Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

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).

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.

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.