Persausive Essay - Effective Deer Management

Effective Deer Management

Personal, economic, and environmental damages caused by large deer populations are visible in many forms from personal injury and property damage to diseased deer. Authorities and residents alike recognize the many problems caused by deer. For the benefit of deer and humans alike, deer hunting is the most effective means to control deer population.

When development encroaches on deer habitat and the deer population is increasing due to a lack of natural attrition, the result is an overpopulation of deer in a given area. Deer concentrations are on the rise in undeveloped areas placing higher demands for food on their environment. When vegetation is limited, deer forage more thoroughly for food, eliminating available vegetation for both themselves and other animals. According to Barret "their overabundance is shaping forest regeneration and, in turn, causing negative consequences for many native animals and plants whose presence we consider valuable" (2004). Similar to humans, deer have nutritional requirements. The health of the deer deteriorates when nutritional requirements are not met and disease is more likely to occur.

Physical and environmental stresses force the deer to leave the area and search elsewhere for food. Elsewhere happens to be grassy yards, flower gardens, bushes, specimen trees, and vegetable gardens in residential communities. There is an economic impact to property owners who are now inclined to repair damaged landscaping. Oftentimes reaching these well manicured food sources require deer to cross roadways, sometimes resulting in collisions with automobiles. Local highway administrators indicate that there has been an increase in the number of deer carcasses removed from local roadways, averaging more than 1000 in recent years. Experts estimate that this number represents only 20 to 25% of deer that die at the scene of traffic accidents. The remaining deer leave the accident scene, dying elsewhere as a result of their injury (Environmental Quality Advisory Council [EQAC], 2004). Nationally deer “destroy nearly $1 billion worth of U.S. crops, timber and landscaping annually. And each year they cause most of the 500,000 animal-related vehicle accidents that result in about 100 fatalities and $2.5 billion in damages” (Miller, 2002). In addition to vehicular damages and expenses resulting from traffic accidents involving deer, there are the inherent risks to personal safety. Recent years have also seen an increased focus on Lyme disease transmitted from deer to humans through blacklegged ticks, more commonly referred to as deer ticks. Lyme disease left untreated can lead to fever, headaches, and joint aches; and the longer Lyme disease is left untreated, the more severe the symptoms become (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d.).

Economic impacts are not limited to damages felt directly by property owners. In addition to the cost of accident investigation and cleanup, local administrators must determine the most practical and least costly method to deal with the deer populations. On a seasonal basis, deer hunts managed by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries are one means for managing the deer herds. Unfortunately, given the density of communities and proximity to the deer, this seasonal hunting is often not allowed where reduction of the population is most needed. As a result many park, wooded, and undeveloped areas adjacent to human communities are becoming more overpopulated with deer. Recent counts indicate that deer population levels in these areas range from 90 to 400 deer per square mile, when the numbers should be 15 to 20 deer per square mile (EQAC, 2004).

Ways of reducing the deer population have been suggested, both non-lethal and lethal. Animal rights activists prefer that non-lethal methods be applied to reduce the deer population. Trapping and relocating is not realistic since many surrounding areas have the same population problems; and there is concern that diseased deer could be relocated (Frese, n.d.). Contraception is an equally costly solution and is impractical due to the unmanageable number of deer at this time (EQAC, 2004). Often, in an effort to reduce damage to landscaping and vegetable gardens, home owners will erect fences and incorporate specimen plants in landscaping that are distasteful to the deer. Unfortunately, this does nothing to reduce the deer population, demand for food, or benefit the health of the remaining herds.

There are a number of lethal methods available to reduce the deer population. Sedating with darts then euthanizing