NE1005: Management of Wildlife Damage in Suburban and Rural Landscapes

(Multistate Research Project)

Status: Inactive/Terminating

Project Menu

SAES-422 Reports

Annual/Termination Reports:

[04/08/2002] [06/10/2003] [06/21/2004] [07/11/2005]

Date of Annual Report: 04/08/2002

Report Information

Annual Meeting Dates: 03/27/2002 - 03/27/2002
Period the Report Covers: 06/01/2001 - 03/01/2002

Participants

Decker, Dan (djd6@cornell.edu) - Cornell Univ. AES (NYC); Biles, Larry (LBILES@intranet.reeusda.gov) - USDA-CSREES; Curtis, Paul (pdc1@cornell.edu) - Cornell Univ. (Ithaca); Enck, Jody (jwe4@cornell.edu) - Cornell Univ. (Ithaca); San Julian, Gary (jgs9@psu.edu) - Penn State; Kays, Jonathan (jk87@umail.umd.edu) - Univ. Maryland; Ramakrishnan, Uma (Uma.Ramakrishnan@po.state.ct.us) - Conn. AES; Anderson, Jim (jander25@wvu.edu) - WVU; Maynard, B. (bmaynard@uri.edu) - Univ. RI

Participants Attachment:

Attachment

Brief Summary of Minutes

Minutes Attachment:

Attachment

Accomplishments

No accomplishments to report at this time. Project has only been in existence since 6/2001.

Publications

Research Publications: Curtis, P. D., E. D. Rowland, and G. L. Good. 2002. Developing a plant-based vole repellent: screening of ten candidate plants. Crop Protection 21(4):299-306. Research Abstracts: Curtis, P. D. 2002. The science and politics of suburban deer management. Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference 58:7. Curtis, P. D. and B. Boldgiv. 2002. Estimating deer abundance in suburban areas with infrared-triggered cameras. Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference 58:76.

Impact Statements

No impacts to report at this early date.

Date of Annual Report: 06/10/2003

Report Information

Annual Meeting Dates: 04/14/2003 - 04/14/2003
Period the Report Covers: 03/01/2002 - 04/01/2003

Participants

Menzel, Bruce (bmenzel@intranet.reeusda.gov) - USDA-CSREES; Curtis, Paul (pdc1@cornell.edu) - Cornell Univ.; San Julian, Gary (jgs9@psu.edu) - Pennsylvania State Univ.; Ramakrishnan, Uma (Uma.Ramakrishnan@po.state.ct.us) - Connecticut AES; Anderson, James (jander25@wvu.edu) - West Virginia Univ.;
Parkhurst, James (jparkhur@mail.vt.edu) - Virginia Tech; Drake, David (drake@aesop.rutgers.edu) - Rutgers Cooperative Extension; Bowman, Jake (jlbowman@udel.edu) - Univ. of Delaware [provided written comments]

Brief Summary of Minutes

NE1005 Regional Wildlife Damage Meeting occurred on 14 April 2003, during the 59th Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference held in Newport, Rhode Island.

1. Administrative Procedures

Annual Report and at least one annual meeting required (this meeting fills the requirement). SAES Report Form 422 must be filed 60 days after annual meeting: (a) each project participant should send a 1 paragraph abstract for projects they wish to report as part of the collaborative effort under NE 1005; and (b) reports should include publications, abstracts, presentations related to the 3 NE-1005 Objectives: (1) deer damage assessment; (2) development/testing of damage methods; and (3) population control for resident Canada geese. Meeting Minutes will be posted on the website http://wildlifecontrol.info. Officers for the Group: Chair, Chair-Elect, and Secretary for 2-year terms. Nominees: Gary San Julian-chair, Paul Curtis-secretary, Uma Ramakrishnan-chair-elect.

2. State Reports

CT-50% cut in funding for FY 2002-03; deer sterilization and census method research is continuing; established plots for a deer exclosure study to monitor vegetation impacts.

NJ-Strong support of NJAES for ongoing deer research (contribute matching dollars and logistical support); D. Drake champion for NERA/NEED project; new forest health project- association between woodland management and deer density; is forest tax law driving poor management decisions?; landowner survey planned for fall 2003 with follow-up field verification. Second project: habitat modification to disperse suburban geese - evaluate mowing strategies, goose foraging on fescues with fibrous leaves.

WV-AES provided no funds for the regional project this year; working on nuisance black bear study with two components: (1) examine ear-tagged bears involved with nuisance complaints- those moved farther were less likely to cause a repeat complaint; (2) examining behavior of nuisance bears treated with rubber buckshot/pyrotechnics vs. untreated control bears. Starting a project to evaluate exclosures to protect balsam fir from deer damage.

PA-No AES operating funds for FY2002-03; on-going interest in human dimensions work; associated research projects funded by Audubon: (1) GPS study of hunter movements, survey of hunters in camps/on roads; (2) Study on landowner posting in 3 counties (Pike, York, Greene)-many people post land for control reasons, 27% would allow hunting access with permission; in PA Sunday hunting would cause landowners to increase posting on their lands.

DE-J. Bowman added as a project participant; Two deer damage projects: (1) working in Howard Co., MD, in fall 2003 to evaluate deer movement patterns associated with a controlled hunt in a suburban area. Will evaluate attitudes of suburban residents towards the controlled hunt; (2) examine spatial and temporal aspects of deer damage to soybeans in DE and MD, test a labeled deer repellent (see attached report).

VA-No funding for the regional project in FY 2002-03; working with citizen task forces in suburban communities on deer damage issues: (1) Roanoke- community wanted deer census, and target number to be removed, White Buffalo offered to do work on contract; (2) Blacksburg- 9-month negotiation process, in second year of a deer removal program, process facilitated by advance meeting with the town manager; (3) Lynchburg- SWAT team approach, police remove deer from with permission of private landowners; homeowners report vegetation damage and it is plotted on a GIS map.

NY-Strong support from Cornell AES; several projects underway: (1) implementing a statewide survey of deer damage to agriculture for major commodities (will share questionnaire with Conn. AES); (2) in the process of evaluating hunter responses to a quality deer management cooperative; (3) evaluating the effects of hazing on dispersal of nuisance geese from suburban areas; (4) deer sterilization study underway in the village of Cayuga Heights, article on deer modeling in press for Journal of Wildlife Management (see attached reports).

3. Developing New Funding to Support Research Objectives

WDM Coop funds can help fund small research projects ($130,000 in past 2 years).

** Need to put collaborative efforts into a multi-state proposal to evaluate deer impacts to forest regeneration, biodiversity, and ecosystem health. All states should contribute to this effort.

**Will sponsor a symposium at a national wildlife conference and hold annual meeting at the same time. Proposed theme: Integration of State Fish & Wildlife Agency, USDA-Wildlife Services, and USDA-AES Wildlife Research. Proposed venue: North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Spokane, Washington. Drake, San Julian, Curtis to develop session proposal.

NCT-185 (J.I. Gray, Michigan is the Admin. Advisor) -- ongoing deer research in the Midwest; Tom Brown serves on this committee and will help coordinate activities with NE-1005

4. NEREC Proposal and Activities

David Drake at Rutgers is the champion for the NEREC project. State AES and Extension Directors approved NEREC 1001 at their summer meeting in July 2002. Summary of integrated deer damage proposal distributed to CARET (Council on Agric. Research, Education and Teaching) representatives; they are pursuing funding for FY 2003-04 ($1.5 million/year for 3-5 years).

Accomplishments

DELAWARE REPORT-APRIL 2003; JAKE BOWMAN, UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE I will be initiating a suburban/urban deer study in Columbia, Maryland this fall. Howard County Parks and Recreation, Wildlife and Heritage Service of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and USDA/APHIS Wildlife Services have all expressed an interest in the research to investigate the relationship of deer movement patterns and the efficacy of a controlled hunt to manage deer-human conflicts in a suburban landscape. Another project initiated in Howard County, Maryland investigated the attitudes of suburban landowners toward controlled hunts and other management options for white-tailed deer. During 2002, I initiated a project with Joanne Whalen, extension IPM specialist, to investigate deer damage to soybeans and methods to abate the damage. We investigated the spatial and temporal dynamics of the damage to soybeans and conducted an initial trial of a repellent labeled for use on soybeans. In 2003, I will investigate the spatial and temporal dynamics of deer damage to soybeans with more replicates in Delaware and Maryland. Delawares Division Fish and Wildlife and USDA/APHIS Wildlife Services have expressed an interest in this research. ASSESSMENT OF WILDLIFE DAMAGE TO CROPS IN NYS-APRIL 2003; TOM BROWN, HUMAN DIMENSIONS RESEARCH UNIT, CORNELL UNIVERSITY; PAUL CURITS, CORNELL COOPERATIVE EXTENSION, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Agriculture is one of the states leading industries, and specialty crops comprise a significant portion of New Yorks agriculture industry. In 1997, the market value of specialty crops addressed by this proposal was $206.9 million for vegetables, $185.1 million for fruit, and $284.7 million for nursery and floriculture crops (USDA 1999). In 2001, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) recorded 1,579 complaints of deer damage (an increase from 1,409 complaints in 2000) totaling more than $3.7 million in estimated losses (DEC Big Game Program Briefs, Jan. 2002). This estimate is very conservative, as agricultural damage is often not reported by growers unless a crop depredation permit to kill nuisance wildlife is requested. During 2001, DEC issued 1,430 deer kill permits, resulting in 4,505 deer being taken. It is not known if these kill permits for deer significantly reduced crop losses. The Human Dimensions Research Unit (HDRU), located in the Department of Natural Resources at Cornell University, has conducted a number of surveys of farmers and their perceptions of wildlife damage. In particular, HDRU completed studies in the 1970s and 1980s to obtain estimates of deer damage to crops and to obtain farmers preferences for deer population levels. Study areas included the Erie-Ontario Lake Plain, western and central New York, and the Hudson Valley. Current levels of economic losses caused by wildlife are unknown, as past surveys of deer damage to crops are more than 20 years old. During spring 2003, we implemented a mail survey instrument to assess wildlife damage to crops in New York State. The study was supported by NY Farm Bureau, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, and NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets. The survey has been delivered to Ag & Markets and should go out soon to 4,000 farmers statewide. The survey will ascertain statewide and by regions of the state: (1) total deer damage to crops, by major crop type; (2) how deer damage compares to other wildlife damage regionally across the state; (3) annual expenditures of growers to prevent (a) deer and (b) other wildlife damage; (4) awareness and use by growers of DEC permits to remove nuisance deer; and (5) summary of methods used by growers to control deer damage and growers‘ evaluation of the effectiveness of each method We anticipate results will be available in fall 2003. Information will be provided to county extension educators for use in activities (commodity workshops, grower twilight meetings, etc.) targeted to reduce levels of wildlife damage experienced by growers. The questionnaire design is available as a template for other states in the Northeast that are interested in conducting wildlife damage assessment. If additional resources are secured, we plan to conduct a region-wide survey of deer damage to agriculture. LANDOWNER AND HUNTER RESPONSE TO IMPLEMENTATION OF A QUALITY DEER MANAGEMENT (QDM) COOPERATIVE; JODY ENCK AND TOM BROWN, HUMAN DIMENSIONS RESEARCH UNIT, CORNELL UNIVERSITY The concept of Quality Deer Management QDM) is becoming popular among hunters across the US. Basic premises of QDM are protection of young bucks to increase the number of older, more mature bucks with larger antlers and balancing the total deer population with available habitat resources (QDMA citation). In 2001, a large group (n > 35) of landowners and associated hunters (n > 170) near King Ferry, New York contacted the Bureau of Wildlife (BOW) about the possibility of establishing a QDM initiative on the nearly 16,000 ac of their aggregated private properties. BOW staff sought assistance from Cornell University‘s Human Dimensions Research Unit (HDRU) to evaluate the initiative. The purpose of this study is to collect baseline behavioral and attitudinal data as a first step in a long-term evaluation of QDM as a harvest strategy to balance positive and negative deer-related impacts from the perspectives of landowners and deer hunters. Preliminary findings include: Landowners listed the following program outcomes as major reasons for their desire to participate in QDM: (1) to see fewer deer in their fields (60% indicated this as a reasons for participation); (2) to experience fewer deer-vehicle accidents in the local area (45%); (3) to have hunters pass up shots at younger bucks (45%); and (4) to maintain satisfaction of hunters who hunt on their properties (20%). Among landowners who indicated a desire for these program outcomes, some differences occurred in the kinds of deer-related problems that landowners thought would be addressed if those outcomes occurred. For example, some landowners who wanted to see fewer deer in their fields were very concerned about economic losses from deer damage. Others indicated little concern about economic losses, but were very concerned about their frustration over the persistence of deer damage to crops. Some landowners who wanted to experience fewer deer car accidents were very concerned about their risk of being injured in an accident whereas others were very concerned about having to pay for repairs. Some landowners who wanted hunters to pass up shots at bucks were very concerned about being shot by uncareful hunters (they did not seem to care about whether hunters passing up shots at bucks increased hunter satisfaction). Some landowners who wanted to maintain satisfaction of hunters on their properties were concerned about reducing their own deer problems (they did not seem to care about whether hunters were happy for the hunters sake, just that they keep coming back). Landowners made various (untested) assumptions that certain program outcomes will be the means for achieving other, more fundamental ends that they are interested in. Not all landowners are interested in the same fundamental ends. Not all important fundamental ends that landowners associated with program outcomes may occur. We hypothesize that landowners acceptance of alternative management actions to achieve desired program outcomes will be highest for actions that they believe will result in important fundamental ends. We also hypothesize that landowners satisfaction with QDM will be linked most strongly to attainment of fundamental ends more so than achievement of the more general desired program outcomes. EFFECTIVENESS OF HAZING TO REDUCE SUBURBAN GOOSE CONFLICTS-APRIL 2003; ROBIN HOLEVINSKI, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, CORNELL UNIVERSITY; PAUL CURTIS, CORNELL COOPERATIVE EXTENSION, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES; RICHARD MALECKI, USGS, NY COOPERATIVE FISH AND WILDLIFE RESEARCH UNIT Hazing is often recommended as a non-lethal approach for reducing conflicts with Canada geese (Branta canadensis) in suburban areas. We are evaluating the impacts of an intensive hazing program for geese in 3 communities near Buffalo, Rochester, and Sherburne, New York. During summer 2002, more than 550 geese were leg-banded in the 3 study areas, and radio-telemetry transmitters were affixed to 24 adult female geese. A combination of hazing techniques (border collies, pyrotechnics, radio-controlled boats, laser lights, etc.) was used in each community depending on local resources and residents desires. Hazing was conducted both day and night during late August and September in an attempt to disrupt the normal roosting and feeding habits of problem flocks. At night, laser light was most effective for dispersing geese from roost sites. During the day, a combination of border collies, radio-controlled boats, and pyrotechnics dispersed geese from problems sites. None of the techniques used was completely effective under all conditions. Radio-tagged geese showed strong site affinity, and were reluctant to leave their home ranges even with persistent disturbance. However, mortality of radio-tagged geese was high, with 11 of 22 (50%) geese experiencing hazing either being shot by hunters (n=7) or found dead (n=4). Combining an intensive hazing program, with egg addling to reduce reproduction, may reduce the size of problem goose flocks with several years of concerted effort. Additional field studies will be continued during summer 2003. In addition to hazing during August and September, we plan to relocate families of adult and juvenile geese from suburban areas approximately 150 miles to state and federal wildlife areas (Montezuma NWR, Tonawanda WMA, etc.). We will investigate whether juvenile geese will establish site fidelity at their release sites. Approximately 200-300 geese will be neck-collared to track their movements during summer and fall. An additional 20 adult geese will be radio-collared to monitor survivorship.

Publications

Riley, S. J., D. J. Decker, J. W. Enck, P. D. Curtis, T. B. Lauber, and T. L. Brown. 2003. Deer populations up, hunter populations down: implications of interdependence of deer and hunter population dynamics on management. Ecoscience. (In press for September 2003). Merrill, J. A., E. G. Cooch, and P. D. Curtis. 2003. Time to reduction: factors influencing management efficacy in sterilizing overabundant white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 67(2):267-279. Curtis P. D., R. L. Pooler, M. E. Richmond, L. A. Miller, G. F. Mattfeld, and F. W. Quimby. 2002. Comparative efficacy of gonadotropin-releasing hormone and porcine zona pellucida immunocontraceptive vaccines for controlling reproduction in white-tailed deer. Reproduction-Supplement 60:131-141.

Impact Statements

Examined deer hunter behavior and factors that influence access to hunting on private and public lands. Sunday deer hunting would significantly increase land posting and decrease hunter access in Pennsylvania. More than one-quarter of posted lands are available for deer hunting if permission is requested.
Hazing geese with lasers at night, and border collies during the day, were the most effective techniques for dispersing nuisance Canada geese from suburban areas.
Bears that were trapped and translocated farther distances after involvement in a nuisance situation were less likely to be repeat offenders.
Fertility control for white-tailed deer will only be feasible over long time horizons (4-10 years) with substantial time and resource investment (25-50% of the available fertile females would need to be treated annually in a given population).

Date of Annual Report: 06/21/2004

Report Information

Annual Meeting Dates: 04/26/2004 - 04/26/2004
Period the Report Covers: 04/01/2003 - 04/01/2004

Participants

Decker, Daniel (djd6@cornell.edu) - Cornell University;
Menzel, Bruce (BMenzel@csrees.usda.gov) - USDA-CSREES;
Curtis, Paul (pdc1@cornell.edu) - Cornell University;
Brown, Tom (tlb4@cornell.edu) - Cornell University;
Ramakrishnan, Uma (Uma.Ramakrishnan@po.state.ct.us) - Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station;
Anderson, James (jander25@wvu.edu) - West Virginia University;
Drake, David (drake@AESOP.Rutgers.edu) - Rutgers University;
Parkhurst, James (jparkhur@vt.edu) - Virginia Tech (written comments received)

Brief Summary of Minutes

The annual meeting for NE1005 was held on April 26, 2004 at the Princess Royale Oceanfront Hotel & Conference Center, in conjunction with the 60th NE Fish & Wildlife Conference, Ocean City, MD.

Officers for NE1005: U. Ramakrishnan, Chair; P. Curtis, Secretary

See complete meeting minutes posted at: http://wildlifecontrol.info/.

1. USDA-CSREES Updates (Menzel): (a) USDA CSREES has a new web page at: http://www.csrees.usda.gov. (b) Agency transformations: New USDA staff in the soils and global change programs; currently searching to fill 3 forestry positions and 1 plant ecologist (invasive species). (c) Budget outlook: Small decreases anticipated in federal formula funds for most program areas; RREA Program-hopefully current cuts will be temporary, strategic planning for RREA will help set future directions and possibly increased funding. (d) Funding opportunities: Higher Education Challenge Grants may provide resources for wildlife-related projects; USDA-NRI is the major research program for USDA, but supports mostly basic agricultural research; plan to promote NRE program area and more open input on RFP priorities; up to 20% of funding for integrated programs - projects must support 2 elements of the land-grant mission (e.g., research-extension or teaching-extension); NRE program focal area includes `impacts on wildlife by landscape changes;` Diana Jerkins is NRE Program Leader-current proposal success rate is 10-20% (>200 proposal received annually).

2. Administrative Updates (Decker): Need to develop a coherent project with focused effort. If unsuccessful in receiving a USDA-NRI grant, consider changing to a multi-state coordinating committee. Expand membership of NE1005 to include USDA-APHIS and state wildlife agency staff. NCT185 (J.I. Gray, Mich., Admin. Advisor) ongoing deer research in the Midwest; Tom Brown serves on this committee and will help coordinate activities with NE1005

3. Developing New Funding to Support Research Objectives: Since 2001, The Northeast WDM Cooperative has provided about $250,000 to fund applied research and extension projects. Need to put collaborative efforts into a multi-state proposal to evaluate deer impacts to forest regeneration, biodiversity, and ecosystem health. All participating states should contribute to this effort. The group will target USDA-NRI ecosystem management program area. David Drake will take the lead on writing the USDA-NRI proposal. We will plan a conference call and e-mail exchanges during early summer to develop a writing plan. We may consider submitting a NRI Workshop Research Planning proposal this year ($5K-$10K).

4. State Reports

CT - Deer census method research is completed; line transects were the best technique at CT study sites; IR-triggered cameras provided the best data on herd composition (see attached report). A survey of deer damage (n=640; 342 responses) was distributed to the CT Nursery and Landscape Association following the protocol for the NY deer damage survey. Have analyzed 2001, 2002 deer-vehicle accident data for CT-no patterns emerging. (See Connecticut Survey Findings report on meeting minutes website.)

NJ - On-going study to evaluate bird dispersal at dairy farms. Bird Gard worked best to deter pigeons and starlings. Bird-bangers were the second best technique, but scarecrows were ineffective. Compared three different methods for estimating deer density in suburban areas: road counts, FLIR, catch-unit-effort. All three provided similar estimates of deer abundance. Best to do counts after leaf-fall in autumn. J. Paulin conducting a study on tolerance of wildlife damage caused by deer/bear/geese in low and high density areas.

WV - Nuisance black bear study with two components: (1) examine ear-tagged bears involved with nuisance complaints - those moved farther were less likely to cause a repeat complaint; (2) examining behavior of nuisance bears treated with rubber buckshot/pyrotechnics vs. untreated control bears. Aversive conditioning was not effective - some bears repeated nuisance behavior after 24 hours, all bears repeated nuisance activity by 20 days post-treatment. Moving bears resulted in less `reported` nuisance behavior, but some damage was probably not reported.

NY - Completed a statewide survey of deer damage to agriculture for major crops. Farmers reported losing about $58M in 2002 because of deer damage. Completed a study of the effects of hazing on dispersal of nuisance geese from suburban areas. Mortality was slightly higher for hazed vs. control flocks. No technique was completely effective for dispersing geese. Dogs seemed to work best during the day, and laser lights worked best at night. (See reports for Projects 1 and 2 on meeting minutes website.)

VA - A statewide meeting of municipal and county leaders was organized (e.g., Boards of Supervisors, City Managers, Town Selectmen, etc.), for a 2-day workshop in early June on how counties, cities, and towns can prepare for and anticipate dealing with human-wildlife conflicts. For many of these people, we have found there is no forethought about this until it becomes a problem and by then it already has become polarized. In this workshop, we are basically introducing them to the fact that real problems do in fact exist. The Secretary of Natural Resources for VA has agreed to come as keynote speaker because he is quite serious about resolving these wildlife problems. There will be a panel discussion involving state, federal and private assistance resources (who`s who, what do they do, what they don`t do, etc.) and how to get in contact with them. We then have a morning session based on 3 case studies from VA in communities that either initiated work themselves to design and implement a comprehensive program or were thrust into having to deal with a problem under pressure. Then, I have a facilitation team coming in to talk about community interactions, available resources, how to develop and work with task forces and focus groups, how to get to YES, i.e., the human dimension side of the situation. Finally, I am having participants complete a survey which will be the lead-in to the next phase of my plan, that being to conduct a series of regional self-help and design workshops. A team of partners will assist me in actually helping communities or groups of neighboring communities develop and implement comprehensive wildlife damage management programs to deal with existing and anticipated situations before they become conflict-ridden. This endeavor was a necessary outgrowth of trying to avoid the growing onslaught of individual towns coming to me seeking help after they had found themselves embroiled deeply in a mess like the numerous deer reduction/control controversies, except now it involves 5-8 wildlife species, not just deer.

Vole management programs are being conducted in forest regeneration situations. Our VA Department of Forestry people are woefully lacking in understanding in this arena and are not helping landowners prepare for and cope with a very serious problem. So, through a series of classroom and field demo sessions, we are going to get the foresters up to speed on recognizing the damage, knowing something about the options, and how to implement treatment. Then, as a follow-up to that, we have a series of programs scheduled for landowners. The situation in the home landscape and nursery industry is exploding, too, so that may be the next target audience.

The other issues that keep rearing their head in VA involve beaver (increasing numbers and damage everywhere), vultures (USDA-WS has a big study going on in VA), and as always, more deer concerns. I still hear about a growing problem with turkeys, particularly in vineyards and fruit orchards (eating buds, fruits, breaking branches and vines, etc.), but hard data simply is not available right now.

5. NEREC Proposal and Activities: David Drake (Rutgers) is the *champion* for the NEREC project. To date, efforts to pursue funding have not born fruit. The current plan is to keep this project active and continue to explore funding options with various stakeholder groups. It will take a concerted effort in several states to develop the support needed to garner new federal dollars for this initiative.

Accomplishments

The regional multi-state project NE1005 has been active in addressing wildlife damage concerns. Experiments have been conducted concerning effective means of non-lethal hazing (e.g. noise, lights, sprayed scents) to reduce adverse impact of geese on turf grass (turf loss, soil erosion, feces and feather deposition) at school yards and other public recreational sites. Applied research and outreach activities relating to deer-damage management have been conducted, including efforts to more accurately document the economic impact of deer-damage in the Northeast, evaluate deer damage to forest regeneration and effects on biodiversity, and field-test new animal-repellent devices. In addition, deer population modeling was conducted to determine levels of herd reduction needed to reduce impacts at both site-specific and landscape scales. Research has also focused on non-lethal options for herd control in suburban locations. Funding proposals were developed to sponsor critically needed enhancements to wildlife damage research and outreach programs.

Publications

Brown, T.L., D.J. Decker, and P.D. Curtis. 2004. Farmers estimates of economic damage from white-tailed deer in New York State. HDRU Series No. 04-3, Dept. of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Curtis, P.D. and P.G. Jensen. 2004. Habitat factors affecting beaver occupancy along roadsides in New York State. Journal of Wildlife Management 68(2):278-287. Curtis, P.D., W.F. Siemer, and J.E. Shanahan. 2004. The role of educational intervention in community-based deer management. Transactions North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 68:197-208. Hedlund, J.H., P.D. Curtis, G. Curtis, and A.F. Williams. 2004. Methods to reduce traffic crashes involving deer: what works and what does not. Traffic Injury Prevention 5:1-10. Riley, S.J., D.J. Decker, J.W. Enck, P.D. Curtis, T.B. Lauber, and T.L. Brown. 2003. Deer populations up, hunter populations down: implications of interdependence of deer and hunter population dynamics on management. Ecoscience 10(4):356-362.

Impact Statements

Activities and federal formula fund support associated with NE1005 resulted in a first-ever, jointly-funded survey of deer-damage to crops in NYS. The survey assessed the effectiveness of site-specific deer management methods and other deer control options. This unique collaborative effort involved the NY Farm Bureau, Cornell University AES, NYS Dept. of Env. Conserv., NYS Dept. of Agriculture and Markets, and Cornell`s Human Dimensions Res. Unit.
A summary of research targeted at reducing deer-vehicle crashes concluded that well-designed and maintained highway fencing, combined with underpasses/overpasses as appropriate, was the only widely-accepted method with solid evidence of effectiveness. Other techniques (deer whistles, roadside reflectors) have no/very limited effects. Temporary passive signage and active signage were promising in specific situations. Continuing research is still required.

Date of Annual Report: 07/11/2005

Report Information

Annual Meeting Dates: 04/17/2005 - 04/17/2005
Period the Report Covers: 04/01/2004 - 04/01/2005

Participants

Decker, Daniel (djd6@cornell.edu) - Cornell University;
Menzel, Bruce (BMenzel@csrees.usda.gov) - USDA-CSREES;
Curtis, Paul (pdc1@cornell.edu) - Cornell University;
Anderson, James (jander25@wvu.edu) - West Virginia University;
Drake, David (drake@AESOP.Rutgers.edu) - Rutgers University;
San Julian, Gary (jgs9@psu.edu) - Penn State University

Brief Summary of Minutes

Complete meeting minutes are posted at: http://wildlifecontrol.info/.

1. USDA-CSREES Updates (Menzel): (a) Budget outlook: Small decreases anticipated in federal formula funds for most program areas; Hatch and MacIntire-Stennis funding may be shifted to a competitive grants program in the future (proposed in the Presidents budget); focus will be on agroecosystems with a possible $75million AES grant program. (b) Other funding opportunities: Michael Bowers manages NRI Program on Invasive Species; 2006 RFP will include components on animals and pathogens- possible link with deer management?

2. Administrative Updates (Decker): Need to seek a new administrative advisor, as Dan Decker will be leaving the Cornell University AES in July 2005. Possibly consider changing this project to a multi-state coordinating committee. Need to expand membership of NE1005 to include USDA-APHIS and state wildlife agency staff.

3. Developing New Funding to Support Research Objectives: Need to submit the USDA-NRI multi-state proposal that was developed in 2004 concerning deer impacts to forest regeneration, biodiversity, and ecosystem health. All participating states should contribute to this effort. David Drake will continue to take the lead on submitting the USDA-NRI proposal, although he will be moving to Wisconsin in summer 2005. This research effort would potentially include both the NE and NC regions.

4. NE-1005 participants should consider a research/educational effort related to deer and chronic wasting disease. This could be a collaborative project with the Northeast Wildlife Agency Administrators. NYS will be developing programming in this area and is willing to share results with other interested states.

5. State Reports

WV - The nuisance black bear study was completed. Nuisance bears that were moved farther from conflict sites were less likely to cause a repeat complaint. Moving bears resulted in less `reported` nuisance behavior, but some damage was probably not reported. Aversive conditioning (rubber buckshot and/or pyrotechnics) was not effective - some bears repeated nuisance behavior after 24 hours, all bears repeated nuisance activity by 20 days post-treatment.

PA - A movement study of deer hunters was completed. Hunter density was negatively correlated with the distance from a road and slope. The average maximum distance hunters reached from a road was 0.8 km, and they walked on average 5.5 km during daily hunting activities. Hunters reported walking 2.5 times farther from roads than was evident from the GPS data. This information will be useful for evaluating impacts of changes in harvest regulations.

NY - A research project evaluating woodpecker damage to homes was completed in May 2005, and publications are in preparation. Faculty and staff will be involved in new research and education initiatives for chronic wasting disease in deer in collaboration with the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. Bear education and aversive conditioning programs are currently being evaluated by two graduate students. A new integrated human dimensions and field ecology project examining suburban coyotes will be implemented in late summer 2005.

NJ - Staff summarized and published data from the regional analysis of deer impacts. David Drake will be leaving Rutgers University, and Joe Paulin will be taking over as wildlife damage program coordinator.

6. NEREC Proposal and Activities: David Drake (Rutgers) has served as the leader for the NEREC project. To date, efforts to pursue funding have not born fruit. With David Drakes departure for the University of Wisconsin, and the low probability of securing new funds to support this effort, the current plan is to terminate this project.

Accomplishments

The regional multi-state project NE1005 has been active in addressing wildlife damage concerns. Experiments have been conducted to evaluate non-lethal means (e.g., Irri-tape, owl models, bird calls, suet feeders) to reduce woodpecker damage to homes. Applied research and outreach activities relating to deer-damage management have been conducted, including efforts to more accurately document the economic impact of deer-damage in the Northeast, and evaluate deer damage to forest regeneration and effects on biodiversity. Research has also focused on non-lethal options for reducing human-bear conflicts. Efforts are underway to develop critically needed research and outreach programs associated with chronic wasting disease in deer. Activities and federal formula fund support associated with NE1005 resulted in a regional analysis of deer-damage to crops in the northeastern United States. It was estimated that deer cause more than $630 million in losses annually in the 13 northeast states. About $390 million in losses is associated with deer-vehicle accidents; about $240 million was associated with deer damage to high-value agricultural crops and ornamental plants. Faculty associated with NE1005 are also co-leaders of the Northeast Wildlife Damage Management Research and Outreach Cooperative. These two multi-state initiatives are addressing impacts caused by wildlife in the northeast.

Publications

Curtis, P. D., G. J. San Julian, and G. F. Mattfeld. 2005. A model of collaborative programming to address wildlife issues: The Northeast Wildlife Damage Management Research and Outreach Cooperative. Urban Ecosystems: (in press). Posner, L. P., J. B. Woodie, P. D. Curtis, H. N. Erb, R. O. Gilbert, W. A. Adams, and R. D. Gleed. 2005. Acid-base, blood gas, and physiologic parameters during laparoscopy in the head-down position in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine:(in press). Drake, D., J. B. Paulin, P. D. Curtis, D. J. Decker, and G. J. San Juliuan. 2005. Assessment of negative economic impacts from deer in the northeastern United States. Journal of Extension 43(1):1RIB5. http://www.joe.org/joe/2005february/index.shtml Stedman, R., D. R. Diefenbach, C. B. Swope, J. C. Finley, A. E. Luloff, H. C. Zinn, G. J. San Julian, and G. A. Wang. 2004. Integrating wildlife and human-dimensions research methods to study hunters. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:762-773. Weaver, H. W., J. T. Anderson, J. W. Edwards, T. L. Dotson, and C. W. Ryan. 2004. Conditioning response of nuisance black bears to physical and auditory stimuli in southern West Virginia. Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference 60:41-42 (abstract).

Impact Statements

A regional analysis of deer-damage to crops in the northeastern US determined that deer cause more than $630 million in losses annually in the 13 northeast states. This was made available to agencies and NGOs to justify requests for funding research, education, and mitigation programs.