deer

White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus)

Jake Landsteiner, Katie Harrod, Jeff Mahmud, Caleb Kasper

Natural History
    Defining Characteristics- During this time of the year, late fall and early winter, the white-tailed deer has a very thick grayish coat. In the spring, the deer sheds its heavy coat and a less dense reddish brown coat appears. The belly and the underside of the tail are snow white in color. Males have antlers, not horns, and the antlers can grow as much as 1/2inch in a single day during the late spring and early summer when antler growth begins.(National Geographic
Society, p.74) White-tailed males are called bucks, and females are called does. Does are bred during the late fall and early winter during a time called the rut. Most does have twins in the spring. The young of white-tailed deer are referred to as fawns. Fawns are born with a reddish brown coat and white spots. There will be more on this a little later.
        Range- The white-tailed deer is a wide-ranging mammal that occurs from South America to central Canada and through most of the United States except for parts of the West Coast and southwestern states, and into Mexico. (Hazard, p.159) In our area, this species prefers open forest environments interspersed with meadows, woodland clearings, or farmland. Before European settlement, the northern great lakes region was covered with climax coniferous forests and provided very poor habitat for this mammal, but extensive logging in the late 1800’s opened the forests and resulted in a population boom of white-tailed deer. At the same time that the northern herd was expanding, the southern populations were being decimated through over hunting. However, government programs and control of hunting along with abundant food from productive farms allowed these southern deer to recover to the point that some consider them pests. There are many reasons that white-tailed deer can be considered pests. Most of these
reasons will be covered later. Along with the reasons for them being considered pests we will also explore solutions for the control of these pests. Westward Expansion- During the time of westward expansion during the early settlement years of our country deer populations increased in much of the region as more and more pioneer clearings temporarily improved deer habitat by opening the virgin forests. After 1860 the expanding human population and removal of
forest cover, along with year round hunting, exterminated deer from all of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Michigan.(Kurta, p.266) By the 20th century, only small-scattered populations were found in southern Minnesota and Wisconsin. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the population of the White-tailed deer in 1910 was less than 2,000 head in the upper Mid West. This number seems to be a little scarce. I do not know if any single institution could accurately measure the population of an animal back then with such limited technology. And to also say that the deer were exterminated from five states seems unrealistic also. Restocking, improved law enforcement, conservative hunting regulations, and reforestation of abandon agricultural land combined to reestablish the deer in our area. These were four steps that helped bring back
the population of the white-tailed deer after seeing the effects of westward expansion.
        Hunting Regulations- Hunting regulations for white-tailed deer vary from state to state. In Minnesota there is a bag limit of one deer per license. This one deer must be an antlered deer, a buck, and the antlers must be at least 2 * inches long. The only way that an antler less deer may be taken is with a special permit that must be applied for through the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Antler less deer include male deer with antlers that are less than 2 * inches long. With an antler less deer tag the hunter may shoot a deer with or without antlers. This tag allows for the bagging of either sex. In the 1950s, after the deer had started to make a dramatic recovery the DNR allowed (Reopened the hunting season after it had been closed for nearly
40years.) for the hunting of antler less deer because the crop damage was so high. They knew that the harvest would be essential in keeping the population under control. Like I said earlier, hunting is used to help maintain the deer populations in balance with the carrying capacity of the land. Harvest goals differ in different areas also. In Minnesota you can only buy one license and bag one deer with that license. In Wisconsin you can buy up to three deer tags per person. This is just an example of how in different areas there are different methods of controlling the deer population by using hunting as a source of control.
    The Rut- This is the period of sexual activity and male dominance in the white tail world. During this time, which consists of three stages, the pre-rut, primary-rut, and the post-rut, male whitetails are at their peak for testosterone levels. They tend to become solitary travelers and will react violently to any intrusion of their personal space that has been marked by rubs and scrapes and scent. Rubs and scrapes serve two distinct purposes. The first is to attract breeding females, and the other is to intimidate rival males.(Ozaga, p.100) When intruders invade great fights may break out and one deer must walk away only to look for a new territory to try and claim. In some cases these fights can be lethal causing severe injury to one or both bucks. Gouged eyes, broken antlers, and ripped ears are common signs that a deer has been sparing. In extreme cases the deer may become locked together and will die from fatigue, dehydration, or starvation. In other cases the deer can cause lethal puncture wounds to each other causing death.
    There are three stages to the rut. The first stage is called the pre-rut, or the false rut. It usually begins in the first week of October and ends by the mid-month. Most mature does go into a brief estrous cycle at this time. This stage is short and not all does enter their estrous cycle at this time. The Primary-rut starts about 28 days after the pre-rut has ended. It normally begins around the second week of November. This is the time when most does are bred. This cycle only lasts for a little over two weeks. This is the time period when deer experience the most hunting pressure because it coincides with most states firearm seasons. Since there is such high hunting pressure during this time, many if not most of the bucks become nocturnal. They wise up and become a lot more cautious as they chase does. Before these deer wise up they are very vulnerable to hunters and automobile accidents because they are concentrating so hard on mating.
        The Post-rut or otherwise known as the late rut occurs 28 days from the onset of the primary rut. The does that come into estrus during this time are usually last year’s fawns. They tend to mature later. Also, these younger does usually only have one fawn, not twins like most females. When a doe comes into estrus during this time, she seeks seclusion from the family group. This solitude, and the resulting lack of competing estrous pheromones, is what makes
the does a magnet to bucks. Making her the center of attention is nature’s way of assuring that this late-season doe will get bred. Many times, a single doe will attract a number of bucks at the same time.
        When the rut is over, the males start to drop their antlers. They simply fall off of their head. Sometimes there are male deer that get a little too carried away during the breeding season and this can have a detrimental effect on them if the winter is going to be a tough one. Male whitetails can burn off most of their fat during the breeding season if the does are playing hard to get. This
leaves them vulnerable to cold weather and deep snow and many times these deer will die of starvation if the snow is too deep. Now we will explore some of the ecological problems both faced and caused by White-tailed deer.

Ecological Problems
    As deer and human population of habitat has increased so has danger to individual deer and threat to habitat. Dangers to individual deer such as cars, snowmobiles, pollution and agricultural runoff, hunting, poaching, wild dogs, and coyotes have replaced the precolonial danger of wolf, bear and other large predators. As stated earlier, the loss of original predators to colonization, hunting, and trapping allowed the deer population to increase unchecked.   However, before increasing to the present day levels, deer populations plummeted along with those of the major predators. Once conservation efforts were in place the deer population began to return to normal, then, with the ideal habitat created through colonization the population skyrocketed. Without the replacement of the precolonial predators with human hunters and other management methods, we get habitat destruction-change, disease, and starvation. Wolves and other major predators used to keep the ecological balance, now humans are required to take the predatory role or allow the deer to browse and reproduce themselves out of habitat. The following is an examination of the ecological problems created and faced by the white-tailed deer.
    Habitat change in the form of logging, urbanization, and agriculture have all affected predation and habitat of the white-tailed deer. Agriculture, resource extraction, urbanization and public land preservation creates ideal habitat for white-tailed deer, but other problems arise. The white-tail thrives in open spaces with some cover and easily attained food. Agricultural areas interspersed with urban areas maintain this cover while supplying an endless food source. Forested deer habitat is good for deer populations, but once logged the regrowth in the logged areas is an ideal food.   Limits on hunting in the afore mentioned areas has spurred overpopulation. Prior to European settlement deer were 8-11 per square mile in the Midwest, but now they are 18-70 per square mile. Just as urbanization, resource extraction and agriculture have brought an end to predator populations and habitat, these areas are also not conducive, nor popular for hunting. Inevitably, overpopulation is the root source of overbrowsing in forests, and crop . This overbrowsing brings swift a change in forest composition. As understory plants are devoured by increasing deer populations, so are saplings and a lack of regeneration results. The overbrowsing of understory plants and saplings, allows less plants edible and more resilient to deer to move into the area. Oak forests and Hemlock/white cedar in the great lakes region have been susceptible to deer recently as the tree seedlings are the most palatable food in those regions.
    A recent study in Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania showed high white-tailed deer densities (10-64 per sq. mile) to permanently alter the composition of the forest. After heavy overbrowsing by dense deer populations, black cherry, beech, striped maple, and inedible ferns moved into the study areas- all plant species that the deer find inedible. Original plant species in some of the study plots fell from 41 to 8. This overbrowsing has a wide ranging negative effects in that it can cause eventual starvation as deer eat themselves out of habitat, loss of plant diversity as overbrowsing allows early succession, and loss of habitat for other species as habitat composition is changed. Some species affected by white-tailed deer overbrowsing include songbirds like yellow billed cuckoos, least flycatchers, robins, and phoebes. Other species affected include snowshoe hare, wolves, bear, wild turkeys, squirrels, and mice. All of the species were negatively affected by this overbrowsing. The songbirds that rely on the undergrowth for shelter and food experience a loss of habitat as the white-tailed deer overbrowse. In some areas with a history of a high concentration of deer, a layer of inedible plants and ferns carpets the forest floor instead of the diverse mix of plants, flowers, seedlings, and shrubs that once existed. Even with deer populations reduced the shade created by the dense tangle of ferns will continue to choke out the original forest cover. Forest composition and species diversity ultimately suffer when deer populations go out of check.
    Skyrocketing white-tailed deer populations have caused conflict with humans and natural resources. Danger to humans and assets are many and far reaching in that deer cause crop damage, orchard damage, vegetable plot damage, timber tree damage, vehicular accidents/ death, disease, increase in coyote population, and competition with cattle. Crop damage is especially evident in the Midwest. This is the area where the white-tailed deer existed in its largest populations in precolonial America, and is the area where the highest concentrations of deer have been recorded recently. On farmland where hunting is limited, deer populations go unchecked. Crops and orchards are damaged and deer populations increase with the available food. Often deer will compete somewhat with cattle for browse and food. Disease from deer is easily spread to farm animals in these areas as well.
    The ability for forests to regenerate has been stunted by deer overbrowsing. This is relevant in wild forests, but also in forests reserved for tree farming. The growth of saplings on tree farms has been stunted by overbrowsing.
    Overpopulation brings overbrowsing, but it is also an indicator of possible future starvation, bringing further conflicts with urban areas, agriculture and cattle. Although deer are numerous, mass starvation is not a desired outcome.   Therefore many states have undertaken mass feeding campaigns during the winter months in order to keep deer around for ecological, recreational, and hunting purposes. Although supplemental feeding is effective it has several unfortunate consequences. Mass feeding of white-tailed deer spreads disease, provides deer with unhealthy/unnatural food, and spreads parasites.
    Disease and parasitism among deer is spread through close contact, thus overpopulation and close proximity during supplemental feeding spreads lyme disease, foot and mouth disease, bovine tuberculosis, chronic wasting disease, anthrax, blackleg, brucellosis, hemorrhagic disease, vesticular stomatitis, leptospirosis, listeriosis, tularemia, anaplasmosis, and brainworm.   All these parasites and disease are transmittable to cattle. Some diseases are lethal to elk, moose, and woodland caribou, all with low populations relative to the massive deer population. In addition to the dangers to cattle and other species, Lyme disease carried by deer is transmittable to humans. Of course, if viewed from a historical perspective overpopulation of humans and cattle spread these diseases to deer in the first place.
    Increased habitat damage in areas of supplemental feeding has become apparent in recent years. During supplemental feeding, deer will stay in close proximity to the feeding area instead of roaming for forage. This results in an even higher concentration of deer activity in area habitat bringing negative effects to forest plant and tree composition.   At this point all the negative affects of overpopulation discussed earlier come into play.
    The advantage of supplemental Feeding is that deer do indeed survive, and fawn abandonment and the movement of populations to areas where food is scarce or habitat unnatural is lessened. Contrastingly, during supplemental feeding populations increase with the availability of food during winter months. Populations increase unchecked with few natural predators and a hunting season only during the fall. If supplemental feeding happens year after year, additional supplemental feeding becomes more needed as populations increase. Deer begin to rely on the supplemental feeding and a snowball effect results. The economic result is a massive drain on wildlife management budgets and damage to feeding areas. It costs $82.69 to feed a deer for a year and $36.75 for the winter.
    The Dangers to individual white-tailed deer are many, but the population is robust. The greatest concerns faced by most people are those of the damage created to habitat, cropland, and species composition. After analyzing all these ecological problems we must now turn to the possible solutions that can maintain white-tailed deer populations at a comfortable level.

Solutions to Ecological Problems

    It is necessary to establish what the ideal population density of white tailed deer should be in order to have effective white tailed deer management. Two of the most common methods for estimating a deer population are helicopter counts and infrared trigger cameras. Each of these methods has both benefits and downfalls. Helicopter counts are typically used to determine the number of deer living across a large expanse of land. Therefore, this method is commonly used across the western portion of the United States Once the deer population has been established, it then needs to be determined if this population is acceptable or unacceptable for ecosystem in which the deer inhabit.
    It is necessary to have intensive state agency involvement for a controlled hunt to be effective. The Department of Natural Resources must have a system to regulate the number of deer that are actually being hunted. If everyone could hunt as many deer as they wanted, there could be a significant reversal in the problem of overabundance of deer. This occurred in the late 1600’s, when there was no regulations on the hunting of white tailed deer. The population of deer was so reduced that "by 1800, large areas were now devoid of animals, which had once been common, beaver, deer, bear, turkey, wolf, and others had vanished." (Cronan, 159).
    With an increasing number of suburban, corporate and government properties, people have recently begun to consider alternative methods of deer management programs. Even though hunting is effective, there are many environments in which hunting is not a feasible option. Many "urban and suburban residents consider the use of firearms a safety threat" (DeNicola, 498).
    The capture and relocate method is typically used within the suburban or urban situation. It has the potential of being a very effective, humane method for managing deer populations.   However, it has been shown to be extremely inefficient. Many times after the deer is relocated, it will shortly after die. This is very unfortunate, because it is exactly what this deer management plant is attempting to prevent. In addition to the unsuccessfulness, this method can cost between 400 and 2,900 dollars per dear. This is nearly 4 to 12 times more expensive then Sharp shooting and/or hunting. This program is designed similar to capture and relocation. The deer are captured with either box or Clover traps. Once the deer are caught they are immediately euthanised. This method is not commonly used because it can be somewhat expensive.
    The porcine zona pellacudia vaccine was first discovered in the early 1990’s. It was used for the first time in 19995 at Sharon Woods Metro Park, with a some level of success. It costs 100 dollars to purchase the drugs, darts, tranquilizer and antibiotics. However it sums up to 1,100 dollars per vaccinated deer. Even with all this invested money three out of five vaccinated deer can reproduce after two doses of the vaccine. This method is still in it’s early stages of use. So far it has been an effective method for isolated or semi-isolated deer herds, that are easily accessible by vehicle. Similar to hunting is the method of sharp shooting. However, instead of having civilians pay for a deer-hunting license, the state agency will hire people to hunt the necessary quota of white tailed deer. This method is sometimes less expensive then controlled hunts because it does not require intensive state agency involvement. Another benefit of sharp shooting is often all the removed deer are donated to local food shelves.
    Often there is controversy surrounding sharp shooting and hunting. Animal rights activists and others "oppose sport hunting because it is a recreational activity involving the killing of sentient animals" (DeNicola, 497) They question if we should really be hiring people to kill deer. This controversy is merely intensified when the reason the deer need to be killed is because we have destroyed the habitat in which the deer once lived. There are so many issues that are considered, when attempting to decide which method of deer removal should be used, that quite often it is best to get the community involved, on a local level in the decision making process.
    Now we must look to the future of the white-tailed deer. What can we expect in the next few years concerning population, habitat, and management. What is being done and who is involved.

The Future of the White-tailed Deer

    The future of the white-tailed deer is in direct connection with that of its ecological problems, as well as the solutions to the problems. There are many different sides to the issue of creating a sustainable white-tailed deer population and the opposing viewpoints can cause a major drag in the process. The best way to describe what the outlook for the white-tailed deer is by looking at the organizations that are working to find the best mode of deer management
that agrees with as many people as possible.
        “Deer Management for 2000 and Beyond” is an initiative of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress whose mission statement is as follows: “To develop statewide strategies to manage for a healthy deer herd and optimize opportunities for a diverse group of users, while minimizing conflicts, keeping deer herds at goals, and maximizing safety with as much consistency and simplicity as possible. Recommendations must give hunters predictable seasons with flexibility
for addressing special herd management needs, and yet be relevant both when herds are overabundant, below or at established population goals.” (2000) From this statement it is evident that the organization is working extremely hard to find a happy medium for all kinds of users of the white-tailed deer. Examples of the different kinds of users usually relate to whether they would like to see a larger deer population or a smaller deer population. Groups who would likely be happy to see the population rise are hunters, tourists, businesses that are totally dependent on deer and deer hunting, and any other group who see the white-tailed deer as beneficial factor to recreation and the environment. The people who would like to see the white-tailed deer populations go down are farmers, motorists, urban governments, and those with concerns about any other natural resources. “Deer Management for 2000 and Beyond” is also working hard to use input from the public, asking for recommendations concerning the issues of
creating a sustainable deer herd. The issues that were emphasized the most in the recommendations from the public were agricultural damage, private lands, baiting for deer hunting, recreational feeding, supplemental feeding, reliability of the population estimates given by the Department of Natural Resources, herd size recommendations, sex and age structure of the herd, and forestry. Many of these issues have been discussed in the ecological problems of the white-tailed deer. (2000)
        Another organization that is involved with deer management in more suburban and urban areas is White Buffalo, Inc. The organization consists of a group of individuals who are experts in the area of deer population control, especially within city limits. The white-tailed deer is viewed as a major threat to many natural, as well as developed areas. It is also their opinion that the traditional mode of deer management (hunting) does not work in enough different settings and it is their goal to find more non-traditional ways of regulating the deer population in urban and suburban settings. One way that they try to manage the white-tailed deer population involves netting the animal and using chemicals to temporarily immobilize them, costing up to $3,000. Another form of population control is a type of deer birth control and costs up to $1,000 per deer. Sharpshooting is actually a form of population control that is used often in suburban and urban areas and can cost up to $300 per deer. One more mode of management that is used by White Buffalo, Inc. is termed “trap and euthanasia” which involves trapping and distinguishing of the deer, usually by a gun shot or electric shock to the head, costing about $400 per animal. It is evident that these ways of controlling deer populations are extremely expensive and often
cause conflicts with certain animal rights groups, but deer populations in areas where hunting is not allowed is a serious problem and something needs to be done about it. (Buffalo)
        The last organization that relates to deer population management in yet another way is the International Wolf Center, located in Ely, Minnesota. The mission of this organization is “to support the survival of the wolf around the world by teaching about its life, its association with other species and its dynamic relationship to humans.” The International Wolf Center has done many studies on the relationship between the white-tailed deer and the wolves that were once prevalent in Minnesota. The studies actually showed that within the area of Ely, Minnesota, the wolf and deer populations fluctuated independently of each other, but the studies were done only over a period of about ten years. There are definite pro’s and con’s of the reintroduction of wolves into wildlife populations. For example, the wolf actually serves and has served as a natural predator of the white-tailed deer and could be beneficial to deer management and
creating a sustainable environment. On the other hand, the reintroduction of wolves could cause a threat to human safety and to many different populated environments. Other problems could also arise with places like cattle farms, in that the wolf as a natural predator would see grazing cattle as an easy meal. (Wolf)
        Some other issues concerning the future of the white-tailed deer is the need for reconsideration of regulations in National Parks. The overabundance of deer in National Parks has been causing many problems such as becoming too accustomed to visitors and coming in close contact with humans. These close up encounters with park customers can often lead to human injury when people mistake close contact with deer friendliness. There are also rising numbers of collisions between deer and cars on the roads that exist in National Parks, which
can also lead to human injury. Deer are also creating many environmental problems within the National Parks like excessive browsing on tree seedlings, crops, and other vegetation that was planted ornamentally. It is evident that the white-tailed deer are causing problems in National Parks due to their overabundance, and something that needs to be looked at and possibly refigured in order to help solve these problems is the regulations for the removal of animals
from a National Park area. As of now, the only ways to remove any animal from a National Park is if hunting is permitted, if an endangered species plan calls for it, it human safety or human health are in jeopardy and determined so by the Center for Disease Control, in order to preserve and protect property and cultural resources or landscapes, and only if the animals removed will be sent to a park in need of population restoration and it will not damage the viability of
the population from which it was taken. Therefore, park managers and rangers must rely on natural causes of death, which include old age, disease, and food shortages. Perhaps these regulations are old and out of date and need to be reassessed. Many community members are getting involved in these types of situations and forming task forces to deal with them. Most of the time these approaches serve to begin discussions on the issue, increase public awareness by
looking at all different sides of the situation, and initiate the search for a scientifically based solution, but much more work is needed before any real solutions will go into effect. (ngp)
        Some other organizations that are working for a sustainable deer environment and a feasible deer management program are the Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA), many states Departments of Natural Resources, Departments of Park and Planning, the Natural Resources Management Unit, and the Deer in the Environment Resource Fund (Deer Fund). The future of the white-tailed deer is definitely in jeopardy and needs to be looked at carefully and thoroughly to ensure that they do have a future. It is an issue with many different standpoints, all which need to be addressed and assessed before any sort of solution will arise. The white-tailed deer is an amazing creature and has its place in ecosystems stretching across most of the United States, it is an animal that is necessary for the future of many other organisms as well and its future must be maintained properly.

Bibliography

    Fiduccia, Peter. Hunting Today’s Whitetail, Whitetail tactics for Three Stages of the Rut, Hearst Communications, Inc. 1998, p.53-55

    Hazard, Evan. The Mammals of Minnesota, University of Minnesota Press; 1982, p.159-162

    Kurta, Allen. Mammals of the Great Lakes Region, University of Michigan Press; 1995 p. 264-267

    Midwest Fish and Wildlife Service. White-Tailed Deer in the Midwest, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 1968

    National Geographic Society. Wild Animals of North America, National Geographic Society, Washington D.C. 1960, p.74-76

    Wildlife Management Institute. White-Tailed Deer, Ecology and Management, Wildlife Management Institute, Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA 1984

        Ozaga, John. Whitetail Country, Willow Creek Press; 1988

Internet resource: www.ngp.ngpc.state.ne.us/wildlife/wtdeer.html (ngp)

Internet resource: www.whitebuffaleinc.org (Buffalo)

Internet resource: www.wolf.org (Wolf)

Internet resource: www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wildlife/HUNT/DEER/Deer2000 (2000)

Internet resource: www.fw.msu.edu/faculty/peyton/mdnr_2htm

Internet resource: www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/appendixa.html