Hopewell Valley Deer Management Task Force: Abating Deer Impacts at the Community Level HOPEWELL VALLEY DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN Submitted to the Hopewell Township Committee by the Hopewell Valley Deer Management Task Force James Burd, Mayor Denise Moser, Co-Chair Michael Van Clef, Member PRIORITY READING New Jersey Land Trust Rally March 2011 September 2010
Task Force History and Accomplishments Created by Township Committee September 2009 1) Initiate a public education program, 2) Create a comprehensive deer management plan, and 3) Determine requirements for long-term sustainability of a successful deer management plan. Task Force Accomplishments Conducted 8 public meetings Published several informative articles in local newspapers Creation, distribution and analysis of a public questionnaire Night-time survey of Hopewell Valley deer population Prepared comprehensive report - Hopewell Valley Deer Management Plan
Task Force Members Hopewell Township Committee Liaison: James Burd Denise Moser, Private Resident, Co-Chair William Cane, Private Resident, Co-Chair James Amon, D&R Greenway Land Trust Francesca Calderone-Steichen, Hopewell Township Phyllis Echternacht, Private Resident James Gambino, Hopewell Township Environmental Commission Drew Haftl, Private Resident Robert Hoch, Private Resident George Kerr, Hopewell Township Environmental Commission Carol Kleis, Hopewell Township Open Space Advisory Committee Moira Lawrence, Private Resident George Meyer, Hopewell Township Robert Miller, Hopewell Township Jess Niederer, Hopewell Township Environmental Commission Judy Niederer, Hopewell Township Robert Ongradi, Private Resident Phil Robbins, Private Resident Morton Rosenthal, Private Resident Scott Sheldon, D&R Greenway Land Trust Barry Taylor, Private Resident Michael Van Clef, Friends of Hopewell Valley Open Space David Van Selous, Private Resident James Waltman, Stony Brook - Millstone Watershed Association
Plan Outline Table of Contents Hopewell Valley Deer Management Task Force Members... Executive Summary... Summary of Goals and Strategies... Table of Contents... List of Tables, Figures and Appendices... v I. Introduction... History and Accomplishments of the Hopewell Valley Deer Management Task Force... II. Deer Population in the Hopewell Valley... Introduction... Natural History of White-tailed Deer... Historic and Current Statewide Deer Population... Hopewell Valley Deer Population 2010 Survey... III. Deer Impacts in the Hopewell Valley... Consideration of Multiple Land Uses... Review of Existing Deer Management Efforts... Programs Outside of Hopewell Valley... Hopewell Valley Programs... V. Hopewell Valley Deer Management Goals and Strategies... Introduction... Recommended Goals... Goal #1: Reduce Lyme Disease Cases... Goal #2: Reduce Deer Vehicle Collisions... Goal #3: Reduce Agricultural Losses... Goal #4: Reduce Landscape Planting Losses... Goal #5: Reduce Ecological Damage... Recommended Strategies for Goal Implementation... Strategy Set #1: Improvement of Hunting Access... Strategy Set #2: Improvement of Hunting Efficacy... Strategy Set #3: Avoidance of Deer Impacts... Literature Cited... Introduction... Public Questionnaire Methods and Results Summary... Human Health Impacts... Lyme Disease... Economic Impacts... Deer Vehicle Collisions... Agricultural Losses... Landscape Planting Losses... Ecological Impacts... Stewardship of Natural Lands... Forest Health Degradation... IV. Deer Management Options... Introduction... Non-Lethal Options... Birth Control... Deer Exclusion Fencing... Repellants... Road-related Deer Countermeasures... Landscape Use of Unpalatable Plants... Lethal Options... Recreational Hunting... Agricultural Depredation Permits... Community Based Deer Management Program (CBDMP)... Deer Management Assistance Program (DMAP)... Deer Management Programs (DMP)... Quality Deer Management Cooperatives... Professional Services...
Public Questionnaire Results 71% of responding households felt that Deer cause many problems and solutions are needed 26% of responding households reported a case of Lyme disease 28% of responding households reported being involved in a deer-vehicle collision 55% of responding households reported severe to moderate landscape damage 27% of farmer respondents reported annual agricultural losses exceeding $5,000 10% of responding households hunt deer Harvest would increase with more land access (43% of Valley is not open to hunting) Harvest would increase with more time to hunt Harvest would increase with outlet to donate venison
Human Health and Economic Impacts in the Hopewell Valley Lyme Disease Deer-Vehicle Collisions Agricultural Losses Landscape Planting Losses
Goal #1: Reduce Lyme Disease Cases Impacts of Deer Overabundance Health and Property Lyme Disease There has been an annual average of 170 reportable cases of Lyme disease from 2007-2009. The Task Force recommends a 25% reduction goal by 2013 (128 cases) and a 75% reduction goal by 2019 (43 cases). Figure 6. Reported Lyme Disease Cases in the Hopewell Valley Source: Hopewell Township Health Department Classic Bull s Eye rash of Lyme Disease Many researchers have implicated high deer densities with increased incidences of Lyme Disease. Although deer do not carry the disease, they serve to increase the tick population.
Impacts of Deer Overabundance Health and Property Deer Vehicle Collisions Goal #2: Reduce Deer Vehicle Collisions There has been an annual average of 567 deer-vehicle collisions from 2007-2009. The Task Force recommends a 25% reduction goal by 2013 (425 collisions) and a 75% reduction goal by 2019 (142 collisions). Figure 7. Sum of Reported Deer-Car Crashes and Struck Deer Calls for Hopewell Township Source: Hopewell Township Police Department The insurance industry estimates an average cost of $2,500 per collision. Statewide, there are about 15,000 collisions at an annual cost of $37,500,000.
Impacts of Deer Overabundance Health and Property - Agricultural Losses Goal #3: Reduce Agricultural Losses The public questionnaire results suggested that 27% of respondents had crop losses exceeding $5,000 per year. The Task Force recommends a 25% reduction goal by 2013 (20% of respondents) and a 75% reduction goal by 2019 (7% of respondents). Other economic impacts include: 1) Land Abandonment 2) Switching to Less Palatable Crops 3) Planting Sacrificial Crops 4) Deer Fencing Costs
Impacts of Deer Overabundance Health and Property Landscape Plant Losses Goal #4: Reduce Landscape Planting Losses The public questionnaire results suggested that 55% of respondents had severe or moderate landscape damage. The Task Force recommends a 25% reduction goal by 2013 (41% of respondents) and a 75% reduction goal by 2019 (14% of respondents). Many residents suffer extensive deer damage to their landscape plants. Unfortunately, some residents are driven to plant invasive species that are unpalatable to deer. Invasive species spread from plantings and degrade natural habitats. Left: Browse line on arborvitae; Right: Deer resistant invasive species Chinese Silvergrass
Impacts of Deer Overabundance Ecological Damage
Impacts of Deer Overabundance Ecological Damage The Good... "I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer. And perhaps with better cause, for while a buck pulled down by wolves can be replaced in two or three years, a range pulled down by too many deer may fail of replacement in as many decades. -Aldo Leopold The Bad... and The Ugly! Damage to Forest Health Loss of native shrubs & herbs Loss of tree seedlings to replace fallen canopy trees Loss of native fauna dependent upon native flora Increases amount of invasive plants that are unpalatable to deer
The statewide deer population is well above historical levels.
Deer Population Estimate Results Estimated 37 deer per square mile (late winter/early spring) Calculations suggest a postbirthing population of 54 deer per square mile Published literature suggests that 10 deer per square mile is associated with low rates of Lyme disease, deer-vehicle collisions and healthy forests. Historic estimates also report 10 deer per square mile prior to European settlement of North America
Hopewell Valley provides prime habitat for deer. Excellent deer Habitat + Insufficient deer management = Health, Economic, and Ecological Damage Forest fragmentation produces excellent deer forage along with supplemental feeding from agriculture and suburbia Lack of hunting access and focus on trophy bucks. Herd reduction requires a shift in focus to does. Lyme Disease Deer-Vehicle Collisions Agricultural Losses Landscape Planting Losses Degraded Forests Forest Fragmentation in Hopewell Valley While still containing over 15,000 acres of forest habitat (shown in green), forest edges, fields and suburban landscapes are numerous and serve as more productive deer habitat than forest interiors.
Current Strategies to Control Deer by Individual Land Owners Recreational Hunting Generally allowed by private residents concerned with deer overpopulation Pros: May reduce the most severe impacts of deer overabundance Cons: May not stimulate increased focus on does, which is required to significantly reduce populations Agricultural Depredation Permits Generally conducted by farmers with high value row crops Pros: Increased deer herd reduction by removing constraints Cons: Limited to agricultural areas Deer Management Programs (Controlled Hunting) Generally conducted by land trusts and may involve deer drives and baiting Pros: May provide incentives to focus on does in return for hunting access Cons: Less effective on small parcels when neighboring parcels are not participating To achieve Township-wide population reduction, hunting efforts need to be coordinated to avoid pushing deer into safety zones.
Table 4. Summary of Parcel-level Deer Management Status in the Hopewell Valley Hunting Status Agricultural Depredation Permit Deer Management Program Recreational Hunting No Hunting Access Unknown Hunting Access Totals Number of Parcels 14 76 335 6968 304 7697 Acres 929 3346 13578 14944 3729 37601 % of Hopewell Valley* 2 9 36 43 10 100 * Hopewell and Pennington Boroughs were assumed to have no hunting activity, but their acreage totals were considered for calculations.
Hunting safety zones around structures accounts for 50% of Hopewell, which aggravates pushing and necessitates a coordinated strategy.
Deer Population Estimate Results Estimated 37 deer per square mile (late winter/early spring) Calculations suggest a postbirthing population of 54 deer per square mile Published literature suggests that 10 deer per square mile is associated with low rates of Lyme disease, deer-vehicle collisions and healthy forests. Historic estimates also report 10 deer per square mile prior to European settlement of North America
Figure 14. Hopewell Valley Deer Harvest Totals (2002 2010) Source: New Jersey Division of Fish & Wildlife (S. Predl, personal communication) 1400 Number of Deer Harvested 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2009-2009 2009-2010 Season Population Reduction Goal (%) One-year Harvest Requrired to Reach Goal Resulting Population Density 30 1019 26 40 1358 22 50 1698 18 60 2037 15 70 2377 11 Total Population Estimate Average Annual Harvest 3396 1079
Agricultural Depredation Permits Benefits No seasonal constraints (may occur whenever crop damage occurs) Night hunting allowed (spotlighting) Can be conducted from a vehicle No harvest bag limits (but consumption tags are limited) Requirements Simple application Demonstrate crop damage to Division of F&W Hunters must have firearms registered with law enforcement authorities
Division of Fish & Wildlife s Community Based Deer Management Program (CBDMP) Benefits Season extensions Use of alternate methodologies (e.g., sharpshooters) Increased bag limits Requirements Township resolution Designate a Special Deer Management Area Must document deer damage and/or deer population size Crops, ornamental shrubs, deer-vehicle collisions, runway hazards, (ecological damage) Application reviewed/approved by the Fish and Game Council Generally approved whenever recreational hunting is considered inadequate/unsuitable
Quality Deer Management A Mutually Beneficial Model From the Quality Deer Management Association: Quality Deer Management (QDM) is a management philosophy/practice that unites landowners, hunters, and managers in a common goal of producing biologically and socially balanced deer herds within existing environmental, social, and legal constraints. This approach typically involves the protection of young bucks (yearlings and some 2.5 year-olds) combined with an adequate harvest of female deer to maintain a healthy population in balance with existing habitat conditions and landowner desires. This level of deer management involves the production of quality deer (bucks, does, and fawns), quality habitat, quality hunting experiences, and, most importantly, quality hunters.
Cooperation!
Impacts of Deer Overabundance Ecological Impacts Goal #5: Reduce Ecological Damage Local forest health has been monitored through two science-based protocols called sentinel seedlings (measuring deer browse on planted tree seedlings) and forest secchi (measuring the density of forest understory vegetation). The average browse on planted tree seedlings has been 59% from 2006-2009. The average amount of native understory vegetation has been 21%. The Task Force recommends a 25% improvement by 2013 (44% browse on planted seedlings & 26% native understory cover) and a 75% improvement by 2019 (14% browse on planted seedlings & 37% native understory cover).
Impacts of Deer Overabundance Ecological Health New Jersey Forest Health Monitoring System : Hopewell Valley Sites Sentinel Seedlings Source: Michael Van Clef, Ecological Solutions
Impacts of Deer Overabundance Ecological Health New Jersey Forest Health Monitoring System: Hopewell Valley Sites Forest Secchi Source: Michael Van Clef, Ecological Solutions
Reason to imagine success... The Deer Management Program at Baldpate Mountain is beginning to bear fruit. Native plants, freed from excessive deer browse, are outcompeting invasive plants. Left: Photo of native spicebush thicket at the Ted Stiles Preserve at Baldpate Mountain. Right: Close-up photo of thicket showing spicebush (larger leaves) overtopping the invasive Japanese barberry.
Summary of Goals For all goals, the recommendation is a 25% reduction by 2013 and a 75% reduction by 2019. Goal #1: Reduce Lyme Disease Cases There has been an annual average of 170 reportable cases of Lyme disease from 2007-2009. The Task Force recommends a 25% reduction goal by 2013 (128 cases) and a 75% reduction goal by 2019 (43 cases). Goal #2: Reduce Deer Vehicle Collisions There has been an annual average of 567 deer-vehicle collisions from 2007-2009. The Task Force recommends a 25% reduction goal by 2013 (425 collisions) and a 75% reduction goal by 2019 (142 collisions). Goal #3: Reduce Agricultural Losses The public questionnaire results suggested that 27% of respondents had crop losses exceeding $5,000 per year. The Task Force recommends a 25% reduction goal by 2013 (20% of respondents) and a 75% reduction goal by 2019 (7% of respondents).
Summary of Goals Goal #4: Reduce Landscape Planting Losses The public questionnaire results suggested that 55% of respondents had severe or moderate landscape damage. The Task Force recommends a 25% reduction goal by 2013 (41% of respondents) and a 75% reduction goal by 2019 (14% of respondents). Goal #5: Reduce Ecological Damage Local forest health has been monitored through two science-based protocols called sentinel seedlings (measuring deer browse on planted tree seedlings) and forest secchi (measuring the density of forest understory vegetation). The average browse on planted tree seedlings has been 59% from 2006-2009. The average amount of native understory vegetation has been 21%. The Task Force recommends a 25% improvement by 2013 (44% browse on planted seedlings & 26% native understory cover) and a 75% improvement by 2019 (14% browse on planted seedlings & 37% native understory cover).
Summary of Strategies Strategy Set #1: Improvement of Hunting Access 1A) Encourage and facilitate hunting access on public and private lands 1B) Develop strategies to access pocket deer in residential areas
Summary of Strategies Strategy Set #2: Improvement of Hunting Efficacy 2A) Encourage and facilitate coordinated hunting activities among neighboring landowners 2B) Encourage and facilitate use of Agricultural Depredation Permits by farmers 2C) Encourage and facilitate Deer Management Programs that focus harvests on female deer 2D) Encourage and facilitate program for venison donation to local food banks 2E) Consult with the NJ Division of Fish & Wildlife and other wildlife professionals to facilitate strategies 1A through 2D Introduction Friends of Hopewell Valley Open Space Deer Management Program Procedures and Rules 2010 The Friends of Hopewell Valley Open Space (FoHVOS) Deer Management Program (DMP) is intended to improve ecosystem health through a reduction of the white-tailed deer population. FoHVOS welcomes hunters who understand and honor their legal and ethical responsibilities as hunters to help us meet our conservation goals. We require that DMP participants hunt safely and humanely, with respect for and courtesy toward both human and non-human life. Hunting privileges are non-exclusive and FoHVOS and their guests retain the right to use the Preserve for all lawful purposes. Activities of FoHVOS take precedence over DMP participant rights to hunt on the Preserve and participants shall comply with any reasonable restrictions specified by FoHVOS in order to accommodate such activities.
Summary of Strategies Strategy Set #3: Avoidance of Deer Impacts 3A) Improve awareness of methods that reduce Deer Vehicle Collisions 3B) Improve awareness of methods that reduce Lyme disease 3C) Improve awareness of methods that reduce landscape damage 3D) Discourage the intentional feeding of deer in non-hunting situations
Examples of Community Wide Strategies Millburn Township Formed Deer Management Task Force Conducted public survey (>70% supported deer management activities) Hired professional firms (White Buffalo and Deer Management Systems), followed by UBNJ Trap & Euthanize or Dart & Euthanize for pocket deer, sharpshooters on larger properties or with permission on private properties Obtained permission to conduct hunts on lands owned by large water utility Website contains various reports and procedures Costs: $90 - $1,000 per deer (depending on method and hunting group) Princeton Township Hired professional firm (White Buffalo) followed by UBNJ Reduced deer-vehicle collisions from 342 to 100 per year Numerous Other Examples (> 30) Including Bridgewater, Chatham, Harding, Hillsborough, Mendham, Mountain Lakes, Readington, Watchung, West Orange...
Examples of Community Wide Strategies Fairfield County Municipal Deer Management Alliance Coordinated efforts of multiple municipalities Township culling programs on larger parcels CT Deer Wardens match hunters with private landowners for small parcels Specific examples of dramatic reduction of deer populations Bernards Township Formed Township Deer Management Advisory Committee Comprehensive baselines conducted (e.g., deer numbers, public surveys) Program hunters under special F&W season extension permit (CBDMP) Costs: $91/deer removed (about $27K per year) primarily butchering cost, venison donated to Food Banks of New Jersey Results: Deer population reduced from 120 to 20 deer per square mile in 4 years, 82% reduction in deer-vehicle collisions
Recommendations to the Hopewell Township Committee 1) The assignment of a permanent Deer Management Task Force to implement the plan. This body would meet periodically and have ongoing responsibility to implement strategies that achieve stated goals with assistance from Hopewell Valley municipalities and other stakeholders from public and private sectors. 2) The ongoing commitment of the Township Committee and staff to implement the plan. Examples include initiation of a Township-led deer management program on municipal lands and utilization of the Township website for public outreach/communication. Most recommendations are budget neutral, but all require commitment from elected officials and municipal staff. 3) Provide an annual contribution of $5,000 as seed money to establish a venison donation program. This would allow the donation of 50 deer (equivalent to 5,000 pounds of venison or 20,000 meals). The Task Force would seek additional funding from public and private sources to grow the program.
Q & A James Burd, jim.burd@gmail.com Denise Moser, dad@princeton.edu Michael Van Clef, mvanclef@hotmail.com Plants and Birds of Healthy Forests Clockwise from top left: mountain laurel, witchhazel, maple-leaved viburnum Clockwise from top left: blackburnian warbler, black-throated blue warbler, chestnut-sided warbler, ovenbird