Attitudes Toward and Perceptions of Deer Management in Suburban Boston
BY
MICHAEL DEVITO
SENIOR HONORS THESIS
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Studies
Brandeis University, 2016
May 12, 2016
Waltham, Massachusetts
Adviser:
Professor Brian Donahue
1
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………………… 2
Chapter 2: Early History and Population Shifts……………………………………. 6
Chapter 3: The Development of Suburbia and a Deer Haven…………………. 17
Chapter 4: Impacts of the White-tailed Deer………………………………………… 25
Chapter 5: A History of White-tailed Deer Management………………………. 42
Chapter 6: Management Background of Surveyed Towns……………………… 56
Chapter 7: Methods and Survey Materials…………………………………………… 66
Chapter 8: Results of Survey…………………………………………....................... 68
Chapter 9: Discussion of Results……………………………………...................... 74
Sources………………………………………………………………………....................... 80
Appendix A: Boston Suburban Deer Survey……………………………........ 93
Appendix B: Survey Variables……………………………………………................ 105
2
Chapter 1: Introduction
A cool breeze blows past the car of Chicopee resident Melanie Gomes as she
travels east towards Boston on the Massachusetts Turnpike. The drive has been going
fine so far, nothing to report save the occasional distracted driver or tailgater. The
summer sun descends until the trees lining the sides of the roadway are lit by twilight's
fading glow. Occasionally, she notices a subtle shift of color from the side of the road.
She does not spare it a second thought. She knows all kinds of critters can be
encountered in the roadside habitats, whether attracted to road salt accumulation or
foraging opportunities. Suddenly, her headlights reflect three pairs of wide glowing eyes
watching her from the side of the highway. Instinctively, Ms. Gomes swerves into the
left lane and the eyes quickly vanish as she speeds by.
She knows that those eyes belonged to a group of White-tailed deer, known in the
scientific community as Odocoileus virginianus. She might tell herself that it would
have been silly for one of those deer to suddenly have jumped out at her, had it not
happened to her sister: "My sister hit a deer three years ago. It leapt into the road right
in front of her car. She had to go to the hospital for a broken wrist and the car repairs
were around $3,000. She said that it was the scariest moment in her life.”1 Her sister
had struck a deer on the back roads of a suburban town farther east, but even at a lower
speed, her car was significantly damaged, and she was very shaken.
A native of Massachusetts, New England, or anywhere in the entire northeast
would have little trouble believing Ms. Gomes' story. Many people personally know
someone, whether it be a friend or family member, who has been impacted by the
1
Gomes, Melanie. Personal Interview. Feb 25, 2016.
3
White-tailed deer in some way. Deer related vehicle collisions are not uncommon
occurrences.
Landowners often complain about property damage caused by deer. Gardens,
landscaping, and any other greens the deer like to eat are sure to be picked at in an area
with a relatively high deer density. The issue is especially important to farmers, who can
be severely economically impacted by deer destroying their crops.2 Another problem
caused by the growing deer population is the increase in Lyme disease cases. Lyme
disease is now one of the fastest growing health concerns in communities where Whitetailed deer are prominent, including in Massachusetts. For instance, the Massachusetts
Department of Public Health wrote that in 2005, Massachusetts had the fourth highest
incidence rate (number of new cases per 100,000 people) of Lyme disease nationwide. 3
In 2013 there were 4,080 confirmed cases of Lyme disease reported and over a
thousand suspected cases—a 12% increase from the previous year.4 These impacts have
been occurring for decades, with current management procedures unable to
significantly curb vehicle accidents, ecological damage, and Lyme disease.
While she may not have realized it, Ms. Gomes had become part of a
controversial ecological issue. White-tailed deer have played an important role in
ecosystems and the environment for thousands of years. Their overabundance and
subsequent impacts on the environment and human society have been attracting the
attention of conservationists, stakeholders, landowners, residents, animal rights groups,
2
Richard Nelson, Heart and Blood: Living with Deer in America, New York: Vintage Books, 1997, 292.
“Frequently asked questions about Lyme Disease”, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Accessed March
4, 2016, http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/gov/departments/dph/programs/id/epidemiology/ticks/public-healthcdc-tickborne-lyme-faq.html#2
4
“Lyme Disease Surveillance in Massachusetts, 2013”. Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Accessed
March 8, 2016, http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/dph/cdc/lyme/lyme-disease-surveillance-2013.pdf
3
4
and residents like Ms. Gomes. The deer-society dynamic has changed in the last few
decades and more so in the last few hundred years. The situation with the White-tailed
deer has become one of the most pressing ecological concerns in the northeastern forest,
especially in suburban communities. In order to address this issue, it would be
beneficial to have a better understand the effect public knowledge of wildlife
management has on the decisions made regarding the White-tailed deer overabundance.
Current literature can answer the question of how our relationship with Whitetailed deer has come to be this way. In fact, the literature on deer is quite extensive. We
have a very good idea of the impacts the White-tailed deer on society and why they
occur. A lot of effort and research has gone into building a picture of the White-tail's
past and ancient history—from the arrival of European settlers to the creation of 20th
century suburbs.
Deer management has been addressed differently in suburban communities.
While research has been done on the nature of management discussions, there are still
gray areas on the subject of attitudes and information sharing and their effect on deer
management outcomes. It would be valuable to look deeper at residents’ general
knowledge on management issues, and observe how that level of understanding might
change during the course of a management discussion and after a management system
is implemented.
This study looks at five towns in suburban Boston: Sudbury, Weston, Wayland,
Lincoln, and Concord. These towns are in the same geographical region with similar
socioeconomic structures and political views, yet their approaches to deer management
have differed. An excellent opportunity to delve into the significance of public
understanding and attitudes involved in deer management emerges when the towns to
5
be surveyed are so similar. Residents often enjoy the encounters with White-tailed deer,
while others also recognize and perceive the impacts associated with their
overpopulation.5 For town-level management of White-tailed deer to succeed, managers
must first understand residents’ awareness of management strategies and attitudes
towards wildlife, recreation, and hunting in their town.
The potential for education and information sharing to play a role in the
management discussion and the selection of techniques would be of great practical use
to stakeholders and town governments. The technical aspects of deer control must be
balanced with socially-acceptable solutions that minimize conflict between different
stakeholders in the region and can gain a broad consensus.
The primary research presented in this paper is a survey titled “Boston Suburban
Deer Survey” (BSDS). This survey was compiled with advice from community
conservationists and sent to residents from the five towns. Here, residents are
confronted with the benefits and the problems associated with a high White-tailed deer
population. The survey focuses on attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors of individuals
related to recreational forest use and deer management. Public education on the issue
will likely be a significant contributing factor in what management decisions are made,
if any. Moreover, the management strategy and decision making process should also
lead to more educated residents, assuming that the discussion between the players and
stakeholders is informed.
The study itself and its results will be presented following the contextualization of
the survey. This includes a background of White-tail population trends, management
5
Conover, Michael R.. 1997. “Monetary and Intangible Valuation of Deer in the United States”. Wildlife Society
Bulletin (1973-2006) 25 (2). [Wiley, Wildlife Society]: 298–305. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3783447.
6
strategies and history, and delving into the impacts of White-tails and the relationship
they have had with humans during the last few hundred years. The presented history of
White-tailed deer follows the herd’s population dynamics as they were both hunted and
protected by humans. From the Pleistocene extinctions to the creation of suburbia, the
interactions between people and deer largely shaped the future size of the national deer
population. Another factor beginning to more significantly affect the deer population is
the eastern coyote, whose own population has been on the rise. The societal and
ecological impacts of White-tailed deer are important to discuss, as they are responsible
for many of the controversies surrounding deer management. Wildlife management
tools themselves play a part in unraveling why residents have so many different
opinions on how management should be carried out. Moreover, it is beneficial to
understand how these different management techniques work and when they will or will
not be efficient tools for a community to use. The towns involved in the study have
different deer management backgrounds, but significant similarities, which make the
studied region optimal for a case study.
Chapter 2: Early History and Population Shifts
Odocoilieus virginianus, commonly known as the White-tailed deer, is a critically
important species in the ecological history of the United States. The White-tailed deer
was one of the few large mammalian browsers to survive the Pleistocene extinctions,
which gave it a notable advantage in dominating the northeastern forest.6 Deer had a
6
Steve Wolverton. "The Terminal Pleistocene Extinctions in North America, Hypermorphic Evolution, and the
Dynamic Equilibreum Model". Journal of Ethnobiology 29(1): 28-63. Spring/Summer 2009.
http://www.academia.edu/244230/The_Terminal_Pleistocene_Extinctions_in_North_America_Hypermorp
hic_Evolution_and_the_Dynamic_Equilibrium_Model
7
notable place in the history of the American Indians who inhabited the Americas before
colonization occurred. The American Indians largely shaped the environment around
them to the deer's benefit, helping to expand their herd. White-tails are no less
important now, as their current population is responsible for considerable damages and
concerns in many suburban communities.
The White-tailed deer is thought to impact the environment in the United States
on a level second only to humans.7 This is the result of a combination of factors
including increased suburbanization, stricter hunting laws, and decreased predation.
Moreover, the size and state of the present day deer herd is the outcome of a hunting
regime put in place a century ago with the intent to increase the population of Whitetails. The population of White-tails has rapidly grown in the last hundred years, making
their impacts more noticeable in everyday life and in the environment around us.8
Consequently, the White-tailed deer has become one of the most controversial species in
America, with its management being a common debate topic throughout the northeast.
Because of their larger ecological influence, it is imperative that we understand the deer
as best we can, so that we can formulate strategies for deer management that are more
efficient, and more acceptable to the public.
The White-tailed deer is regarded as one of the most widespread browsers in
America and also as a majestic natural icon. The natural history of the White-tailed deer
in America gives context to their situation today, in terms of their resistances and
vulnerabilities to different environmental and human pressures. Understanding how the
7
Allen Pursell, Troy Weldy and Mark, White, "Too Many Deer: A Bigger Threat to Eastern Forests Than Climate
Change?", Cool Green Science. Accessed October 13, 2015, http://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/toomany-deer/
8
Tania M Schusler,"Ecological Impacts of High Deer Densities", Ecological Society of America,
http://www.esa.org/tiee/vol/v2/issues/figure_sets/deer/overview.html
8
White-tailed deer succeeded and suffered to become a thriving browser in the
northeastern forest and across America can contextualize their current status.
It is thought that White-tailed deer might be one of the oldest animal species in
America, considering that White-tail fossils found in Florida dated back to more than
three million years ago. It is believed that White-tailed deer are descended from the
closely related Odocoileus brachyodontus, which are thought to have crossed the land
bridge during the Miocene.9 The environment and species composition which the
Paleoindians encountered was different than what they had previously been exposed to.
Mile high glaciers were receding, and huge browsers lumbered virgin forests. Giant
mastodons, 400 pound beavers, and 20-foot-long sloths are examples of browsers
whose ecological influence was likely greater than that of the White-tailed deer at the
time that the Pleistocene extinctions began.10 The Paleoindians were hunters and
gatherers who are presumed to have primarily hunted the megafauna which roamed the
lands that they traveled through as they moved southward. These megafauna and
smaller species had never seen humans before, and were unaware of their dangerous
and destructive potential11.
What separated the deer from these other browsers and gave them an advantage
in surviving the Paleoindian hunting onslaught turned out to be a combination of traits
and instincts. When a deer senses danger or has even a slight sense of discomfort, it will
flee. By bolting away from perceived threats, the White-tails boasted a superior
Mark Gelbart, “The Amazing Adaptable Whitetail Deer (Odocoileus virginiana)”. Georgia Before People,
accessed April 5, 2016, https://markgelbart.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/the-amazing-adaptable-whitetaildeer-odocoileus-virginiana/
10
Shepard Krech III, The Ecological Indian: Myth and History, New York: W.W. Norton, 1999.
11
Ibid., 35.
9
9
survivability. Moreover, their rapid rate of reproduction also helped them to escape the
destruction that befell their competition.
Around the same time as the Pleistocene extinctions, the White-tailed deer are
speculated to have diverged again through the hybridization of Black-tail bucks and
White-tailed does. This is the speculation behind the origin of the species called Mule
deer which are found in modern day western America.12 The decline of species of
megafauna dramatically altered the ecosystems in which the Paleoindians lived.
Vegetation in certain areas changed, making it even harder for the remaining
megafauna to survive. The decline of big browsers proved to be a boon to the deer herd
as they became the apex browser over a large range.
After American Indian tribes adapted and implemented new tactics for altering
their environment. Burning the underbrush of a forest provided the ideal conditions for
many berry bushes to grow.13 The increased abundance of berry plants and other species
attracted deer, making it easier for the American Indians to hunt them.
The American Indians impacted the environment through their agriculture,
hunting practices, and their use of fire. There has been debate over how many American
Indians inhabited North America prior to the arrival of Europeans. Using generous
calculations, it is believed that the American Indians may have directly influenced about
1% of the eastern forest, though their interactions with the forest indirectly affected a
wider area.14 This 1% figure would be reasonable for land used for agriculture. American
Indians may not have had a large influence on a large area of the eastern forest, but they
12
Valerius Geist, Deer of the World: Their Evolution, Behavior and Ecology, Stackpole Books, 1998, 272.
"Native American Use of Fire", USDA Forest Service, Accessed October 14, 2015,
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fire_poster/nativeamer.htm
14
Louis S. Warren, American Environmental History, Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2003.
13
10
had more of an impact on the areas in which they lived and traveled. The American
Indians had a good understanding of sustainable practices. It is clear that they altered
the environment in ways that often positively benefited the White-tail population. By
having the landscape tailored to them, the White-tailed deer were able to expand their
herd to a size which was presumably larger than it had ever been.
It has been debated, however, how much and in what ways the American Indians
manipulated the White-tail population. There is no question that the American Indian's
relationship with the White-tails would qualify as management by our modern
standards. Through hunting and their use of fire they kept the deer at a fairly regulated
level, even if they did so unintentionally15. They also reduced the White-tail’s numbers
and other populations around their settlements to a point where they would not be in
competition for the crops which they were growing16. While the population of Whitetails may have been larger or smaller than their herd today, the answers to some
questions on early White-tail history and management can be answered by studying how
the American Indians influenced their environment.
Calculations of the estimated White-tailed deer population at any point in time
are exceedingly difficult. Even without accurate estimates, we know that the population
of the White-tailed deer has been in flux since the population presumably greatly
increased following the Pleistocene extinctions. Ernest Thompson Seton, one of the
pioneers of the Boy Scouts, estimated that the pre-European White-tail population was
about 40 million deer, at 4 deer/km sq. This work was done from the 1920s-1940s, and
15
16
David G. Hewitt, Biology and Management of White-tailed Deer, CRC Press, 2011, 358.
C. C. Mann, 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2005.
11
was not challenged until the 1984 study by McCabe and McCabe17. The McCabe study
concluded that the White-tails probably numbered anywhere from 23.6-32.9 million18.
In both cases, these estimates rode on many entangled factors. Seton originally guessed
that there were around 20 million deer in America before its colonization, and then
doubled his guess twenty years later. Considering that he lacked vital information which
McCabe and McCabe possessed, his estimates seemed fairly sound. Seton's information
“was gathered through vast accumulation of anecdotal and secondary accounts of
animal numbers witnessed by explorers, fur traders, hunters, settlers and others.” 19
McCabe and McCabe avoided firsthand accounts, since they often provided
inaccurate results. The excitement at the discovery of the new world was evident in
many of these historic accounts with the potential to exaggerate numerical estimates
and subsequently losing credibility in serious research. McCabe and McCabe had access
to many archeological reports, trade records, and other sources which Seton did not.
One of the key factors was an estimation of American Indian demographics before the
Europeans arrived, which was very difficult to determine. Once there was a very rough
estimate of how many deer were utilized annually for food and clothing by the American
Indians, it was easier for McCabe and McCabe to make their estimates. They came up
with an estimated range of population, though it was understood that the deer
population, like any other species, was likely in flux.
The White-tailed deer population was estimated at around 25-30 million two
decades ago.20 However, McCabe and McCabe did not address the differences in deer
17
J. W. McShea, B. H. Underwood, And J. H. Rappole, "The Science of Overabundance: Deer Ecology and
Population Management", Wildlife Society Bulletin. Vol. 25, No. 2, Deer Overabundance, 13.
18
Ibid, 15.
19
Ibid., 12.
20
D. R. McCullough, White-tailed deer: ecology and management, Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 1986, 211-
12
density across their estimated territorial range in their population estimation. This
oversight overlooks the difference in deer density within different kinds of
environments. For example, deer densities would have been much higher in forested
areas and areas managed with fire by the Native Americans before the Europeans
arrived. It may be the case that our more recent population estimations are similar, but
deer are now found in very different densities in suburban regions and in forested areas
compared to other location types. Not even a century before, the estimated population
of White-tailed deer in America was down to a mere 300,000-500,000.21 It is also
known that the population has seen several immense fluctuations since the arrival of the
Europeans. Figuring out this puzzle and mapping the changes in the population of
White-tails over time can help give us key information about the natural and ecological
history of deer for use in deer management debates.
The first phase of change, “from 1500 to the early 1800s,” after the pre-European
condition of landscape management and subsistence harvest by Native people was
“characterized by massive harvest, primarily at the hands of Indians smitten with trader
geegaws, metalwares, guns, alcohol, textiles and promises.”22 This is a patronizing
summary of a more complex trade relationship which no doubt served many American
Indian groups well for long periods of time, though they did in fact often end with
dependency. The appeal of European arms and goods resulted in a great reduction in
the populations of deer, beavers, and other animals as the fur trade quickly expanded.
According to McCabe and McCabe, this surge of hunting may have reduced the White-
242.
David G. Hewitt, Biology and Management of White-tailed Deer, CRC Press, 2011, 359.
22
J. W. McShea, B. H. Underwood, And J. H. Rappole, "The Science of Overabundance: Deer Ecology and
Population Management", Wildlife Society Bulletin. Vol. 25, No. 2, Deer Overabundance, 16.
21
13
tail population by 35%-50%, but it was “by no means devastated”23. The destruction of
the forests to make way for farmland likely had little effect on the deer population. The
diverse agrarian and wooded landscape that was created was still perfectly good deer
habitat. In many cases it was probably even better than dense forest. The White-tails
had an expansive range, so increased hunting did not force any large number of deer to
migrate into new territory. This decrease, however, also coincided with the decline in
the American Indian population. Although their population was significantly reduced,
the allure of European goods was enough to increase hunting pressures to the point
where the number of White-tails hunted by American Indians annually likely reached its
peak.24
This dynamic may have changed during the population growth of White-tails
from 1800 to around 186525. With the decline of American Indians, their influence on
the landscape and environment disappeared as well. This resulted in a “modest”
increase in the population of White-tails compared to the pre-Columbian numbers26.
McCabe and McCabe speculate, however, that these population increases were seen in
mostly new habitats.
As hunting pressures by both American Indians producing trade goods and
Europeans creating agrarian landscapes increased, the number of deer was
consequently reduced. Rapidly advancing frontier settlement and logging presumably
created improved deer habitat in many areas, yet in many places hunting pressure had
either eliminated deer already or kept their numbers down. The conclusion reached was
23
Ibid., 16.
Hewitt, David G., "Biology and Management of White-tailed Deer". CRC Press. 2011 .358.
25
J. W. McShea, B. H. Underwood, And J. H. Rappole, "The Science of Overabundance: Deer Ecology and
Population Management", Wildlife Society Bulletin. Vol. 25, No. 2, Deer Overabundance, 16.
26
Ibid.
24
14
that a lag between the decline of American Indians and the increase in European farmer
and market hunting may have existed, which allowed a rebounding of deer in some
areas.
The next period in White-tail history shows the greatest decline in the White-tail
population in a single 50-year period. From 1850-1900, more wildlife was being hunted
in the United States than ever had been before27. By 1920, the deer population was
estimated to have fallen to around 300,000-500,000, which pales before the preColumbian estimates. This period is often referred to as the “era of exploitation.” This
period included a rise in relatively unregulated hunting, as well as intensive logging.
Arguably this logging would benefit the deer herd, as it would a few decades later.
Wildlife sanctuaries did not exist at this time, meaning that in combination with
negligible hunting restrictions deer, were not safe from hunters anywhere.
During Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency, greater ethical considerations
surrounding deer management were taken, though it would be a while until these
attitudes would have a significant impact on the deer population. Hewitt explains that
“in 1887, [Roosevelt] founded the Boone and Crocket Club, and the Club's Fair Chase
statement was the first document outlining a code of conduct and ethics for sportsmen.
This statement later became the cornerstone for today's game laws.”28 Several states had
different hunting regulations already in place, but this statement of hunter's ethics
would focus hunting mindsets towards the direction of sustainable hunting. In 1900,
27
28
Ibid.
David Hewitt, Biology and Management of White-tailed Deer, CRC Press, 2011, 358.
15
during the end of the “era of exploitation” white-tailed deer faced actual extinction for
the first time in their recorded history.29
Following the population minimum from 1900-1930, the White-tailed deer began
to enter a period of recovery and growth. This growth continued throughout the century,
though now it may be plateauing overall despite rapid growth in some communities.
This period of recovery is particularly important when studying the natural and
ecological history of the White-tailed deer in America. This period outlines the events
which transpired in order for the deer to thrive again. Elements of this recovery began
as early as the previously mentioned statement of ethics: “Some states enacted
legislation to protect deer and other wildlife as early as the mid-seventeenth century.
However, it was nearly 200 years later (1878) before the first game wardens were hired
[...] so many protective measures were unenforceable.”30 From around the beginning of
the twentieth century until now, we have seen the birth and growth of environmental
and wildlife protection efforts and acts.
The twentieth century ushered in the age of wildlife protection, and so its history
is intertwined with the increased protection and growth of White-tailed deer. These new
developments were not always geared specifically towards the deer, but their
establishments often had a positive effect on the growth of the deer population: “The
Lacey Act of 1900 provided the first real protection for wildlife [...] This act inhibited
interstate transport of illegally killed wildlife [...] and it helped to effectively bring an
end to market hunting.”31 Market hunting accounted for a large portion of annual
29
Ibid., 359.
Ibid., 359.
31
Ibid.
30
16
White-tail deaths, as the White-tailed deer industry had always been large and took
advantage of lax or nonexistent regulations. With the essential end of market hunting,
deer were able to enjoy a greatly reduced death rate from the beginning of the century.
This certainly had a considerable impact on the further benefits which the White-tails
would later enjoy.
The late nineteenth century and early twentieth century also gave rise to the first
environmental agencies and to the field of game management itself: “Beginning in the
late 1890s and continuing through the early 1900s, most state wildlife agencies were
formed [...] In 1933, the University of Wisconsin published Aldo Leopold's Game
Management [...] and a new profession was born.”32 Game management as a field of
study and profession would ensure the long-term conservation of animal species which
may have been previously threatened, including the White-tailed deer.
The United States Forest Service and National Park Service would provide deer
with crucial habitats. It is likely that these new habitats had a significant effect on
increasing the White-tail's population. A series of wildlife protection acts followed the
formation of these wildlife agencies. One of the most successful proved to be the Wildlife
Restoration Act passed in 193733: “The legislation was a cooperation between states,
Federal Government, conservation groups and the sporting arms industry”34. Under this
Act, states could receive aid for wildlife restoration programs. A new tax on hunting
firearms was a part of the act which helped ensure that all hunting would be done legally
and worked to curb excessive hunting. It is important to stress, however, that the limited
32
Ibid.
"Wildlife Restoration Act", U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, accessed October 3, 2015,
http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/GrantPrograms/WR/WR_Act.htm
34
Ibid.
33
17
hunting seasons and buck laws were deliberately designed to increase the size of the
herd.
Areas of the eastern forest, which had been clearcut by European loggers during
the 19th century, were growing back naturally. These habitats provided the White-tails
with a level of browse they had likely never been able to access in those regions. These
re-growing areas of logged forest were then followed by good habitat on abandoned
farmland.35 The recovering deer population significantly benefited from these two
waves of habitat. Though the battle over land conservation strategy was more prevalent
in the West where the lumber industry was focused, there were still discrepancies over
how land in the eastern forest would be managed and maintained.36 Deer management
at this time was entirely geared towards boosting the rebound of the species. This is key
to understanding how the growth of suburbia would continue to support a rapidly
growing deer herd.
Chapter 3: The Development of Suburbia and a Deer Haven
The next greatest influence on the White-tail population would be the
suburbanization movement following World War II. Suburbanization represents one of
America's greatest lifestyle changes, one which would have a tremendous impact on how
society and deer interacted. Suburbia also indirectly supported the ability of deer to
rapidly expand their population in the northeast. Increased urbanization in big cities
caused a rapid influx of immigrants to arrive with the desire to work and live in them.
35
Jim Sterba, Nature Wars: The Incredible Story of How Wildlife Comebacks Turned Backyards into Battlegrounds,
New York: Crown Publishers, 36.
36
The Greatest Good. Directed by Dunsky, Steve, Steinke, Dave. 2005. Documentary.
18
This influx of people resulted in the need for American cities to expand. A characteristic
of this was the growing mentality in cities like Boston and New York City where the
wealthy believed themselves to be above the congestion and noise of the city. This
mentality, coupled with rising xenophobia over the increasing number of immigrants
living in the cities, prompted many members of the upper class to move to the
countryside either permanently or for part of the year. This shift in population starting
in the early 1820's marked the beginning of the creation of the suburbs.37
Though these people generally wanted to live in areas considered to be separated
from the city, they were unwilling to part from the urban amenities that they were used
to, like a good water system and good roads. Consequently, as was the case in New York
City, Boston, and many other American cities, these amenities were provided and many
suburbs became expansions of the cities from which they were trying to separate
Consequently, suburbs became more and more like cities, but were still enough like
rural countryside that they became a better habitat for deer. The resulting suburbs
proved to be an entirely new kind of ecosystem, one which the White-tailed deer would
soon dominate.
The present ecological history of the White-tailed deer in the northeast really
began when suburbanization in those areas changed the lifestyles of the families and
communities that lived there. The aforementioned initial air of “affluence [...] limited
hunter access and increased deer-vehicle collisions resulting from commuters traveling
[...] during peak activity times for white-tails.”38 It is important to remember that at the
time of early suburbanization the population of White-tailed deer was greatly
37
38
Dobriner, William M. Class in Suburbia. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963.
David Hewitt, Biology and Management of White-tailed Deer, CRC Press, 2011, 360.
19
diminished. Suburbanites were not encroaching on and destroying the homes of deer,
but rather were beginning to construct the ideal deer habitat. When deer in the Weston
and Sudbury areas for example began to rebound and adapt to the new suburban
environment, the towns had already been established in nearly their present form.
The release of Bambi in 1942 was especially provocative and is considered one of
the greatest animated influences on our vision of wildlife of all time.39 The film's
message would influence suburban lifestyles and mindsets, instilling a mentality that
has persisted to this day. This film has an even more important place in the world where
deer can now be so commonly spotted, and variations of the term “Bambi killer” have
now become labels for hunters by many anti-hunting groups. Bambi takes place within a
magical forest where animals of all types are interacting harmoniously and living in
peace—a forest where the human, or more specifically, the hunter, is the only aggressor
which throws the system out of balance. This was a terribly unfortunate portrayal of the
natural world. This forest had animals interacting in ways they never would, and falsely
portrayed the forest as being in perfect order when untouched by humans. The mindset
of deer as victims of humans’ destructiveness is still prevalent, and influences some
residents’ opinions on White-tailed deer overabundance, even in the face of health and
safety concerns.
After the deer population began to recover more rapidly from the growth of new
forest, restocking and translocation programs were implemented all around the country
in order to help the population grow and spread back into the regions where they were
39
Richard Nelson. Heart and Blood: Living with Deer in America, New York: Vintage Books, 1997, 271.
20
once commonly found.40 These programs stayed in effect mostly until 1960-197041 and
were largely effective in spreading the population of White-tailed deer back across the
northeast. With the increase in White-tailed deer, wildlife agencies expanded on their
approach for deer management which “allowed for maximum recreational opportunity
for sportsmen while concurrently allowing for deer population growth.”42 This approach
entailed the protection of all does and fawns, but allowed any type of antlered buck to
still be hunted. Restocking occurred alongside the re-growth of the eastern forest until
the prime forest habitat was superseded by abandoned farmland, and then
suburbanizing landscapes.
As populations of deer in the northeast rise and their impacts become more
apparent, more and more towns have had discussions about White-tail management.
Though the outcomes can range from alterations in hunting seasons and regulations to
the use of contraceptives to try to halt the birth rate in an area, many of the arguments
leading to those conclusions are similar. As previously mentioned, the adverse effects of
a high deer density include increased collisions, increased incidence of contraction of
Lyme disease, and increased property damage. Hunting groups and humane
associations are often at odds when they are both involved in a community’s
management decision. For an analysis and contextualization of deer management
debates, the impacts deer have in suburban communities should be understood.
With the decline of bobcats, wolves, bears, and other wild predators of deer in
suburban areas, deer no longer face predation the same way they used to. However,
40
David Hewitt, Biology and Management of White-tailed Deer, CRC Press, 2011, 360.
Ibid.
42
Ibid.
41
21
suburban society has introduced two new threats into the equation. Domesticated dogs
are new killers along with the growing population of eastern coyote. Richard Nelson
refers to domesticated dogs as “the single most important non-human predators of deer
in North America today.”43 It's true that dogs are numerous, and if untrained, have the
potential for aggressive tendencies towards animals they view as threats of invaders of
territory. Statistically, in terms of total deer killed by any single animal species, this label
is correct. John Ozoga, a well-known deer researcher and author wrote, “dogs are most
perilous to young fawns, but they frequently kill adult deer [...] and their chasing of
undernourished deer during late winter likely contributes to additional stress and death
of some deer that might have otherwise survived”.44 Dogs have conversely been deemed
more of a pest or annoyance than a real predator.45 Multiple studies have been
conducted on the interactions of feral dogs and White-tailed deer. While there is
controversy over just how much dogs can affect deer, it is clear that there is an
important correlation. When deer densities are high, feral dogs are more likely to be
aggressive towards deer.46 The idea that deer numbers are currently too high to be
significantly impacted by non-human predators may not be as true as predation skeptics
believe.
Predation of White-tailed deer has changed significantly with the rise of the
eastern coyote. Like deer, coyotes are becoming emboldened and have been seen more
frequently across the northeast and in suburban communities. Dan Bogan suggests that
“this is partly due to coyotes' increasing populations during the past few decades, and
43
Richard Nelson. Heart and Blood: Living with Deer in America, New York: Vintage Books, 1997, 29.
Ibid.
45
P. S. Gipson, and J. A. Sealander, “Home range and activity of the coyote (Canis latrans frust a) in
Arkansas”. Game and Fish Comm., 1972.
46
M. D. Scott, and K. Causey. “Ecology of feral dogs in Alabama” J. Wildl. Manage. 37:253-265, 1973.
44
22
also because of their ability to adapt to their environment, including areas of human
development.”47 Coyotes have been filling the niches left by the other major predators
that have been in decline for years, claiming a range likely equally as vast as the Whitetailed deer. As such, it is not surprising that the eastern Coyote is a predator of Whitetailed deer, hunting them in a similar way to wolves.
The SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry examined corpses of
deer killed during the winter and summer seasons in 2008-2009 and found that “during
the winter, only 8% of adult deer had been killed conclusively by coyotes. The remaining
92% were scavenged by coyotes after being killed by vehicles and other injuries.” 48
Wolves and coyotes usually test White-tails in order to identify injured, young, and
otherwise disadvantaged deer which they will then proceed to hunt. It is generally a
misconception that wolves are bloodthirsty killers who frequently exhibit wanton
violence, though coyotes are known to exhibit more bloodthirsty tendencies. This is
especially true when coyote pups are born and mothers may go after anything they can
find for food. This is another important example of how misinformation and perceptions
can have an extreme effect on the opinions of uneducated residents and stakeholders,
stressing the importance of an educated and open-minded discussion on any wildlife
issue.
It should be understood that coyotes are very much related to wolves and that the
eastern coyote itself is a hybrid of wolves and coyotes. This hybrid is also called the
coywolf: “Genetic studies reveal that the coyotes of northeastern America — which are
Dan Bogan, “Rise of the Eastern Coyote”, New York State Conservationist, Department of Environmental
Conservation, accessed April 14, 2016, http://www.dec.ny.gov/pubs/97143.html
48
“Eastern Coyote”, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, accessed April 2, 2016,
http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/9359.html
47
23
bigger than their cousins elsewhere — carry wolf genes that their ancestors picked up
through interbreeding.”49 It has long been the belief that White-tail numbers are too
great to be significantly affected by predation, even with the rise of the eastern coyote.
However, research has emerged in the last few decades contesting this: “John Kilgo, a
wildlife biologist with the US Forest Service in New Ellenton, South Carolina, and his
colleagues found in a 2010 study that South Carolina's deer population started to
decline when coyotes arrived in the late 1980s.”50 Natural predation of deer is a valid
vein of discussion, though the effect coyotes have on a regional deer population now is
likely relatively low. Deer are remarkably good at recovering population losses in areas
where they are hunted, and should be able to do the same in areas where they may be
preyed on by coyotes. Even if the effect coyotes have on the population of deer is not
large, it is a factor which may need to be factored into a town's management plan.
Coyotes are becoming more emboldened and can be found in any suburban
environment. Additionally, they have been spotted living in actual cities such as New
York City and Boston. Coyotes are not nearly as great a danger to humans as
domesticated animals like cats and dogs are. There have only been a handful of attacks
on humans by coyotes in the last 70 years in Massachusetts, as coyotes are still wild
animals who generally wish to avoid contact with humans, though they can be very
dangerous for domesticated animals and pets.51
Like wolves, coyotes can sustain themselves by eating a large number of rodents.
Their main prey of a larger size is White-tailed deer. In areas with a growing number of
Sharon Levy, “Rise of the Coyote: The New Top Dog”, Nature, accessed April 11, 2016,
http://www.nature.com/news/rise-of-the-coyote-the-new-top-dog-1.10635
50
Ibid.
51
Kate Evans, “Coyote Population on rise in Medford, Across Massachusetts”, Medford Transcript, accessed March
28, 2016, http://medford.wickedlocal.com/article/20150305/NEWS/150309083
49
24
coyotes, it is possible that the deer population could decrease. A reduction in population
size would likely come from the tendency of coyotes to hunt fawns. With a lower deer
population, the incidence of human Lyme disease would likely decrease, as well as the
number of fatal human-deer vehicle collisions. Understanding that the eastern coyote
and humans can mutually live together without major issue could result in healthier
community ecosystems, as well as an improvement to societal health and safety through
the potential reduction of the White-tailed deer population.
There is some interesting psychology at work which has made the White-tailed
deer valued more than many other wild creatures. Deer are beautiful and majestic
creatures, moving swiftly, silently, and gracefully through fields and forests and now
even streets and backyards: “Interestingly we seldom appreciate the loveliness of
common things- like seagulls, crows and dandelions- but we care fervently about deer,
which attests to their extraordinary qualities.”52 Humans also generally find the faces of
other mammals more attractive compared to those of other species like reptiles or
insects. People enjoy seeing an animal gracing them with its presence, especially when
they believe that the animal is not seen very frequently.
It is important to note the economic value of the White-tailed deer as well as the
aesthetic because it fuels both many positive and negative attitudes towards the species:
“Research on attitudes toward nature affirms that Americans and Canadians value deer
more highly than any other wild creature.”53 While Richard Nelson meant this from
mainly an aesthetic standpoint, though the statement holds true for an economic
perspective as well. The figures for the White-tail industry in America truly match the
52
53
Richard Nelson, Heart and Blood: Living with Deer in America, New York: Vintage Books, 1997, 19.
Ibid.
25
importance of the species. In 2011, an estimated 34 billion dollars were spent on
hunting related expenditures:54 “To be conservative, let's peg deer hunting's share at [...]
50%. This would mean that if deer hunting [...] were a single corporation, it’s seventeen
billion dollars in annual revenues would place it 154th in the most recent Fortune 500
listing.”55 Though market hunting for deer is no longer possible, the industry created
around recreational hunting of deer is still enormous. Many outdoor retailers have the
majority of their hunting apparel and gear sections catered towards those who will be
hunting for deer in the upcoming season because deer hunting expenditures are so
great. Their status as the most economically important big game species only makes
debating their management more difficult and controversial. Deer and deer hunting
pump a huge amount of money into the economy annually, but are also responsible for a
tremendous amount of monetary damage.
Chapter 4: Impacts of the White-tailed Deer
White-tailed deer overabundance is increasingly important due to their harmful
impacts on both society and the environment: “Gortazar et al. (2006) introduces and
defines the term overabundance as when a species is affecting human well-being,
affecting the fitness of the species itself, reducing the presence of other economically
viable or aesthetically pleasing species.”56 The three pieces given in Gortazar’s definition
are the same idea as social, ecological, and biological carrying capacities. Nationally,
54
Al Cambronne, Deerland: America's Hunt for Ecological Balance and the Essence of Wildness, Rowman &
Littlefield Publishing Group, 2013, 24.
55
Ibid.
56
Kelsey Jensen, Mary McGee, Alexandra Shapiro, and Arielle Sperling, “Public Perception of Whitetail Deer in
Hamilton, NY: Survey Results and Recommendations”, Upstate Institute Student Research, accessed April
5, 2016, http://commons.colgate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=upstate_student
26
contraction rates of Lyme disease from the Ixodes scapularis tick have almost tripled in
the last two decades.57 Moreover, the number of car collisions with deer have increased,
as well as the average number of crash fatalities over the last two decades 58. The costs
from property damaged by deer, removal prices after accidents and increases in
insurance payments are considerably large. The average collision results in slightly less
than $3,000 in damages and insurance, which is an increase from averages more than
ten years ago.5960 An estimated 1-4 billion dollars are spent every year on these
activities.61 Deer are also impacting the environment by damaging landscaping plants
and gardens and having the potential to change ecosystem dynamics in wooded areas.
Deer have a strained relationship with many farmers. For example, in 1998, the
estimated monetary loss in Pennsylvania from White-tailed deer browsing of crops was
$100 million dollars.62 There are certain laws which, in many cases, prevent farmers
from taking effective action against deer browsing their crops, causing farmers much
distress and anger. This same fight happened centuries before. A Swiss immigrant's
report on land in Wisconsin in 1848 says, “When our cabbages in the garden were nearly
fully grown, they were almost all eaten up one night by a lot of deer which had jumped
the fence, within a hundred feet of our dwelling, and regaled themselves at our
expense.”63 These damages decreased when the White-tailed deer population dropped
57
"Reported Cases of Lyme Disease by Year, United States, 1995-2014", Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, accessed October 4, 2015, http://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/chartstables/casesbyyear.html
58
"Total National Animal-Vehicle Fatal Crashes and Fatalities". Deer Vehicle Crash Information Clearinghouse,
accessed October 5, 2015, http://www.deercrash.org/states/national_data.htm
59
“Colliding with deer is costly, especially for some vehicles”, The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, accessed
April 14, 2016, http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/49/9/3
60
“Wildlife-Vehicle Collision Reduction Study: Report to Congress”, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/08034/03.cfm
61
"Car and Deer Collisions Cause 200 Deaths, Cost $4 Billion Per Year", Insurance Journal, accessed October
2, 2015, http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2012/10/24/267786.htm
62
Richard Nelson, Heart and Blood: Living with Deer in America, New York: Vintage Books, 1997, 291.
63
Ibid.
27
dramatically after they were hunted by Europeans and Native Americans. Crop
protection permits against deer damages developed later across the country, partially as
a response to farmers’ outbursts when they found it difficult to protect their crops from
a problem that had not been as serious when the deer population was lower. A variety of
methods have been used by farmers to protect their crops against deer when their
population began to rise again. In some cases, farmers resort to allowing primarily bow
hunters to hunt the maximum number of deer on their property which their permits
allow. In some states, farmers can apply for a special permit which lets them hunt more
deer on their property if they report high enough damages from White-tails.
Deer overpopulation has led one of the leading concerns for management in
nearly every town: the spread of Lyme disease. This is likely because Lyme disease has a
direct and detrimental influence on community health no matter the residents’ opinions
of the deer. White-tailed deer are the primary hosts for the reproductive phase of the
blacklegged tick Ixodes scapularis, which is the vector for Lyme disease and other tick
borne diseases, including granulocytic anaplasmosis and human babesiosis.
Commonly referred to as deer ticks, the larvae feed on blood meals from smaller
hosts, such as mice and chipmunks. This is where some ticks become infected, and
become able to pass the infection along to people during their later nymph and adult
phases. Lyme disease contraction is not influenced directly by human age; anyone
outdoors under the same conditions has a chance to contract Lyme. The Center for
Disease Control and Prevention estimates that over 300,000 people contract Lyme
disease in the United States every year.64 Lyme disease is easily misdiagnosed, as
64
“About Lyme Disease”, Lymedisease.org, accessed March 17, 2016, https://www.lymedisease.org/lymebasics/lyme-disease/about-lyme/
28
contraction does not always result in the iconic bull's-eye marking: “Lyme disease is
caused by a spirochete—a corkscrew-shaped bacterium called Borrelia burgdorferi [...]
Its symptoms mimic many other diseases. It can affect any organ of the body, including
the brain and nervous system, muscles and joints, and the heart.”65
Deer ticks are extremely hard to notice on one's skin, and their bites are generally
painless. In each of their three developmental stages, they will suck blood from animals
to which they can attach themselves. These ticks will feed on a different host during
their larval stage, nymph stage, and adult stage. It has previously been thought that deer
ticks could not be born with Lyme disease and that they contracted it themselves
through blood meals with infected animals like mice or another rodent.66 Some of the
most recent unpublished research, however, suggests that it may be possible for deer
ticks to pass the disease to their own offspring, though it is unknown how common this
might be. This increases the chances that the ticks who bite humans are carriers of Lyme
disease, which means an increased incidence of an already wide-spread disease. Factors
influencing the incidence of Lyme disease make the issue of deer management even
more important to discuss.
It has been suggested that the correlation between deer density and incidence of
Lyme disease contraction is lower than previously thought, though there is conflicting
research on the issue. A 2012 study concluded that “increases in Lyme disease in the
northeastern and Midwestern United States over the past three decades are frequently
uncorrelated with deer abundance and instead coincide with a range-wide decline of a
key small-mammal predator, the red fox, likely due to expansion of coyote
65
66
Ibid.
Ibid.
29
populations.”67 In relation to Lyme disease, the results suggested that “changes in
predator communities may have cascading impacts that facilitate the emergence of
zoonotic diseases, the vast majority of which rely on hosts that occupy low trophic
levels.”68 While the decline in red fox population has been noticed throughout several
states and linked to an increase in Lyme emergence, the discovery complicates
management plans which seek to significantly reduce the incidence of Lyme disease
through deer management.
This study has since been reexamined and criticized for making broad
conclusions from variable data.69 A study conducted in 2013 by Jonathan Way and
Bradley White proposed that because coyotes also frequently ate rodents, a decrease in
red foxes would not necessarily correlate to an increase in rodents. Additionally, the
study cites that populations of rodents and foxes are subject to changes due to weather
patterns and disease and that the issue must be analyzed further before concluding that
the relationship between coyotes and red foxes is having a significant effect on the
increased incidence of Lyme disease contraction.
A 2014 study based in Connecticut draws a very different conclusion about the
correlation between Lyme disease incidence and deer density. This study followed
nearly 100% of residents in a community over a 13-year period. Hunting was used in the
community during this period to reduce the White-tailed deer population. The study
shows that “reducing deer density to 5.1 deer per square kilometer resulted in a 76%
Taal Levi, A. Marm Kilpatrick, Mark Mangel, Christopher Wilmers, “Deer, predators and the emergence of Lyme
disease”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2012,
accessed April 8, 2016, http://www.pnas.org/content/109/27/10942.full
68
Ibid
69
Jonathan Way, Bradley White, “Coyotes, Red Foxes and the Prevalence of Lyme Disease”, Northeastern
Naturalist, 2013, accessed March 6, 2016, http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1656/045.020.0416
67
30
reduction in tick abundance and 80% reduction in resident-reported cases of Lyme
disease in the community from before to after a hunt was initiated.”70 The results of this
study suggest that there is indeed a correlation between the density of White-tailed deer
and Lyme disease incidence on a community level. It also suggests that a cull has the
potential to significantly reduce the incidence of Lyme disease in a community.
However, it is harder to draw conclusions about the relationship between deer density
and Lyme disease incidence on a regional level because management is currently done
very differently even in nearby communities. Additionally, the deer density before and
after management is variable for the sample areas of different studies.
These studies present conflicting conclusions, prompting the consideration that
the issue is a more complex puzzle which we have yet to fully comprehend. Research
supports the conclusion that a higher density of deer in an area results in a higher
incidence of Lyme disease71 and a greater abundance of deer ticks.72 It is still unclear
how low the density of White-tails needs to be in order to reduce tick abundance to the
point where the incidence of human Lyme disease is also affected.73 The Levi study
conducted in 2012 was neither denying a connection nor a correlation between deer tick
abundance and deer density. Rather it was suggesting that the reason Lyme disease is
Howard J. Kilpatrick, Andrew M. Labonte, Kirby C. Stafford III, “The Relationship Between Deer Density, Tick
Abundance, and Human Cases of Lyme Disease in a Residential Community”, Journal of Medical
Entomology, Entomological Society of America, 2014, accessed March 4, 2016,
https://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=UA&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=10&SI
D=4AJRVhHqGcJ86WRFk8f&page=1&doc=1
71
PW Rand, C. Lubelczyk, GR Lavigne, S. Elias, MS Holman, EH Lacombe, RP Smith, “Deer density and the
abundance of Ixodes scapularis (Acari : Ixodidae)”, Journal of Medical Entomology, Entomological
Society of America, 2003, accessed April 1, 2016,
https://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=UA&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=13&SI
D=4AJRVhHqGcJ86WRFk8f&page=1&doc=2
72
KC Stafford, AJ Denicola, HJ Kilpatrick, “Reduced abundance of Ixodes scapularis (Acari : Ixodidae) and the tick
parasitoid Ixodiphagus hookeri (Hymenoptera : Encyrtidae) with reduction of white-tailed deer”, Journal of
Medical Entomology, Entomological Society of America, 2003, accessed April 1, 2016,
73
Howard J. Kilpatrick et al. 2014.
70
31
largely increasing in incidence is because of a population boom in small rodents, not
White-tails. Research on tick abundance following a decline of deer in an area has
largely shown a significant reduction in Lyme disease incidence and ticks. However, it
has also shown that a small number of adult ticks have the capacity to feed more on
small rodents to compensate for the reduction in deer hosts and avoid total
elimination.74 These findings suggest that Lyme disease incidence can be significantly
impacted by deer management, but also that the disease is persistent and dependent on
other key factors like rodent populations.
Lyme disease is the White-tail associated impact often responsible for the public's
call for their management. In towns across the eastern United States, signs hang at
public park entrances and around conservation land warning residents about deer ticks
and the Lyme disease they may carry. There are four general strategies that are strongly
recommended for all residents, as ticks can be found wherever the animals who host
them are found. These strategies include “(i) avoiding risk areas; (ii) personal protective
measures that reduce the risk of tick bites; (iii) reducing the number of infected ticks in
the environment; and (iv) use of prophylactic antibiotic treatments following a bite.”75
Despite the increased need for prevention strategies for residents and the spread of the
disease, Lyme disease has unfortunately been a low priority issue for Massachusetts
public health authorities resulting in low funding for treatment and research. 76
DC Duffy, SR Campbell, D Clark, C Dimotta, S Gurney, “Ixodes-Scapularis (Acari, ixodidae) Deer Tick
Mesoscale Populations in Natural Areas - Effects of Deer, Area, and Location”, Journal of Medical
Entomology, Entomological Society of America, 1994, accessed April 1, 2016,
https://apps.webofknowledge.com/CitedFullRecord.do?product=WOS&colName=WOS&SID=2CGt9YPX
rxvun9BePFN&search_mode=CitedFullRecord&isickref=WOS:A1994MP53600021&cacheurlFromRight
Click=no
75
NH Ogden, LR Lindsay, SW Schofield, “Methods to Prevent Tick Bites and Lyme Disease”, Clinics in
Laboratory Medicine, accessed March 13, 2016, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26593263
76
Beth Daley, “Drawing the Lines in the Lyme Disease Battle”, Boston Globe, accessed April 5, 2016,
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/06/01/lyme-disease-rise-and-controversy-over-how-sick-makes74
32
Controversy over Lyme disease has played a major role in the increasing
frequency of White-tailed deer management discussions. Deer management is
considered as a potential solution to Lyme disease, but arguably Lyme disease is just one
of the important factors involved in the deer overabundance issue. Lyme disease is
certainly one of the worst effects of a high deer density, but it is not the only one.
Billions of dollars have been spent each year on damages resulting from deer related
collisions as well. Property and agricultural damage has significantly impacted residents’
attitudes towards White-tails, increasing the severity of the deer overpopulation issue.
Deer related car collisions are one of the White-tails' most detrimental societal
impacts. These accidents result in numerous fatalities and over a billion dollars in
insurance and repairs every year. Research on the White-tails’ response to oncoming
traffic is conflicting, with one of the most recent studies showing little correlation in
variables determining whether or not a deer will cross a road in the face of traffic.77 Deer
crossing and warning signs are some of the most common signs to see while driving on
major roads. The number of deer related collisions has increased over the years on
average. This is likely due to a combination of a higher deer population, as well as having
more people and cars on the roads. Deer have also discovered that prime habitats exist in
the dangerous areas around roadways and subsequently are frequenting those areas
more often.
The National Highway Safety Administration conducted a study which focused
on the negative consequences of an increase in deer related accidents: “There
77
patients/OT4rCTy9qRYh25GsTocBhL/story.html
BF Blackwell, TW Seamans, TL DeVault “White-Tailed Deer Response to Vehicle Approach: Evidence of
Unclear and Present Danger”, 2014, accessed April 5, 2016,
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0109988
33
are approximately 1.5 million deer-related car accidents annually [...] The cost of these
accidents results in over $1 billion dollars in vehicle damage [...] There are around 175200 fatalities every year and 10,000 injuries.”78 The number of accidents, injuries, and
fatalities is staggering. Moreover, the estimated 1 billion dollars only accounts for vehicle
damage, not medical expenses. State Farm Insurance actually estimated the cost of
vehicle damage to be even greater, reaching as high as 4 billion dollars. Though these
estimates are conflicting, there is no doubt that monetary damages are considerable.
Medical costs for the injured are variable, but have the potential to be very costly
depending on the severity of the accident. Moreover, it can cost around $50 to remove
the deer carcass from each collision where the deer is killed. The majority of deer related
car incidents involve swerving to try and avoid deer. This can result in the additional cost
of any necessary road or roadside repairs. It was also reported that “the average claim for
deer-vehicle collisions between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012 was $3,305, up 4.4
percent from the previous year[...] Over the last four years, the number of deer-related
claims paid out by State Farm increased 7.9 percent.”79
Accidents involving deer have occurred since well-traveled roadways first existed
near deer habitats. Roads can often separate areas of prime deer habitat, and the cleared
areas between the roads and nearby forested areas provide excellent foraging
opportunities. This habitat fragmentation combined with the increasing population of
White-tails in the last century is partly responsible for the increase in deer related car
accidents.
“Deer Vs. Car Collisions”, Culture of Safety, accessed March 28, 2016,
http://www.cultureofsafety.com/driving/deer-vs-car-collisions/
79
“Car and Deer Collisions Cause 200 Deaths, Cost $4 Billion a Year”, Insurance Journal, 2012, accessed March
28, 2016, http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2012/10/24/267786.htm
78
34
There is a greater chance for accidents on roads which cut through areas with a
higher deer density. Additionally, there will likely be more deer accidents in areas with
more road traffic. The return of a large deer population followed much of America's
infrastructure construction. It is therefore important to be able to create an accurate
timeline of deer population rebound and the construction of major roadways and
suburbs. While the land could have been inhabited by more deer hundreds of years
before, suburbs and roadways were constructed during a time where the land was not
nearly as inhabited by deer. Consequently, White-tailed deer are moving into these areas
of prime habitat more frequently during the present-day. This distinction is important,
as a common view held by residents is that human development has been encroaching
on deer's longtime homes.
There are a variety of different preventative measures which are enacted to lower
the rate of deer related accidents in suburban areas. These options have been met with
varying degrees of success. The analysis of preventative measures is a duty of state
governments. State agencies test these preventative measures thoroughly before
endorsing any actions or products. There are a wide variety of technologies and
measures with the potential to help mitigate deer-car collisions, but there are also
disagreements on the effectiveness of some of these methods.
Warning is given each year that the period between October and December sees
the greatest increase in movement of White-tails. Some have argued that this increase in
accidents coincides with the hunting season because pursuit by hunters leads to deer
being more likely to flee across roads. However, the increase in accidents during these
months has more accurately been attributed to the White-tail's mating season.
35
Moreover, deer are unlikely to roam too far from their territory even if they are being
pursued by hunters.
Deer whistles are manufactured with the intent to reduce deer collisions by
emitting a high frequency when the vehicle they are attached to is traveling above a
certain speed. The deer whistle takes advantage of a deer's different audiogram, which
would potentially keep deer and other animals off of roads with a sound that humans
cannot hear.80 However it is hard to prove that the deer whistle would be an effective
counter-measure, due to a lack of evidence that deer are responsive to the sounds.
Ultraviolet light bulbs are also considered as an approach to reducing the number
of deer collisions. While UV light is invisible to humans, it can be detected by deer.81 The
goal of having UV lights on vehicles would be that the proper UV frequency could steer
deer away from what they detect as intensely bright light and subsequently stay out of
the road.
Roadside reflectors are another technology being explored, which reflect the
headlights from cars to create a fence of light near the side of the road. Reflectors would
be placed at regular intervals in areas where animals are known to cross. The goal of
roadside reflectors is to keep animals like deer away from the roadway while cars are
passing by, but allow them to cross when no cars are in the area and the light fence
dissipates:82 “The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety described the reflectors as 'the
Henry Heffner, Jr. and Henry E. Heffner, “The behavioral audiogram of whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus)”,
Acoustical Society of America, accessed March 30, 2016,
http://laboratoryofcomparativehearing.com/uploads/Behavioral_Audiogram_of_White-tailed_Deer.pdf
81
Kurt C. VerCauteren, Michael J. Pipas, “A Review of Color Vision in White-tailed Deer”, USDA National
Wildlife Research Center,
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1279&context=icwdm_usdanwrc
82
“Deer-Vehicle Collisions Are Numerous and Costly. Do Countermeasures Work?”, Road Management and
Engineering Journal, 1997, http://www.usroads.com/journals/rmj/9705/rm970503.htm
80
36
most promising system for preventing deer crashes.’”83 However, research conversely
shows that reflectors can have little to no effect on the frequency of road crossings. 84 85
Deer related accidents result in hundreds of deaths annually, as well as an
estimated billion dollars in damages and insurance. Preventative measures such as
underpasses, diversionary feeding locations, whistles and reflectors are being researched
and tested thoroughly by state transportation departments. So far there is no better
preventative measure than staying alert. It is important to be aware of one's
surroundings while on the road, especially in the dawn and twilight hours when deer are
most active. This includes paying attention to where deer signage is in place. Deer
signage is largely ignored, as are warnings to drivers who frequently drive during dawn
and twilight hours. The attitude of drivers towards these warnings have led agencies to
believe that preventative measures which alter the deer's behavior instead of peoples will
have the most potential. Unfortunately, they have not demonstrated significant results
thus far. By staying alert and vigilant many of these accidents could likely be avoided.
Property damage caused by White-tails includes damages to landscaping,
gardens and agriculture in addition to vehicles and drivers in accidents. Deer love to feed
on many fruits and vegetables, as well as flowers and other plants. They will eat buds
from a variety of plants and dine on a variety of commonly used ornamental plants and
plants used in landscaping:86 Deer damage to plants is variable, depending on the time
83
Ibid.
G.H. Waring, J.L. Griffis, M.E. Vaughn, “White-tailed deer roadside behavior, wildlife warning reflectors, and
highway mortality”, Applied Animal Behavior Science, 1991,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016815919190249W
85
James A. Schafer, and Stephen T. Penland, “Effectiveness of Swareflex Reflectors in Reducing Deer-vehicle
Accidents”. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 1995,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3801710?seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents
86
Paul D. Curtis, and Kristi L. Sullivan, “White-tailed Deer”, Wildlife Damage Management Fact Sheet series,
Cornell Corporate Extension, 2001, http://wildlifecontrol.info/pubs/Documents/Deer/Deer_factsheet.pdf
84
37
of year the plants are browsed and the kinds of plants available for browsing. Some
ornamental trees may never recover from being browsed by deer.
Crop damages from deer browsing can be measured using either direct or
indirect sampling. In the former, crops in fields are directly sectioned off and analyzed.
This yields more accurate damage results but is more expensive because of the labor
involved. The indirect sampling approach usually utilizes a survey which the farmers fill
out for researchers. These questionnaires can run the risk of being “biased because of
non-random questionnaire distribution, differences in respondents’ interpretation of
questions, lack of consistency in the identification of species responsible for crop
damage, and inaccurate estimation of the number of acres of crops affected.”87 Despite
this inconsistencies, these questionnaires will generally lead to an overall reliable
assessment.
The level of perceived damage to crops actually appears to be correlated to the
tolerance of both the wildlife and the damage by individual farmers. A survey sent to
1,500 agricultural producers in an area of Indiana in 1998 determined: “The extent of
monetary losses reported by individual farmers appeared to be related to a farmer’s
tolerance for wildlife damage; however, such reported losses and tolerance levels varied
greatly.”88 In the same research, it was shown that deer were not the browsers
considered most intolerable. Rather, they fell in third place behind raccoons and then
gophers. Deer browsing is especially detrimental to corn and soy bean fields in the
W. M. Tzilkowski, M. C. Brittingham, and M. J. Lovallo, “Wildlife damage to corn in Pennsylvania : farmer and
on-the-ground estimates”, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2002.
88
Brian J. MacGowan, Lee A. Humberg, James C. Beasley, Travis L. DeVault, Monica I. Retamosa, and Olin E.
Rhodes, Jr., “Corn and Soybean Crop Depredation by Wildlife”, Department of Forestry and Natural
Resources, Purdue University, accessed April 5, 2016,
https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/FNR/FNR-265-W.pdf
87
38
Midwest. There is also damage throughout the Northeast, though the total damage is not
as great in more suburban areas because there are generally fewer farms. Rules differ by
state, but farmers often aren't allowed to hunt deer in their fields unless they receive a
special permit or are experiencing a substantial amount of damage and monetary loss.
Agricultural damage from deer has been shown to have increased over time.89 A
study from Florida revealed that 94% of surveyed farmers attributed some of their losses
to White-tailed deer, which was more than any other animal.90 A study conducted in
New Jersey in 1998 showed that farmers there attributed 70% of their crop losses due to
wildlife to deer.91 When browsed by deer, some crops are set back in growth, while others
may still be harvested. However, some crops like large fruits or vegetables may be
rendered unsellable from obvious bite marks or more inconspicuous damages. The
ability of some crops to naturally recover from deer browsing depends on what growing
stage they are in. The goal of a Department of Natural Resources’ deer management
effort usually includes the maintenance of a healthy deer population for viewing and
hunting. This is done while limiting the population to a level that will minimize property
damages.92
Overpopulation of White-tailed deer can be detrimental to the environment and a
cause of ecological dysfunctions. A 1998 study conducted by the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources found that in Iowa, “once deer numbers are more than one deer per
M. R. Conover, and D. J. Decker “Wildlife damage to crops: Perceptions of agricultural and wildlife professionals
in 1957 and 1987”, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 19, 46-52, 1991.
90
Holly K. Ober “Farmer Perceptions of Wildlife Damage to Row Crops in North Florida”, University of Florida,
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/uw356
91
“How are White-tailed Deer Affecting Agriculture in New Jersey?”, Center for Wildlife Damage Control, New
Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers University, accessed April 11, 2016,
http://njaes.rutgers.edu/pubs/deerdamage/
92
“Managing Deer Damage”, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, accessed March 25, 2016,
http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/2718.htm
89
39
65 acres of deer habitat [...] forest health begins to decline. The number of tree seedlings,
species of birds and groundcover of wildflowers begin to decline.”93 The referenced deer
density is also commonly stated as ~10/sq mile. Remember that a deer can eat over 7
pounds of food a day. The toll that this over-browsing can take on ecosystems with a
higher deer density is more than concerning. However, it is difficult to determine if these
impacts are anything similar to what the northeastern forest experienced before the
decline in deer population that began more than four centuries ago. Researchers have
typically been comparing recent impacts from deer with impacts recorded from a time
where there was an all-time population low. It is very possible that deer before the
arrival of the Europeans were influencing their environment similarly to how they are
now. Despite this, wildlife agencies have seen the potential for White-tails now to change
ecosystem structures to the point where biodiversity can suffer. Perhaps the human
dynamic has had more of an encompassing effect on wildlife interactions than previously
believed.
The density of deer has been linked to the spread of an invasive plant known as
garlic mustard, which the White-tailed deer do not eat.94 Garlic mustard has already
displaced some native growing flowers, and it releases chemicals which can be toxic to
the larvae of local butterflies.95 Deer help the garlic mustard plant thrive in two different
ways. Garlic mustard will be left untouched by deer and can quickly spread after periods
of heavy deer browsing of other species in the area. This effect only worsens in areas with
a higher deer density. Deer can also transport the seeds of garlic mustard to other areas
“Stop the Deer Damage”, stopthedeerdamage.com, accessed April 3, 2016,
http://www.stopthedeerdamage.com/habits.htm
94
Ibid.
95
“Herbaceous Forbes: Garlic Mustard”, National Park Service, accessed March 19, 2016,
https://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/pubs/midatlantic/alpe.htm
93
40
when seeds become attached to their hooves. Deer and garlic mustard both impact the
survival and spread of native plants independently, but a study shows that the effects of
the two species can be isolated. Deer have more of an impact on native species than the
garlic mustard, and so it is recommended that deer management be the first step to
protect endangered or disappearing palatable plants.96
This story is the same for a number of other non-native plants, but presents a
much larger problem. Deer over-browsing is projected to cause some areas with high
enough deer densities to have less biodiversity. Small changes in forest and ecological
compositions are now relatively common in areas populated by deer.
Palatable shrub plants, saplings, and ground cover plants are at risk, while those
that are not palatable are becoming more common. Some ground cover plants are used
as nesting areas for species of birds. Ground cover plants are also one of the main food
sources for smaller herbivores. Some plants browsed by deer are more browse-resistant
than others, and they can grow back and recover. Other species are vulnerable in the
stages when deer like to browse and thus have more difficulty surviving periods of heavy
deer browse. Damage done to these environments can make it hard for different species
to continue to thrive under these conditions. This results in a forest which is in a poor
state to grow, and has been reduced to a state of lower biological diversity.97
There are correlations between deer density and their impacts on animals and
plants. Relative deer density (RDD) is a ratio of deer density to ecological carrying
capacity for an area. One study maps out Relative Deer Density (RDD) at different
Donald M. Waller, “Do white-tailed deer and the exotic plant garlic mustard interact to affect the growth and
persistence of native forest plants?”, Department of Botany, University of Wisconsin-Madison, accessed
March 19, 2016, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112713003010
97
“Deer Problems and Issues”, Suburban White-tail Management of Northern Virginia, accessed March 19, 2016,
http://www.deerdamage.org/page/problems-and-issues
96
41
percentage intervals and shows the corresponding impact on flora and fauna in that
area.98 A high relative density of deer does not exactly correlate with a large amount of
ecological disruption. According to the study, a low-moderate RDD of 20-39% accounts
for a moderate change in relative abundance of plants.99 In this instance the RDD of 2039% means that that percentage of the area’s ecological carrying capacity is filled.
Though this is an older study, it still explains that to sustain the regenerative ability of
ecosystems, the RDD should be at or below RDD=16. There are other factors in the deer
management equation that also marked 8-10 deer per square mile as the ideal deer
density.
Old growth forests that were studied showed a tremendous amount of understory
herb and shrub damage. One study found that a 50-80% loss of herbs and shrubs were
found to accompany the increase in deer density in these areas.100 It is clear that the
White-tailed deer are the dominant keystone herbivore species in the northeastern
forest, with the potential to cause large ecosystem changes. The same study concluded
that White-tailed deer had both direct and indirect effects on Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga
canadensis) trees recruitment on a regional scale. By observing biotic and abiotic factors
affecting the growth of small and larger Hemlock saplings at a hundred different sites, it
was determined that White-tailed deer had a significant negative effect on small saplings
and an indirectly negative effect on saplings in the larger category.101 Hemlock stands are
coveted as shelter by many animals and plants, and are themselves an iconic species. It is
David S. deCalesta, and Susan L. Stout, “Relative deer density and sustainability: Conceptual framework for
integrating deer management with ecosystem management”, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 1997.
99
Ibid.
100
TP Rooney, “Deer Impacts on Forest Ecosystems: A North American Perspective”, Forestry 74, no. 3 (2001).
101
Ibid.
98
42
another example of a commonly known species which faces adverse effects from deer
browsing and deer overpopulation.
The list of plants and animals which are negatively affected by White-tailed deer
is enormous. Moreover, browsing can have both direct and indirect impacts on plant
health. These effects can often cascade into larger ecological issues. Deer eating the
leaves of plants limits their photosynthetic capabilities, and the individual may not
survive the browsing. It then becomes more important that the seeds of a species are
able to be distributed well enough that other individuals may have a chance to fully grow
into a plant which the deer may not be able to kill or cripple through browsing. Seed
immigration can be low enough so that the species may not be able to sustain its
population, assuming that the deer have not browsed them all to the same extent
regionally.102 Deer browsing can have indirect impacts on many other taxa. For example,
many species of insect which eat or need a species which the White-tails enjoy eating will
be competing for it. Many different taxa have established deep relationships with others
within ecosystems. With so much influence as a large herbivore keystone species, their
threat to many ecosystems and species is apparent.
Chapter 5: A History of White-tailed Deer Management
The impacts of the White-tailed deer on both the environment and our society
have already been established. While the damage is variable depending on geographical
location and local deer density, it is clear that the White-tails are responsible for causing
considerable harm to suburban communities. For these reasons, management of White-
102
Ibid.
43
tailed deer is becoming a priority and many conservation commissions and town
governments are looking into the overpopulation issue to see what actions can be taken.
The management process is complex and based on economic factors as well as the
opinions of groups, including residents and assisting agencies. The management process
is rarely smooth, and is often filled with controversies and disagreement. The history of
deer and wildlife management policies in the past are key in helping contextualize how it
is organized now. Understanding the varied attitudes and opinions of residents and
stakeholders for the sake of a more efficient management process entails looking at how
stakeholders form their perceptions of suburban deer herds and the techniques offered
to manage them.
It has been argued that reducing overall deer damage is harder to do when it is
unknown how many deer are present in a community. This is because deer damage is
variable and even if damages can be assessed, it is still hard to determine how much the
deer density would need to be reduced in order to also reduce damages. This is why
assessing the deer population is usually made the first step in developing a management
plan. However, as previously established, it is exceedingly difficult to get an accurate
estimate of deer density on a regional scale, and it can also be difficult to see visible
changes in impacts based on perceived fluctuations of herd size. Overall, the
effectiveness of having a rough estimate of population density is disputed.
There are a variety of tests and techniques that can estimate the number of deer
in an area. On ranches where hunting is permitted, censuses are commonly conducted
on a calculated number of acres in order to come up with an estimate for the entire
ranch. These censuses are usually completed before the beginning of the hunting
44
season.103 There is a broader range of techniques used to calculate rough estimates of
deer populations based on what kind of area is being sampled.
A common technique for estimating how many deer are in a square mile of forest
is counting how many piles of scat are found in randomly determined plots in the
springtime. This technique is referred to as the pellet-group method. Many communities
encourage hunters and citizens to complete log books where they log their sightings of
White-tails. Through observations and looking at the age-structure, sex ratio, fawn
recruitment, and relative abundance of deer in an area, these population indices can be
calculated. Citizen science contributions can be helpful in getting experienced or
involved citizens to look at areas of deer browse and compare them to other areas where
there is a better idea of the deer population. To determine the impacts of White-tailed
deer in an area of forest, deer enclosures are commonly used. By comparing plots closed
off to deer to control plots, changes in vegetation between these areas can be recorded
and monitored.
There is no real formula for how a town will approach management. Some towns
will forsake finding an estimate of the population, and some will research a population
threshold that is applicable and appropriate to their community and its resources. To
come up with a deer density threshold, a community has to answer a different set of
questions. They must ask themselves what the social, ecological and biological carrying
capacities of their community are. Moreover, they need to think about what impacts
deer are having on other populations, including humans, and on the local environment.
103
Milo J. Schult, J. Armstrong, Bill Armstrong, “Deer Census Techniques". Texas Parks and Wildlife, accessed Oct
6, 2015, http://wildlife.tamu.edu/files/2010/05/Deer-Census-Techniques.pdf
45
When deer exist in higher densities than their social carrying capacity allows,
they can soon be accused of “posing hazards to human health and safety, inflicting
economic hardships, and degrading forest ecosystems.”104 Ecological carrying capacity
can play a key role in what management options will be considered viable. For example,
some communities are concerned about what is known as the “rebound effect.” The
rebound effect describes a scenario in which the culling of deer would make surviving
deer better able to find more food and live in better conditions, thus increasing the rate
of fawn births and twin births and potentially raising the population of deer. 105
If management of a deer population is deemed necessary, different techniques
and options may be further explored. Key players in this next step often include the
conservation commission, or a variety of other municipal and state bodies who are
responsible for either the land or for local by-laws. Towns will explore management
methods most consistent with the beliefs of their residents, but also take into account
logistics, reliability, and cost-efficiency. While a town may do their own research, state
agencies and other groups often advise them as well.
It is essential to weigh the costs of management options against the perceived
benefit for residents. One study looked at residents' perceptions of the deer herd before
and after a 50% decrease in deer density.106 More specifically, the density was reduced
to an average of twenty deer per square kilometer from 43-50 deer per square kilometer.
Following the decrease in deer density most residents did notice fewer deer in their
104
J. W. McShea, B. H. Underwood, And J. H. Rappole, "The Science of Overabundance: Deer Ecology and
Population Management", Wildlife Society Bulletin. Vol. 25, No. 2, 1997.
105
“Wildlife Fertility Control: Frequently Asked Questions on Immunocontraception.” PNC, Inc.
http://www.pzpinfo.org/pzp_faqs.html
106
DW Henderson, RJ Warren, JA Cromwell, RJ Hamilton, “Responses of Urban Deer to a 50% Reduction in Local
Herd Density”, Wildlife Society Bulletin 28, no. 4 (2000): 902-910.
46
yards, and reported their desire to see more deer removed. These residents did not,
however, perceive a decrease in deer related impacts. The conclusion of the study was
that costs for program implementation may be justified by the benefits perceived by
residents.107 Even though the population of deer was reduced by 50%, the resulting
density was still very high, high enough that residents certainly may not have noticed
changes in impacts. Culling enough deer so that residents would notice a decrease in
impacts was thought to be worth the increased monetary cost for residents.
Previous research conducted in the northeast gives a good insight into the
different perceptions of suburban deer populations and how they may be formed.
Wildlife acceptance capacity depends on the kinds of stakeholders who are present and
influential in an area. People will inevitably have different thresholds of acceptance for
different deer impacts. For example, people will have less of an acceptance for deer if
they caused a particularly large amount of yard or property damage. On the other hand,
people would be more accepting of deer populations if their size did not correlate to
more car collisions or increased incidence of Lyme disease. Data from respondents to
previous surveys concluded that people were more likely to view deer negatively and as
nuisances if they suffered deer related property damage or other damages. These
perceptions influence the final management decision, so it is critically important that
they be well informed. Agencies believe that the public should be involved in the
decision making process. However, the nature and extent of their involvement has been
disputed.108
107
108
Ibid.
LC Chase, WH Siemer, DJ Decker, “Designing Stakeholder Involvement Strategies to Resolve Wildlife
Management Controversies”, Wildlife Society Bulletin 30, No. 3 (2002).
47
Knowledge of deer and nature in general also affects how stakeholders view the
population size. Environmentally conscious residents may notice fewer birds of a species
during a certain time of the year. Others may note a lack of certain species of saplings
and understory shrubs from local forests and conservation lands. However, previous
research has shown that residents in some areas are likely to respond more strongly to
deer related accidents than to property damage or spreading of disease.109 Social
capacity entails the population threshold at which people will no longer be tolerant of
the current deer population. Many communities choose to stabilize the population or
reduce it. Social and ecological capacity are essential factors in assessing residents’
attitudes towards deer populations.
There are many groups involved in deer management, some of which are shown
to respond differently to different kinds of management information. Information on
the outcomes of management techniques is more likely to resonate with individuals who
have similar “behavioral beliefs.”110 Management agencies are often put into a difficult
position when working with community governments. Sometimes what residents
believe to be the best options are in reality experimental measures which have not
yielded significant results. This is largely the case with contraception, often chosen by
residents who do not wish to see deer harmed by lethal methods. It is not the job of
agencies to try to sway the opinions of residents and stakeholders, but they should be
responsible for providing information, which would allow those groups to make
109
Louis Cornicelli, Alan Woolf, John L. Roseberry, "Residential Attitudes and Perceptions Toward a
Suburban Deer Population in Southern Illinois." Illinois State Academy of Science, accessed March 24,
2016,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258927767_Residential_attitudes_and_perceptions_toward_a_su
burban_deer_population_in_southern_Illinois
110
T. Bruce Lauber and Barbara A. Knuth, “Effects of Information on Attitudes Toward Suburban Deer
Management”, Wildlife Society Bulletin 32, No. 2 (2004).
48
informed and educated decisions. It has been shown that the best way to provide this
information to stakeholders and residents is to tailor it to the particular concerns of
those groups.111
With the example of attitudes towards contraception based on available research,
the Lauber and Knuth study conducted in 2004 found that when residents were
provided the current research on contraception, there was a significant shift in those
residents' opinions. Many residents who had previously believed that contraception was
effective and who preferred it as a management choice reported that they now believed
contraception was significantly less effective at managing deer.112 It is important to
remember that most of the time, as this study demonstrates, attitudes toward a
particular technique are not fixed.
In summary, residents’ perceptions of nature and deer are important to
understand when broaching the topic of their management. A decision to manage deer
in a community comes from a scientific assessment of the community’s ecological
carrying capacity as well as an evaluation of the town’s social carrying capacity. The next
step is to look over available management options keeping variables such as
effectiveness, humaneness, and cost-effectiveness in mind. Management options include
a variety of techniques, each with its perceived and factual advantages and
disadvantages.
Deer management techniques involve both lethal and nonlethal approaches.
Lethal approaches include sharpshooting and controlled recreational hunting for both
bow hunters and gun hunters. There is a wider range of nonlethal approaches available.
111
112
Ibid.
Ibid.
49
Nonlethal methods are often considered more ethical than their lethal counterparts, but
this is a misconception likely reinforced by the negative stigma surrounding hunting and
sharpshooting. Many people don’t know how to recognize if their local deer population
is so large that many deer are malnourished. Countless management programs allowing
hunting in some form also make sure that most of the harvested meat goes directly to
soup kitchens. Non-lethal management options have the general disadvantage of cost
inefficiency.113 For example, the translocation of each deer could cost anywhere from a
few hundred to a thousand dollars and is extremely logistically challenging.
There are ethical arguments surrounding both lethal and non-lethal management
options. The most notable nonlethal deer management options include habitat
modification, a ban on deer feeding, use of unpalatable landscape plants, use of
repellants, supplemental feeding, fencing, hazing and frightening, using dogs as
deterrents, translocation, and the usage of contraceptives.114 Some mention of these
alternative techniques is likely to be found in any management discussion that opposes
lethal methods. Though nonlethal, several of these techniques still have ethical issues.
For example, using dogs to scare deer away from property can result in their death soon
after from a heart attack.115 Translocation has been known to result in an overstressing
of the moved population, which leads to a much higher mortality rate. Moreover, it is
harder to find communities to move the deer into which aren't experiencing deer related
issues themselves. Ultimately, translocation of deer has been shown to be a relatively
ineffective method of deer management and consequently, is rarely even mentioned in
113
Anthony J. DeNicola, Kurt C. VerCauteren, Paul D. Curtis, Scott Hygnstrom, "Managing White-tailed Deer in
Suburban Environments." Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Accessed Oct 29, 2015.
http://www.dgif.state.va.us/wildlife/deer/suburban.pdf
114
Ibid.
115
Richard Nelson, Heart and Blood: Living with Deer in America, New York: Vintage Books, 1997.
50
management discussions, save by residents who may have heard of translocation but are
unaware of its ineffectiveness.
Ethical concerns aside, non-lethal options are often statistically inefficient at
curbing the deer population and stopping the herd's adverse effects on the environment
and communities. It is unusual to have a situation in which non-lethal techniques can be
used exclusively to solve a management issue. Non-lethal techniques are better
purposed for supplementing a more comprehensive management program.116 Of the
non-lethal techniques, only contraceptives specifically target the growth of the deer
herd. One study on available information in management decision making revealed that
in the case of contraception, residents deemed contraception a less appropriate and
effective method of management than they previously believed after given the available
research on its effectiveness. This study shows how information and understanding are
key in solving the management issue and are critically important in deciding the most
appropriate and effective management technique.117
Methods like contraceptives and translocation can still be much more expensive
than lethal options, such as recreational hunting and sharpshooting: “Alternatives to
regulated hunting are typically limited in applicability, prohibitively expensive,
logistically impractical, or technically infeasible.”118 Contraceptives have frequent
logistical issues and can be very costly if they are not subsidized. An ongoing study on
the effectiveness of PZP vaccines delivered by darts is being performed in the village of
116
Anthony J. DeNicola, Kurt C. VerCauteren, Paul D. Curtis, Scott Hygnstrom,"Managing White-tailed Deer in
Suburban Environments." Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Accessed Oct 29, 2015.
http://www.dgif.state.va.us/wildlife/deer/suburban.pdf
117
T. Bruce Lauber and Barbara A. Knuth, “Effects of Information on Attitudes Toward Suburban Deer
Management”, Wildlife Society Bulletin 32, No. 2 (2004).
118
“Deer Management Options”, Connecticut.gov, accessed April 15, 2016,
http://www.ct.gov/dph/lib/dph/infectious_diseases/lyme/DeerManagementOptions_FNL.pdf
51
Hastings-On-Hudson in New York state.119 Over the last 2 years, almost 30 does have
been captured, vaccinated, and tagged for identification. They are then recaptured a
year later to make sure the does were not pregnant. This project is subsidized and
spearheaded by the United States Humane Society and Cummings School of Veterinary
Medicine at Tufts University. If the conclusion of the 5-year study shows that
contraceptives have significantly reduced the population of deer in the area, then
contraceptives will have considerably more merit in some suburban deer management
conversations. It should be noted that some states have outlawed PZP as a management
tool, including Massachusetts.
Hunting has proven to be a consistently sufficient method for reducing deer
populations, but still faces considerable opposition and obstacles in some areas of the
country. Humane societies and animal rights groups often stand against allowing more
hunting or for hunting to be used as a main management tool. Lack of hunter
participation can also limit the potential effectiveness of recreational hunting programs.
Remember that deer management was geared towards assisting the re-growth of
the herd after the era of exploitation. There has been resistance from many sides since
then about the idea that the deer population must be lowered. Despite research shows
that it is currently the only technique which can target does lethally to reduce the overall
size of the herd, there has been a declining hunting participation rate, which conflicts
with the endeavor to make hunting a more accepted and successful management option.
It is important to make the distinction between recreational hunting and
professional hunting. Some towns elect to hire a group of professional sharpshooters to
119
“White-tailed Deer Immunocontraception Project”, Village of Hastings-On-Hudson, accessed April 14, 2016,
http://hastingsgov.org/sites/hastingsonhudsonny/files/uploads/hoh_project_summary_2016_1.pdf
52
cull their deer population to the threshold level. Reasons for hiring professional
sharpshooters include more perceived effectiveness and public safety. Many residents
say that they would not oppose using hunting as management tool if it is done by
trained professionals. These individuals tend to not hold recreational hunting in esteem.
Other areas concerned with hunters and safety have elected to have their police
departments conduct regulated hunts with the intent to reduce the deer population.
Recreational hunting entails the allowance for hunting as a sport. Attitudes of
recreational hunters along with local hunting participation rates can determine if
recreational hunting will be a viable management option for a community.
From previous research, recreational hunting is sometimes viewed as an unsafe
choice for a management strategy.120 In areas where recreational hunting and
sharpshooting have been introduced, safety concerns were carefully considered. Many
areas require that hunting not occur on public lands, and bowmen often must shoot
from a stand. Contrary to common misconceptions hunting does not cause deer to flee
their territorial range.121 Additionally, the common fear that the hunting season leads to
an increase in car collisions is also a myth.122 Data from Maryland during 2005-2006
suggests that hunting has a lower accident count than most other activities, and that the
majority of those accidents did not involve the accidental discharge of a gun.123
Comparatively, the risk of injuries and fatalities from hunting are far less than sports
like swimming and biking.124 Recreational hunters and hunting organizations have
T.B. Lauber, and B. A. Knuth. "Suburban Residents’ Criteria for Evaluating Contraception and Other
Deer Management Techniques." Hum. Dimensions Wildl., (2000).
121
"Deer Hunting: An Effective Management Tool". Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
122
Ibid.
123
Ibid.
124
Ibid.
120
53
worked hard to show the public that they take safety precautions very seriously. The
attention media pays to hunting accidents along with other factors has impacted the
progress on this front, with many community residents still expressing fear at the idea of
hunting being carried out close to their homes and on the land they use for recreation.
One of the most critical factors often overlooked in management decisions
regarding recreational hunting is the actual sociology of hunting culture and the
psychology of hunting itself. It is often assumed that a hunter gets the most satisfaction
from success in hunting. Moreover, it has been assumed that a hunter would usually
apply for a permit allowing for the hunting of more deer if they were given the
opportunity. Studies in the past have indicated that success in hunting is valued by
hunters, but is often not the most valued aspect of the hunting experience (Kennedy
1970, More 1973, Decker Et al. 1980).125 The quality of deer hunting opportunities is
now evaluated with a multiple-satisfactions approach. This kind of approach takes into
account prevalent social and societal factors to show what hunters most value about the
hunting experience.126 A higher recreational hunting participation rate does not always
correlate to lower deer populations, as population reduction is not one of the common
goals of the average recreational hunter. While more deer on average may be harvested,
it is important that wildlife agencies also help educate hunters on the importance and
benefits of hunting as a management tool.
The success of a recreational hunting program is largely dependent on local
participation rates. Results from research over three decades ago outline one of the
Nancy A. Connelly, Daniel J. Decker, and Sam Wear, “Public Tolerance of Deer in a Suburban Environment”,
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, accessed April 16, 2016,
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=ewdcc3
126
William E. Hammitt, Cary D. McDonald, and Michael E. Patterson. “Determinants of Multiple Satisfaction for
Deer Hunting” Wildlife Society Bulletin 18, No. 3 (1990).
125
54
issues with recreational hunting which has persisted. In the early 1980s, the New York
Department of Environmental Conservation recognized that a lack in deer management
permits (DMPs), as well as low harvest rates, severely limited the success of recreational
hunting programs throughout the state.127 Deer management permits allow residents to
hunt one extra deer of either species in addition to the number their license allowed.
Because the quota of permits available is based on an index of deer densities and desired
deer levels, a certain level of participation and harvesting is necessary for the population
of deer to actually be controlled. The conclusion from this research is that wildlife
managers need to better motivate hunters of all satisfaction types to seeing the value of
management and antlerless hunts.
Recreational hunting should not be ruled out as a cost effective method of
population control. In the mid to late 1980s, deer hunters were decreasing at a
compounding rate across the country, not just in New York. Consequently, there were
far fewer antlerless deer harvested.128 Fewer hunters were coming from families that
had a hunting background. American lifestyles became more sedentary and people
wanted quick gratification. Additionally, a study performed in 2006 determined that
lower intensity hunters were more likely to perceive constraints and barriers to
participation.129 Though this is largely still the case, there has been somewhat of a
change in hunter participation. Generally, female hunting participation has increased
for all kinds of game, and in states like Wisconsin and New York, the decline in hunting
Nancy A. Connelly, Daniel J. Decker, “Motivations for Deer Hunting: Implications for Antlerless Deer Harvest
as a Management Tool”. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17, No. 4 (1989).
128
Ibid.
129
Melissa S. Weddell, “A Study of the Relationships of Deer Hunter’s Participation Intensity and Constraints”,
Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Clemson University, accessed April 13, 2016,
http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs-p-14/58-weddell-p-14.pdf
127
55
participation has significantly slowed. Bow hunting is thought to be expanding much
faster than hunting with a gun according to a survey conducted in 2012.130 With hunter
participation seeming to transform, wildlife agencies have an opportunity to educate
new hunters about the benefits of deer hunting in terms of wildlife management.
In the place of or in addition to recreational hunting, professional hunting and
culling is also an option. The case study of Block Island outlines the management
decision-making process and the subsequent challenges faced in reducing the
overpopulation of White-tailed deer to a controlled threshold. The Department of
Environmental Management recommended that the deer density per square mile range
from 8-15.131 The original plan for Block Island was to hire a professional team of
sharpshooters to reduce the White-tailed deer to the recommended level. The decision
to call in professional hunters was made after reviewing other management methods
and deeming that they would either be too costly or not effective enough. Repellants and
fencing simply would not be practical on a scale as large as the situation on Block Island.
Additionally, translocation was deemed far too expensive and inefficient.
Immunocontraception was decided against due to its lack of short-term solution, and
for its inefficiency in curbing free ranging populations. Recreational hunting
opportunities had already existed on Block Island, but their harvesting could not curb
the exponentially growing population.132
The project ended up falling through with the company, so the Block Island Deer
Task Force decided to put out a bounty instead. The bounty was $150 per deer, and
“By The Numbers: Expanding in Archery, Bowhunting”, Shooting Industry, accessed April 20, 2016,
http://www.shootingindustry.com/by-the-numbers-expanding-in-archery-bowhunting/
131
" Block Island Deer Management FAQ". Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management.
132
Ibid.
130
56
resulted in the reduction of the island's population of 1,000 deer by 400 from local
hunter harvesting. Additionally, the price of all cumulative bounties was about $60,000.
Block Island was going to pay the sharpshooting company almost $130,000, more than
twice that amount. A mobile meat-processing unit on the island ensured that all of the
harvested meat either went to charities, soup kitchens, or interested island residents.
There is much to be learned through the observation of case studies such as the
Block Island study. The Block Island scenario shows how motivations can help influence
recreational hunting participation towards management goals. However, the Block
Island approach would not work everywhere. This is because Block Island is a closed
area without factors like town borders as potential obstacles to hunters. Additionally, an
issue with suburban deer management is that it can be hard to reduce a regional deer
herd’s size when only a few towns participate. Block Island residents overall agreed that
the deer population should be reduced, and they had the incentive to reduce the island’s
population without worrying about deer fleeing local boundaries. Block Island still
shows how recreational hunting can be used to successfully cull a herd whose impacts
were severe, and use the harvested deer for good causes.
Wildlife management is a complex process that requires the cooperation between
town governments, assisting agencies, and residents themselves. Social and ecological
carrying capacities determine whether a community will opt for a deer management
program. The subsequent process of evaluating management techniques takes into
account cost-benefit analyses, attitudes towards deer and wildlife in general, and
residential knowledge of the available management methods. Residents often disagree
on what methods are preferred and why. Both lethal and non-lethal techniques will have
advantages and disadvantages depending on where the community in question is
57
located. Knowledge of the management process is key to understanding how deer
management has been addressed in Weston, Wayland, Sudbury, Concord, and Lincoln.
Chapter 6: Management Background of Surveyed Towns
The towns of Wayland, Weston, Sudbury, Lincoln and Concord are all located in
and around the Sudbury valley watershed. In the past, this land was commonly used for
farms, woodlots and areas for estates and villages to thrive. This part of the Boston
suburbs is special because of how much green space and greenways exist in which
wildlife can thrive. The abundance of green areas in the region is a great boon to the
population of White-tailed deer and has been since their population rebounded. The
MassWildlife Division of Fisheries and Wildlife has divided the state into 15 distinct
zones, with all of the towns in the study falling into zone 10.133 The Massachusetts DFW
estimated that there are anywhere between 20-30 deer per square mile in zone ten, and
has stated that the DFW’s goal is to reduce that range to 6-8 deer per square mile.134
These towns are politically and socioeconomically similar. Weston is one of the
most affluent towns in the entire United States, with a population just under 11,300 and
a very low crime rate. Sudbury has a population of around 17,700, and has previously
been ranked the best town in the state in which to raise a family. With a population of
around 17,700, Concord was the site of important American Revolutionary War events
and also boasts an impressive literary history. Lincoln also has impressive revolutionary
history and has a population of around 6,300. Wayland has a history as a farming
village, and a population of around 13,400. This totals around 65,000 people, the vast
“Wildlife Management Zones”, Massachusetts Department of Energy and Environmental Affairs, accessed
January 3, 2016, http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dfg/dfw/recreation/licensing-hunting/wmz-map.pdf
134
“Deer Facts”, Sudbury Valley Trustees, accessed January 4, 2016,
http://www.sudburyvalleytrustees.org/sites/default/files/DeerFactsWeston.pdf
133
58
majority of whom are well-educated. The total area of land in these towns is
approximately 98.7 square miles after adding Weston's 17.3, Lincoln's 15, Concord's
25.9, Sudbury's 24.6, and Wayland's 15.9. Factoring in the average deer density from
zone 10, there might be anywhere from 2,000-3,000 deer in the total area of these five
towns.
This study area will be able to effectively rule out the aforementioned
socioeconomic and political views from the management equation. While management
has been done differently throughout the towns, it is important to remember that
hunting has been allowed in all five towns. To be more specific, hunting on private land
has is allowed and has been, with hunters being able to hunt as long as they have
permission from the owner of a private property. State game lands and land trusts also
exist in which hunting is allowed. This study focuses in part on attitudes towards
recreational hunting and hunting on municipally owned lands, as management
programs taking advantage of them could prove successful in reducing deer densities
and subsequently reducing deer browse damage. With fewer confounding variables, it
will be gauge the attitudes of residents in the area towards different management
techniques and also see if any correlations exist between towns and specific variables.
The town of Sudbury has the longest standing management program in the study
sample of towns. Sudbury decided to implement a bow hunting program 16 years ago in
1999. This program gave special hunting permits to 25 individuals and allowed them to
hunt on only 15 distinct parcels of land.135 Applicants for permits had to successfully go
through both a proficiency test and an interview to be chosen. The use of bow hunting
59
was chosen after considering all other available options. When Sudbury first discussed
management strategies, techniques such as contraceptives and other non-lethal
measures were not in development and thus were not a part of the discussion. Since the
beginning of the project, there have been no complaints.136 Overall the Sudbury bow
hunting program has been regarded as a success, due to “[the] re-growth of understory,
deer successfully harvested and 'incident free' hunting.”137
The town of Weston has an extensive history of deer management. It has created
a “Deer Management Toolkit” to help handle its White-tail overpopulation problem.
Based on information from the Weston Police Department and the Massachusetts
Department of Public Health (MDPH), the Sudbury Valley Trustees were able to prepare
a fact sheet about White-tailed deer. This fact sheet stated that Weston police had
reported an average of 34 deer related collisions per year from 2001-2010 and that the
MDPH reported an average of 48 residents contracting Lyme disease from 20052011.138 In 2012, a survey was sent to Weston residents to get a better understanding of
how they had been impacted by White-tailed deer. The survey received 231 responses.139
40% of survey respondents reported that either they or someone in their family had
contracted Lyme disease. 72% of participants reported that they had experienced garden
or landscape damage from deer. Finally, 73% of survey respondents said that they were
in favor of Weston working to get the deer population to a sustainable level.
“Why is Framingham Conservation Commission supporting deer hunting on conservation land?” Framingham
Conservation Commission, accessed March 14, 2016,
http://www.framinghamma.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1011
137
Sonja Christensen, “White-tailed Deer in Massachusetts”, Town of Medfield, accessed March 13, 2016,
http://www.town.medfield.net/medfield/file/Sonya%20Medfield_deer_2010(1).pdf
138
Ibid.
139
“Town of Weston: Deer Survey Results 2012”, Sudbury Valley Trustees, accessed January 4, 2016,
http://www.sudburyvalleytrustees.org/sites/default/files/DeeronlinesurveySummaryWriteUp.pdf
136
60
A summary of the survey comments reveals the diversity of opinions on the
management issue. Some people believed that the population should be reduced
because of Lyme disease concerns and concerns for the deer's ecological impacts. Others
believed that Weston had no right to reduce the population of deer and that deer were
pleasant to encounter. The argument over specific management techniques revealed
that there were residents both for and against hunting, with others advocating only for
non-lethal methods.
A released conservation report outlined the conservation commissions' findings.
The commission considered the four possible methods of deer management as
translocation, contraceptives, mass sharpshooting, and hunting, choosing hunting as the
most practical option.140 After an in-depth analysis of the options, the commission
concluded that a bow hunting program would be the most efficient and cost effective
option to manage the deer population, with strong consideration given for the safety of
residents and the assurance that they would still be able to enjoy recreation on public
land opened to regulated bow hunting. The bow hunting program was not expected to
be an instantaneous solution. The goal was to hopefully curb the growth of the Whitetail population and build public acceptance for hunting until the plan could be expanded
to reduce the deer density to the Massachusetts DFW's goal of 6-8 per square mile. This
hunting program recently concluded its fourth hunting season.
The town of Lincoln has been in the midst of a discussion on deer management,
as the community has become concerned by their impacts. On the town's webpage, there
are multiple resources available for education on Lyme disease and deer ticks and how
140
“Deer in Weston: Conservation Commission Report May 2012”, Sudbury Valley Trustees, accessed January 4,
2016, http://www.sudburyvalleytrustees.org/sites/default/files/WestonDeerConComreport2012.pdf
61
they may be avoided. This includes a 40-page statewide report from a special
commission whose goal was to assess the impacts of Lyme disease.141 The Lincoln Board
of Health declared the month of May "Lyme Disease Awareness Month", and released a
fact sheet that encouraged residents to share with one another.142 One conclusion drawn
at the end of a downloadable resource uploaded in 2010 reads, "The town can only do so
much, but public education, opening of town-land to hunting and encouraging more
hunting on private land are likely to be the best methods".143
In 2009, Lincoln developed a Tick Task Force after residents had answered a
series of surveys in which they deemed ticks to be their highest health concern: “Every
response said that the individual either had Lyme disease, a member of their family had
Lyme disease, or they knew of a neighbor who had Lyme disease.”144 The town then
purchased Tick Tubes as a potential solution to the Lyme problem and sold them to
residents. These tick tubes are made of cardboard and infused with chemicals which kill
ticks. Mice will collect the tick tubes and incorporate them into their nests, and then
ticks will die after attempting to feed on the mice. In 2010, Lincoln noted in its 7-year
plan that management decisions regarding deer and deer ticks needed to be made.145
The parties responsible for these decisions would be the Lincoln Land Conservation
Trust and the Lincoln Conservation Commission. With no shortage of available
information on management options from surrounding towns, representatives from
Lyme Disease in Massachusetts”, accessed March 16, 2016,
http://www.lincolntown.org/documentcenter/view/57
142
“May is Lyme Disease Awareness Month”, Lincoln Board of Health, accessed March 16, 2016,
http://www.lincolntown.org/documentcenter/view/6761
143
“Executive Summary – Deer, Lyme Disease, and Other Issues”, The Deer Population Sub-Committee, accessed
March 21, 2016, http://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/50
144
Carey Goldberg, “In Lincoln, It’s Town Vs. Ticks”, Boston’s NPR News Station, accessed March 21, 2016,
http://www.wbur.org/2012/06/25/lyme-disease-lincoln
145
“Seven Year Action Plan- January 2010”, Town of Lincoln, accessed March 22, 2016,
http://www.lincolntown.org/documentcenter/view/411
141
62
Lincoln paid close attention to the events unfolding nearby in Weston. Archives show
that the Lincoln Conservation Commission reported on and discussed the results of a
Weston deer forum in 2013.146 In March of 2015, AgCom member Ari Kurtz and
ConCom member Jordan McCarron gave an update on the Carlisle deer forum to the
rest of the commission.147 It was at this time that the commission began to more
seriously consider different approaches to deer management in Lincoln: “The bottom
line is that Lincoln should strive to achieve a sustainable deer population. In order to do
that the Town should seek a baseline understanding of what Lincoln’s deer density
is.”148 After that, a committee on deer management was established. In the next month,
Jordan gave an update on the Lincoln Deer Study, though the town website does not
state what the update entailed.149
The town currently does not have a hunting program for managing the
population, though hunting on private land that complies with state hunting regulations
has always been allowed. Some landowners have hired bow hunters or deer hunting
companies like MassDeerService Inc. to hunt deer on their properties.150 Though
Lincoln has not decided on a future management plan, it is important that they are
starting to more seriously address the impacts of White-tailed deer.
Lincoln is participating in a Tick Borne Disease Network study of ticks by having
residents collect 100 ticks and submit them to testing along with samples taken from 31
“Conservation Director’s Report- June 5, 2013”, Conservation Department, Town of Lincoln, accessed March
22, 2016, http://www.lincolntown.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/06052013-76
147
“Conservation Director’s Report- March 11, 2015”, Conservation Department, Town of Lincoln, accessed March
22, 2016, http://www.lincolntown.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/03112015-1009
148
Ibid.
149
“Conservation Director’s Report- April 1, 2015”, Conservation Department, Town of Lincoln, accessed March
22, 2016, http://www.lincolntown.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/04012015-1033
150
Cynthia E. Field, “TEPP Story : Deer in the Spotlight: Does Hunting Reduce Your Exposure to Lyme Disease?”,
TickEncounter Resource Center, accessed March 23, 2016,
http://www.tickencounter.org/tepp/mass_deer_service
146
63
other towns. Concord is also a participating town in this study, given funding by the
Patrick Administration.151 This project is an example of citizen science efforts that
incorporate the public into the management discussion and promote information
sharing on wildlife management.
Concord has yet to create any kind of deer management system, but residents and
officials have recognized that there are issues with the level of deer density in the area.
On its town website, Concord provides easy access to the Massachusetts Department of
Public Health's fact sheets on Lyme disease, Babesiosis HGA, and other diseases borne
on deer ticks. Concord allows hunting on private land given that the owners abide by the
state hunting regulations. Concord has recognized that there is an overpopulation of
White-tailed deer in the area.152 In 2008, the Concord police department stated that
there had been 44 deer related collisions that year.153 In 2011, 15 deer related collisions
were recorded.154
In September of 2011, the Natural Resources Commission discussed Weston's
ongoing deer management debate. The commission “concurred that deer are having an
impact on native flora but was uncertain whether a policy was necessary [...]
Commissioner Banfield stated that he likes to proceed on data and not perception.”155
Bias from residents, stakeholders, and groups, who are misinformed or perhaps not
“May is Lyme Disease Awareness Month”, Lincoln Board of Health, accessed March 16, 2016,
http://www.lincolntown.org/documentcenter/view/6761
152
“Natural Resources”, Town of Concord Finance Department, accessed March 24, 2016
http://www.concordma.gov/pages/ConcordMA_Finance/clrp/chapter_6.pdf
153
“Public Safety”, Town Manager Reports, Town of Concord, accessed March 25, 2016,
http://www.concordma.gov/pages/ConcordMA_TownManager/town-reports/town-report-2008/Part-VPublic-Safety.pdf
154
Barry R. Neal, “Police Department”, Town Manager Reports, Town of Concord, accessed March 25, 2016,
http://www.concordma.gov/pages/ConcordMA_TownManager/town%20report%202011/police.pdf
155
“Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes September 21, 2011”, Natural Resources Commission, Town
of Concord, accessed March 25, 2016,
http://www.concordma.gov/Pages/ConcordMA_NRCMin/Minutes_2011/S017C0562
151
64
informed of empirical evidence surrounding deer management, can have a considerable
sway on management outcomes.
A 2013 Town Managers Report describes a presentation by the Dover Lyme
Disease Committee attended by the Concord Natural Resources Director Delia Kaye. 156
In the Managers Report it is noted that Dover took a three pronged approach to the
Lyme disease issue by encouraging personal protection, property protection and
suggesting that hunting be done on town lands to help manage the deer population.
While these are the actions of another town and not Concord’s, Concord is putting
considerable thought into the issue of deer management. They have addressed concerns
over Lyme disease by providing necessary information to make residents more aware of
the disease and how it works.
Wayland is a town that is also concerned by the impacts of its native deer
population. In the Natural and Cultural Resources section of a Wayland Master Plan
revised in August 2004, it was noted that “the excessive numbers of some wildlife
species in Wayland cause problems. These species include [...] White-tailed Deer.”157
However, the plan does not mention anything else besides a recognizable issue. In 2011,
Wayland also paid special attention to the goings on in Weston.158 The Weston
discussion on White-tailed deer management was an important milestone in regional
“Town Manager’s Report January 13, 2014”, Town of Concord, accessed March 25, 2016,
http://www.concordma.gov/Pages/ConcordMA_ManagerReports/2014%20Town%20Manager%20Reports/
Town%20Managers%20Rpt%20January%2013,%202014.pdf
157
“Natural and Cultural Resources”, Wayland Town Master Plan, Town of Wayland, accessed March 26, 2016
http://www.wayland.ma.us/Pages/WaylandMA_Planning/master/5.pdf
158
“Notice of Meetings of Town Boards/Committees/Commissions September 22, 2011”, Town of Wayland,
accessed March 26, 2016,
http://www.wayland.ma.us/Pages/WaylandMA_ConservationAg/2011%20Agendas/110922Agnda.pdf
156
65
management efforts and continues to influence the surrounding towns. Wayland,
Concord, and Lincoln have all expressed interest in both the discussion and the results.
Wayland, like Weston, Lincoln and Concord is a member of the Middlesex Tick
Task Force.159 In 2014, representatives from Wayland attended a discussion on Dover's
deer management strategy which included the Tick Task Force’s plans to educate the
public on ticks and preventative measures.160 Wayland does not permit hunting on any
public land, but like the other towns has hunters who hunt on private land while
obeying state hunting regulations. These regulations enforce a necessary distance from
any occupied residence from which the hunter will fire their bow at a downward angle
from a tree stand. A professor of infectious disease and global health Dr. Sam Telford
gave a talk in Wayland in 2015 on the relationship between Lyme disease and Whitetailed deer. Dr. Telford believes that hunting will play a key role in responding to the
Lyme disease epidemic, but that there still is not enough support in the region for it to
have a strong impact.161
These towns provide a favorable opportunity to conduct a case study on public
awareness and attitudes regarding deer management and general wildlife management.
The towns chosen for the survey are politically and economically similar, and all are
home to White-tailed deer. Two of the five towns are already managing deer, and the
other three are paying attention to how management in the area has been structured
“Initial Middlesex Tick Task Force Newspaper Article: Introducing the Task Force’s Mission and Goals”,
Wayland.ma.us, accessed March 26, 2016,
http://www.wayland.ma.us/Pages/WaylandMA_Health/ticktask.pdf
160
“Wayland Conservation Commission Minutes, January 9, 2014”, Wayland Conservation Commission, Town of
Wayland, accessed March 26, 2016,
http://www.wayland.ma.us/pages/WaylandMA_ConservationMin/2014%20Minutes/Appproved%20Minut
es%20Jan%209%202014.pdf
161
Jim Haddadin, “Expert: Deer Fueling Spread of Lyme Disease”, The MetroWest Daily News, accessed March
27, 2016, http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/article/20150528/NEWS/150526524
159
66
and carried out. The Boston Suburban Deer Survey will hopefully assist in gauging shifts
in public awareness and attitudes following a town level management discussion.
Chapter 7: Methods and Survey Materials
To assess the impact of town level wildlife management on residential awareness
and knowledge, the Boston Suburban Deer Survey (BSDS) was constructed. The 39question survey presented residents with both the benefits and problems that are
associated with a high population of White-tailed deer. Topics for the survey include
attitudes towards wildlife and hunting, perceptions of local deer population, recreational
use of public land, awareness of town-level policies related to deer management,
concerns relating to deer management, and demographic information. Interviews with
several members from among the five towns’ conservation commissions provided input
in the refinement of the survey questions. This was done to ensure that the survey
reflected the needs of each town and that the survey would be relevant to the deer
related issues each town is facing.
Entries in the public data files from the tax assessor’s offices in the five towns
were used to determine potential recipients of the survey. A random sample of 250
residents from each town was generated through random integer generation and the
cross referencing of the randomized lists with the entries in the tax data. Using a
random sample of residents ensures that the responses to the survey are representative
of the towns. 250 individuals were chosen with the expectation that there will be a 40%
response rate on the surveys (100 people). 95 responses are needed from each of the
towns so that the population’s responses could be measured with a 95% confidence
67
interval and a 10% error margin. The total sample for the survey would be 1250 for an
expected response sample of 500.
The survey was mailed along with a flier detailing the background and goals of
the study. This was done so that recipients of the survey would have a better idea of
what their responses would contribute to and hopefully increase the response rate. The
privacy and confidentiality of the participants are entirely protected. The personal
identifiers collected were only for the purpose of mailing the flier and survey. The
responses from the survey were recorded without any of the identifiers. This way the
confidentiality of all of the participants will be maintained, as their name is not
associated with any of the data or results.
The BSDS questions (Appendix A) are categorized into eight ordered sections:
attitudes towards wildlife, attitudes towards hunting, recreation, perceptions of deer
population, awareness of deer management policies, concerns relating to deer
management, and demographic, and property information. In total, the survey is
analyzing 108 distinct variables.
The BSDS fields several different types of questions. One type of question aimed
at discerning attitudes uses a five-point scale ranging from strongly-agree to stronglydisagree. Some questions include multiple checkable choices, where participants check
the boxes they deem applicable to answering the given question. Yes or no questions are
also used to gauge residents’ opinions. Other questions prompt residents to choose a
single answer out of multiple choices, particularly in the sections of the survey devoted
to recreation and perceptions of the deer herd. Unanswered questions are coded as
invalid responses. If a participant does not follow the instructions for a particular
question then their response will also be coded as invalid.
68
For survey questions that have a range of answers from strongly agree-strongly
disagree, a number between 1-5 is assigned. For the questions with yes or no responses,
the total number of each response per town will be calculated and used to provide an
idea of how the participants felt overall on a particular subject. For the questions where
any number of specific boxes may be checked, the total number of people who checked
each box will be recorded and then compared over different demographic variables.
Minimal psychological stress was a potential risk of this survey. Some negative
impacts of high deer densities include increased incidence of Lyme disease, increased
car collisions with deer, and an increase in property and crop damage. A participant in
the survey may already have a negative disposition towards White-tailed deer and could
become upset when viewing particular questions. For example, a participant may have
known someone who was hurt or killed in a deer related accident or who may be
suffering from Lyme disease. None of the questions are phrased in a way that would
purposely seek these reactions.
Survey responses were then entered into an Excel codebook. These entries did
not include names or addresses so that the results would be confidential. From Excel,
the data was statistically analyzed using the statistical analysis software called R.
Chapter 8: Results of Survey
Results as of 4/19/2016 (n = 194)
Response rate: 16% (not yet adjusted for undeliverables or return to sender)
Attitudes towards wildlife
69
91% of respondents Agree or Strongly Agree that it is the responsibility of people toward wildlife
to take care of it for future generations, indicating a very positive view towards wildlife
stewardship.
83% of respondents Agree or Strongly Agree that wildlife make their community a special place,
45% Agree or Strongly Agree that wildlife is an important reason for recreation, 92% Agree or
Strongly Agree that wildlife are a reason to protect forest from development, 66% Agree or
Strongly agree that wildlife play a significant role in the community, 25% Agree or Strongly
Agree that wildlife are a nuisance, 15% Agree or Strongly that wildlife are costly, and 77%
Agree or Strongly Agree that wildlife should be managed as part of a sustainable land
management program. This indicates a positive regard for wildlife generally and overall support
for wildlife management.
88% of respondents feel Positive or Strongly positive about wildlife, while only 3% feel
Negatively (the rest feel neither positive nor negative).
More respondents were concerned about wildlife as it relates to disease contraction, altering
vegetation, and roadway accidents than as a danger to themselves, children, or pets (Table 1).
Table 1: Concerns about wildlife
Concern
Increase the chances I might contract a
disease
Are dangerous to me
Are dangerous to my children
May cause roadway accidents
Alter the vegetation on my property
Are a threat to my pets or other domestic
animals
Percentage of respondents
54
10
12
45
52
26
Attitudes towards hunting
14% of respondents have hunted and only 2% of respondents had hunted in the last two years.
However, 27% of respondents had a family member or close friend hunt in the last 2 years.
62% of respondents approved of hunting, 31% disapprove, and 6% declined to respond.
Recreation
70
The majority of respondents indicated that in the last 5 years and the next 5 years, the have or
will engage in outdoor recreation activities several times per week or per month (Fig 1).
A
B
Past recreation
Future recreation
30
20
Percentage
10
20
10
Frequency
NA
r
N e ve
ly
Ra r e
2-3 ti
me s
per m
onth
ee k
per w
2-3 ti
m es
NA
r
N e ve
ly
Ra r e
onth
per m
me s
2-3 ti
2-3 ti
m es
per w
ee k
0
Daily
0
Daily
Percentage
30
Frequency
Fig. 1: Frequency of outdoor recreation in the last 5 years (A) and the next 5 years (B).
The most common recreational activities were wildlife viewing, photography and fishing (Table
2).
Table 2: Recreational activities in the last 5 and next 5 years
Recreational Activity
Last 5 years (%)
Next 5 years (%)
Wildlife viewing
80
80
Photography
44
45
Painting
4
7
Hunting
2
3
Fishing
20
19
Perceptions of deer population
The majority (79%) of respondents had only seen deer rarely or 2-3 x month in the last two
years.
Over the last 5 years, a plurality (34%) of respondents believed the deer herd has increased, 13%
believed the herd has decreased, 22% believed the herd has stayed the same, and 31% were not
sure.
71
When asked how they felt about having deer in their neighborhood, 31% said they enjoyed deer
and weren’t concerned about their impacts, 54% said they enjoyed deer but were concerned by
their impacts, 10% dislike deer, and 5% had no particular feelings about deer in their
neighborhood.
Respondents tended to agree that it was reasonable to have deer in the community, but that the
town should address deer related impacts. Respondents tended to disagree that deer create a
serious nuisance or that they posed a safety risk in the town. Respondents were generally neutral
that deer pose a serious health risk in the town (Table 3).
Table 3: Perceptions of the deer population
Perception
It is reasonable to have a deer herd in our
community
Deer seriously damage plants and resources in the
town
Deer create a serious nuisance for people in the
town
Deer present a serious health risk in the town
Deer present a serious safety risk in the town
The town should address deer related impacts
Addressing deer related impacts would affect me
positively
Addressing deer related impacts would affect me
negatively
Average (1 = Strongly Agree, 5 =
Strongly Disagree)
2.1
2.8
3.3
2.9
3.3
2.5
2.6
3.4
Awareness of deer management policies
In the last year, 45% of respondents had read or listened to news about deer management, but
only 10% had talked with local officials about deer management. Not a single respondent
provided written comments on a deer management plan, impact statement, or survey, and only
3% had written a letter to a newspaper about deer management in the town or attended a public
meeting about deer management in the town.
When asked how likely they would do something if their town were to consider addressing deerrelated impacts in the future, 89% said they would Likely or Very Likely read or listen to news
about deer management, 28% would talk with local officials, 24% would provide written
comments on a plan, statement or survey, 10% would write a letter to a newspaper, and 48%
would attend a public meeting deer management in the town.
On average, respondents neither agreed nor disagreed about perception statements about their
involvement in town-level deer management. Respondents tended to agree that interactions
72
between themselves, experts, and people with different opinions helped to build future
relationships. Respondents tended to disagree with the statement that they weren’t comfortable
voicing an opinion.
Table 4: Perception of empowerment regarding deer management
Perception
Average (1 = Strongly Agree, 5 =
Strongly Disagree)
I usually have enough opportunities to provide
3.0
input on deer management decisions
I do not believe my input is or would be taken
3.2
seriously by management officials
I do not have enough information to give
2.6
meaningful input on deer management
The different ways the town asks for my opinion
2.9
(e.g., meetings, written, conversation) encourage
me to provide input
I am not comfortable voicing my opinion about
3.5
deer management decisions
Public input usually leads to better management
2.3
decisions
For the most part, interactions between myself,
2.2
experts, and people with ideas different from my
own help build future relationships
12% of respondents thought people like themselves had a lot of influence on deer management in
their town while 51% thought they had some influence. Only 2% of respondents thought people
like themselves had no influence at all on deer management in their town.
60% of respondents thought that managing deer in their town can have an influence on the
quality of life in surrounding communities, while 22% thought it would have very little or none.
Concerns relating to deer management
The majority of respondents indicated not much or no concern about potential effects of an
increased deer herd. 40% of respondents indicated that they were concerned about deer/vehicle
collisions while 52% indicated not much or no concern. Only 26% indicated concern about
Lyme disease while 66% indicated not much or no concern. 37% and 35% were concerned about
the effect of deer on natural and planted vegetation, respectively. 43% and 46% expressed not
much or no concern.
Although most respondents believed that hunting was both effective and affordable, compared to
non-lethal methods (Table 5), many respondents answered “I don’t know” when it come to the
effectiveness and affordability of different deer control methods. In fact 40% of respondents did
73
not know how effective non-lethal control methods were and 47% did not know how affordable
non-lethal control methods would be.
Table 5: Respondent evaluation of different deer control methods
Control method
Effective/Very Effective
Affordable/Very Affordable
Hunting
57%
48%
Sharpshooting or other
45%
20%
lethal control
Non-lethal methods such as 44%
10%
birth control
When it comes to deer management technique preferences, ranked preferences were very
different across respondents. 27% of respondents indicated that allowing hunting on public or
private land was their most preferred method, while 47% listed non-lethal methods as their most
preferred method. The plurality (13%) ranked from least to most preferred: allow hunting on
public land, allow hunting on private land only, sharpshooting, non-lethal methods such as birth
control. However, 29% of respondents are opposed to hunting or other lethal technique to
manage the deer herd (71% are not opposed), indicating that although more people prefer nonlethal methods of deer management, they would not oppose lethal methods.
Demographics and property information
35% of respondents were retired, 46% were female, and all were on average age 62 with a
standard deviation of 12.9 years. 92% of respondents had a Bachelor’s or advanced degree, 97%
were white/Caucasian, and 75% of respondents had an income of $100,000 or higher.
Respondents had lived at their current address an average of 21 years (standard deviation of 15
years) with a minimum of 0 and maximum of 81 years.
Town: Weston (11%), Wayland (22%), Sudbury (19%), Lincoln (27%), Concord (22%)
In the last 12 months, 43% had a vegetable garden, 75% had a flower garden, 36% had fruit
trees, and 94% had shrubs or other ornamentals. Only 18% indicated that deer were eating their
vegetable gardens, 45% indicated that deer were eating their flower gardens, 55% reported that
deer were eating their woody ornamentals, and 34% said deer were not eating anything on their
property. When asked to rate the amount of deer damage on their property, 32% reported none,
40% reported light, 8% reported substantial, and 3% reported severe.
Finally, 96% of respondents indicated that they believe deer use the parks, woods, or other
undeveloped land near their property. The majority believed deer were in open spaces (65%),
and more believed they were specifically in woods (88%) as opposed to agricultural lands (27%).
74
15
0
5
10
Frequency
20
25
30
Age distribution
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Age (years)
Effect of "town" Variable
The effect of the town variable was not significant in the way it was hypothesized. When
results to questions 16-20 and 22-25 were analyzed by town, all responses were not
statistically significant (p>0.05). No variables from earlier questions changed
significantly depending on what town the respondent was from either.
Using a logistical regression, it was found that living in Wayland did decrease the log
odds of opposing lethal-methods by 2.2, which was significant. Other significant
variables in predicting opposition of lethal methods included concern about deer
collision, believing the deer herd was increasing, and having ever hunt (all reduced odds
of opposition). Overall the effect of the town variable was smaller than it was
hypothesized to be.
Chapter 9: Discussion of Results
Overall, the survey was able to gauge residents’ attitudes towards wildlife and
hunting, perceptions of local deer population, recreational use of public land, awareness
75
of town-level policies related to deer management, concerns relating to deer
management, and demographic information without issue. Of the 39 questions, only
one question received a significant number of respondents who did not fully follow the
question's instructions. The response rate for the first wave of surveys was 16%, which is
significantly lower than the desired response rate of 40%. Moving forward, a reminder
postcard will likely be sent out to remind participants to complete the survey. A larger
pool of respondents would make any significant findings more substantive and would
better discern the public's perceptions of their local deer herd. Additionally, the survey
may be posted on the Harvard Forest website so that it might be quicker for participants
to complete. The demographics of respondents were what was expected; respondents
were predominantly white, wealthy, and educated. The majority of respondents were in
the 60-70 age range and a third were retired. These demographics may speak to the
kinds of residents who care more strongly about the issue of wildlife management. The
distribution of participants by town was very interesting. Weston and Sudbury, the two
towns with management programs, had the lowest response rates for the survey.
Perhaps residents from Weston and Sudbury did not see the need to complete the
survey as their towns had already implemented a deer management program.
Additionally, Lincoln was the town with the highest response rate, and is also the town
that most closely monitored the deer management discussion in Weston several years
ago. Perhaps the higher response rate to the surveys reflected a greater interest in future
deer management in Lincoln.
The results of the BSDS show that residents in these Boston suburbs have a
generally positive view towards wildlife and wildlife management. These are the kinds of
responses that will be helpful for town governments and wildlife agencies to access.
76
Respondents generally believed that nature and wildlife made their town special.
Obstacles in the deer management process, therefore, likely stem less from perceptions
of wildlife management as a subject and more from the way that proposed management
would be carried out. As other data from the survey suggests, there is much more
controversy over management techniques than the idea of wildlife management itself.
While Table 1 showed that respondents were more concerned with vehicle, disease, and
property related risks, many of those respondents specifically wrote in the margins of
the corresponding question that they were specifically concerned with deer as causes of
accidents and as carriers of ticks with Lyme disease.
The results regarding residents’ attitudes toward hunting showed that a twothirds majority of respondents approved hunting, with a third of respondents not
approving. For the 6% of respondents who did not respond to the question on approval
of hunting, most wrote in the margin of the survey that they could not approve of
particular aspects of hunting. For example, some responses were from residents who
would only approve of hunting if it were done by sharpshooters and at a time in the
early morning when nobody would be recreationally using public land. Others wrote in
that they would approve of hunting if the meat from harvested deer was donated to
charity or used in soup kitchens. These results suggest that residents may not be
opposed to hunting in general but that the disagreement on using hunting as a deer
management tool in suburban Boston has more to do with the kind of hunting and other
aspects of the harvesting process.
BSDS results showed that residents generally responded that they would like to
increase their recreational usage of public lands in the next five years, and that the
recreational usage of public land was already very high for a majority of respondents.
77
Although respondents said they would like to go outside more often, the specific types of
activities in which they wished to engage did not change significantly. This would
suggest that respondents wish to engage in the same activities more often and are not
compelled to engaging in new activities. This would imply that residents in suburban
Boston are not looking or hoping to engage in recreational hunting more often. This
knowledge could be useful for advising wildlife agencies, as it shows that recreational
hunting may not have the participation or traction necessary to make it a viable
management option.
Results regarding the different perceptions of suburban deer herds show the
great difference in opinions between towns with very similar demographics. The
question asking how respondents thought the deer herd in their town had changed over
the last five years shows how different respondents perceptions of local deer herds are.
Half of respondents said that while they were concerned by the impacts of local deer,
they still enjoyed them. For wildlife management to work, it is important to have a
community that appreciates wildlife in general, so these kinds of results are
encouraging. While there were more respondents who only viewed deer positively than
those who only viewed negatively, it is helpful to see that residents in the area do not
have a significantly skewed perception of their town’s deer herd. These results would
imply that residents are generally knowledgeable about what can make deer dangerous
or nuisances, but also understand that deer are important to the local environment.
Residents generally believed that it was reasonable to have a deer herd in the
community. It is interesting, however, that residents generally disagreed that deer were
nuisances and that they posed a safety risk for the town. Moreover, respondents were
generally neutral on the question of whether or not deer were a health risk for a town. In
78
the previous questions assessing concerns towards wildlife in general, most respondents
answered and even wrote in that they were concerned about diseases and vehicle
accidents due to wildlife. The results from the sections on concerns towards wildlife and
deer are not necessarily conflicting. While respondents could genuinely be more afraid
of accidents caused by other animals and diseases spread by other animals, such as
mosquitoes, there might be a bias towards deer present. A different statistical test might
help determine if there is a present bias or type 1 error in the responses.
In general, respondents had not been very active in following or participating in
management discussions in the last year, though there was a significant shift in attitudes
projected in the question asking respondents what aspects of management discussion
they would participate in in the next year if their town decided to address deer-related
impacts. In general, respondents did not fully believe that they had enough information
to give helpful contributions to a management discussion, though they also were
generally comfortable with sharing their opinions. Moreover, it is very promising to hear
that respondents value the management discussion as a way to make new connections
and learn more about wildlife management. These results imply that while respondents
believe the town should be responsible for handling deer management, they also want to
be able to express their opinions and have the public play a part in wildlife management.
While there are clearly groups of people who follow town events, the vast majority are
not highly involved in town-level management politics.
Even though half of respondents listed non-lethal methods of management as
their preferred choice, many respondents weren't sure how affordable or effective nonlethal methods of management were. In addition, opinions of the cost and effectiveness
of both sharpshooting and recreational hunting were very different. These results
79
suggest that there might be a bias for non-lethal techniques, although a majority of
respondents said they would not be opposed to lethal-methods of management. This is
an interesting finding because 71% of respondents said that they would not be opposed
to lethal management techniques while previously only 62% of respondents said that
they approved of hunting. Perhaps some residents who disapprove of hunting believe it
is justified or necessary to use to manage the local deer. Additionally there might be an
issue with how town governments are sharing management information to residents.
One surprising conclusion from running a logistical regression using “town” as
the dependent variable was that the town had no significant effect on the responses. It
was hypothesized that residents might have felt more comfortable with their opinions
and believe they were more informed in towns such as Weston and Sudbury who have
deer management programs, but this was not the case. The only significant finding with
the town variable was that respondents from Wayland were significantly less likely to
oppose lethal methods of management. Overall, location in this study proved to be a
much less significant factor in attitudes and perceptions of suburban deer than we
believed it would.
The BSDS was successful in gauging the residential attitudes and perceptions of
deer in suburban Boston. While there is not significant evidence from the survey to
suggest that the implementation of a management program will affect residential
knowledge of the wildlife management process, the survey was successful in gauging
how residents felt about wildlife and recreation in general. Although the results are still
largely preliminary, there is an opportunity to further explore what variables influence
opinions on wildlife and deer management in suburban Boston. The current findings of
80
the BSDS will already be helpful to town governments in similar suburban areas and
also to wildlife agencies.
Sources
“About Lyme Disease”, Lymedisease.org, accessed March 17, 2016,
https://www.lymedisease.org/lyme-basics/lyme-disease/about-lyme/
Blackwell, BF, Seamans, TW, DeVault, TL. “White-Tailed Deer Response to Vehicle Approach:
Evidence of Unclear and Present Danger”, 2014, accessed April 5, 2016,
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0109988
"Block Island Deer Management FAQ". Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management. Accessed Jan 17, 2016.
http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/bnatres/fishwild/pdf/bideerfs.pdf
Bogan Dan, “Rise of the Eastern Coyote”, New York State Conservationist, Department of
Environmental Conservation, accessed April 14, 2016,
http://www.dec.ny.gov/pubs/97143.html
Bowker, J. M., D.H. Newman, R. J. Warren, and D.W. Henderson. 2003. Estimating the
economic value of lethal versus nonlethal deer control in suburban communities. Soc.
Nat. Resource 16:143 – 158.
“By The Numbers: Expanding in Archery, Bowhunting”, Shooting Industry, accessed April 20,
2016, http://www.shootingindustry.com/by-the-numbers-expanding-in-archerybowhunting/
81
Cambronne, Al. Deerland: America's Hunt for Ecological Balance and the Essence of
Wildness. Rowman and Littlefield. 2013. Print.
Causey, K. and Scott, M.D. “Ecology of feral dogs in Alabama”. J. Wildl. Manage.
37:253-265, 1973.
"Car and Deer Collisions Cause 200 Deaths, Cost $4 Billion Per Year". Insurance Journal.
Accessed Oct 2, 2015.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2012/10/24/267786.htm
Chase, LC, Siemer, WH, and Decker, DJ. “Designing Stakeholder Involvement Strategies to
Resolve Wildlife Management Controversies”, Wildlife Society Bulletin 30, No. 3 (2002).
Christensen, Sonja “White-tailed Deer in Massachusetts”, Town of Medfield, accessed March 13,
2016, http://www.town.medfield.net/medfield/file/Sonya%20Medfield_deer_2010(1).pdf
“Colliding with deer is costly, especially for some vehicles”, The Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety, accessed April 14, 2016,
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/49/9/3
Connelly, Nancy A. ,Decker, Daniel J. “Motivations for Deer Hunting: Implications for
Antlerless Deer Harvest as a Management Tool”. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17, No. 4
(1989).
Connelly, Nancy A. ,Decker, Daniel J., and Wear, Sam. “Public Tolerance of Deer in a Suburban
Environment”, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, accessed April 16, 2016,
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=ewdcc3
Conover, Michael R. “Monetary and Intangible Valuation of Deer in the United States”. Wildlife
Society Bulletin, (1997) http://www.jstor.org/stable/3783447.
82
Conover, M.R., and Decker, D.J. “Wildlife damage to crops: Perceptions of agricultural and
wildlife professionals in 1957 and 1987”, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 19, 46-52, 1991.
“Conservation Director’s Report- April 1, 2015”, Conservation Department, Town of Lincoln,
accessed March 22, 2016,
http://www.lincolntown.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/04012015-1033
“Conservation Director’s Report- June 5, 2013”, Conservation Department, Town of Lincoln,
accessed March 22, 2016,
http://www.lincolntown.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/06052013-76
“Conservation Director’s Report- March 11, 2015”, Conservation Department, Town of Lincoln,
accessed March 22, 2016,
http://www.lincolntown.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/03112015-1009
Cornicelli, Louis, Woolf, Alan, Roseberry, John L. "Residential Attitudes and Perceptions
Toward a Suburban Deer Population in Southern Illinois." Illinois State Academy of
Science. Accessed Nov 3, 2015. http://ilacadofsci.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/08603MS9212-print.pdf
Curtis, Paul D., and Sullivan, Kristi L. “White-tailed Deer”, Wildlife Damage Management Fact
Sheet series, Cornell Corporate Extension, 2001,
http://wildlifecontrol.info/pubs/Documents/Deer/Deer_factsheet.pdf
Daley, Beth, “Drawing the Lines in the Lyme Disease Battle”, Boston Globe, accessed April 5,
2016, https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/06/01/lyme-disease-rise-andcontroversy-over-how-sick-makes-patients/OT4rCTy9qRYh25GsTocBhL/story.html
DeCalesta, David S., and Stout, Susan L. “Relative deer density and sustainability: Conceptual
framework for integrating deer management with ecosystem management”, Wildlife
Society Bulletin, 1997.
83
DeCalesta, David S. " Effect of White-tailed Deer On Songbirds Within Managed Forests
in Pennsylvania ". Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. U.S.Forest Service. Accessed
Oct 5, 2015. http://blogs.cornell.edu/cerp/files/2014/05/Effect-of-white-tailed-deer-onsongbirds-.pdf
Decker, Daniel J., and Nancy A. Connelly. “Motivations for Deer Hunting: Implications
for Antlerless Deer Harvest as a Management Tool”. Wildlife Society Bulletin (19732006) 17.4 (1989): 455–463.
Decker, Daniel J., and Gavin, Thomas A. “Public Attitudes toward a Suburban Deer Herd”,
Wildlife Society Bulletin 15, No. 2 (1987): 173-180.
“Deer Facts”, Sudbury Valley Trustees, accessed January 4, 2016,
http://www.sudburyvalleytrustees.org/sites/default/files/DeerFactsWeston.pdf
"Deer Hunting: An Effective Management Tool". Maryland Department of Natural
Resources. Accessed Jan 18, 2016.
http://dnr2.maryland.gov/wildlife/Pages/hunt_trap/deerhuntastool.aspx
“Deer in Weston: Conservation Commission Report May 2012”, Sudbury Valley Trustees,
accessed January 4, 2016,
http://www.sudburyvalleytrustees.org/sites/default/files/WestonDeerConComreport2012.
pdf
“Deer Management Options”, Connecticut.gov, accessed April 15, 2016,
http://www.ct.gov/dph/lib/dph/infectious_diseases/lyme/DeerManagementOptions_FNL.
pdf
“Deer Problems and Issues”, Suburban White-tail Management of Northern Virginia, accessed
March 19, 2016,
84
http://www.deerdamage.org/page/problems-and-issues
“Deer-Vehicle Collisions Are Numerous and Costly. Do Countermeasures Work?”, Road
Management and Engineering Journal, 1997,
http://www.usroads.com/journals/rmj/9705/rm970503.htm
“Deer Vs. Car Collisions”, Culture of Safety, accessed March 28, 2016,
http://www.cultureofsafety.com/driving/deer-vs-car-collisions/
DeNicola, Anthony J., VerCauteren, Kurt C., Curtis, Paul D., Hygnstrom, Scot. "Managing
White-tailed Deer in Suburban Environments." Virginia Department
of Game and Inland Fisheries. Accessed Oct 29, 2015.
http://www.dgif.state.va.us/wildlife/deer/suburban.pdf
Dobriner, William M. Class in Suburbia. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963.
Druckerman, Pamela. "How Not to Think About Bears". New York Times. Accessed Oct
3, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/20/opinion/how-not-to-think-aboutbears.html?_r=0
Duffy, DC, Campbell, SR, Clark, D, Dimotta, C, Gurney, S. “Ixodes-Scapularis (Acari,
ixodidae) Deer Tick Mesoscale Populations in Natural Areas - Effects of Deer, Area, and
Location”, Journal of Medical Entomology, Entomological Society of America, 1994,
accessed April 1, 2016,
https://apps.webofknowledge.com/CitedFullRecord.do?product=WOS&colName=WOS
&SID=2CGt9YPXrxvun9BePFN&search_mode=CitedFullRecord&isickref=WOS:A199
4MP53600021&cacheurlFromRightClick=no
“Eastern Coyote”, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, accessed April 2,
2016, http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/9359.html
85
Evans, Kate “Coyote Population on rise in Medford, Across Massachusetts”, Medford
Transcript, accessed March 28, 2016,
http://medford.wickedlocal.com/article/20150305/NEWS/150309083
“Executive Summary – Deer, Lyme Disease, and Other Issues”, The Deer Population SubCommittee, accessed March 21, 2016,
http://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/50
Field, Cynthia E., “TEPP Story : Deer in the Spotlight: Does Hunting Reduce Your Exposure to
Lyme Disease?”, TickEncounter Resource Center, accessed March 23, 2016,
http://www.tickencounter.org/tepp/mass_deer_service
“Frequently asked questions about Lyme Disease”, Massachusetts Department of Public Health,
Accessed March 4, 2016,
http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/gov/departments/dph/programs/id/epidemiology/ticks/public
-health-cdc-tickborne-lyme-faq.html#2
Geist, Valerius. Deer of the World: Their Evolution, Behavior and Ecology. Stackpole Books,
1998.
Gelbart, Mark. “The Amazing Adaptable Whitetail Deer (Odocoileus virginiana)”. Georgia
Before People, accessed April 5, 2016.
https://markgelbart.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/the-amazing-adaptable-whitetaildeer-odocoileus-virginiana/
Gipson, P.S. and Sealander, J.A. “Home range and activity of the coyote (Canis latrans frust a) in
Arkansas”. Game and Fish Comm., 1972.
Goldberg, Carey “In Lincoln, It’s Town Vs. Ticks”, Boston’s NPR News Station, accessed March
21, 2016, http://www.wbur.org/2012/06/25/lyme-disease-lincoln
86
Gomes, Melanie. Personal Interview. Feb 25, 2016.
Haddadin, Jim. “Expert: Deer Fueling Spread of Lyme Disease”. The MetroWest Daily News,
accessed March 27, 2016.
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/article/20150528/NEWS/150526524
Hammitt, William E., Cary D. McDonald, and Michael E. Patterson. “Determinants of
Multiple Satisfaction for Deer Hunting”. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006) 18.3
(1990): 331–337.
Heffner, Henry Jr. ,and Heffner, Henry E. “The behavioral audiogram of whitetail deer
(Odocoileus virginianus)”, Acoustical Society of America, accessed March 30, 2016,
http://laboratoryofcomparativehearing.com/uploads/Behavioral_Audiogram_of_Whitetailed_Deer.pdf
Henderson, DW, Warren, RJ, Cromwell, JA, and Hamilton, RJ. “Responses of Urban Deer to a
50% Reduction in Local Herd Density”, Wildlife Society Bulletin 28, no. 4 (2000): 902910.
“Herbaceous Forbes: Garlic Mustard”, National Park Service, accessed March 19, 2016,
https://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/pubs/midatlantic/alpe.htm
Hewitt, David G., Biology and Management of White tailed Deer. CRC Press. 2011 .
Print.
“How are White-tailed Deer Affecting Agriculture in New Jersey?”, Center for Wildlife Damage
Control, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers University, accessed April
11, 2016, http://njaes.rutgers.edu/pubs/deerdamage/
87
“Initial Middlesex Tick Task Force Newspaper Article: Introducing the Task Force’s Mission
and Goals”, Wayland.ma.us, accessed March 26, 2016,
http://www.wayland.ma.us/Pages/WaylandMA_Health/ticktask.pdf
Jensen, Kelsey, McGee, Mary, Shapiro, Alexandra and Sperling, Arielle. “Public Perception of
Whitetail Deer in Hamilton, NY: Survey Results and Recommendations”, Upstate
Institute Student Research, accessed April 5, 2016,
http://commons.colgate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=upstate_student
Kilpatrick, Howard J., Labonte, Andrew M., Stafford III, Kirby C. “The Relationship Between
Deer Density, Tick Abundance, and Human Cases of Lyme Disease in a Residential
Community”, Journal of Medical Entomology, Entomological Society of America, 2014,
accessed March 4, 2016,
https://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=UA&search_mode=GeneralSe
arch&qid=10&SID=4AJRVhHqGcJ86WRFk8f&page=1&doc=1
Krech III, Shepard. The Ecological Indian: Myth and History. New York: W.W. Norton, 1999.
Lauber, T. Bruce, and Barbara A. Knuth. “Effects of Information on Attitudes Toward Suburban
Deer Management”, Wildlife Society Bulletin 32, No. 2 (2004).
Lauber, T. B., and B. A. Knuth. "Suburban Residents’ Criteria for Evaluating Contraception and
Other Deer Management Techniques." Hum. Dimensions Wildl., (2000).
Levi, Taal, Kilpatrick, A. Marm, k Mangel, Mark, Wilmers, Christopher “Deer, predators and
the emergence of Lyme disease”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America, 2012, accessed April 8, 2016,
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/27/10942.full
Levy, Sharon, “Rise of the Coyote: The New Top Dog”, Nature, accessed April 11, 2016,
http://www.nature.com/news/rise-of-the-coyote-the-new-top-dog-1.10635
88
"Lyme Disease in Massachusetts”, accessed March 16, 2016,
http://www.lincolntown.org/documentcenter/view/57
“Lyme Disease Surveillance in Massachusetts, 2013”. Massachusetts Department of Public
Health. Accessed March 8, 2016, http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/dph/cdc/lyme/lymedisease-surveillance-2013.pdf
MacGowan, Brian J., Humberg, Lee A., Beasley, James C., DeVault, Travis L.,. Retamosa,
Monica I., and Olin E., “Corn and Soybean Crop Depredation by Wildlife”, Department
of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, accessed April 5, 2016,
https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/FNR/FNR-265-W.pdf
“Managing Deer Damage”, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, accessed March 25, 2016,
http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/2718.htm
Mann, C. C., 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. New York, NY:
Vintage Books 2005.
“May is Lyme Disease Awareness Month”, Lincoln Board of Health, accessed March 16, 2016,
http://www.lincolntown.org/documentcenter/view/6761
McCullough, D.R. White-tailed deer: ecology and management. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole
Books, 1986, 211-242.
McShea, W. J., Underwood, H. B. And Rappole, J. H. "The Science of Overabundance: Deer
Ecology and Population Management". Wildlife Society Bulletin. Vol. 25, No. 2.
Montgomery County, Maryland Deer Management Program Deer Impact Data Collection
and Results Fiscal Years 1996 - 2012". The Montgomery County Deer Management Work
Group. Accessed Oct 6, 2015.
89
http://www.montgomeryparks.org/PPSD/Natural_Resources_Stewardship/Living_with_
wildlife/deer/documents/1996-2011-deer_data.report.pdf
"Native American Use of Fire". Northeastern Area. USDA Forest Service. Accessed Oct 14,
2015. http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fire_poster/nativeamer.htm
“Natural and Cultural Resources”, Wayland Town Master Plan, Town of Wayland, accessed
March 26, 2016,
http://www.wayland.ma.us/Pages/WaylandMA_Planning/master/5.pdf
“Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes September 21, 2011”, Natural Resources
Commission, Town of Concord, accessed March 25, 2016,
http://www.concordma.gov/Pages/ConcordMA_NRCMin/Minutes_2011/S017C0562
“Natural Resources”, Town of Concord Finance Department, accessed March 24, 2016,
http://www.concordma.gov/pages/ConcordMA_Finance/clrp/chapter_6.pdf
Neal, Barry R., “Police Department”, Town Manager Reports, Town of Concord, accessed
March 25, 2016,
http://www.concordma.gov/pages/ConcordMA_TownManager/town%20report%202011/
police.pdf
Nelson, Richard. Heart and Blood: Living With Deer in America . Vintage Books. NY. 1997.
“Notice of Meetings of Town Boards/Committees/Commissions September 22, 2011”, Town of
Wayland, accessed March 26, 2016,
http://www.wayland.ma.us/Pages/WaylandMA_ConservationAg/2011%20Agendas/1109
22Agnda.pdf
Ober, Holly K. “Farmer Perceptions of Wildlife Damage to Row Crops in North Florida”,
University of Florida, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/uw356
90
Ogden, NH, Lindsay, LR, Schofield, SW “Methods to Prevent Tick Bites and Lyme Disease”,
Clinics in Laboratory Medicine, accessed March 13, 2016,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26593263
“Public Safety”, Town Manager Reports, Town of Concord, accessed March 25, 2016,
http://www.concordma.gov/pages/ConcordMA_TownManager/town-reports/town-report2008/Part-V-Public-Safety.pdf
Pursell, Allen, Weldy, Troy And White, Mark. "Too Many Deer: A Bigger Threat to Eastern
Forests Than Climate Change?". Cool Green Science. Accessed Oct 13,
2015.
http://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/
Rand, PW, Lubelczyk, C., Lavigne, GR, Elias, S., Holman, MS, Lacombe, EH, Smith, RP.
“Deer density and the abundance of Ixodes scapularis (Acari : Ixodidae)”, Journal of
Medical Entomology, Entomological Society of America, 2003, accessed April 1, 2016,
https://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=UA&search_mode=GeneralSe
arch&qid=13&SID=4AJRVhHqGcJ86WRFk8f&page=1&doc=2
Rawinski, Thomas J., " Impacts of White-Tailed Deer Overabundance in Forest
Ecosystems: An Overview". Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. Forest
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed Oct 4, 2015.
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp/special_interests/white_tailed_deer.pdf
Reported Cases of Lyme Disease by Year, United States, 1995-2014". Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed Oct 4, 2015.
http://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/chartstables/casesbyyear.html
Rooney, Thomas P. "What do We do with too Many White-tailed Deer?". Action Bioscience.
Accessed Oct 7, 2015. http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/rooney.html
91
Rooney, TP. “Deer Impacts on Forest Ecosystems: A North American Perspective”, Forestry 74,
no. 3 (2001).
Rudolf, B. A., W. F. Porter, and H. B. Underwood. 2000. "Evaluating
immunocontraception for managing suburban white-tailed deer in Irondquoit, New
York." J. Wildl. Manage. 64:463–473.
Schafer, James A., and. Penland, Stephen T. “Effectiveness of Swareflex Reflectors in Reducing
Deer-vehicle Accidents”. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 1995,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3801710?seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents
Schult, Milo J., Armstrong, J., Armstrong, Bill, "Deer Census Techniques". Texas Parks and
Wildlife. Accessed Oct 6, 2015. http://wildlife.tamu.edu/files/2010/05/Deer-CensusTechniques.pdf
Schusler, Tania M., "Ecological Impacts of High Deer Densities". Ecological Society of America.
http://www.esa.org/tiee/vol/v2/issues/figure_sets/deer/overview.html
“Seven Year Action Plan- January 2010”, Town of Lincoln, accessed March 22, 2016,
http://www.lincolntown.org/documentcenter/view/411
Stafford, KC, Denicola, AJ, Kilpatrick, HJ “Reduced abundance of Ixodes scapularis (Acari :
Ixodidae) and the tick parasitoid Ixodiphagus hookeri (Hymenoptera : Encyrtidae) with
reduction of white-tailed deer”, Journal of Medical Entomology, Entomological Society
of America, 2003.
Sterba, Jim. Nature Wars: The Incredible Story of How Wildlife Comebacks Turned Backyards
into Battlegrounds. New York: Crown Publishers. 2013.
“Stop the Deer Damage”, stopthedeerdamage.com, accessed April 3, 2016,
http://www.stopthedeerdamage.com/habits.htm
92
The Greatest Good. Directed by Dunsky, Steve, Steinke, Dave. 2005. Documentary.
"Total National Animal-Vehicle Fatal Crashes and Fatalities". Deer Vehicle Crash Information
Clearinghouse. Accessed Oct 5, 2015. http://www.deercrash.org/states/national_data.htm
“Town Manager’s Report January 13, 2014”, Town of Concord, accessed March 25, 2016,
http://www.concordma.gov/Pages/ConcordMA_ManagerReports/2014%20Town%20Ma
nager%20Reports/Town%20Managers%20Rpt%20January%2013,%202014.pdf
“Town of Weston: Deer Survey Results 2012”, Sudbury Valley Trustees, accessed January 4,
2016,
http://www.sudburyvalleytrustees.org/sites/default/files/DeeronlinesurveySummaryWrite
Up.pdf
Tzilkowski, W. M., Brittingham, M.C., and Lovallo, M.J. “Wildlife damage to corn in
Pennsylvania: farmer and on-the-ground estimates”, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2002.
VerCauteren, Kurt C. Pipas, Michael J. “A Review of Color Vision in White-tailed Deer”, USDA
National Wildlife Research Center,
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1279&context=icwdm_usdan
wrc
Waller, Donald M. “Do white-tailed deer and the exotic plant garlic mustard interact to affect the
growth and persistence of native forest plants?”, Department of Botany, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, accessed March 19, 2016,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112713003010
Warren, Louis S. American Environmental History. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2003. Print.
93
Waring, G.H.,. Griffis, J.L., Vaughn, M.E. “White-tailed deer roadside behavior, wildlife
warning reflectors, and highway mortality”, Applied Animal Behavior Science, 1991,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016815919190249W
Way, Jonathan, White, Bradley “Coyotes, Red Foxes and the Prevalence of Lyme Disease”,
Northeastern Naturalist, 2013, accessed March 6, 2016,
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1656/045.020.0416
“Wayland Conservation Commission Minutes, January 9, 2014”, Wayland Conservation
Commission, Town of Wayland, accessed March 26, 2016,
http://www.wayland.ma.us/pages/WaylandMA_ConservationMin/2014%20Minutes/App
proved%20Minutes%20Jan%209%202014.pdf
Weddell, Melissa S. “A Study of the Relationships of Deer Hunter’s Participation Intensity and
Constraints”, Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Clemson University, accessed
April 13, 2016, http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs-p-14/58-weddell-p-14.pdf
“White-tailed Deer Immunocontraception Project”, Village of Hastings-On-Hudson, accessed
April 14, 2016,
http://hastingsgov.org/sites/hastingsonhudsonny/files/uploads/hoh_project_summary_201
6_1.pdf
“Why is Framingham Conservation Commission supporting deer hunting on conservation land?”
Framingham Conservation Commission, accessed March 14, 2016,
http://www.framinghamma.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1011
“Wildlife Fertility Control: Frequently Asked Questions on Immunocontraception.” PNC, Inc.
http://www.pzpinfo.org/pzp_faqs.html
94
“Wildlife Management Zones”, Massachusetts Department of Energy and Environmental
Affairs, accessed January 3, 2016,
http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dfg/dfw/recreation/licensing-hunting/wmz-map.pdf
"Wildlife Restoration Act". U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service. Accessed Oct 3, 2015.
http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/GrantPrograms/WR/WR_Act.htm
“Wildlife-Vehicle Collision Reduction Study: Report to Congress”, Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/08034/03.cfm
Wolverton, Steve. "The Terminal Pleistocene Extinctions in North America, Hypermorphic
Evolution, and the Dynamic Equilibreum Model". Journal of Ethnobiology (2009).
http://www.academia.edu/244230/The_Terminal_Pleistocene_Extinctions_in_North_Am
erica_Hypermorphic_Evolution_and_the_Dynamic_Equilibrium_Model
Appendix A. Boston Suburban Deer Survey
This appendix contains the final version of the BSDS. This is the
version of the survey which was mailed to participants. The variables
analyzed by each question are listed in Appendix B.
Boston Suburban Deer Survey
95
Phone: 1-413-545-1655
http://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/
Thank you for participating in this survey!
Please take 15 minutes to answer these questions and return the completed questionnaire
in the postage-paid envelope provided. Your answers will help improve understanding of
attitudes and perceptions of deer management in suburban areas. This is a research project
conducted jointly by the Harvard Forest, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, and Brandeis
University. Human subjects approval granted by Harvard University, IRB15-3938.
If you would like a copy of the results of this survey,
print your name and address on the final page of the survey.
Instructions
 Please provide answers to the questions below.
 Only one person per household should fill out this questionnaire
96
 If this questionnaire is received by a company or other organization, please
return this questionnaire in the postage-paid envelope provided and write on
the cover “Company or Organization”
A. Attitudes Towards Wildlife
1. How much do you agree that the responsibility of people toward wildlife is to take care of it
for future generations?
Strongly
disagree
☐
Disagree
☐
Neither agree
nor disagree
☐
Agree
Strongly
agree
☐
☐
2. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements about the
wildlife in your community. Mark only one response for each item.
The wildlife in my town…
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Disagr
ee
Strongly
disagree
Not
applicable
Make my community a special
place
Are an important reason for
recreation in my community
Are a reason to protect forest from
development
Play a significant role in my
community
Are a nuisance in my community
☐





























Are costly for my community






Should be managed as part of a
sustainable land management
program






3. How positively or negatively do you feel about wildlife in your community?
Strongly
negative
Negative
Neither
negative nor
positive
Positive
Strongly
positive
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
97
4. Many people have concerns about wildlife. Please indicate which of these are concerns for
you. Check all that apply.







Increase the chances I might contract a disease
Are dangerous to me
Are dangerous to my children
May cause roadway accidents
Alter the vegetation on my property (e.g., shrubs, garden vegetables)
Are a threat to my pets or other domestic animals
Other: _________________________________
B. Attitudes Towards Hunting
5. Have you ever hunted?
Yes
No
☐
☐
6. - Have you hunted at all in the last 2 years?
Yes
No
☐
☐
7. Has anyone in your family or any of your close friends gone hunting in the last 2 years?
Yes
No
☐
☐
8. Do you approve or disapprove of hunting?
Approve
Disapprove
☐
☐
C. Recreation
9. How often have you walked to observe nature, bird-watch or photograph nature or do another
outdoor activity in the last 5 years?
Daily
2-3 times per
week
2-3 times per
month
Rarely
Never
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
98
10. How often do you anticipate walking to observe nature, bird-watching or photographing
nature, or doing another outdoor activity in the next 5 years?
Daily
2-3 times per
week
2-3 times per
month
Rarely
Never
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
11. In what wildlife activities did you participate in during the last 5 years?
 Wildlife viewing
 Photography
 Painting
 Hunting
 Fishing
 Other: ____________________________________________
12. In what wildlife activities do you plan on participating in during the next 5 years?
 Wildlife viewing
 Photography
 Painting
 Hunting
 Fishing
 Other: ____________________________________________
D. Perceptions of Deer Population
13. How often have you seen deer in the last 2 years?
Daily
2-3 times per
week
2-3 times per
month
Rarely
Never
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
14. In the last 5 years, do you think the deer herd has:
 Increased in size
 Decreased in size
 Stayed the same size
 Don’t Know/ I'm not sure
15. How do you feel about having deer in your neighborhood? Check only one option.
 I enjoy them and am not concerned by their impacts
 I enjoy them and am concerned by their impacts
99
 I do not enjoy them
 I have no particular feelings about having deer in my neighborhood
16. Please state to what extent you agree with the following statements. Mark only one response
for each item.
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Not
applicable
It is reasonable to have a deer herd in our
community.
☐





Deer seriously damage plants and resources in
the town






Deer create a serious nuisance for people in the
town






Deer present a serious health risk in the town






Deer present a serious safety risk in the town






The town should address deer related impacts






Addressing deer related impacts would affect
me positively






Addressing deer related impacts would affect
me negatively






F. Awareness of Deer Management Policies
17. Have you done any of the following in the last 12 months? Mark only one response for each
item.
Read or listened to news about deer management
Yes
No
Not Sure
☐


100
Talked with local officials about deer management



Provided written comments on a deer management plan, impact statement, or
survey (excluding this survey)



Written a letter to a newspaper about deer management in the town



Attended a public meeting about deer management in the town



18. If your town were to consider addressing deer-related impacts in the future, how likely is it
that you would do any of the following? Mark only one response for each item.
Very
Likely
Likely
Neither
likely nor
unlikely
Unlikely
Very
Unlikely
Not
applicable
Read or listen to news about deer management
☐





Talk with local officials about deer management






Provide written comments on a deer management
plan, impact statement, or survey (excluding this
survey)
Write a letter to a newspaper about deer
management in the town












Attend a public meeting about deer management
in the town






19. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements about
management in your town. Mark only one response for each item.
I usually have enough opportunities to provide
input on deer management decisions
I do not believe my input is or would be taken
seriously by management officials
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither
agree
nor
disagre
e
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Not
applicable
☐











101
I do not have enough information to give
meaningful input on deer management
The different ways the town asks for my opinion
(e.g. meetings, written, conversation) encourage
me to provide input
I am not comfortable voicing my opinion about
deer management decisions


















Public input usually leads to better management
decisions
For the most part, interactions between myself,
experts, and people with ideas different from my
own help build future relationships












20. How much influence do you think people like yourself can have on the management of deer
in your town?
A lot
Some
Very little
None at all
I don’t know
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
21. How much influence do you think managing deer in your town can have on the quality of life
in surrounding communities?
A lot
Some
Very little
None at all
I don’t know
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
G. Concerns Relating to Deer Management
22. Please indicate your level of concern for you or your family about deer in the area for each
of the following options. Mark only one response for each item.
No concern
Not much
concern
Neutral
Concerned
Very
concerned
Not
applicable
Deer/vehicle collisions
☐





Lyme disease






102
Damage to natural vegetation
(e.g., trees, wildflowers)






Damage to planted vegetation
like my garden






23. How effective do you think the following deer control methods are? Mark only one response
for each item.
Very effective
Effective
Neither
effective nor
ineffective
Ineffective
Very
ineffective
I don’t
know
Hunting
☐





Sharpshooting or other lethal
control






Non-lethal methods such as
birth control






24. How affordable do you think the following deer control methods are? Mark only one
response for each item.
Very
expensive
Expensive
Neither
expensive nor
inexpensive
Affordable
Very
affordable
I don’t
know
Hunting
☐





Sharpshooting or other lethal
control
Non-lethal methods such as
birth control












25. Please rank the following deer management techniques by placing a “1” by your most
preferred method and a “4” by your least preferred method
___
___
___
___
Allowing hunting on public land
Allowing hunting only on private land
Sharpshooting or other lethal control methods
Non-lethal methods such as birth control
26. Are you opposed to hunting or another lethal technique being used to manage the deer herd?
Yes
No
☐
☐
103
H. Demographic and Property Information
27. How long have your been living at your current address? If less than 1 year, please give
fraction of year.
_____years
28. Please describe your property by indicating which items you had during the last 12 months.
Check all that apply.
 Vegetable garden
 Flower garden
 Fruit trees
 Shrubs or other ornamentals
 None of the above
29. Please indicate the type of plants deer are eating on your property. Check all that apply.
 Vegetable garden
 Flowers
 Other woody ornamentals
 None
30. Overall, how would you describe the amount of deer damage to your property within the last
12 months?
 None
 Light
 Moderate
 Substantial
 Severe
31. Are there parks, woods, or undeveloped lands near your property that you believe are used by
deer?
Yes
No
☐
☐
If yes, what type?





City park (which one______________________________)
Open space or undeveloped land
Agricultural
Woods
Other (please specify______________________________)
104
32. Are you retired?
Yes
No
☐
☐
33. What is or was your main occupation?
_________________________________________________
34. What is your age:
______
35. What is your gender?
Male
Female
☐
☐
36. What is the highest degree or level of education you have completed?






Less than 12th grade
High school/GED
Some college
Associate degree
Bachelor’s degree
Advanced degree
37. What is your race?
Select one or more.






American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African-America
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
Hispanic or Latino origin
White
38. What is your household’s annual income?





Less than $25,000
$25,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $199,999
$200,000 or more
39. Which town do you live in?
 Weston
 Wayland
105
 Sudbury
 Lincoln
 Concord
Appendix B. Survey Variables
The following table identifies each of the 108 survey variables in the
column titled “varname”. The column titled “Question_Num” identifies to
which question each variable corresponds. Some survey questions work
with more than one variable. A repeated question number means that the
question contains more than one variable.
Question_Num
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
varname
att_future_gen
att_comm
att_recreate
att_role
att_forest
att_nuisance
att_cost
att_manage
att_wildlife
conc_contract
conc_danger_me
conc_danger_child
conc_accident
conc_veg
conc_pets
conc_other
hunt_ever
hunt_two
hunt_family
hunt_approval
past_recreate
future_recreate
past_act_wildview
past_act_photo
past_act_paint
past_act_hunt
past_act_fish
past_act_other
106
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
17
18
18
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
next_act_wildview
next_act_photo
next_act_paint
next_act_hunt
next_act_fish
next_act_other
deer_two
herd_increase
herd_decrease
herd_same
herd_unsure
deer_enjoy
deer_enjoy_conc
deer_dislike
deer_neutral
herd_reason
deer_damage
deer_nuisance
deer_healthrisk
deer_safetyrisk
deer_town
impact_positive
impact_negative
past_aware_news
past_aware_talk
past_aware_plan
past_aware_write
past_aware_mtg
fut_aware_news
fut_aware_talk
fut_aware_plan
fut_aware_write
fut_aware_mtg
manage_input
manage_officials
manage_info
manage_encourage
manage_opinion
manage_dec
manage_relate
influence_manage
107
21
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
26
27
28
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
30
31
31
31
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
influence_quality
conc_collide
conc_lyme
conc_natveg
conc_plant
control_hunt
control_shoot
control_birth
afford_hunt
afford_shoot
afford_birth
prefer_pubhunt
prefer_privhunt
prefer_shoot
prefer_birth
oppose_lethal
tenure
prop_veg
prop_flower
prop_fruit
prop_shrub
prop_none
deer_veg
deer_flower
deer_ornamental
deer_none
deer_damage
land_deer
park_type
park_which
land_other
retired
occupation
age
gender
education
race
income
town