Potential Solutions:

Potential Solutions: Detailed

What Other Colleges Have Done

Many college campuses have experienced a problem with deer overpopulation across the United States, particularly in Eastern and Midwestern areas, among them:

• Vassar
• University of Michigan-Dearborn
• Cornell
• Miami University

And most importantly, Goucher College

College campuses have tried different methods to control the deer population; however, some prove more effective than others. More specifically, the method that most people would consider “harsh” or “inhumane” seems to be the most effective and, ironically, most humane.

Comparing Deer Population Control Methods

The methods people have considered and/or used to control the deer population are:

• Fencing
• Repellents
• Providing Supplemental Food
• Deer Transferring
• Immunosterilization
• Reintroducing Predators
• Sharpshooters
• Regulated Hunting

Fencing

Fencing has been used as a site-specific method of controlling deer populations. The kinds of fences that could be used include woven wire or polypropylene mesh, and high-tensile or polytape electric fences, however, some are more expensive than others and may require more maintenance.

• Woven wire fences normally don’t provide enough coverage. It can cost $6-$8 per foot to install an 8-foot fence.
• Polypropylene mesh fences can cost $2-$3 per foot.
• High-tensile electric fences require constant upkeep and have poor grounding when there is heavy snow and is on dry soil. Also, it’s just not safe to have this kind of fencing on a campus, which constantly has people walking around.

However, it’s important to consider the aesthetic factors that go into fencing as a method of control. For Goucher, this method is not ideal considering that the point is to reduce the population within the campus, not keep deer out. Putting up a fence would not only take away from the beauty of the campus, creating a caged-in feeling, but also it would simply concentrate the already high population within the campus

Repellents

Repellents also have been used as a site-specific method of controlling deer. However, using repellents would mean that campuses must frequently reapply the repellent on vegetation. This is because they can grow very quickly and new growth would not be protected, but also because repellents weather away very quickly. If the repellant is in a spray form, it would only be able to be applied during mild weather. They can cost around $25-$45 per gallon (which can cover about 200 small trees and shrubs).

The repellents themselves can also damage the vegetation, contain harmful and toxic chemicals, and can cause issues with the equipment used to apply them (like clogging, for example). Additionally, their effectiveness can be variable at different deer density conditions. If there is a lot of deer and food is scarce, they can ignore the repellent.

However, this isn’t a reasonable solution for Goucher either. Again, this method mostly keeps deer out, not reducing overpopulation.

Providing Supplemental Food

The idea behind this method is to provide food to prevent deer from starving to death and can help vegetation that has been over-consumed by deer. However, this method is completely ineffective. Providing more food allows deer to survive and reproduce, thus adding to the problem rather than addressing it. Additionally, artificial feeding can cause fatal diseases such as Chronic Wasting Disease and tuberculosis. It can also cost around $82.69 to feed just one deer throughout the year.

Thus, due to the costs of maintaining a single deer, as well as the opposite effect that we want, this would not be an ideal solution for Goucher.

Deer Tranferring

This method of population control involves trapping the deer and relocating it. However, this method would not be effective. Firstly, the process of catching and transferring deer is very complicated and can be very time consuming and costly. The programs that can do these operations can cost from $400-$3,200 per deer. Secondly, there would need to be a location that can safely and healthily handle all the incoming deer. Unfortunately, there are not many locations that can do that. Thirdly, this method is not completely non-lethal. Deer that are transferred may experience traumatic injuries during handling; about 4% of transferred deer die from these injuries. Deer may also experience capture myopathy, which is a disease associated with high stress that results in delayed death. About 26% of transferred deer can die from this disease.

Additionally, deer survival rates are normally low. Poor physical conditions in overpopulated locations can cause them to starve to death. For example, there was a loss in 85%, 55%, and 58% of relocated deer 4-15 months after relocation in California, New Mexico, and Florida respectively. A study has also shown that relocated deer are more likely to die than resident deer. The largest cause of death was from car accidents, hypothesized to be because of the deer’s unfamiliarity with the area.

Due to the amount of disease that can be spread due to deer overpopulation (see page: disease), transferring deer to other places may be illegal depending on state regulations. Relocated deer may bring diseases with them, such as Chronic Wasting Disease, Lyme disease, and Tuberculosis, acting as dispersal hosts.

Immunosterilization

Immunosterilization, the most common being immunocontraception, is when the deer is immunized against a protein or hormone that is required for reproduction. This can be achieved by manipulating the deer’s antibodies to attack her ovum or by preventing eggs from being released from the ovaries.

These strategies have been successful in controlling deer reproduction in captive and free-roaming deer. Furthermore, these agents can be delivered remotely to deer through dart guns. However, the cost of this method can be estimated to be around $1,000 per deer. This detail makes immunosterilization to very likely not to be used as a method of controlling overpopulation of deer.

Additionally, immunocontraceptatives can extend the breeding seasons of deer. This would mean that deer would be more active during the winter season, which is a time when deer must conserve calories. This can result in increased winter mortality. Furthermore, increased breeding seasons can lead to more car accidents.

Fortunately, not all immunocontraceptives cause longer deer breeding seasons. Nonetheless, this method is currently in development and requires more research and testing. Moreover, not all immunosterlization strategies are federally approved for managing populations.

Due to the costs required for this strategy, it would not be recommended for Goucher.

Reintroducing Predators

High densities of predators tend to stabilize prey populations, but these interactions can vary. Efficient deer predators include wolves and mountain lions, and these species are normally suggested as methods to control deer populations. However, this method is not feasible. The impact of predators on ecosystems can vary by a lot, and predators can consume other organisms such as livestock. Also, it would be dangerous to introduce predators to areas highly populated by humans.

This is especially true for the Goucher College campus, which always has human activity. Reintroducing predators may cause traumatic accidents if interactions were to occur.

Sharpshooters

Highly trained professionals would cull deer systematically. This method is especially beneficial for urban and suburban areas that don’t contain much undeveloped land (which supports deer hunting programs). It can cost $200-$350 to kill one deer. The experience of a town in Connecticut has been that they contracted a sharpshooter that was able to kill 80 deer in 4 nights (estimated to be $646 per deer). However, it has been revealed that sharpshooting is not as efficient as controlled hunting. Normally, venison is then donated to local food banks.

Controlled Hunting

Deer hunting has been researched and proven to be a very effective strategy to manage and maintain deer populations; it also seems to be the most efficient and cheapest strategy. Restrictions may be applied to hunters to regulate the number of deer removed, maintain safe and humane practices, and put public opinion at ease. Additionally, it can provide recreational opportunities for those who hunt.

Goucher's Best Solution

Considering the limitations and conditions of all the methods of deer population control, the most beneficial strategy for Goucher would be to either hire a sharpshooter or allow controlled hunting to take place. Since Goucher is in an urban area, a sharpshooter may be the more practical and effective choice.