Deer overpopulation troubles municipalities / Efforts to restrict symbol of tourism prove difficult, The Japan News, Feb 22, 2017 Municipalities that have been protecting deer populations as a tourism resource or natural asset are now increasingly struggling with how to manage overpopulation of the animals. The deer population in Nara Park in the city of Nara has increased to 1,200 from about 500 in 1957, when they were designated as a national natural asset.
Since the population surge, damage to local crops caused by deer feeding has escalated. At the UNESCO World Heritage site Kasugayama Primeval Forest, located near Nara Park, deer eat the buds of young trees, preventing their growth into adult trees.To address the situation, the Nara prefectural government decided to divide the city into four areas and create an area where deer hunting will be allowed from April.
Deer biology, the impact of too many deer, and deer management options are the topics topics of this February 2017 report. Links to data collected by the City of Ann Arbor and research from major institutions and scientists provide documentation.
Ann Arbor has too many deer as shown by 1) scientific studies of our natural areas, 2) a city survey of citizen experiences, 3) the increase in the number of deer-vehicle collisions, 4) the observations of a professional deer biologist and 5) annual aerial surveys. These metrics and the report from the deer management contractor will be used to inform future decisions about the deer management program.
The City began a 4-year deer management program in 2016 with a cull of 63 deer using professional sharpshooters. In 2017, the city added a second method– the surgical sterilization of 54 does in two neighborhood areas — in addition to the culling of 96 deer in natural areas in the city.
The Ann Arbor deer management program is based on science. Here’s a summary of deer biology, the impact of too many deer, and deer management options.
- Deer populations grow rapidly.
- Deer evolved as a prey species, so they reproduce rapidly. Deer populations double every 2 years. In year 1, a doe bears one fawn. In years 2-15, she has two or three fawns each year. In a U of M study in Washtenaw County, 4 does and 2 bucks increased to 222 deer in 7 years.
- In Ann Arbor, there are no natural predators (hunters, wolves, cougars, bears); only cars limit the population growth.
- Rapid population growth means that delays in response increase the problem and increase the cost to resolve it.
- Removing deer from healthy populations like Ann Arbor’s does not increase reproductive rates.
- Deer are “the” major herbivore of forest ecosystems.
- Deer are browsers; they eat leaves, buds, and green stems as high as they can reach (unlike cows and other grazers that eat grass). They prefer native plants and many garden plants. Deer eat 5-10 pounds of greens daily.
- At high population density, they have disproportionately large impacts on biodiversity and forest dynamics.
- Deer can prevent forest regeneration (stopping the next generation of trees and shrubs), endanger native plants, and facilitate the establishment of invasive species.
- Their impact cascades through the food web, impacting small mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, and amphibians, as well as stream quality.
- In Ann Arbor, two studies have shown significant deer damage to 10 city parks, the U of M Arboretum. Due to the damage to U of M property,t U of M has joined the City’s effort.
- Deer thrive in suburban landscapes like Ann Arbor’s because of the ideal habitat with ample food and no hunting or wild predators.
- Deer flourish on edges since edges provide more food than fields or mature woods. Ann Arbor’s yards create much more edge habitat than naturally occurs, helping to provide the 5-10 pounds of food that a deer eats daily.
- In Ann Arbor, aerial surveys show that deer density varies across the city, with most in wards 1 and 2. Deer are present and increasing in all wards.
- Deer social groups affect deer impact and management methods.
- Females live in social groups and stay and raise offspring in a natal home range learned from their mother. Suburban female deer have home ranges less than 1/2 mile squared, about 100-200 acres.
- Deer have no way to know whether another area is available and have no urge to leave – they are faithful to their natal home range. Removing deer in one area does not cause other deer to move in; they do not “act as gas molecules,” spreading to fill empty space.
- Deer-vehicle collisions (DVC’s)
- Collisions increase as the number of deer increase.
- Collisions decrease when deer are removed.
- DVC’s are an indicator of the deer population.
- In Ann Arbor, from 2004-2015, DVC’s nearly tripled from 31 to 90, while all crashes went up only 6%.
- Lyme disease
- Deer are hosts for blacklegged ticks. These ticks can carry Lyme and other diseases that can cause severe headaches, arthritis, heart palpitations, inflammation of the brain, memory loss, and more. Lyme diseases is very difficult to diagnose and treat.
- Recent work on the role of deer in Lyme disease shows a correlation between deer densities, the abundance of blacklegged ticks that carry the disease, and cases of Lyme disease. Once established, Lyme disease can only be reduced if deer densities are brought very low.
- Lyme is not yet endemic in Ann Arbor, but there are cases in Washtenaw County.
- Options for dealing with over-abundant deer
- Scientists have studied deer management extensively and concluded that, in areas where sharpshooting is legal and safe, culling is the most effective and cost-efficient method.
- Where there are access issues, scientists recommend surgical sterilization of does. Other contraceptives have problems with effectiveness, require multiple applications, and negatively affect buck behavior. All non-lethal methods of population control take time to be effective – the population is not reduced immediately.
- Methods that don’t control deer populations do not have long-lasting effects. Deer quickly become accustomed to smells, noise, water, and other deterrents. Fences must be at least 8 feet high to be effective and only shift the deer to other areas. “Deer-resistant” plants aren’t resistant when deer are hungry enough.
- Moving deer is not legal because of high mortality and danger of spreading disease.
SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION
- The City’s deer management website, which includes, along with other information:
- Information about the 2016 and 2017 deer management programs, including the City Council resolutions, the lethal and sterilization programs, and measures of success.
- Summaries of meetings between City staff and citizen groups.
- Documents relating to the deer management contractor, the permit application, and response from the MDNR.
- Washtenaw Citizens for Ecological Balance (WC4EB) educational website:
- Information on deer biology, overabundance, and management, especially in urban areas.
- Links to scientific reports, news, magazine articles, interviews, and more, along with a link to sign up for updates.
- “An Integrated Approach for Managing White-Tailed Deer in Suburban Environments: the Cornell University Study” by Jason R. Boulanger, et. al. , 2014.
- “Help for Communities Grappling with Abundant Deer Populations” from Cornell University.
Prepared by Washtenaw Citizens for Ecological Balance, February 2017
Report – 2011/2012 Deer Management Plan Implementation, Report to Board of Commissioners
HURON-CLINTON METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY, Meeting of September 13, 2012
It is the consensus of natural area managers that controlling excessive deer populations is critical to the long term health and viability of the native ecosystems that these animals are a component of. The management efforts the Metroparks established has had a direct impact on insuring that the parks’ high quality natural areas remain intact for future generations to enjoy.
Long-term effects of deer browsing: Composition, structure and productivity in a northeastern Minnesota old-growth forest
Mark A. White
The Nature Conservancy, Minnesota and the Dakotas, Forest Ecology and Management 269 (2012)
Continued high browsing pressure is one of many factors contributing to the restructuring of northern Great Lakes forests away from historical variability conditions towards a novel and more homogeneous forested landscape. These simplified forests may be less resilient to the suite of emerging stressors such as climate change and less able to provide ecosystem services such as carbon storage, biological diversity and forest products. Sustained restoration efforts, along with reductions in deer density will be needed to restore species and structural diversity.
Metroparks 2010 – 2011 Deer Management Plan Implementation Report, Meeting of Oct 11, 2011
“This year, 2010, was the first time since 1993 that (Trout Lily and) Michigan Lily were observed in blossom. Deer seem to have a special affinity for members of the lily family, and this plant is no exception. We have been anticipating the return of this species ever since the deer culls began in 1999.”
The Responses of Rare and Common Trilliums (Trillium reliquum, T. cuneatum, and T. maculatum) to Deer Herbivory and Invasive Honeysuckle Removal (abstract)
Bione, Castanea 75(4):433-443. 2010
Our results show that the long-term management of white-tailed deer will be important to the conservation of spring ephemeral herbs such as T. reliquum, T. cuneatum, and T. maculatum.
Effects of population reduction on home ranges of female white-tailed deer at high densities
Howard J Kilpatrick, Shelley M Spohr, Kelly K Lima
Canadian Journal of Zoology, 2001 [abstract only]
Population reduction programs at our study area did not cause the resident deer population to expand home range size or shift into adjacent habitat. We believe that localized deer reduction programs can be effective tools to manage problem deer herds. Deer removal efforts initiated to reduce deer damage to vegetation, particularly in urban areas, may have an added effect of reducing foraging range of the remaining resident deer.