Managing white-tailed deer in an urban area: The consequences of responding to local impacts at a small liberal arts college

Background/Question/Methods

The density of white-tailed deer has been increasing throughout the United States due to declines in predation, changes in land use, and shifts in human/wildlife interactions. Unmanaged deer populations often become overabundant and negatively impact biodiversity and forest regeneration.  Although deer management is critical to the stewardship of natural areas, management plans are often difficult and controversial to implement in urbanized areas. At Vassar College, we used research findings to develop a deer management plan for our ecological preserve. We used data from deer exclosures (both on-site and locally), fecal pellet counts, and infrared flyovers to document the deer population and impacts at our site. Prior to the implementation of our management plan, we held a series of public forums and educational events to present the impacts we saw at our site, evaluate management methods, and to facilitate a discussion of suitable management methods. The college ultimately selected sharpshooting over bait as the method that accomplished our management goals safely while minimizing impacts to the local community.  The implementation of our deer management plan provides a case study for the physical, legislative, and societal challenges of managing deer in developed areas.

Results/Conclusions

Deer exclosure studies at our at our site showed greater plant diversity and sapling density in fenced areas than in adjacent unfenced areas.  Our site had 98% fewer saplings than a nearby site with an active deer management plan, therefore reduction of our deer population was required to maintain ecological diversity at our site.

We found that a lack of consistency and clarity in local and state regulations made planning and implementation of deer management difficult.  We culled 64 deer in 2010 and 11 deer in 2013.  We continue to monitor deer populations, assess deer impacts, and revisit available management options each year, updating our management strategy.

Our findings indicate that even when strong evidence of deer impacts are presented and communicated to the public, some will disagree with the management decisions.  Strong opponents to culling used legal action, harassment, misinformation campaigns, and threats in attempts to stop management even though scientific support for action was clear.  Initial engagement of the community was valuable and encouraged citizens to think about their interactions with wildlife.  However, consensus on highly controversial subjects seems highly unlikely due to differences in motive and worldview. It is unclear whether further outreach attempts would increase understanding or widen divisions within the community.