- Results of deer management programs
- Deer management programs in Michigan
- Deer management programs nationally
- False claims about deer management
Results of Deer Management programs
Locally, the Huron-Clinton Metroparks have been culling deer since 1999. “After reducing the populations to sustainable levels, oaks are growing into trees and numerous woodland wildflowers are re-appearing.” With the reduction in deer, they are seeing plants bloom that haven’t been seen for 17 years.
Rochester Hills, MI
Rochester Hills (just north of Detroit, MI) is also local and often cited as a successful example of nonlethal methods . The city uses education and signage to deal with the problem of deer vehicle crashes and damage to landscapes and gardens. Except that with only 70,000 citizens, Rochester Hills had 166 deer-vehicle crashes in 2019, fifth in the state (vs. Ann Arbor’s 50). Furthermore, Rochester Hills naturalist Lance DeVoe told an Ann Arbor audience that deer had devastated the natural areas of Rochester Hills to the point of permitting Japanese barberry, an invasive shrub, to completely dominate. Rochester Hills, therefore, does not convince us of positive results from letting the deer population increase without limit. They are merely culling with cars and giving up on natural areas preservation.
Washington DC Area Parks
The National Park Service has been conducting regular deer culls in Rock Creek Park in Washington DC since 2013. According to NPS, with the reduction in deer density, seedling densities have nearly tripled in Rock Creek Park since deer culling began. In Catoctin Mountain Park, in Frederick County, MD, seedling densities have increased 13-fold since deer management started. “It’s allowing the forest to recover in a way that it hadn’t been able to before,” says Nortrup. “So we know it can work.”
Deer Management Programs in Michigan
- Ann Arbor City of Ann Arbor Deer Management
- The University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, has been cooperating with the City of Ann Arbor in the deer management program.
U-M to participate in Ann Arbor’s deer management program
- University of Michigan Dearborn U-M Dearborn Deer Management 2018
- Village of Barton Hills Barton Hills Deer Management
- Jackson Deer Cull in Ella Sharp Park
- Meridian Township Meridian Township Deer Management program`
- East Lansing East Lansing approves deer management
- Muskegon Deer cull approved in Muskegon
- Huron-Clinton Metroparks Huron-Clinton Metroparks 2021
- Huron-Clinton Metroparks 2011/2012 Deer Management Plan Implementation
- Oakland County Parks Oakland County Parks
- Nature Conservancy Preserves of the Nature Conservancy in Michigan
Deer Management in National Parks
- What happens when a National Park has too many deer?
- Rock Creek Park, DC – White-Tailed Deer Management
- DC area National Parks – NPS to reduce white-tailed deer populations in six area parks
- Valley Forge, PA – White-tailed Deer Management
- Gettysburg, PA – Deer Management Program
- Cuyahoga Valley National Park, OH – White-tailed Deer Management in CVNP
- Fire Island National Seashore, NY – White-tailed Deer Management Plan
Other Park Systems
- Indiana Parks Deer Management and Ecosystem Restoration
- Indiana State Parks – Managed Deer Hunts
- Cleveland Metroparks, OH – Deer Management
- Toledo, OH Metroparks
- Philadelphia, PA City Parks
- Rose Valley, PA
Other College Towns
- Vassar College, Poughkeepsie NY
- Swarthmore College, PA
- Princeton, NJ
- Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
- SUNY Binghampton
More examples of urban/suburban deer management are available from the Cornell University/Nature Conservancy Community Deer Advisor: Community Examples
False Claims that Lethal Deer Management Cannot Succeed
The Humane Society of the United States and others have advanced the argument that hunts and culls cannot actually reduce deer density. They propose two mechanisms that doom lethal herd control to failure: the “vacuum effect” and “reproductive rebound”.
The vacuum effect – the hypothesis that deer are “sucked in” from neighboring areas when deer are removed, i.e. that deer disperse into available territory. This hypothesis has been disproved by Dr. William Porter’s research in upstate NY. Deer were removed from an area surrounded by deer and no deer moved into that area during a five year period. The reason behind that is that fawns learn a home range from their mother and have an allegiance to that maternal home range throughout their lives. They have no way of knowing that a neighboring area is available and don’t want to leave their familiar home range.
The rebound effect – the hypothesis of increased fecundity of does when deer are removed from an area, i.e. if you remove deer they will have more fawns to compensate. This can occur in areas where the deer have exceeded the biological carrying capacity (BCC), meaning that the food supply is not sufficient for the deer population. In other words, the deer are not getting the nutrition they need, i.e. they are starving. The deer population has not exceeded the BCC in Ann Arbor, which is not to say that they are not causing environmental damage.
See the University of Michigan’s Professor Chris Dick’s, The pseudoscience of non-lethal deer management.
Opponents of lethal deer management also often claim that culls and managed hunts present a danger to people and pets. There is not a single example of such harm from all of the municipal or park system culls that have been done anywhere in the United States.
Books on Deer Management
Deer Wars: Science, Tradition, and the Battle over Managing Whitetails in Pennsylvania by Bob Frye
Deerland: America’s Hunt for Ecological Balance and the Essence of Wildness by Al Cambronne