Acceptance of Deer Management Strategies by Suburban Homeowners and Bowhunters

Transcription

1 Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management Article Acceptance of Deer Management Strategies by Suburban Homeowners and Bowhunters HOWARD J. KILPATRICK, 1 Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Wildlife Division, 391 Route 32, North Franklin, CT 06254, USA ANDREW M. LABONTE, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Wildlife Division, 391 Route 32, North Franklin, CT 06254, USA JOHN S. BARCLAY, Wildlife Conservation Research Center, University of Connecticut, 1376 Storrs Road, Unit 4087, Storrs, CT 06269, USA ABSTRACT More communities are experiencing problems associated with overabundant white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) populations. Public acceptance of approaches for managing deer may differ within communities. Although hunting with firearms is a common practice used to manage deer populations, many suburban communities only allow bowhunting. Our objectives were to assess suburban homeowners and bowhunters acceptance of lethal and nonlethal deer management strategies. Additionally, we wanted to determine homeowner willingness to pay for deer management and how long they would be willing to wait for relief to address conflicts caused by deer overabundance. Most homeowners supported using lethal strategies to reduce and manage deer populations. Most homeowners were unaware of the cost (94%) or effectiveness (92%) of birth control agents to manage free-ranging deer populations. Of lethal strategies, bowhunting was preferred. Establishment of a special crossbow season outside the existing archery season received the greatest support by bowhunters and was also acceptable to homeowners. As landscapes progressed from rural to more urban, hunting access, human wildlife conflicts, and homeowner willingness to pay for deer management decreased. Regardless of management strategy, most homeowners were willing to wait 3 5 years to achieve a desired reduction in the deer population at no cost to them. As costs increased, homeowner willingness to wait decreased. Because exposure, tolerance of deer, and willingness to pay for management varies by landscapes, towns with diverse landscapes should consider developing regional rather than town-wide plans to manage overabundant deer populations. (JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 71(6): ; 2007) DOI: / KEY WORDS birth control, bowhunters, crossbows, homeowners, hunting, lethal, management, nonlethal, Odocoileus virginianus, white-tailed deer. As problems associated with overabundant white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) populations in suburban areas increase (Ishmael et al. 1995, Jones and Witham 1995, Kuser 1995, Kilpatrick and Walter 1997), the need to develop management strategies that are acceptable to homeowners and hunters becomes increasingly more important. High deer densities in suburban areas often are associated with high incidences of Lyme disease, increased damage to landscape plantings, and increased risk of being involved in deer vehicle accidents (Decker and Gavin 1987, Stout et al. 1993, Conover 1995, Kilpatrick and Walter 1997). In some suburban areas, firearm hunting has been limited due to perceived safety concerns and firearms discharge laws (Jones and Witham 1995, Kuser 1995, Mayer et al. 1995). Some communities have explored use of non huntingrelated management strategies, such as sharpshooting (Butfiloski et al. 1997, DeNicola et al. 1997, Kilpatrick 2005) or birth control (Kilpatrick and Walter 1997), to address increasing deer populations in urban areas. In Georgia, USA, a community paid an average of $144 per deer to shoot 1,127 deer over a 3-year period (Butfiloski et al. 1997). In Connecticut, USA, cost to a community to shoot 80 deer in 4 nights was $646 per deer (Kilpatrick 2005). In New Jersey, USA, a community paid $1,000 per deer to treat about 145 deer with fertility control over a 3- year period (S. Predl, New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, personal communication). 1 Howard.kilpatrick@po.state.ct.us Communities may support a management strategy, but if cost is high or time needed for the strategy to effectively reduce the deer herd is long, then support may decrease. Stout et al. (1997) found preferences for short-term and long-term deer management strategies may differ within the same community. Siemer et al. (2004) found that homeowner experiences with deer-related problems influenced preference for desired deer population size and acceptability of management strategies. Homeowner acceptance of lethal management strategies increased if residents were directly affected by deer problems (Siemer et al. 2004). State wildlife agencies have continued to liberalize hunting-related management strategies to increase hunter harvest in urban suburban areas. Use of crossbows was legalized in Pennsylvania (M. Grund, Pennsylvania Game Commission, personal communication) and Maryland, USA (D. Hotton, Maryland Department of Natural Resources Wildlife and Heritage Division, personal communication) for managing urban deer populations. Hunting over bait was legalized in New Jersey in 1998 and in Delaware, USA, in 1999 (D. Ferrigno, New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, and K. Reynolds, Delaware Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife, personal communication) to increase deer harvest rates in agricultural and suburban areas. Expansion of hunting-related management strategies could increase deer harvest rates (Synatzske 1981), but may be of little value if hunter willingness to employ these strategies is low (Seiss et al. 2001). To develop effective deer management strategies for suburban communities, managers need to understand Kilpatrick et al. Deer Management Strategies 2095

2 homeowner acceptance of and their willingness to pay for different management strategies in the short term and over the long term (Decker and Richmond 1995, Minnis and Payton 1995). Equally important is to understand hunter willingness to employ new or innovative hunting strategies. No studies have examined and compared homeowner and hunter acceptance of various strategies for managing deer populations in a suburban community and how cost and time may influence preferences. Our objectives were to assess homeowner acceptance of various management strategies at the landscape level, quantify their willingness to pay, and time willing to wait for a deer management strategy to effectively reduce overabundant deer herds. We also assessed the willingness of bowhunters to hunt over bait and use crossbows as tools for managing urban deer populations. STUDY AREA The study area was the town of Greenwich, Connecticut, a 124-km 2 township located in Fairfield County in the southwest corner of Connecticut, about 48 km from New York City. Greenwich was bounded on the south by Long Island Sound, on the east by the city of Stamford, and on the north and west by Westchester County, New York. The human population was about 58,000 (461 people/km 2 ; census data). Per capita income was $71,584 and the median cost per house was $795,000 in 2003 (Connecticut Economic Resource Center 2003). Greenwich was primarily residential, with 0.81-ha and 1.62-ha minimum zoning restrictions in the upper two-thirds of town. Using the minimum zoning requirements for residential development, we classified Greenwich into 3 regions: urban (396 homeowners/km 2 ), suburban (101.9 homeowners/ km 2 ), and rural (39.8 homeowners/km 2 ). Only 17 parcels comprising 147 ha remain as farmland (Planning and Zoning Commission 1998). Greenwich was 36% forestland, 29% turf nursery, 23% commercial residential, 8% field pasture, and 4% other. Deer densities in the upper two-thirds of town ranged from 31 deer/km 2 to 46.3 deer/ km 2. Estimated deer population in the town of Greenwich was 2,566 (20.7 deer/km 2 ; Kilpatrick et al. 2004). Estimated mean annual archery deer harvest was 421 (3.4 deer/km 2 ; Kilpatrick et al. 2004). From 1998 to 2001, 95% of deer harvested in Greenwich were taken during the archery season (Kilpatrick et al. 2001, 2002). Only 11% of the town potentially could be open to firearms hunting because of a law that prohibited hunting within 152 m of a house. However, homeowners may sign a written waiver to allow firearms hunting within 152 m of a house. No minimum property size or minimum distance was required to discharge a bow. Using the 2002 deer-hunting season framework, each bowhunter in Greenwich could harvest 2 antlered deer and unlimited antlerless deer (no cost for additional antlerless deer tags) in any order during a 91-day archery deer-hunting season (15 Sep 31 Dec). Hunting on Sundays or with the use of bait was prohibited. Use of crossbows was prohibited except for physically disabled hunters. Deer hunters were required to obtain written permission from the landowner to hunt on private land. METHODS Bowhunters We used a Connecticut Wildlife Division mail survey to assess bowhunter support and willingness to use crossbows or bait for deer hunting if legalized (Dillman 1978). We did not provide specifics about crossbow hunting or hunting over bait in the survey. The Connecticut Wildlife Division generated a list of bowhunters who reported harvesting 1 deer over a 3-year period ( ) in Greenwich (n ¼ 99). They also generated a list of all Greenwich residents who purchased archery deer permits in 2001 (n ¼ 83). We cross-referenced both lists to prevent duplicate mailings. We mailed surveys to bowhunters (n ¼ 159) in February 2002 and we mailed follow-up surveys to nonrespondents every 4 5 weeks. To maximize response rate, we contacted nonrespondents by phone after 4 unsuccessful mailings, and requested that surveys be completed and returned. Homeowners We used mail surveys to assess homeowners concerns, perceptions, expectations, and support for deer and deer management strategies in Greenwich. Part of the survey asked homeowner opinions of lethal and nonlethal management strategies, willingness to allow hunting, time homeowners were willing to wait, and amount homeowners were willing to spend on deer management strategies before experiencing relief from overabundant deer populations. We did not provide specific definitions of management strategies with the survey. We used the minimum zoning requirements for residential development to classify Greenwich into 3 regions: urban (0.80 ha), suburban (0.81 ha), and rural (1.62 ha). We determined minimum sample size needed for a stratified random sample among the 3 regions (Scheaffer et al. 1996). We obtained a Geographic Information System (GIS) database containing all landowners in Greenwich from the Town of Greenwich Information Technology Department in We mailed surveys to 390 randomly selected homeowners (urban, n ¼ 248; suburban, n ¼ 92; and rural regions, n ¼ 32) using the GIS database. In addition, we surveyed all Greenwich homeowners (n ¼ 66) who owned 4.86 ha (owners of large landholdings). We mailed initial surveys in September 2002, followed by reminder postcards and 2 follow-up surveys to nonrespondents about 4 8 weeks apart (Dillman 1978). We conducted follow-up phone surveys to assess nonresponse bias after 4 attempts to contact landowners by mail. We compared number of deer vehicle accidents homeowners were involved in, number of cases of Lyme disease, observations of deer, and support for lethal removal between respondents and nonrespondents to assess nonresponse bias. We assessed differences using the Pearson chi-square test at a significance level of P ¼ We calculated standard error for all comparisons (Ebdon 1985). The study protocol and 2096 The Journal of Wildlife Management 71(6)

3 surveys were reviewed and approved by the Connecticut Wildlife Division. We conducted surveys in accordance to federal guidelines by excluding minors, ensuring results were not identifiable to individuals, and ensuring that the surveys involved no risks to individuals. RESULTS Bowhunters We censored 4 of 159 surveys because hunters no longer resided at the same address and left no forwarding address (n ¼ 3), or residents purchased a hunting license to support the state wildlife agency but did not hunt (n ¼ 1). We received completed surveys from 110 of 155 (71%) hunters. We received 64% from the first mailing, 22% from the second mailing, and 14% after contact by phone. We did not receive responses from the remaining 45 hunters. We did not assess nonresponse bias due to our high return rate and limited sample size of outstanding surveys. Crossbows. If a crossbow season was established during the existing archery season, 26% (SE ¼ 4.3) of bowhunters supported use of crossbows, 60% (SE ¼ 4.8) opposed crossbow use, and 14% (SE ¼ 3.4) were unsure. Hunters who opposed the use of crossbows noted a variety of reasons for their opposition, including too dangerous (n ¼ 12), no challenge or too similar to gun hunting (n ¼ 7), should be included in separate season (n ¼ 5), no need (n ¼ 2), and other (n ¼ 8). If a crossbow season was established outside the existing archery season, 42% (SE ¼ 4.4) of bowhunters supported use of crossbows, 37% (SE ¼ 4.8) opposed crossbows, and 21% (SE ¼ 4.1) were unsure. Hunters who supported the use of crossbows noted a variety of reasons for their support, including increased effectiveness (n ¼ 3), increased harvest (n ¼ 2), and increased hunting opportunities (n ¼ 2). Hunting over bait. If hunting over bait was legalized, 64% (SE ¼ 4.7) of hunters would use bait, 16% (SE ¼ 3.6) would use no bait, and 20% (SE ¼ 3.9) were unsure. Solicited reasons hunters supported using bait included increased hunter success (n ¼ 15), increased opportunity for better shot placement (n ¼ 9), and increased shooting safety (n ¼ 4). Of hunters who supported no bait, reasons included no challenge or need (n ¼ 2) and unethical (n ¼ 4). Of hunters who were unsure about use of bait, reasons included no challenge (n ¼ 2), unethical (n ¼ 2), already too many deer (n ¼ 1), and never used in past (n ¼ 1). Homeowners Surveys were returned from 236 of 372 homeowners (63%). Survey response rates were 56%, 76%, and 84% for urban, suburban, and rural regions, respectively. Of homeowners with large landholdings, 66% returned surveys. To assess nonresponse bias, we contacted 31 nonrespondents by phone. No differences existed between respondents and nonrespondents relative to their involvement in deer vehicle accidents (v ¼ 0.089, P ¼ 0.765), preference for seeing deer (v ¼ 2.028, P ¼ 0.363), support for lethal deer population control strategies (v ¼ 1.026, P ¼ 0.311), or support for lethal strategies if it reduced Lyme disease (v ¼ 0.906, P ¼ 0.341). Landscape Comparisons Town-wide. Hunting was allowed by 10% (SE ¼ 2.0; 22 of 225) of homeowners, accounting for 26% of private land in Greenwich. Most homeowners (74%, SE¼ 2.9, n ¼ 223) supported some method of lethal control to reduce and manage deer populations at reasonable or acceptable levels. At no cost, homeowners preferred birth control (79%, SE¼ 2.7) and trap and relocate (70%, SE¼ 3.1, P 0.032, 89.6 v 2 4.6) over all other methods. Of lethal methods, homeowners preferred bowhunting (61%, SE¼ 3.3, P 0.019, 25.4 v 2 5.5). Homeowner support for lethal deer removal did not change (0.057 P 1.00, 3.6 v ) if meat was donated to food charities. Homeowner support for all management strategies decreased ( %, P 0.006, 46.6 v 2 7.6) as annual cost per household increased from $0 to $50 99 (Table 1). Most homeowners (94%, SE¼ 1.5) were unfamiliar with the cost associated with administering birth control, and most (93%, SE¼ 1.8) were unsure if birth control had successfully reduced free-ranging deer populations. Of homeowners familiar with birth control (n ¼ 75), homeowners learned about birth control from newspapers (51%), magazines (27%), television (25%), conversation with friends (24%), radio (12%), mail (8%), conservation organizations (4%), Internet (3%), and public presentations (3%). Regardless of management strategy preferred, at no cost all homeowners were willing to wait 1 year to achieve a desired population reduction (Fig. 1). As cost increased, time willing to wait decreased and 25 40% of homeowners expected an immediate reduction in the deer population (Fig. 1). Large landholdings. Of homeowners with large landholdings (4.86 ha), 45% (SE ¼ 7.8) had someone in their household that contracted a tick- (Ixodes scapularis) borne disease (Borrelia burgdorferi, Babesia spp., Ehrlichia spp.), 33% (SE ¼ 7.4) were involved in a deer vehicle accident, and 88% (SE ¼ 5.1) experienced damage to landscape plantings. Eighty-nine percent of homeowners preferred to see fewer deer and 11% preferred to see the same number of deer in their community. No homeowners preferred to see more deer. Hunting was allowed by 45% (SE ¼ 8.0; 17 of 38) of homeowners accounting for 45% of private land. At no cost, birth control (83%) and bowhunting (73%) had the greatest support by homeowners with large landholdings compared to other strategies. Homeowner support for lethal and nonlethal deer management strategies did not change as cost increased from $0 to $50 99 (0.121 P 0.823, 2.4 v ). At costs $100, homeowner support decreased (28%) for birth control only (P ¼ 0.026, v 2 ¼ 4.9). At costs $200, homeowner support decreased for bow (38%, P ¼ 0.012, v 2 ¼ 6.2), crossbow (34%, P ¼ 0.043, v 2 ¼ 4.1), hunting over bait (31%, P ¼ 0.041, v 2 ¼ 4.2), and trap and relocate (43%, P ¼ 0.007, v 2 ¼ 7.3). Homeowner support did not change for sharpshooting (P ¼ 0.073, v 2 ¼ Kilpatrick et al. Deer Management Strategies 2097

4 Table 1. Homeowner support relative to cost of deer management strategies in Greenwich, Connecticut, USA, Dollar values represent annual cost per household. Management strategy by homeowner group No cost (%) $50 99 $ $ $500 % P a % P a % P a % P a Bowhunting All homeowners b,c Rural d Suburban c,e Urban c,f Gun hunting All homeowners b,c c Rural d Suburban e,g c Urban c,f Crossbow hunting All homeowners b,c Rural d Suburban c,e Urban c,f Hunting with bait All homeowners b,g Rural d Suburban c,e Urban f,g Sharpshooting All homeowners b 35 c c c c Rural d Suburban c,e Urban f c c c Trap and kill All homeowners b,c Rural d Suburban e,g Urban c,f Trap and relocate All homeowners b,c c Rural d Suburban c,e c Urban c,f Birth control All homeowners b c Rural d Suburban e c Urban c,f a Chi-square comparisons based on no cost. b All includes rural, suburban, and urban homeowners (n ¼ 214). c 1 fewer homeowner. d n ¼ 26. e n ¼ 67. f n ¼ 122. g 2 fewer homeowners. 3.2) and trap and kill (P ¼ 0.112, v 2 ¼ 2.5) as cost increased from $50 to $500. Rural regions. In rural regions of town, 56% (SE ¼ 9.5) of homeowners had someone in their household that contracted a tick-borne disease, 44% (SE ¼ 9.5) were involved in a deer vehicle accident, and 96% (SE ¼ 3.7) experienced damage to landscape plantings. Of homeowners in rural regions, 88% preferred to see fewer deer, 8% preferred to see the same number of deer, and 4% preferred to see more. Hunting was allowed by 37% (SE ¼ 9.2; 10 of 27) of homeowners, accounting for 44% of private land. At no cost, bowhunting (62%), trap and relocate (62%), and birth control (69%) had the greatest support by homeowners (Table 1). Homeowner support for lethal and nonlethal deer management did not change as cost increased from $0 to $50 99 (0.052 P 0.402, 3.8 v ). Homeowner support for nonlethal management decreased (45 50%, P ¼ 0.026, v 2 ¼ 5.0) at cost $100. Homeowner support for all lethal deer management strategies decreased (60 76%, P 0.032, 11.7 v 2 3.5) at cost $200. Suburban regions. In suburban regions of town, 42% (SE ¼ 5.8) of homeowners had someone in their household that contracted a tick-borne disease, 19% (SE ¼ 4.6) were involved in a deer vehicle accident, and 96% (SE ¼ 2.3) experienced damage to landscape plantings. Of homeowners 2098 The Journal of Wildlife Management 71(6)

5 Figure 1. Homeowner support for deer management based on cost to implement the strategy and time willing to wait before experiencing relief from deer overabundance in Greenwich, Connecticut, USA, in suburban regions, 90% preferred to see fewer deer, 8% preferred to see the same number of deer, 1% preferred to see more, and 1% were undecided. Hunting was allowed by 16% (SE ¼ 4.4; 11 of 67) of homeowners, accounting for 22% of private land (10% of homeowners with 0.81 ha and by 25% of homeowners with.0.81 ha). At no cost, birth control (88%) and bowhunting (76%) had the greatest support by suburban homeowners (Table 1). Homeowner support for lethal management strategies (bow, gun, and crossbow hunting) and birth control decreased (27 39%, P 0.023, 11.5 v 2 5.1) at cost $50 (Table 1). Homeowner support for hunting with bait, sharpshooting, and trap and relocate decreased (38 44%, P 0.043, 3.8 v 2 1.2) at cost $100. Homeowner support for trap and kill did not change unless cost $200 (64%, P ¼ 0.001, v 2 ¼ 12.2; Table 1). Urban regions. In urban regions of town, 15% (SE ¼ 3.0) of homeowners had someone in their household that contracted a tick-borne disease, 13% (SE ¼ 2.8) were involved in a deer vehicle accident, and 34% (SE ¼ 4.0) experienced damage to landscape plantings. Of homeowners in urban regions, 68% preferred to see fewer deer, 27% preferred to see the same number of deer, and 5% preferred to see more. Hunting was allowed by,1% of homeowners (1 of 180; all properties were,0.81 ha), accounting for,1% of private land. At no cost, birth control (77%) and trap and relocate (74%) had the greatest support by homeowners (Table 1). Homeowner support for all lethal (0.001 P 0.013, 27.3 v 2 6.1) and nonlethal (P 0.001, 38.3 v ) management strategies decreased (47 65%) at costs $50. Rural and suburban homeowners reported contracting more cases of Lyme disease (P 0.001, 20.6 v ) and experienced more damage to landscape plantings (P 0.001, 72.0 v ) than urban homeowners. Rural homeowners reported being involved in more deer vehicle accidents than suburban (P 0.009, v 2 ¼ 6.8) and urban homeowners (P 0.001, v 2 ¼ 16.2). DISCUSSION Bowhunters Bowhunter support for hunting with crossbows during the existing archery season was low. Unlike hunters in New York (Lauber and Brown 2000), bowhunter support in Connecticut almost doubled if a special crossbow season was established outside the existing archery season. Opposition to using a crossbow shifted from 2 of 3 hunters during existing archery season to only 1 of 3 during a special crossbow season. Hunters who provided reasons why they opposed crossbows believed crossbows were dangerous or not challenging. In over 30 years of crossbow hunting in Arkansas and Ohio, USA, numbers of crossbow (3 and 12, respectively) and vertical bow (2 and 10, respectively) accidents were similar, and most were self-inflicted (Tonkovich and Cartwright 2002). Belief by Connecticut bowhunters that crossbows were dangerous may be related to their lack of exposure and familiarity with crossbows. Harvest data from Ohio and Arkansas suggest that hunter success was similar between traditional (recurves or longbows) archery hunters and crossbow hunters (Tonkovich and Cartwright (2002). However, in Oklahoma, USA, Ditchkoff et al. (2001) reported that hunter success was greater for crossbow hunters (22.8%) than for traditional archery hunters (6.9%). These studies suggest that crossbows were as safe as vertical bows and may be more effective than traditional archery equipment. Most bowhunters supported use of bait during the archery season, especially if bait increased shooting safety or hunter success. Hunters who provided reasons why they supported using bait believed it would concentrate deer at close range, allowing for more harvest opportunity, better shot placement, and increased hunter success. However, homeowner support for hunting over bait was relatively low and varied by landscapes. Hunting over bait had the greatest support from owners of relatively large landholdings. Kilpatrick and Stober (2002) found that bait had no effect on deer home ranges but did shift deer core areas closer to bait sites. Synatzske (1981) reported that hunting over bait increased deer observations and harvest rates, reduced mean shot distance and hunter effort, and suggested that baiting was an effective tool for increasing deer harvest in areas with high deer densities. Winterstein (1992) reported that hunters were 20% more effective at killing deer over bait than hunters who used no bait. Use of bait may increase harvest opportunities and hunter success rates in urban areas where hunters have limited access to land. Homeowners Although few homeowners allowed hunting, most homeowners supported using lethal strategies to control whitetailed deer populations. Of lethal management strategies, homeowners preferred archery, gun, and crossbow hunting over other lethal strategies such as sharpshooting and trap and kill. Similar to Stout et al. (1997) in New York, Kilpatrick et al. Deer Management Strategies 2099

6 sharpshooting received little support from Connecticut homeowners in Greenwich. Although sharpshooters have successfully reduced urban deer populations (Drummond 1995, Jones and Witham 1995, DeNicola et al. 1997), lack of homeowner support for sharpshooting may be attributed to homeowners lack of familiarity with the strategy. Although support for lethal management strategies was high, homeowners showed the greatest support for birth control. However, most homeowners were unaware of the cost (94%) or effectiveness (92%) associated with administering birth control agents to free-ranging deer populations. Most homeowners learned about birth control from the newspaper. In a suburban community in New York, resident support for birth control decreased and support for culling and culling then sterilization increased after scientific information on cost and effectiveness was provided to homeowners (Shanahan et al. 2001). Regardless of management strategy, most homeowners in our study were willing to wait 3 5 years to achieve a desired reduction in the deer population at no cost. However, as cost increased, homeowner willingness to wait to achieve a desired reduction in the deer population decreased. Longterm community support for birth control as the only management strategy is unlikely based on the cost and time required to reduce deer populations using birth control (Walter et al. 2002). Homeowner experiences, conflicts, and interest in addressing deer issues varied among landscapes within town. Our results support those of Kilpatrick and Walter (1997) and Messmer et al. (1997) who found that stakeholders who experienced problems with deer over an extended period of time are more supportive of hunting because it provides immediate relief from deer overabundance. MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS Implementing strategies that are acceptable to hunters and supported by local communities will be needed to better manage increasing suburban deer populations. Our results suggest that establishing a separate crossbow season in Connecticut outside the existing archery season would be acceptable to most archery hunters and residents. In addition, a crossbow season may recruit more firearms hunters into archery. Because hunter willingness to use bait was high and hunter access in suburban communities often is limited to small properties, baiting may attract deer from adjacent un-hunted properties, thus creating safer shooting opportunities and increasing harvest opportunities. We believe that building community support and obtaining community consensus to address deer issues may be easier from a landscape than a town-wide perspective. Towns with diverse landscapes should consider developing regional strategies to increase public acceptance and support. To maximize homeowner support for deer management, information on the benefits of each specific strategy should be provided in advance of developing regional plans. Educating homeowners on the cost and effectiveness of various management strategies should be an important consideration of the planning process. Based on our study, strategies that have the greatest chance of succeeding must maintain community support, be cost-effective, and provide homeowners with relief from deer overabundance within 3 5 years. Because newspapers were the primary source of information for residents about deer management strategies, educational efforts should focus on disseminating information to homeowners through press releases to local newspapers. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank J. W. Enck and 2 anonymous reviewers for reviewing this manuscript, G. Chasko, D. May, K. McCaffery, R. Peyton, and M. Ortega for reviewing the bowhunter survey, G. Chasko and D. May for reviewing the landowner survey, and R. Cabral and R. Lemieux for assisting with data collection. The Greenwich Conservation Commission, University of Connecticut, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project 27-49, and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Wildlife Division, supported this project. LITERATURE CITED Butfiloski, J. W., D. I. Hall, D. M. Hoffman, and D. L. Forster White-tailed deer management in a coastal Georgia residential community. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: Connecticut Economic Resource Center Greenwich. Connecticut Economic Resource Center Town Profile, Greenwich, USA. Conover, M. R What is the urban deer problem and where did it come from? Pages in J. B. McAninch, editor. Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proceedings of the Symposium of the North Central Section, The Wildlife Society, December 1993, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. Decker, D. J., and T. A. Gavin Public attitudes toward a suburban deer herd. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15: Decker, D. J., and M. E. Richmond Managing people in an urban deer environment: the human dimensions challenge for managers. Pages 3 10 in J. B. McAninch, editor. Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proceedings of the Symposium of the North Central Section, The Wildlife Society, December 1993, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. DeNicola, A. J., S. J. Weber, C. A. Bridges, and J. L. Stokes Nontraditional techniques for management of overabundant deer populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: Dillman, D. A Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. Wiley-Interscience, New York, New York, USA. Ditchkoff, S. S., W. R. Starry, R. E. Masters, and C. W. Deurmyer Hunter success and selectivity of archers using crossbows. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 55: Drummond, F Lethal and non-lethal deer management at Ryerson Conservation Area, Northeastern Illinois. Pages in J. B. McAninch, editor. Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proceedings of the Symposium of the North Central Section, The Wildlife Society, December 1993, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. Ebdon, D Statistics in geography. Second edition. Blackwell, Malden, Massachusetts, USA. Ishmael, W. E., D. E. Katsma, and T. A. Isaac Chronology of the deer management debate in river hills, Wisconsin. Pages in J. B. McAninch, editor. Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proceedings of the Symposium of the North Central Section, The Wildlife Society, December 1993, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. Jones, J. M., and J. H. Witham Urban deer problem solving in northeast Illinois: an overview. Pages in J. B. McAninch, editor. Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proceedings of the Symposium of the 2100 The Journal of Wildlife Management 71(6)

7 North Central Section, The Wildlife Society, December 1993, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. Kilpatrick, H. J Connecticut state report. Pages 5 7 in Transactions of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Northeast Deer Technical Committee September 2005, Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA. Kilpatrick, H. J., M. A. Gregonis, J. Seymour, A. LaBonte, and R. Riggs Connecticut deer program summary Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Wildlife Division, Hartford, USA. Kilpatrick, H. J., M. A. Gregonis, J. Seymour, A. LaBonte, R. Riggs, and J. Traylor Connecticut deer program summary Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Wildlife Division, Hartford, USA. Kilpatrick, H. J., A. M. LaBonte, J. S. Barclay, and G. Warner Assessing strategies to improve bowhunting as an urban deer management tool. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32: Kilpatrick, H. J., and W. A. Stober Effects of temporary bait sites on movements of white-tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: Kilpatrick, H. J., and W. D. Walter Urban deer management: a community vote. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: Kuser, J Deer and people in Princeton, New Jersey, Pages in J. B. McAninch, editor. Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proceedings of the Symposium of the North Central Section, The Wildlife Society, December 1993, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. Lauber, T. B., and T. L. Brown Hunters attitudes toward regulatory changes. Human Dimensions Research Unit HDRU Series 00-10, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA. Mayer, K. E., J. E. DiDonato, and D. R. McCullough California urban deer management: two case studies. Pages in J. B. McAninch, editor. Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proceedings of the Symposium of the North Central Section, The Wildlife Society, December 1993, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. McNulty, S. A., W. F. Porter, N. E. Mathews, and J. A. Hill Localized management for reducing white-tailed deer populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: Messmer, T. A., L. Cornicelli, D. J. Decker, and D. G. Hewitt Stakeholder acceptance of urban deer management techniques. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: Minnis, D. L., and R. B. Payton Cultural carrying capacity: modeling a notion. Pages in J. B. McAninch, editor. Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proceedings of the Symposium of the North Central Section, The Wildlife Society, December 1993, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Greenwich plan of conservation and development. Planning and Zoning Commission miscellaneous report, Greenwich, Connecticut, USA. Scheaffer, R. L., W. Mendenhall, III, and R. L. Ott Elementary survey sampling. Fifth edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, California, USA. Seiss, R., E. Darracq, and L. Castle What Mississippians think about baiting. Wildlife Issues 2:1 7. Shanahan, J. E., W. F. Siemer, and A. F. Pleasant Community attitudes about deer management in the village of Cayuga Heights, New York. Human Dimensions Research Unit Series 01-7, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA. Siemer, W. F., T. B. Lauber, L. C. Chase, D. J. Decker, R. J. McPeake, and C. A. Jacobson Deer/elk management actions in suburban environments: what will stakeholders accept? Pages in W. W. Shaw, L. K. Harris, and L. Vandruff, editors. Proceedings of the 4th International Urban Wildlife Symposium on Urban Wildlife Conservation, 1 5 May 1999, Tucson, Arizona, USA. Stout, R. J., B. A. Knuth, and P. D. Curtis Preferences of suburban landowners for deer management techniques: a step towards better communication. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: Stout, R. J., R. C. Stedman, D. J. Decker, and B. A. Knuth Perceptions of risk from deer-related vehicle accidents: implications for public preferences for deer herd size. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21: Synatzske, D. R Effects of baiting on white-tailed deer hunting success. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Report, Project W-109-R-4, Austin, USA. Tonkovich, M. J., and M. E. Cartwright Evaluation of the use of crossbows for deer hunting in Ohio and Arkansas. Pages in R. J. Warren, editor. Proceedings of the First National Bowhunting Conference. Archery Manufactures and Merchants Organization, February 2001, Comfrey, Minnesota, USA. Walter, W. D., P. J. Perkins, A. T. Rutberg, and H. J. Kilpatrick Evaluation of immunocontraception in a free-ranging deer suburban white-tailed deer herd. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: Winterstein, S. R Michigan hunter opinion surveys. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA. Associate Editor: West. Kilpatrick et al. Deer Management Strategies 2101

8