diameter at 4 ft about ground level. Trees should be spray to
drip from a height of 5 ft to the ground. Other effective antler
rub prevention techniques include the use of tree paint or tar
applied to tree trunks or the use of wooden stakes placed on
three or four sides of the trunk of a young sapling at planfAng.
43
4
v Ln
The stakes prevent the deer from being able to touch the trunk of
the tree while allowing the tree to grow.
DEER/VEHICLE ACCIDENTS
Methods to reduce the number of deer/vehicle accidents are
available but none has been implemented with great success. The
most common technique is to post the area with deer crossing
signs and publicize the need to drive defensively especially in
spring and fall to avoid accidents. Recently, some states have
fitted deer crossing signs with lights that are programmed to
flash intermittently from shortly before sunset for at least 3-4
hours and again beginning an hour before sunrise and continuing
until daylight. Data are not available on the reduction in
accidents due to this method, but the technique has been seen as
an effective warning to drivers to slow and watch for deer.
The use of. Swareflex reflectors has reportedly reduced the
number of deer/vehicle accidents to some extent, although the
data from most studies has been inconclusive. The installation
of the reflectors has occurred in several locations in the
Midwest and have usually been purchased by private groups. Costs
for installation for each mile of roadway have ranged from $8,000
' to $10,000 in Minnesota (Ingebrigtsen and Ludwig 1986).
DEER POPULATION EDUCATION AND INFORMATION
' Implementing a deer management program at Kent Park will
create a great deal of controversy, discussion and concern about
' the fate of deer in Kent Park, the role of Kent Park as public
asset and the responsibilities of the Johnson County Board to
achieve the public good with regard to the resources found in
Kent Park . This situation concerns deer and every other
resource found within the Park yet contemporary American
governments have struggled to find a process for making decisions
about these issues. As the Johnson County Board proceeds with a
' deer management plan, information and education efforts should be
developed to challenge the public to understand and participate
in the far-reaching decisions being made about their environment.
Information can be channeled to the public through press
releases, feature stories, workshops, seminars, field trips and
symposia. The information program can highlight deer using the
seasons to feature biological, ecological and management events
influencing deer at Kent Park. For example, winter themes can
orient around field trips to observe deer, to examine deer
browsing in woody plant communities, and to follow deer trails
while discussing the behavior and adaptations of deer that'pllow
them to survive winter. In the spring deer populationum�s',in
productivity and mortality can be a topic of discussion dil
present an excellent opportunity to dispel the myths tlf de
n- e
44
are born in mysterious places and that predators are the major
mortality factors in the lives of deer. Mid- to late -summer can
be a time to investigate the damage caused by deer to woody and
herbaceous vegetation as well as crops and offer lessons in
balancing the negative values of deer as a public resource.
Finally, fall can be used to highlight the breeding season
behavior of deer and to hold discussions about the control of
deer populations.
Workshops for homeowners on controlling damage in their
gardens and yards, reducing their chances of hitting a deer with
their vehicle and discussions about living with deer can also be
held on a periodic basis. To enhance the positive values of
deer, workshops and seminars can feature deer photography and
hunting and stalking deer to observe more about deer behavior.
Seminars or short -courses can be offered that involve
participants in making resource management decisions such as the
challenges facing the Johnson County Board regarding deer.
Students can be challenged to frame the issues, collect and
evaluate information, determine the options for action and weigh
the economic, ecological, social, political and legal
ramifications of the decisions before them. Placing youngsters
or adults in the position of considering these difficult issues
and forcing them to make decisions within a given amount of time
will have a significant influence on those who feel these
decisions are easy. More important, participants will gain
valuable experience in group decision-making, conflict resolution
and the art of compromise. For most participants, these mock
scenarios provide important insights into the difficulty of
making resource management decisions and the reality of managing
nature.
A series of deer exclosures at Kent Park would provide an
excellent teaching tool for understanding the role and influence
of deer in plant and animal communities. Exclosures can be
established at Kent Park in mature forests, successional stands,
and open fields and each will demonstrate the development of
vegetation in the absence of deer.
Exclosures vary widely in the size of the area enclosed but
are typically from 1000 ft to 10,000 ftz. Fences are usually 8
ft high and are built to exclude only deer. To allow natural
processes to continue, fencing is usually maintained at least 1
ft above the ground which will allow animals and plant materials
to move freely through the area. Seedlings that regenerate as
well as all saplings are identified and their growth monitor at.,�
least once each growing season. Areas adjacent to the e6t�os e
should be inventoried and used in making comparisons to i�g d a
collected within the fence. t
d
i 'ice
CJ
45 y s
{ SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Kent Park landscape provides abundant food and cover for
deer, productivity of deer is high and mortality rates for deer
who spend most of their time in the park are low.
2. The area influenced by the Kent Park deer population was
estimated to be approximately 2 miz in winter and 4 miz in
summer.
3. In February, 1994 the available data suggest there were
between 200-250 deer in the winter area of Kent Park and the
population trend in the area is increasing.
4. We recommend a winter goal density be set at 30-40 deer per
miz or 60-80 deer within the Kent Park winter area.
I 5. The goal density will require a reduction of at least 60% of
the winter deer population if a management program is implemented
in 1995. The goal density should be attained in 3 years which
should be followed by 2-3 years of steady deer numbers and
evaluation of deer impacts.
I 6. Deer have caused significant impacts on native and planted
vegetation at Kent Park and on cropland in the vicinity of the
Park. In addition deer/car accidents have been numerous are a
genuine concern for area residents.
I7. We recommend firearms and archery hunting, sharpshooting and
trap and kill as potential methods for use in controlling deer
' populations at Kent Park. We do not recommend contraception but
feel data on the potential application of this method may be
available in a few years.
I 8. Deer populations should be monitored to detect changes
resulting from population reduction programs. We suggest
continuing the aerial surveys and initiating roadside surveys.
9. Changes in deer populations should result in changes in the
impacts caused by deer. Better monitoring of deer/vehicle
accidents, crop damage and damage to ornamental vegetation on
Kent Park should be implemented. Deer damage to native and
planted vegetation should be assessed but should be part of a
comprehensive vegetation and browsing survey to be implemented in
selected plant communities in the Park.
10. A controlled, limited firearms hunting program, which is
I approved by the IA -DNR, is recommended for reducing the deer
population over the next 3 years at Kent Park. Pending approval
by the IA -DNR, sharpshooting, supplemented by a trap and kill
program, is also recommended for reducing the deer population.
Although sharpshooting and trap and kill are more efficient, safe
c`Dn
I 46acs '°�
_^ N
-.1 C7.
Gn
Cn
I
S• and acceptable, both methods are more expensive than firearms
hunting.
11. Controlled bowhunting is recommended as the population
maintenance option to be implemented once the population is
within the goal density range.
12. Deer control efforts by neighboring landowners, regardless
of the control methods implemented on Kent Park, must be
effective if damage to crops and deer/vehicle accidents are to be
reduced. Kent Park should serve to facilitate efforts by private
landowners to take some responsibility for their deer problems.
13. once deer populations are at goal density levels, food plots
established near the perimeter of the Park will be an effective
means of reducing feeding pressure on vegetation in the Park and
' on neighboring croplands.
14. Repellents are recommended to reduce damage to native and
' planted vegetation both in Kent Park and on neighboring
properties.
15. The biology, ecology and management of deer at Kent Park are
' recommended as important topics for Johnson County residents to
understand.
N LITERATURE CITED
Benke, A. 1989. The bowhunting alternative. B.Todd Press, San
Antonio, TX 110pp.
Clover, M.R. 1956. Single -gate deer trap. Calif. Fish and Game
42(3):199-201.
Drummond, F. Lethal and non -lethal deer management at Ryerson
Conservation Area, Northeastern Illinois. In J.B. McAninch,
ed. Urban deer - A manageable resource? In press.
Gladfelter, H.L. 1980. Midwest agricultural region. pp. 427-
440, In L.K. Halls, ed. White-tailed deer ecology and
management. A Wildlife Management Institute book by
Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pa.
Haugen, A.O. 1975. Reproductive performance of white-tailed
deer in Iowa. J. Mammal. 56:151-159.
Herron, J.S.C. 1984. Deer harvest and wounding loss associated
with bowhunting white-tailed deer. MS thesis, Univ. of
Wisconsin, Madison. 34pp. CP
cc
71 N
47
v rn
Ingebrigtsen, D. K. and J. R. Ludwig. 1986. Effectiveness of
swareflex wildlife warning reflectors in reducing deer -
vehicle collisions in Minnesota. Wildl. Rep. No. 3, Minn.
Dept. Nat. Resourc., St. Paul. 6pp.
Ishmael, W. E. and O. J. Rongstad. 1984. Economics of an urban
deer -removal program. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 12:394-398.
Jackson, D.H. 1986-1992. Annual performance reports. Proj. No.
W -115-R. Iowa Dept. Nat. Resourc.
Jones, S.B., D. deCalesta, and S.E. Chunko. 1993. Whitetails
are changing our woodlands. American Forests Nov./Dec.
pp 20-25,53-54.
Jordon, P.A., R.A. Moen, and E.J.DeGayner. Trap -and -shoot and
sharpshooting methods for control of urban deer: The case
history of North Oaks, Minnesota. In J.B. McAninch, ed.
Urban deer - A manageable resource? In press.
Kirkpatrick, J.F., and J.W. Turner, Jr. 1985. Chemical
fertility control and wildlife management. Bio -Science
35:485-491.
Lohfield, M.L. 1979. Crippling loss and illegal kill of white-
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) during a controlled
hunt in a New Jersey State Park. MS thesis, Rutgers Univ.,
New Brunswick, NJ 25pp.
Ludwig, J. 1981. Proportion of deer seen in aerial counts.
Minn. Wildl. Res. Q. 41:11-19.
McAninch, J. B. 1993. Bowhunting as an urban deer population
management tool. Pgs. 33-36 in D. E. Guynn and D. E.
Samuel, eds., Proc. of Western Bowhunting Conf., Bozeman,
Montana. 134pp.
McBeath, D.Y. 1941. Whitetail traps and tags. Mich. Conserv.
10(11):6-7, 11.
Pacelle, W. 1990. Bow hunting: A most primitive sport. Animals
Agenda, May, p15-18.
Stoll, R.J., Jr., M.W. McClain, J.C. Clem, and T. Plageman.
1991. Accuracy of helicopter counts of white-tailed deer in
western Ohio farmland. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 19:309-314.
Stradtmann, M. L. 1994. Options for managing urban deer
populations. M.S. Thesis, University of Missouri -Columbia.
53pp.
c`D.n
48
yrcn
c+
�. Ver Steeg, J.M., J.H. Witham, and T.J. Beissel. Use of
bowhunting to control deer in a suburban park in Illinois.
In J.B. McAninch, ed. Urban deer - A manageable resource?
In press.
Warren, R.J., R.A. Fayrer-Hosken, L.M. White, L.P. Willis, and
R.B. Goodloe. 1994. Research and field applications of
contraceptives in white-tailed deer, feral horses, and
mountain goats. Proc. Symp. Contracept. in Wildl.
Management. In press.
Witham, J.H. 1991. Reduction of local deer herd at Rock Cut
State Park, Winnebago County. Contract Completion Rept.,
Illinois Dept. Conserv., Div. Wildl. Resourc. 41pp.
Witham, J.H., and J.M. Jones. 1992. Biology, ecology and
management of deer in the Chicago metropolitan area.
Illinois Dept. Conserv. Proj. No. W -87-R. 108pp.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The following citations, in addition to those listed in the
literature cited section, were made available to the Kent Park
Deer Management Committee and are available from Kent Park.
Bell, R.L., and T.J. Peterle. 1975. Hormone implants control
reproduction in white-tailed deer. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 3:152-
156.
i Botti, F.L. 1985. Chemosterilants as a management option for
deer on Angel Island: lessons learned. Cal.-Nev. Wildl.
Trans. p61.
Boydston, G.A. and H.G. Gore. 1987. Archery wounding loss in
Texas. Texas Parks and Wildl. Dept. 11pp.
Canham, C.D., J.B. McAninch, and D. M. Wood. 1994. Effects of
the frequency, timing, and intensity of simulated browsing
' on growth and mortality of tree seedlings. Can. J. For.
Res. 24:817-824.
Correll, D.L. 1994. Public deer hunting on lands of the
Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Draft
Environmental Assessment, Smithsonian Environmental Research
Center, Edgewater, MD. 27pp.
Deblinger, R.D. 1990. Crane Memorial Reservation and Crane
Wildlife Refuge white-tailed deer management program: annual
report, 1989. The Trustees of Reservations, Beverly, MA.
12pp.
49
� N
t i
O 1'
�7 CD
v
cn
T
0
Ellingwood, M.R., J.B. McAninch, and R.J. Winchcombe. 1983. An
evaluation of the costs and effectiveness of repellent
- applications in protecting fruit orchards. Proc. Eastern
Wildl. Damage Control Conf. 1:69.
Ellingwood, M.R., J.B. McAninch, and M.J. Fargione. 1985.
Current status of fencing in the Northeast. Proc. Eastern.
Wild. Damage Control Conf. 2:180-185.
Ellingwood, M.R., and S.L. Caturano. 1988. An evaluation of
deer management options. New England Chap. Wildl. Soc. and
LNE Deer Tech. Committee. Publ. No. DR -11. 12pp.
Gladfelter, H.L., J.M. Kienzler, and K.J. Koehler. 1983.
Effects of compound bow use on deer hunter success and
crippling rates in Iowa. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 11:7-12.
Harder, J.D. 1971. The application of an antifertility agent in
I_ the control of a white-tailed deer population. Ph.D.
dissertation, Ohio State Univ., Columbus. 162pp.
Ingebrigtsen, D.K., and J.B. McAninch. 1989. Factors affecting
deer use of hybrid corn in winter. Proc. Eastern Wildl.
Damage Control Conf. 4:173-181.
Jones, J.M., and J.H. Witham. 1990. Post -translocation survival
and movements of metropolitan white-tailed deer. Wildl.
Soc. Bull. 18(4):434-441.
Kirkpatrick, J.F. 1994. Final Report for 1993-94 Phase of the
Fire Island National Seashore Deer Immunocontraception
Project. Deaconess Research Institute Memorandum, Billings,
MT. 5pp.
Mayer, K.E. and D.E. Samuel. 1992. A review of bow wounding
literature: An annotated bibliography. Wildl. Manage. Div.
.� Admin. Rep. Number 1992-1, Calif. Fish and Game, Sacramento.
33pp.
McAninch, J.B. 1987. Repellents as deterrents to deer browsing:
principles, problems and prospects. P. 124 in Proc. Deer,
Forestry and Agriculture Symposium, U.S.D.A. Forest. Serv.,
N.E. For. Exp. Stn., Warren, PA. 183pp.
iMcAninch, J.B., Editor. Urban deer: A manageable resource? Urban
Deer Symposium, St. Louis, MO. In press.
McAninch, J.B., R.J. Winchombe, and M.R. Ellingwood. 1983.
Fence designs for deer control: A review and results of
recent research in Southeastern New York. Proc. Easter
Wildl. Damage Control Conf. 1:101. _ v:
n :.n
C:) ri u
50 r3 N
i �.o-
3r s
0
McAninch, J.B., and J.M. Parker. 1991. Urban deer management
programs: a facilitated approach. Trans. NA Wildl. & Nat.
Resourc. Conf. 56:428-436.
•I McAninch, J.B., and M.J. Osterberg. 1994. Deer whistles:
Separating fact from fiction. Farmland Wildl. Pop. and Res.
Group Tech. Rep., Minn. Dept. Nat. Resourc. 8pp.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1990. Appendix G. in
Minnesota Valley Deer Management Task Force: final report
and recommendations. Minn. Dept. Nat. Resourc. 71pp.
Palmer, D. T., D.A. Andrews, R.O. Winters, and J.W. Francis.
1980. Removal techniques to control an enclosed deer herd.
Wildl. Soc. Bull. 8:29-33.
Rice, W.R. 1976. A census and population model of the Plum
Brook deer herd. M.S. thesis, Ohio State Univ. 115pp.
Selders, A.W., and J.B. McAninch. 1987. High -tensile wire
fencing. NE Reg. Agric. Eng. Serv. Bull. 11. 28pp.
Stormer, F.A., C.M. Kirkpatrick, and T.W. Hoekstra. 1979.
Hunter -inflicted wornding of white-tailed deer. Wildl. Soc.
Bull. 7:10-16.
Stradtmann, M.L., J.B. McAninch, and E.P. Wiggers. 1994. An
evaluation of the deer reduction programs implemented in the
lower Minnesota River Valley, 1991-1994. Farmland Wildl.
Pop. and Res. Group Tech. Rep., Minnesota Dept. Nat.
Resourc., Madelia. 39pp.
Turner, J.W., Jr., I.K.M. Liu, and J.F. Kirkpatrick. 1992.
Remotely delivered immunocontraception in captive white-
tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 56:154-157.
aO
cn
n
O CJ Ca �t
X71
-i C7
-Cr
�
51