STUDENT INSTRUCTIONS

For the purpose of this activity, you and your classmates will play the roles of citizens participating on the Village of Cayuga Heights Deer Committee. Cayuga Heights’ elected officials have mandated your committee to study deer in the Village and recommend how the local government should proceed to reduce deer-related problems in the community. You are aware that numerous homeowners complain that deer ravage their landscaping, gardeners fight an ongoing battle to protect vegetables from decimation by deer, and motorists worry about the increasing likelihood of hitting a deer while driving. Yet many people — including some of those concerned about problems associated with deer — enjoy the presence of deer in their community.

The Deer Committee has worked closely with the state wildlife agency, which has the authority for managing deer. The state deer biologist has agreed to assist Cayuga Heights in managing its deer herd but the Village (i.e., YOU as the citizen committee tasked with addressing deer issues) must decide which management alternative is most suitable for your community and recommend it for approval by the Village’s governing board. Your committee has been meeting monthly for two years. With assistance from wildlife biologists, you studied Cayuga Heights’ deer population and deer management methods. Below are 5 potential methods for managing deer under discussion within your committee. A regular hunting season for deer is not an option, because the village is almost entirely residential and has an ordinance to protect human safety that prohibits the discharge of firearms. With assistance from social science researchers (Chase et al. 2002), you also conducted a scientific survey to learn how people living in Cayuga Heights felt about deer (see Figure 3). Having gathered all of this information, the time has come to make a decision and final recommendation to the Village board.

Review the survey results in Figure 3 and read about the management alternatives below. Then you and fellow citizens on the Deer Committee must decide on a management option. First, you should attempt to reach consensus on an option. Consensus means that the decision is one that everybody agrees with or, at least, can live with. If consensus cannot be reached then you will take a vote after a specified period of time for deliberations. During the vote, each committee member will explain her or his reasoning for selecting a particular option. In your decision-making, consider the effectiveness, cost, safety, acceptability, and humaneness of each option.

Method 1: Selectively Cull Deer

The deer population could be reduced by selectively shooting deer attracted to a carefully designed bait site. The meat from a deer cull can be donated to charitable organizations. Deer could be culled by professional sharpshooters or village police. Sharpshooters could use shotguns or archery equipment (bow and arrow) to shoot deer. The cost of this technique is estimated to be around $300 per each deer. Wildlife scientists say this technique is effective for immediate reduction of deer numbers in small areas. However, this technique may be difficult in Cayuga Heights because of the density of buildings and houses and because of safety concerns.

Method 2: Deer Contraception

Contraception, or birth control, for female deer is in the experimental stage, so any decision to use contraception has to be part of a research project. The estimated cost of contraception is around $1,000 per deer to administer two treatments per year for two years. Contamination of the food chain and meat butchered by hunters is possible. There are a couple of vaccines used and they are generally administered to deer with a dart gun. If any darts miss their mark and go unrecovered, they could be hazardous to humans. Effectiveness at reducing population levels using this method is uncertain, but estimated to result in between 80 and 90 percent reduction in fawning for treated females. At least 70% of all females in a local population must be treated every year in order for this technique to effect population reduction.

Method 3: Surgically Sterilize Deer

Deciding to surgically sterilize female deer is another possible means to attempt to reduce the population of deer. The cost of this method is estimated to range between $400 and $600 per deer — depending on the success rate and the method used to capture deer — after an initial outlay of around $20,000 for equipment. The long-term effects of this method on deer behavior and genetics are unknown. The sterilization itself is usually successful in over 90 percent of the cases, but in some instances the reproductive tissues have been observed to grow back. Individual deer only need to be treated once, but at least 70% of all females in the local population must be treated in order for this technique to effect population reduction.

Method 4: Deer Contragestion

This method is very dependent upon successful timing. Essentially, a chemical is administered as an abortion drug to female deer early in pregnancy. Consequently, this technique must be repeated every year. The cost of this method is estimated to be very similar to contraception, around $1,000 per deer for two years of treatment. The drugs used have received FDA permits to be used in food animals. At least 70% of all females in a local population must be treated every year in order for this technique to effect population reduction.

Method 5: Educate People About Reducing Deer-related Problems

One possible decision is to do nothing to reduce the deer population but try to teach people to reduce problem interactions by changing their own behavior or the behavior of deer. The village costs for this approach would depend on how much, if any, of an education campaign was funded by the village. Methods that could be promoted include: installing deer fencing, planting unpalatable landscape plants, using deer repellents, discouraging deer feeding, and hazing or frightening deer. Village ordinance prohibits installing fences over 4 feet in height within the first 15 feet of one’s property. Most methods of problem prevention have various levels of effectiveness and none are considered fool-proof.