Duration: 10/01/2002 to 09/30/2005

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

Statement of Issues and Justification

Wildlife and the industry associated with its many attributes create billions of dollars in economic growth every year in the United States. However, there is also a human and economic toll stemming from wildlife populations and their interactions with the American public. According to a November 2001 report released by the General Accounting Office at the request of Congress, the cost of wildlife-related damage to agriculture has been estimated to be as high as $1.6 billion annually. The Insurance Information Institute estimates deer-automobile collisions occur at a rate of 500,000 per year, resulting in over $1 billion worth of vehicular damages, 29,000 human injuries, and 200 human fatalities each year. A 1995 report (Conover et al. 1995) indicated that the actual number of deer-vehicle collisions could exceed 1.5 million per year because less than 50% of collisions are reported to insurance companies or law enforcement agencies. Additionally, over 175,000 cases of Lyme disease have been diagnosed since 1980 and more than 16,000 new cases are reported each year. Deer serve as a primary host for the tick that transmits the disease to humans.

A survey conducted by wildlife scientists at Cornell, Penn State, and Rutgers between September and November 2001 suggested that the damage caused by wildlife on agricultural crops, vehicles, and human lives may be much higher. Deer are having an especially acute impact in the northeast United States corridor with its expanding rural-suburban interface and diminishing effectiveness of conventional management approaches. The estimated cost of deer browsing on agricultural and residential properties tops $243 million each year. Deer-vehicular damage in the region is estimated to cost $391 million annually. Over half of the new Lyme disease cases reported in the U.S. in recent years have been in the Northeast, attributed mainly to the abundance of deer and their proximity to humans.

Ecologically, many forests in the Northeast have significantly altered understories due to heavy browsing by deer, making forest regeneration difficult. The loss of forest understory results in reduced plant and wildlife diversity and a significant shift in forest structure and composition. Deer preferentially eat ash, maple, and oak seedlings, allowing deer-resistant, low-value American beech, striped maple, or ferns to flourish. In many areas of the Northeast, native vegetation that is browsed may be replaced by invasive, exotic species (i.e., Japanese barberry, garlic mustard, etc.), thereby further negatively impacting our forests.

The application of currently available management techniques (i.e., hunting, sharp-shooting, etc.) to manage deer populations may be reduced or eliminated as a result of cost effectiveness, human safety concerns, or lack of community support. Research on wildlife fertility control for communities where hunting is neither feasible nor practical was initiated during the last decade. However, all vaccines are still experimental and none are commercially available. Cost of booster treatments for individual deer and difficulty of capture, among other factors, has limited practical application of this technology on the scale needed to curb the problems across the Northeast landscape.

It is imperative that an innovative, science-based research and public outreach approach be designed to enable effective management of overabundant deer populations and reduce deer-human conflicts and their ecological impacts. The full extent of the problem is not clearly known and the traditional solutions, in many cases, are not applicable to an urban or suburban community. The similarities of concerns and landscapes across the Northeast suggest a regional approach to solving the problem. However, there is no regional funding source to support implementation of the research and education program needed on such a large scale.

Objectives

Procedures and Activities

Expected Outcomes and Impacts

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Educational Plan

Research and Outreach Plan

A Regional Technical Committee will be established to determine research priorities and develop an RFP. Proposals will be focused on the 5 areas outlined above. Specific research projects will be selected annually through a competitive grants process. Priority will be given to multi-state projects that have regional or national application. A standardized RFP will be sent to universities, state and federal agencies, and other cooperators interested in wildlife damage management. A review team of scientists, extension educators and stakeholders will be established to rank proposals. Investigators will be required to submit annual and final reports for all funded projects.

Outreach will occur through many venues and will be targeted primarily in the Northeast region, with specific elements tailored for individual states and communities where appropriate. We expect that research and outreach programs initiated and implemented through this 5-year pilot project will lead to a national model for managing deer populations and reducing deer-human conflicts and ecological damage.

Information, technical advice, and research results will be disseminated through a variety of standard and cutting-edge outreach avenues such as extension publications, videos, and presentations to stakeholder groups, websites and distance education activities. In addition to being fed directly to state and federal policy setters and decision makers, research results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at state, regional, and national conferences, and available on regional websites.

Evaluation Plan

The effectiveness and success of the proposed pilot project will be evaluated in many ways. Improved economic and ecological assessment techniques will be used to determine if deer-human conflicts and ecological damage from deer have been reduced or eliminated as a result of our proposed 5-year initiative. We will compare traditional approaches, policies, and practices to mitigate deer damage with new techniques as another evaluation of the effectiveness of our proposed project. Evaluating the evolution and growth of public stakeholder engagement in decision-making about deer management will provide additional measures by which to gauge effectiveness.

Organization/Governance

Much like land grant consortiums directed by Congress in recent years to address Fusarium headblight (wheat and barley scab), wildlife rabies control, and U.S. viticulture challenges, the proposed regional collaborative would seek and use newly appropriated federal support to focus Northeast land grant research and extension capabilities on an integrated approach to deer damage management. Consequently, this NEREC effort will not call for, nor seek, buy-in dollar contributions from existing state or federal resources at the Northeast land grants, or their respective agricultural experiment stations or extension services, beyond current commitments to NE-1005.

The collaborative will request from Congress a new, special federal grant appropriation of $1.5 million in each of the next 5 years to establish and implement this unique landscape level research and education initiative, and to support its proposed annual competitive grants program. As such, it is imperative that each Northeast land grant institution desiring involvement in, and support from, this initiative will support the request for a special federal appropriation. Matching support from university partners on funded research projects is expected, principally in the form of university support of faculty involvement. Although the NEWDM Coop, the NE-1005 multi-state research project, or some other inter-institutional arrangement may constitute viable options for receiving, administering, and allocating any federally appropriated funds, it is understood that Congress would likely decide which entity would ultimately receive and manage federal funds for the purposes outlined above.

Literature Cited

Conover, M. R., W. C. Pitt, K. K. Kessler, T. J. DuBow, and W. A. Sanborn. 1995. Review of human injuries, illnesses, and economic losses caused by wildlife in the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:407-414.

United States General Accounting Office. 2001. Wildlife Services Program: Information on activities to manage wildlife damage. Report GAO-02-138.

Attachments

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

CT, DE, MD, ME, NJ, NY, PA, VA, VT, WV

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions