Running head: Human-Deer Conflicts

Human-Deer Conflicts
Tyler McCallion
Stockton University

Human-Deer Conflicts

The human population is one of the most drastic and expanding growth factors on Earth. In the
past century, the infrastructure to hold this population has continued to progress, thus creating an
increased sprawl affect. Such sprawl is capable of severely damaging surrounding ecosystems, therefore
changing the ecosystems functionality and ability to rebound. With these advances comes devastation to
wildlife and their habitat. For example, the white-tailed deer. If the habitat for the wildlife is lost, then
wildlife itself will also be lost. One of the first signs of degraded habitat often witnessed is the increase in
car accidents and property damage due to the white-tailed deer. The inclination that white-tailed deer have
nowhere to forage, roam, or rest is due to the fact that population sprawl is encroaching on their territory,
bringing humans and deer dangerously close. If human infrastructure proceeds to excessively develop,
human-deer conflicts will drastically magnify.
While deer herds in the past were previously dispersed evenly throughout large landscapes, herds
of the same size have recently been forced to subsist on smaller pieces of land due to the loss of habitat.
The effects of urbanization cause a depletion of resources, and deer are forced to move elsewhere for
survival. This societal need to advance puts a high demand on the habitat, causing the deer to struggle in
terms of human conflict. Loss of habitat consists of three main parts: deforestation, fragmentation, and
infrastructure. According to Nijman & Nekaris, (2010), the destruction of primates habitat forces them
into the villages, which then affects the way people feel about these animals. Attitudes people have of
wildlife, particularly to animals that live in close proximity to them, are an important element of
conservation efforts and management. They had selected six villages for assessment, each close to Sri
Lankas capital Colombo. The first three villages, being nearest to Colombo, are without forest, whereas
the other three villages have forest adjacent to them, with some communities living inside the forest.
Their analysis focused on those people that encountered primates on a regular basis and that showed a
good knowledge of primates. Interviews were carried out at the peoples homes, farms or monasteries.
Questions focused on the locations where the primates were observed, frequency of observation, numbers
of primates, attitudes of primates, and perceived needs for protection. Animals surviving in humandominated landscapes may become more common, and the experiences in Sri Lanka may provide insight
into what the future holds for other sites.
Another author who describes deforestation in their article is Vanderpost (2006). It can be
expected that human sprawl in buffer zones of protected areas persist along pathways. The first pathway
is based on the growth of subsistence rural economy, while the other is related to commercial activities
like wildlife tourism. An analysis of the town, Ngamiland, is depicted for the evidence of the affects from
sprawl and also shows how sprawl is present elsewhere. Such evidence is seen throughout the buffer
zones of Africas wildlife management areas due to the separation of the landscape. Albertson (1998) and
Scott-Wilson (2000) say, The impact of these fences on wildlife is considered substantial, mostly

Human-Deer Conflicts

because they fragment habitats (as cited in Vanderpost, 2006). Vanderpost (2006) concluded that urban
sprawl has minor significances, while sprawl related to rural settlement and infrastructure cause major
conflicts, with small settlements as most abundant sprawl elements within Africas ecosystem.
Vanderpost, (2006) explains how the spread of human sprawl has decimated the population and
environment of the wilderness areas that these creatures thrive in.
An article titled Relationships between Human Disturbance and Wildlife Land Use in Urban
Habitat Fragments portrays the effects of fragmentation (Markovchick-Nicholls et al. 2008). In their
research they collected the tracks as evidence from 10 different animal species and also information on
human activity and environmental factors in 12 fragmented landscapes across San Diego County,
California. The reason was to study the relationships among habitat fragment characteristics, human
activity, and wildlife presence. Markovchick-Nicholls et al., (2008) explains how remnants of land in
urbanized areas typically conserve biodiversity while also serving as a recreational and urban open-space
that fulfill the needs of human populations. Nevertheless, the goals of creating this balanced diversity can
conflict if human activity negatively affects wildlife. When considering habitat remnants as conservation
refuges it is crucial to understand how human activities and land uses affect wildlife use of those
fragmented areas. Their results yield new findings confirming knowledge about species restricted to
habitat fragments which point to some recommendations for management of urban open-space areas to be
conservation refuges.
Evidence shows how this loss of habitat, due to infrastructure, has affected the activity of deer in
congested areas and the problems they are causing. A researcher named Nielsen (2003) studies two areas
of three different landscape sectors: one is a secluded and rural area, while the other is in an urbanized
area with fragmented vegetation. Deer-vehicle accidents have become an important safety issue among
the United States, and there are few studies that focus specifically on urban areas. They have done their
research with the aid of remotely sensed data, multivariate statistics, and a geographic information system
to quantify how landscape factors enhance deer-vehicle accidents. Location of this research was
conducted in 2 suburbs of Minneapolis, Minnesota throughout many years. The process of this
experiment began in 1993 and did not end until 2000. Nielsen (2003) explains the variations in the
number of deer-vehicle accidents in each segment. It shows how the urbanized sectors have a higher
prone human-deer accident rate than the non-urbanized areas. Reduction of forest cover and shrubby
areas on public land near roads may be used to decrease habitat suitability for deer and increase visibility
for drivers. Management to decrease landscape diversity also may be effective to reduce deer habitat
suitability (Nielsen, 2003). If you take away the habitat and home of the deer along these roadways, this
could influence the deer to not procreate and live along these fragmented land divides and could be a
solution. According to F.H., (1990) the problems that are starting with deer overpopulation. An increase of

Human-Deer Conflicts

human presence causes conflicts between deer and humans which tamper with their interactive patterns of
feeding, bedding, and mating. This action creates problems of property devastation from deer
consumption of crops to mutilation of vehicles due to accidents. According to the National Safety
Council, evidence proves that up to 350,000 deer and more than 100 motorists die each year from such
collisions (F.H., 1990). More vehicle accidents are expressed as being the most challenging problem to
resolve but is virtually impossible due to the fact of no set boundaries for either species.
National Parks have conflicting obligations that they must withhold as their main duties of their
job. It is implied by Ament (2008) that this is a major cause of human-deer conflicts across the United
States. A prime example is their original proclamation which Ament (2008) quotes from the National
Park Service Organic Act, 16 U.S.C.1. that states, to promote and regulate the use of the . . . national
parks . . . which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life
therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave
them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. As Ament (2008) explains in his article, An
Assessment of Road Impacts on Wildlife Populations in U.S. National Parks these National Park Service
employees have to obtain the mindset to doing the impossible task of conserving the parks natural
resources and to provide enjoyment of the park to tourists and preserving land for future generations.
Currently, the United States National Park Service management is challenged with balancing visitor use
with the environmental and social consequences of automobile use. Wildlife populations in national parks
are increasingly vulnerable to road impacts (Ament, 2008). Roads throughout the wilderness bring in
tourists to admire but also cause great devastation by pollution and accidents. Deer do not have
boundaries in their territory. They do not know that they should not cross the roads. They know that their
bedding, feeding or breeding ground is across that street and nothing is there to prevent them from going
until they come in contact with a speeding vehicle. The solution is not to ban tourism, but to find a way
for humans and nature to coexist at an even balance. Over half of the National Parks existing
transportation routes are perceived to be at or above capacity, with traffic volumes currently high and one
quarter of the parks having very high volumes. Roughly three quarters of the parks have not upgraded or
built new roads in the last 10 years. The development of infrastructure for the use of traveling by means
of automobiles is one of the most controversial problems in the National Park system. The National Park
Service must decide a plan to be enacted that would have complete cooperation. That is why the National
Park Service took action in the early 2000s to create a plan of action for the issue of mass transportation
within the Parks. Ament, (2008) quotes the U.S. GAO saying:
The National Park Service established the Alternative Transportation Program in cooperation with
the U.S. Department of Transportation to implement its responsibilities under TEA-21. Between

Human-Deer Conflicts

1999 and 2003, 131 planning projects and 54 alternative transportation construction projects in 75
different NPS units were approved costing $46.3 million (U.S. GAO 2002)
Patthey, Wirthner, Signorell, and Arlettaz (2008) collaborated, researched and spoke of the impact
outdoor winter sports has on the key indicator species of alpine ecosystems and effects this has along the
food chain. If there are species who strictly live on mountain tops with slow growth and reproduction
rates, putting a ski resort would affect the species ability to survive. If you deplete the population of one
species, it drastically causes a domino effect throughout that whole ecosystem. Taking away the microspecies on that mountain top takes away the food source for one species, changing the productivity of that
sub-species until it vanishes. Patthey et al. (2008) tested the effect of outdoor winter sports on the
abundance of the alpine black grouse, a vulnerable indicator species of the timberline ecosystem that is
suffering a declining population, which favors the habitat for prime outdoor winter sports landscape in the
European Alps. This study provides the first quantitative evidence that ski lifts and outdoor winter sports
negatively impact a key alpine indicator species on a large scale. Their results showed that black grouse
presence is approximately 36% lower in ski resort locations than in natural ecosystem areas, given that
grassy shrub-land with scattered trees is the most favored habitat type. If one herd of deer forage on a
particular species of vegetation on that mountain top, open-slope human activity and machinery will
could decrease the species of vegetation and restrict the deer of their resources. In hindsight, deer feed on
brutes from small shrubs and softwood trees but if human activity is introduced into their habitat, their
food sources will decrease and they will have no option but to move out and fight for a new territory.
Influx of humans caused growth of pollution within the ski resort built on the mountain that was studied.
Then the ecosystem and environment surrounding the resorts would be affected as well, due to the rise in
civilization needs and roadways that are created to commute to the resort. Human-deer conflicts are then
introduced throughout ecosystems that lie along these roadways that lead to these mountain resorts. With
this information it is clear that roads pose a large threat to the deer.
Wildlife interfering with human activities causes harm to both humans and wildlife. Cromsigt,
(2013) believes that his article, Hunting for fear: innovating management of human-wildlife conflicts
has an answer to this issue. The concept of hunting for fear is an additional factor to the classical ways
of simply hunting to kill, which is typically used in large herbivore management. Hunting for fear is the
idea that a behavioral response of the game, in this case, white-tailed deer, will be set into their minds as
the instinct to take action immediately. For example, wolves were brought back into Yellowstone National
Park to promote hunting of elk. This was not only for the classic idea of hunting to kill but also for the
concept of putting fear back into the elks original instinct, so that the herds would not sit stationary at one
location and eat all of the vegetation. This action worked and the result of this is that vegetation was then
capable of growing at a longer rate without getting devoured, which then gave beavers the resources they

Human-Deer Conflicts

required to build their dams to block and raise the water level in the rivers. In return of the river rising, the
cut-throat trout were then able to thrive and expand their population amongst the waterways. This allowed
the food source to be readily available for the bears that inhabit the ecosystem. As it turns out, the feces
left behind from the bears that consume these cut-throat trout is extremely high in nutrients and helps the
regrowth of vegetation. This is a way of having white-tailed deer divert from areas where their impact is
undesired. Having evidence to back up these issues, solutions need to be enacted and put into effect to
gain control of the situation.
The first resolution to this issue is introduced by Cromsigt (2013) to implement the increase of
hunting white-tailed deer herds to get a better control of the population. Laws and regulations are already
set into effect in certain zones with the allowance of multiple deer to be harvested at a time. Zones within
New Jersey have specific guidelines for the allowance of multiple harvesting of deer at one time. This is
pronounced to be permitted because certain deer are located in decreasing habitat in urban areas and
require population control. Other regulations restrict the decimation of bucks due to the size of their
antlers for the advantage to allow the herd of bucks to grow for better genetics, population numbers and
faster reproductive rates. An example that a buck is only eligible to be killed if it has a substantial number
of points on its antler. This is located in, Zone 28 where only a mature buck with at least three points on
one antler is entitled to be harvested. Another regulation enacted is that only one single doe and one single
buck may be harvested in select zones to expand the herd and grow better genetics for strengthening these
deer. Zone 23 is a prime example to bring up as foresight. Thinning out the herd would be the healthiest
and safest way (Cromsigt, 2013). The concept of hunting has been there from the beginning of time;
predation-evolution, survival of the fittest, Hunter-Gatherers, all are examples of hunting in one
way or another. The grander killing of deer will then be an incentive to have as a donation food for the
organization called, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. This could be ratified by getting in
contact with the New Jersey Department of Human Services. This would make a sustainable decline of
numbers and help citizens at the same time.
Prukop and Regan (2005) wrote an article titled, In My Opinion: The Value of the North
American model of wildlife conservation-an International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
position that explains the accomplishments and challenges that the Fish and Wildlife agencies withstand.
The Fish and Wildlife Agencies still face numerous complications. Locally over-abundant wildlife
populations, habitat degradation, and the expanding list of species at risk are just a few of the conflicts for
the current and future of the environment. Gore, Knuth, Scherer, and Curtis (2008) agree that evaluating a
conservation investment designed to reduce humanwildlife conflict would be the ultimate plan for the
final solution. In the article, Evaluating a conservation investment designed to reduce humanwildlife
conflict, an example is the currently implemented program called, The New York NeighBEARhood

Human-Deer Conflicts

Watch Program (Gore et al. 2008). What this program did was first educate the people in these bear
inhabited communities about the precautions that can be made to prevent human-bear conflicts. .
Increased risk perception has been linked to increased compliance with risk behavior. Explaining this
framework as a plan to the towns allowed for immediate action and a decrease in conflicts was exhibited
as a direct program effect.
A secondary method, which has already been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency
and is in the process of being introduced, is the fertility control of does. Fagerstone (2010) believes birth
control is the optimum path to take in lowering the concentration of deer per herd throughout the U.S.
with the use of contraceptives and vaccines. Steroid hormones are injected into the animal and react by
interfering with the ovulation process and the implanting of the egg of a female or in the males
reproductive organ, enabling the transportation of sperm to the female. Currently, two oral contraceptive
products (Ovocontrol G for use to manage resident Canada geese, and Ovocontrol P to manage pigeons)
are available for commercial use in the USA. In addition, the injectable immunocontraceptive GonaCon
has been registered in the USA for use in white-tailed deer (Fagerstone, 2010). To back up this argument,
McShea, Monfort, and Hakim (1997) all fight for the push to continue with the use and expansion of
contraception and vaccines on the behavior and reproduction of white-tailed deer in their article, The
Effect of Immunocontraception on the Behavior and Reproduction of White-Tailed Deer. An
experimented test showed that there were significant behavioral differences between the experimental and
control does that can be attributed to the contraception (McShea et al. 1997). This shows that even back in
the 1990s, tests were being conducted for the control of deer population so that humans could continue to
expand and overcome the landscape.
In New Jersey, there is currently an apex predator that contributes to help with the conservation of
deer herds. This predator is the coyote, a small scale wolf, which hunts in packs and takes down larger
animals than themselves with the aid of the pack. It is believed that the coyote was originally an
inhabitant of New Jersey. Assumptions are also being made that insurance companies are importing packs
of coyotes from other states. This effort is made to help with the control of the never ending growth of
deer herds. New Jersey Fish and Wildlife has assured that these coyotes are indeed home to the native
grounds of the Pine Barrens and beyond to the far outlying boundaries of New Jersey. These coyotes are
different in coloration and appearance which is another reason why people are sceptical of the truth.
According to the article, Coyote in New Jersey:
The first known record of coyote occurrence in New Jersey was recorded near Lambertville,
Hunterdon County in 1939. Eastern coyotes differ from their western counterparts with a larger
average size and various color phases, including blonde and black. Past interbreeding between

Human-Deer Conflicts

wolves and coyotes may be responsible for the larger size and color variations in the eastern
coyote. (2014)
Krulwich (2014) talks of New Jersey only having a population of 200 white-tailed deer in the
entire state during the 1890s. So many deer were shot, eaten or skinned that they dwindled to a precious
few by the 1930s. Then, with hunting regulations and suburbanization their numbers increased. Today
there are thousands and thousands, says Krulwich, (2014) author of Can It Be? Pigeons, Geese And
White-Tailed Deer Were Once Rare. This a drastic comparison to realize but does give a prime example
to the fact that deer had been predominantly abundant in New Jersey and have been historically controlled
to a low population through hunting. Even though they went a little too far, this gives closure to skeptics
who think hunting is not a good solution to our overpopulation of deer. The overpopulation of deer per
herd is not the sole problem. There are other factors that promote the issues that we face. For example, the
obvious overpopulation of humans is a huge factor to bring up and to have the need for some
reprimanding consequences. Sprawl has drastic effects such as, deforestation and fragmentation to the
deer and their environment. It is unclear what this will do to the herds actions and patterns of living.
In terms of a solution, hunting is the most convenient and efficient way due to its safer and
sustainable ways of impact towards the environment and its inhabitants. This is not an experiment that
can be pre-tested in a lab with scientists to determine the consequences on both parties. Deer are very
good at adapting to other environments, but we do not know what will happen. Deer do not live in the city
or change their diet from fauna and flora to cheeseburgers and french fries. It cant be expected that the
mass growth of two species is capable of thriving on the same hectares of land that is being divided up
into quarters. After long periods of time it is now clear what this has done and is the reason why we have
to back track to solve problems. So as an addition to Hunting the Herd, I propose that we stay away
from current use of the chemicals that would be ingested or injected into these animals and then later
consumed by a hunter, as the effects of contraceptives are unknown. Hunting would be the optimal choice
to decrease the herd population while still allowing the urbanized areas grow with the stress of humandeer conflicts significantly decreased. Whether the notion of hunting is for the factor of fear or the simple
fact of killing, they both would have safe and positive outcomes. Both of these ideas could essentially be
put into action. An interesting point would be to still have the same hunting laws and regulations set into
effect but apply an intention of hunting for fear on the off season. The classical method of hunting has
been used for centuries with few negatives but now with the help of these regulations can prevent these
detrimental effects. The push to go forth with making the white-tailed deer a food source for this
organization would be promoted if people were educated on how this would affect the ecosystem and the
environment from both an economic and sustainable standpoint. This food can be given to the poor and
needy or simply kept for the hunter and their families. Conservation, through hunting, is key in my eyes.

Human-Deer Conflicts

References
Ament, R., Clevenger, A., Yu, O., & Hardy, A. (2008). An Assessment of Road Impacts on Wildlife
Populations in U.S. National Parks. Environmental Management, 42(3), 480-496.
NJDEP. (2014). Coyotes in New Jersey. New Jersey Fish and Wildlife
Cromsigt, J. P., Kuijper, D. P., Adam, M., Beschta, R. L., Churski, M., Eycott, A., & ... Frair, J. (2013).
Hunting for fear: innovating management of human-wildlife conflicts. Journal Of Applied
Ecology, 50(3), 544-549.
FAGERSTONE, K. A., MILLER, L. A., KILLIAN, G., & YODER, C. A. (2010). Review of issues
concerning the use of reproductive inhibitors, with particular emphasis on resolving humanwildlife conflicts in North America. Integrative Zoology, 5(1), 15-30.
F.H. (1990). DEAR DEER. Environment, 32(8), 22-23.
Gore, M. L., Knuth, B. A., Scherer, C. W., & Curtis, P. D. (2008). Evaluating a conservation investment
designed to reduce humanwildlife conflict. Conservation Letters, 1(3), 136-145.
Krulwich, R. (2014). Can it be? Pigeons, Geese and White-Tailed Deer Were Once Rare. NPR Radiolab.
MARKOVCHICK-NICHOLLS, L., REGAN, H. M., DEUTSCHMAN, D. H., WIDYANATA, A.,
MARTIN, B., NOREKE, L., & ANN HUNT, T. (2008). Relationships between Human
Disturbance and Wildlife Land Use in Urban Habitat Fragments. Conservation Biology, 22(1),
99-109.
McShea, W. J., Monfort, S. L., Hakim, S., Kirkpatrick, J., Liu, I., Turner, J. W.Jr., Chassy, L., & Munson,
L. (1997). The Effects of Immunocontraception on the Behavior and Reproduction of WhiteTailed Deer. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 61(2), 560-565.
Nielsen, C. K., Anderson, R. G., & Grund, M. D. (2003) Landscape Influences on Deer-Vehicle Accident
Areas in an Urban. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 67(1), 46-51
Nijman, V., & Nekaris, K. I. (2010). Effects of deforestation on attitudes and levels of tolerance towards
commensal primates (Cercopithecidae) in Sri Lanka. International Journal Of Pest Management,
56(2), 153-158.
Patthey, P., Wirthner, S., Signorell, N., & Arlettaz, R. (2008). Impact of outdoor winter sports on the
abundance of a key indicator species of alpine ecosystems. Journal Of Applied Ecology, 45(6),
1704-1711.
Vanderpost, C. (2006). Pathways of Human Sprawl in Wilderness Buffer Zones. Population &
Environment, 27(3), 285-306.