Humans and Deer: Living Together

John George, St. Louis Urban Wildlife Biologis

deer imageFew Missouri residents fail to get enjoyment out of watching deer. When you get to see deer near where you live or from your home, you should consider yourself lucky. The only bad things associated with seeing deer where you live would be the fact that, sooner or later - someway or somehow - deer will die near where you live. This should not surprise anyone familiar with the ways of nature. Some adaptable animals, including deer, can do quite well in our urban and suburban environments. They can grow to relatively high densities that can create damages and hazards for residents. It can be difficult to get a concensus from the local stakeholders (residents) as to how you will manage to keep deer densities compatible with resident desires and habitat capacity. About the only thing all sides will agree on is the desire to not have vehicles perform the management. There is no magical solution to manage deer and no management method or set of methods that will gain total agreement from all stakeholders. There are many methods that can be used to lessen damages caused by deer and there are numerous methods than can lower deer populations. The most any individual or group can do is become educated and make informed decisions.

When explaining or discussing suburban deer management the questions and answers can become too cumbersome for a continuous narrative writing. In order to make the subject matter more user-friendly the following question/answer format has been adopted and will follow. This style is intended to answer the most common questions and opinions voiced in urban regions about deer and deer management. If you have any questions please feel free to contact your nearest MDC office.

Is there a basic seasonal pattern for deer?

Deer breeding activity takes place from October through December. Following breeding activities deer can gather in numbers for safety through the winter. Territories for deer can be large in the winter as they may cover a great deal of ground in search of food. As spring nears deer groups typically split up into smaller territories. Last years fawns may establish their own territories away from their mothers at this time. Bucks may stay in small groups with other bucks but will typically not interact with does much during this time of the year.

Deer fawns are born from April through July. Fawns are born essentially scent free and spend much of their early development lying motionless in wait for nursing periods to ensue when the mother doe will visit. During this time period it is very important, in our region particularly, for people to leave fawns alone when they find them. People often think that a fawn lying alone must be abandoned so they try to provide it care. The mother doe knows where the fawn is and will not approach as long as people are present in the immediate area. The best thing to do is to leave the fawn alone. People cannot effectively replace the doe and teach a deer fawn how to survive in most normal settings. The lack of activity and travel of fawns, as well as their characteristic white spots, are designed to hide and protect them from predators (the spots create a pattern that visually blends with surroundings better than a solid body color). Fawns should be eating vegetation by 6 weeks of age and should be weaned between July and October. By October fawns should weigh 50-80 pounds. As the fall approaches bucks will begin staking claims to territories and through dominance rituals (i.e. antler clashes or sparring) over other bucks will attempt to breed all estrous does in their territory.

Before the presence of man in Missouri, what were the factors affecting deer survival?

What would deer have dealt with historically in Missouri (before a major human presence)?

Prior to man's presence on the Missouri landscape, deer survival was affected by competition from other wildlife species. Historically, deer coexisted with elk, bison, wolves, bears, and mountain lions in our landscape. Of course, deer are the only free-ranging member of that group now. The selective pressures and competition that deer face today are primarily from people, cars, coyotes, domestic dogs, and other deer. Environmental pressures such as cold, heat, flood and drought can also influence deer survival today as in the past, but are usually not significant at this latitude.

What would the natural number of deer in Missouri have been?

Presettlement deer densities are thought to have typically been between 10 and 30 deer per square mile of habitat (750,000 to 1,250,000 in Missouri). This is best ascertained by looking at species diversity in the presence of deer browsing pressure. For example, when you look at deer densities under 6 per square mile it is indicated that the benefits of deer in an environment are lost. A lack of their selective browsing pressure and seed dispersal shows through a less diverse environment of plants and animals. Along the continuum of deer density you can see some plants and animals positively affected and others negatively selected. As deer densities increase the selective appetites of deer begin to create a less diverse environment of plants and animals. By most reliable accounts, at densities above 25 deer per square mile, the habitat diversity and quality slowly becomes degraded to the point that, without help from some form of deer removal, the habitat can become a downward spiral of diversity that may not be able to recover all of the species that can be lost. Too few deer or too many deer and the predator-prey relationship would have played out to resolve the issue. This can be a confusing concept for people to understand. They see a park where they know the deer density is high and has been high for many years. As they look about the park they see trees, plants, birds, insects and other species and they cannot understand that the park may be missing much of the diversity that was present before the deer were numerous. These loses in diversity can often be slow to materialize and difficult to see. The real question that often arises is: What is the true goal or responsibility for the park? Is it to hold as high of deer density as possible or to conserve a part of the diversity of nature - the two possibilities are not compatible. For most public lands the answer is that deer are part of the area ecosystem, but that other species of animals and plants should not be ignored in relation to deer. As a result there is more deer management having to be done on public lands throughout the United States.

Have deer management efforts been successful in Missouri?

By all accounts deer management efforts have been very successful. After all there were an estimated 395 deer in Missouri in 1925. Unregulated hunting seasons and market hunting took their toll on deer across the nation. A journal entry from some hunters and trappers in the Missouri Ozarks of 1881 indicated that they could get 8 cents a pound for deer hams in St. Louis. The newly formed Missouri Fish and Game Commission closed all deer hunting and began restoring deer to different regions in the state. From 1925 - 1956, 2648 deer were relocated to 54 of Missouri's 114 Counties (none ever to St. Louis, St. Charles, or Jefferson Counties). As populations of deer began to rebound in the state regulated deer hunting was able to resume. By 1944 the population of deer in the State was estimated to be 15,000. The annual modern firearms season began in 1944 and has taken place each year since.

Currently, there are an estimated 800,000 to 1,000,000 deer in the state. Because the deer are spread out across the state most areas are without high deer densities. The management of the deer herd has historically been through the availability of deer tags to the hunters and landowners. This system has worked very well. Throughout the vast majority of the state, liberal permit availability (particularly for antlerless deer) has landowners in direct control, per their choice, to see more or fewer deer as they see fit through the deer harvest they allow on the property they control. The annual legal harvest of deer has been 220,000 - 260,000 in recent years. Additional deer deaths from disease, competition, predation, poaching, cars, etc. may bring the total to 350,000 or more annually. The result is that the deer herd is relatively stable in most areas of the state or is growing or shrinking slowly. Urban and suburban areas are the exception where most urban areas appear to be experiencing increasing deer numbers and increasing conflicts with deer.

How did we come to have high deer densities in some of our neighborhoods?

A few deer living on 60 rural acres may not be noticed much. A few deer spending most of their time in 40 acres of subdivision are much more visible. Virtually noone sees a deer in their backyard for the first time and immediately thinks that they have to remove it. Deer are welcome in most yards at least occasionally. It can take some time before their welcome wears out (and this is likely their offspring years later). Generally it is just a reluctance on homeowners parts to even have a desire to manage deer until the number is relatively high. This problem is not entirely that of homeowners. Public land managers go through the same steps. Few people give much thought to appropriate deer numbers until the deer have already exceeded appropriate levels. At which time in urban areas the situation can become very heated, personal and political. Just the potential of controversy can act to encourage people to ignore any needs to correct the problems.

Do deer live different types of lives in our suburbs than those out in rural areas?

From 1996 - 2000 MDC conducted an urban deer study to learn about urban deer biology. Over the course of the study 266 deer were radio collared in west-St. Louis County. Much was learned that could be compared to deer biology in other areas of the state. Population growth rates for the urban deer study area were generally lower than those found in rural areas (density dependence in deer explained later). The range sizes for most urban deer proved much smaller than those of rural deer and successful dispersal rates (whereby a deer might leave the family group to establish it's own territory) are low. This is best explained by the fact that many urban deer have reproduced themselves into relatively confined situations where dispersal out of that location has a high probability of ending in death by a deer/vehicle collision. During the course of the study 151 of the 266 collared deer died. Of these, 90 (59.6%) were from vehicles.

An estimated 250 - 300 car deer accidents occur in St. Louis County alone each year (9,000 - 11,000 statewide). Most car/deer collisions will result in the death of the deer involved and may result in the death or injury of occupants in the vehicle.

Deer are adaptable animals and really only need enough access to food, water, and space to do well. Our suburban areas can provide these essentials just as well as our rural areas. Domestic dogs, coyotes, disease, and parasites opportunistically take some deer wherever they live - but vehicles usually are the main controlling mechanism around here whereas in rural areas hunting is the main source of mortality.

How fast can deer reproduce?

When studying deer reproduction statistics you have to understand the differences between pregnancy, birth, and recruitment. Pregnancy is simple - either the female deer is pregnant or it is not. Pregnancy rates are determined by physically looking in the uterus of a deer to see if there is a fetus present (done on road-killed does during the winter or spring). Birth success is difficult to figure out since newborn fawns spend very little time with their mother during the early stages of growth (May - July). Recruitment is the best measure of deer population growth since it is a count of how many fawns have been raised and have survived until the first autumn season. Recruitment is measured by visually locating does and their fawns at the time at which the fawns are traveling with their mother but are capable of surviving on their own. By all counts in every region of the state, deer are efficient reproducers. Between 20% and 50% of the female fawns will be impregnated in their first year of life which will result in a recruitment rate of about .20 - .50 fawns born to each female fawn from last year. Yearling and adult does are found to be pregnant 80% - 96% annually and will give birth to 1, 2, or 3 fawns each spring. The recruitment rate for yearling and adult does has been somewhere between .80 and 2.2 fawns per doe in all Missouri deer studies to date. Deer actually have the ability to double in population within a three year time period (although this is only in ideal conditions). Anytime that gains from recruitment and immigration outweigh losses from emmigration and death then you have an increasing population. Depending on diet (just like cows, the condition of the teeth directly influences how effectively deer can get nutrition out of the foods they eat) deer can live over 10 years. The reproductive "prime" for deer is during 2-8 years of age.

Will the deer manage their own numbers through body fat and a correlating reproductive success?

Deer can exhibit some density dependence. That is that there are deer densities at which deer recruit fawns at higher rates and there are deer densities at which deer recruit fawns at lower rates. People often confuse this fact by stating that "Deer will manage themselves through body fat...when there is not enough food low body fat reserves will not allow reproduction to occur". This is a true statement in part (although it is usually used to protest some form of deer control taking place). What is being exhibited when this happens is malnutrition and starvation. No animal can reproduce if it is not healthy enough to do so. By most accounts, at this latitude, you will not see deer seriously effected physically through density dependence until they have been at high densities for long periods of time. Usually people do not let deer densities get to that level as the constituents will not socially accept deer up to that point before doing something to lower the population. Even at very high densities adult deer can be healthy but might just have low fawn recruitment rates. Of paramount importance to the habitats ability to support deer is the quality of the habitat. Long term deer support is dependent on the ability of the habitat to supply food for the deer. As deer density increases the long-term habitat quality decreases. It is fairly rare in the United States to find areas where deer have reached such densities to effect their own demise. When it does happen it is usually in more extreme environments (i.e. northern areas with more snow cover). It is fairly common though to find deer at densities which do affect the habitat's long term quality and ability to maintain itself with the deer.

What is carrying capacity?

People like to discuss "ecological carrying capacity (ECC) vs. social carrying capacity (SCC)". The ECC, simply put, is the number of deer an area of land can sustain. The ECC can change through time with the quality of the habitat. The SCC refers to the preferences of the people living in the area. The residents of an area will have a density of deer that they socially accept and densities that they will not accept. The SCC is not constant or agreed upon by all of the residents. MDC recommends that densities of deer between 15-20 deer per square mile in urban areas is socially acceptable and should maximize the positives associated with deer while minimizing the negatives. More rural areas can typically tolerate up to 40 deer per square mile without major social concerns (although at a density of 40 deer per square mile of habitat there may be measurable damage being done to the some resources of the region by the deer).

In most of my experiences in taking deer complaint calls from suburban residents it seems that they are socially accepting deer up to relative densities of about 40 deer per square mile (i.e. I rarely get complaints about deer in areas with relative densities lower than 40 deer per square mile).

How do you measure a deer density?

A deer density should be something easily understood but it can be confusing to comprehend. There are many methods used to estimate deer density and each has good and bad points. Most methods of deer population estimating involve physically counting deer (either visually or through inference from various sampling methods designed to sample or test plots and then parlay the information over a broader scale). The method most used by MDC (and most reliable/accurate method that MDC has found) is the use of a helicopter at low altitudes over at least 4" of snow. Observers in the helicopter visually count deer along predetermined GPS transect lines. Using this method, as studied in Missouri, yields 78.5% detection rates (=/- 2.5%, and within a 95% confidence interval). The more difficult point for the public to understand is typically the "per square mile of habitat" adage. For example: we may count 100 deer in a 1 square mile grid, but that grid may only have about 75% undeveloped deer habitat (pools, roofs, parking lots, lakes, roads, etc. cannot be counted as deer habitat). Therefore the deer density would be 100 deer in .75 square miles of deer habitat = 125 deer per square mile of habitat (even though there are not fully 125 deer there). When densities are given for large areas over varied habitats note that you are rarely going to find an even distribution of deer. Deer travel and use different habitats in different ways. There will usually always be more deer dense areas and less deer dense areas within any given population census/estimate.

In addition to helicopter surveys over snow, spotlight surveys from moving vehicles, infra-red surveys, and visual sightings along transect lines can be used. No method will actually count all deer present - at best the method you may choose will have a verifiable detection rate and yield consistent results.

What kinds of deer densities do we see today in Missouri?

Over the vast majority of the state the deer density would fall between 5 and 15 deer per square mile. Some conservation areas and some larger private properties might have densities between 20 and 40 deer per square mile. Relatively few areas exceed 40 deer per square mile and these are often either in or near urban areas where there has never been any deer management. Often our urban areas can have fairly small areas with deer, when you calculate the relative deer density for some of these it can be higher than you might imagine (i.e. 8 deer living mostly on 66 acres would relate to a density of 80 deer per square mile, since 66 acres is .1 square mile).

What kinds of problems might residents have with deer?

Deer are browsing animals. They like to eat a variety of different plants, fruits, vegetables, and grains. Complaints from residents are often that the deer are eating things that the they have planted. Well fertilized and watered landscapes and gardens can be much more desireable to the deer than surrounding common ground areas that are likely not watered or fertilized. Deer can kill or remove smaller trees and some plants or plant beds entirely. Bucks often damage smaller trees through the rubbing of their antlers on the tree as they prepare for the mating season. In more deer dense situations overall landscape damage or destruction can be a problem. Agricultural crop fields can be depredated severely if adjacent deer densities are high or if adjacent food sources are poor. These deer damage situations are usually tolerated well in moderation. Increasing deer densities through time can lead residents to a feeling that they are having to share too much with the deer as the damage they do becomes less tolerated. Through time some homeowners will claim a loss of their property use, property rights or quality of life if deer numbers are not lowered.

Increasing deer/vehicle accidents are typically not well tolerated by residents of any region. These accidents are going to happen randomly across the state in areas of low and high deer density. When the frequency of these accidents increases in areas and becomes somewhat predictable the public often expects corrective actions to be taken.

Should residents be concerned about Lyme Disease?

Missouri residents should be concerned about any tick borne illness that they can get in Missouri. Tick-borne illnesses can be very difficult to diagnose and can cause severe illness and death but their prevalence in Missouri does not appear to be great at this time. The incidences of tick-borne diseases have been higher in recent years (all over the United States including Missouri) but it is unclear if this is from better diagnosis or more widespread infectious agents. Deer have some ability to help ticks be successful but so do field mice and acorn crops (mice populations can ebb and flow in relation to acorn crops). Lyme disease, erlichiosis (2 types), tularemia, babeiosis, and Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever can all be spread by bites from infectious ticks. Recent research suggests that there is also a Lyme-like tick associated rash/illness caused by a different bacterium which is more common in the southern United States (including Missouri) than true Lyme disease. Different mammals can serve as a resevoir for the agents but are not direct vectors of the diseases. The vectors of the diseases are ticks or certain biting insects. The specifics for each disease can be different (i.e. in some cases only certain species of ticks can vector the disease). All of these infections should be successfully treatable with correct early diagnosis. A few species of ticks that are responsible for vectoring some of these diseases are directly dependent upon deer to fulfill a stage of their life cycle. In most cases controlling deer alone will not significantly lower chances of getting a tick-borne disease. Ticks should always be removed as safely and quickly as possible. You should see a physician anytime that you have a suspicious tick bite.

What methods of reducing deer problems are there?

Damage abatement techniques can include: taste and smell repellants, plant replacement with less palatable species, scare devices and various types of fences. Repellants are widely used. There are numerous internet sites and nurseries that carry some of these products. Most consist of a bad taste or smell which is suspended in a solution. The solution is then sprayed on the plants. Test the different products on different plants to make sure the product itself does not kill your plants. Pay attention to not let your plants go untreated if the repellant should wash off or if new growth appears without the repellant having been sprayed on it. Scare devices can include scarecrow type devices or sprinklers and/or lights connected to motion sensors. Dogs can also chase deer off of property. When using these repellants and scare devices you may have to occasionally mix and match to keep the deer guessing and off your property as they can be habitual enough to learn a tolerance for many taste, smells, and actions.

Fencing and netting can be used to repel deer from areas with great success. Netting is most often used to block the ability of deer to eat certain plants or plant beds. Fencing can be designed to be an inconvenience to the deer (i.e. 1-3 strands of wire, possibly electrified, creating a barrier that the deer may just choose to avoid) or it can be constructed to be a complete barrier (i.e. 8' woven steel wire mesh). Many of the damage abatement techniques, used to suit landowner and site budgets and desires, should effect good results.

Posting signs warning of known deer crossings, reducing speed limits, or using fences can all possibly help problem areas for deer/vehicle accidents. Corrective actions intended to lower deer/vehicle accidents should be well thought through to avoid creating more hazardous crossings elsewhere. Wildlife tunnels or earthen overpasses may be created in some developments to avoid potential future conflicts.

When various damage abatement techniques are not desired, fail or are not practical, population control may be necessary.

Do deer whistles work?

Most studies that have been done indicate that deer whistles intended to scare deer away from approaching vehicles do not reduce car/deer accident rates. In fact, many have questioned if deer can even hear the sounds produced. During my time as a law enforcement officer I recall having worked as many car/deer accidents involving vehicles with deer whistles as those without. The ability of deer to habituate to sounds would tend to indicate that if the deer could hear the whistles, and a significant number of people used them, then wouldn't they tend to ignore them after a short time period? Regardless, if you feel better by putting them on your vehicle then do so.

Will providing supplemental food to deer lessen their landscape or environment damage?

Supplemental deer feeding will not lower deer damage and will likely act to increase the damage. Deer are selective browsers that will rarely fill themselves on one source of food. Their digestive tracts are designed to make use of a variety of foods and are most efficient when doing so. Deer will likely eat what you put out for them but they will continue to eat other things in the landscape as well. Supplemental feeding of deer can increase the chances of disease transmission and is not recommended.

What methods of population control exist?

Population control comes in many forms but essentially all are lethal measures designed to reduce deer numbers. Hunting is the most traditional population control and is often considered a recreational activity. Over the last 10 years it has taken on much more of a population reduction role whereby the recreation aspect becomes secondary. Historically, hunting traditions over the last 60 years were designed around buck harvest. More recently, as many areas began to fill with suitable deer numbers to match good habitat and human tolerance, doe harvest has grown in focus. In areas where population control is the goal does should be the primary target of the hunting. Most hunting is done on private land where liberal permits and landowner desires manage deer to their own needs. This program does work quite well statewide. Deer hunting in Missouri offers many options for participants. Modern center-fire firearms are used to take the most deer (200,000 - 240,000 annually) in the state. Hunters with muzzleloading firearms typically take 5,000 - 10,000 deer annually and archery hunting takes 20,000 to 25,000 deer each year. The last several years have averaged between 220,000 and 260,000 deer being legally taken in Missouri. St. Louis County typically sees a legal harvest of 1200 - 1600 deer (about half with archery equipment). Hunting is highly variable considering that landowners have every bit of latitude with which to allow who, how, when, and where it can take place on their property.

Sharpshooting is widely considered the quickest way to lower an existing overpopulation of deer. Typically deer are shot over bait sites by moving or stationary marksmen. These programs are designed to fit the characteristics and desires of the community. The variables usually center around what type of firearm to use and what will the shot specific protocol be in different areas. Firearms (which may be sound suppressed) are used to kill deer instantly with a single shot to the head. There are many variations to these programs. The deer are then donated and processed for regional food pantries. Deer may be trapped and killed. Deer killed in this manner must also be donated to food pantries.

Is hunting ever used in suburban areas?

In our region there are few municipalities that allow hunting. St. Louis County allows hunting on areas not zoned "urban". This only applies to unincorporated St. Louis County property. As a result, in most unincorporated residential areas (which are zoned as "residential" areas and not "urban") hunting is allowed. Municipalities within the county typically have their own ordinances which may or may not allow hunting. The cities of Wildwood, Maryland Heights, Chesterfield, and Bridgeton may allow some hunting in designated areas or on designated lot sizes. There are many other municipalities that may allow some type of hunting (or may not prohibit it) but you should always check with local officials before attempting to hunt any incorporated or heavily populated region.

There are few hunts on publicly owned land (other than managed hunts for deer population control on some MDC properties, Babler State Park and one Jefferson County property) in our region. Between 1200 and 1600 deer are harvest annually in St. Louis County. About 90-95% of the harvest is on private land where access is controlled directly by the landowners.

Is hunting safe to use in suburban areas?

The comment I always hear is "just let one of these communities that allows hunting have someone get hurt or killed as a result then they'll stop that activity". What is usually forgotten here is the fact that someone is much more likely to get hurt or killed in a car/deer accident than they are in anything hunting related. Typically, nationwide, hunting in suburban areas is being utilized as a way to lessen deer related damage and accidents and thereby increase overall public safety - not the other way around. There are many urban areas that have gotten quite creative with hunter skills tests being required prior to hunting, special equipment registration for law enforcement purposes, and elaborate systems for allowing the activity only in specialized areas and not allowing it in others.

The major differences between rural and urban hunting are philosophical ones - the necessity to be safe while hunting should not change regardless of where the hunt takes place. To date, no other method of population control has proven as effective, economical, efficient, acceptable or capable as hunting to control deer populations wherever they need control.

Is hunting in suburban areas like shooting fish in a barrel?

Some people may have some experiences like that, but most do not. Deer are good at being deer and they can often tell when there is something different (or someone different) in their territory. Deer can learn to let some people to get very close, but these same deer often will not let someone else get that close. The result can be that many hunters become disappointed in learning that urban deer can be as difficult to get close to as rural deer.

What if a deer dies in someone else's yard?

Then the hunter will need to explain to the homeowner that he/she would like permission to enter their property so that they can remove the deer. Some deer are going to die wherever they live. This is no different than a deer injured from a car accident dying in someone's yard.

Is hunting recommended because it makes state agencies money?

The money made through permit sales is very important to state wildlife management agencies. Deer permits can be from 10-50% of some state wildlife management agency's budgets. In Missouri deer permit sales make up 7-9% of our total revenue ($8-10 million). Many of our resident deer permits have decreased in price during recent years, or stayed the same despite inflation. Additionally, resident landowners can receive some free deer permits if they own enough acreage. Financially, the major benefactor of deer hunting is the State economy overall where annual deer hunting expenditures can exceed $350 million. Over 7,000 jobs are created and supported Statewide directly through deer hunting.

Most often this question arises in a context whereby it is claimed that state agencies purposely created large deer herds so they could make money through the sale of permits. This usually comes from the mouth of someone who is against deer hunting. Ask them if they would like to remove the deer or have low numbers of them (for free) and you'll most likely find out that they like the deer, don't want fewer deer, and just don't like hunters or hunting. State agencies are usually a scapegoat here as the majority of the public thinks the number of deer is about right or they would like to see more, yet permit availability has to be fairly liberal to allow landowners ability to control deer on their property.

In short, MDC does not recommend hunting so that it can make money. MDC recommends hunting because it is ultimately the most acceptable and variable option out there to address a wide array of concerns and constituent desires. When hunting can be used to manage an existing problem you have matched a user group with a desire to help with a problem landowners need solved. It is widely regarded as the easiest and least obtrusive method (landowners desiring the activity will allow it while others not wanting it won't allow it). MDC wants landowners to have the number of deer that they feel comfortable with on their property. In multiple small private landowner situations this can be an impossibility as neighboring landowners can have drastically different desires for deer numbers.

What if you can't use firearms?

Trapping and euthanasia programs may be used in areas where euthanasia by firearm is deemed unsafe or not allowed. Deer must first be trapped (usually by drop nets or individual box-style traps). Deer are then killed with specialized firearms or captive bolt type devices (similar to how livestock may be killed in slaughter plants). Trapped and euthanized deer must be processed and donated to regional food pantries. Killing by lethal injection is not allowed since there is no injection that will kill a deer and still leave it suitable for sharing with a food pantry.

Personal, social, and political opinions about firearms and/or projectiles of any sort can be very strong against their use. It is highly likely that if you have enough deer to be talking about potential deer control efforts then firearms are already being used to euthanize deer in the community. Chances are that the law enforcement officials putting down injured deer have no choice of when and where but they are acting as needed to kill injured deer. Before they discharge their firearm they decide if it is safe to do so and from what angle they will do it. These same principles of safety can be improved upon if firearms are to be used in a deer management program by predetermining when and where it will be done.

Can you just trap deer and put them in areas where they won't cause problems?

Translocation of deer from higher population areas to lower population areas is a popular choice among suburban residents. Most people think of it as a non-lethal method of managing deer. In a recent Missouri study the method was shown to have about a 70% death rate over the course of one year post-release with the leading causes of death being capture stress and hunting. To find areas where deer can be placed and where they will not be problematic requires that they be placed in areas quite different from those that they are coming from. Relocated suburban deer may seek out areas similar to what they are used to. There does not appear to be any "street smarts" that deer take with them to new locations that aids them in any way. In fact, the opposite seems to be the rule as relocated deer die higher rates of death than resident deer in the release area by any and all means that can cause death of a deer.

Translocation of deer was the method used to re-establish and repopulate areas of the state from the 1920's to the 1950's. It is less practical today as virtually all areas of the state today already have deer and most have to engage in management to keep from having too many deer. Current concerns over disease issues with deer disallow this as a management possibility today.

Can't birth control be used to lower deer populations?

Birth control is a highly desireable option among urban and suburban residents. Most residents feel that this is a safe and nonlethal deer reduction technique. It should be noted that deer capture, firearms, and projectiles are still required for use of this method. A great deal of research has been done over the last 10 years in attempts to perfect the techniques. Reduced fawning rates have been exhibited in captive/confined deer herds treated with birth control agents. The most often used methods include the use of darting equipment to deliver hormones. The hormones used are taken from the ovaries of pigs as byproducts of slaughter. These hormones block fertilization of the female egg. In no case have reproductive controls lowered any existing population of free-ranging or confined deer. Please note that controlling reproduction is not a population reduction method, at best it can only lower the fawning rates for a percentage of the deer that can be treated. Any reduction of deer numbers would still have to occur through the death of deer.

The internet has many sites in which the successes of deer immunocontraception are heralded. Read them carefully and pay attention to details not mentioned as well as those that are. These sites usually avoid full disclosure of how many deer were present when their experiments began or and how many deer they have had each successive year of the experiment. In truth, you might be able to get fewer deer than what you would have had without the reproductive controls but you are still going to have increasing deer numbers. There has been no proven deer contraception experiment yet that has effectively reduced a deer population. Various methods of birth control in deer will become more efficient and will get approval from the Food and Drug Administration in the future. These methods will be used in situations where the deer are mostly confined in relatively small areas and are approachable.

Reproductive controls are not an option in Missouri until such time that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has given it's approval that compounds to be used are safe for human consumption in deer and the methods have proven successful in reducing deer numbers.

What is the most "safe and humane" thing to do?

Very often public debate on methods of deer management discuss safety, stress, and humanity. The opinions of people vary widely on these subjects. There is no method of deer management (or even lack of deer management) that can guarantee the absolute safety of all persons involved. When considering the size of deer and the methods required to capture or kill them there is just no absolutely safe method of dealing with them. Considering that the push to do suburban deer management is largely driven by a desire to avoid car deer accidents it is also clearly not safe to do nothing. The degree to which deer are stressed is measurable in some instances. Typically the less they are handled the less stress they will endure. Any time that deer have to be captured they will endure stress during the capture. A captured deer has no idea if approaching people are going to give it a shot, tag and release it or shoot it - the stress to the deer will be recieved regardless of human intention. Humanity is subjective, what one person feels is humane another surely will not. Euthanasia means "humane death" or "painless death" and is typically considered when unconsciousness occurs within 30 seconds and clinical death within 3 minutes.

Will removing deer just mean that more will move in, or allow remaining deer to reproduce more offspring?

There is no static number of deer that have to live anywhere. Removing a given number will not equate to an equal number moving in or being born. This is usually described as a "vacuum" and is used by persons not wanting deer management to take place. In order for it to be an accurate depiction of what can happen then there would have to be a number of deer that are going to persist regardless of our actions and history has shown this not to be the case. Since there is some density dependence in deer it can be difficult to get deer numbers down from higher to lower levels. The density dependence can make it difficult for small incrimental reductions to reach desired goals. It is important to note that maintaining a lower number of deer can be easier through time than maintaining a higher number of deer (i.e. consider how many deer would have to be killed over a multi-year period to keep the herd stable at a low vs. high population).

Is the problem regional?

There are areas throughout the St. Louis Region (MDC considers our region St. Louis, St. Charles, and Jefferson Counties) with relatively high deer densities. To date, most are coming from areas near to large public properties or are relatively affluent communities with larger lot sizes and much undeveloped green space. These are usually outside of Interstate 270 and they are generally not contiguous. It is hard to categorize a problem as regional when even within a small area residents living with the deer will not agree if or when a problem exists. If you are considering deer management it is a safe bet that there are others in your region facing the same situation or having the same problems with deer.

Is habitat loss and destruction the reason why we see more deer in urban areas?

Habitat loss will move deer and it is a problem for wildlife. Habitat loss appears to usually be more of a factor increasing car/deer accidents than it does to overall regional deer population problems. Typically the development of land is a visible source for our attention but it is not a catch all for deer problems. Deer are increasing in numbers where they live regardless of the presence or absence of land development.

Who owns the deer?

Collectively the citizens of the state of Missouri each have ownership of the wildlife equally. Individuals, cities and corporations can claim ownership of property and can control many actions on those properties but the wildlife on that property no more belongs to them than it does anyone else.

Who's responsibility is it to manage the deer?

The Missouri State Conservation Commission is charged with the control, management, restoration, conservation and regulation of the wildlife of the State through the Missouri Constitution. The Commission accomplishes this task through the approval of rules and regulations which allow the citizens of the state to manage deer as they see fit on the properties they control. Citizens desiring changes in deer management practices work with MDC staff which, in turn, makes regulation change recommendations to the Commission.

In brief, the Conservation Commission and MDC provide a regulatory framework for deer management with a great deal of options and flexibility for deer management to residents and property owners. Niether the Commission nor MDC will enter private property to do deer management functionally but MDC will serve as an advisor and will allow or disallow proposed management actions by landowners not commonly provided through current regulations.

It is common in suburban environments to hear from activist who claim that State agencies are not managing deer for all of the residents. They base these comments usually on the fact that they are not being allowed to do something that they want to do or someone else is doing something they don't like. Any proposal for deer management will be listened to and considered. If a proposal is denied it will be for unbiased reasons that will be explained.

What can an individual property owner do?

Educate yourself in the methods of damage abatement and population control that can help your situation. Be willing to consider participation on your property of what may need to be a regional effort to solve a regional problem. Realize that 0 deer is not a likely option. When you have habitat that can support deer it is likely that it always will. Even if deer numbers are drastically reduced you may still get occasional deer damage.

Property owners are given a great deal of latitude from the state to use as they desire in managing deer numbers on their property. Some methods available may not be practical on every property out there (i.e. hunting on your property will do you no good if the deer are never on your property during legal hunting hours). In some situations you may have to access commonly owned properties (i.e. the wooded common ground lot between numerous homeowners). In suburban situations the deer likely travel over the properties of many different people. The State gives no preference to those landowners wanting more deer vs. those wanting less as each has the same freedoms to either try to increase, maintain, or reduce deer numbers. Therefore, it is suggested that you communicate with your neighbors and justify your reasons to them for doing what you want to do.

You will also need to communicate with the rule (ordinance) making and enforcement bodies of your local government as it is likely they who reduce the tools available for your use in deer management. Remember that in most cases the ordinances that they have in place were not put there to make it difficult to manage deer. They were likely passed at a time when deer did not even inhabit the area. When working with your local government please know that they are responsible for listening to all concerns and desires so it is probably best to not overwhelm them with your desires. It is always important to let your elected officials know where you stand on issues but know that when dealing with deer management animal rights activists are already likely flooding them with phone calls, faxes, emails and letters full of false information. Through time in dealing with a deer problem officials will learn what seems accurate and what seems false.

What can a municipality do?

MDC encourages residents and political bodies to become educated in what is out there to help themselves with any deer problem. It can be difficult or impossible for one homeowner or a group of homeowners to entirely manage what may be more of a regional problem. As a result, municipal programs offered to residents or done on municipally owned lands may be necessary.

It can be impossible to please all potential sides or interest when trying to manage deer. Politically it can be a massive catch-22 whereby you are vilified for both doing something or for not doing anything with deer. Do expect exaggerated claims from extreme views on either end of the spectrum. There will be groups of people labeled as "deer haters" (those desiring lower deer numbers) and others labeled as "deer huggers" or "Bambi lovers" (those not wanting to lower deer numbers). Do not expect to be able to reason with all opinionated people that may voice their concerns. These issues can be very emotional for some and their deep felt beliefs will not change. In many instances lawsuits are filed against management programs. These lawsuits will not change deer numbers or any needs to manage deer but they can cost considerable time and money. Well planned and responsible programs should defeat any lawsuits. Know that probably 90+% of the residents will not fit into either of these categories and you will not likely hear much from the silent majority. Do expect media interest from many sources until you have successfully accomplished your goals of deer reduction. When success has been achieved or when a program is more settled - media and extremist interest will wane.

With good educational efforts and resident surveys you can find out precisely where the residents are that have problems with deer and what they personally feel are acceptable methods of dealing with them that they may allow on their property. Do not expect everyone to pick the same management method, but perhaps through allowing several different methods you will be able to get the necessary landowner participation to reach desired management goals.

A type of task force made up of varied interest can determine what actions are best suited for what locations in your community. MDC offers to serve on any desired task force or committee studying deer management in an advisory capacity. A task force made up entirely of frustrated gardeners, animal rights activist or a local hunting club might all be able to come up with solutions but a varied group of individuals representing several special interests can probably form more complete recommendations to consider. Using task force recommendations a community might be able to place more emphasis on landowners solving their own problems by simply giving the landowners enough latitude to do some deer management through task force approved methods. In so doing much of the political pressure may be removed from the municipal officials (as opposed to a municipal program where the management functions are to be overseen and carried out by the city officials).

If you study what is done in other communities you will see that often there is a learning curve during which nothing will happen. After a period of educational efforts or failed management efforts something bad happens (i.e. person injured in car/deer accident) or a lawsuit is defeated and a program will move ahead. The most often used methods in suburban deer management across the nation are archery hunting and sharpshooting.

SUMMARY

Deer will continue to be a valued resource in our region - even as urbanization continues. The key is to have a balance between what people enjoy (seeing deer) and what they don't (hitting them with cars, having deer eat all their plants). Deer will continue to be present in many of our public parks (although effective deer management may mean fewer deer). You can expect that more deer management will have to be done in areas where it has not been done in the past. Over the next 10-20 years it is likely we will have many managed hunts, sharpshooting programs, and even contraception programs on public and private lands where no deer management has taken place in the last 100 years. In some cases people who routinely see large groups of deer in their yards may only see a few deer occasionally. Zero "0" deer is not a practical option as you could not likely remove all of the deer in an area without a serious effort. Fortunately it is rarely a goal for communities or homeowners to remove all deer. Zero "0" deer damage is not likely either. Even in relatively low densities of deer they will occasionally eat something not intended for them or be in a car/deer accident.

Unless more deer are dying or leaving an area than what are being born the deer density will increase and may have to be managed. When occasional deer damage is the problem some simple tactics may correct the situation. When too many deer is the problem all the repellants, fencing, and birth control available will not reduce the number of deer. These things might, through time, lead deer to die in some other way. Integrated approaches that incorporate damage abatement and population control will find the most long term success. In the end there is no magical solution to suburban deer problems that will satisfy everyone - but everyone can become informed and can make educated decisions about how they would like to deal with potential deer issues on property they control.