Tifft Nature Preserve Management Plan - Buffalo Museum of Science
Tifft Nature Preserve Management Plan - Buffalo Museum of Science
Tifft Nature Preserve Management Plan - Buffalo Museum of Science
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
entitled A Citizen's Guide to the <strong>Management</strong> <strong>of</strong> White-tailed Deer in Urban and<br />
Suburban New York (NYS DEC 2007) to assist individuals and communities in dealing<br />
with their deer populations. Each <strong>of</strong> the potential options presented in this guide will be<br />
outlined below, as well as their applicability to <strong>Tifft</strong> <strong>Nature</strong> <strong>Preserve</strong>.<br />
No Population Control Options<br />
Hands-<strong>of</strong>f Approach – This means that no effort is taken to control deer numbers<br />
and is <strong>of</strong>ten the default strategy taken by landowners and communities, including <strong>Tifft</strong><br />
<strong>Nature</strong> <strong>Preserve</strong>. This approach has no costs for implementation, but does not address<br />
the negative impacts associated with high deer densities which are occurring on the<br />
preserve.<br />
Fencing – Physically excluding deer from areas through fencing has proven<br />
effective, but requires sufficient fencing (at least 7 feet high (2.1 meters)) and can be<br />
expensive for installation and maintenance. Costs can range from $200 to $600 an<br />
acre or higher. With an area <strong>of</strong> 264 acres (107 hectares), fencing the entire preserve<br />
would be cost prohibitive and would reduce the connectivity <strong>of</strong> the preserve to the<br />
surrounding habitats by limiting the dispersal <strong>of</strong> other wildlife species. However, fencing<br />
portions <strong>of</strong> the preserve such as sensitive areas, restoration plantings, and research<br />
plots is a very viable option.<br />
Repellents and Frightening Devices – Chemical repellents and frightening<br />
devices can work in small areas over short time periods, but lose effectiveness at higher<br />
deer densities and as the animals become accustomed to the disturbance. Due to the<br />
chronic high numbers <strong>of</strong> deer and the size <strong>of</strong> the preserve, limited control is expected<br />
from applying repellents or installing devices such as noise makers or scarecrows.<br />
Alternative <strong>Plan</strong>tings – Selecting ornamental plant species that are less attractive<br />
to deer can resolve some problems, but replanting large portions <strong>of</strong> the preserve to<br />
species undesirable to deer is not a reasonable alternative. However, selecting plant<br />
species that are less desirable to deer should be considered for any vegetation<br />
restoration project.<br />
Diversion <strong>Plan</strong>ting and Feeding – Food plots are a proven way to attract deer,<br />
but have not shown the same success at diverting deer from other areas. Feeding is<br />
also a proven way to improve the condition <strong>of</strong> the deer herd, but again does not reduce<br />
the impact to other food resources. Also, food plots and supplemental feeding do<br />
nothing to address the high deer densities and could actually increase deer numbers.<br />
Furthermore, direct feeding <strong>of</strong> deer was prohibited in 2002 due to concerns over the<br />
potential spread <strong>of</strong> Chronic Wasting Disease.<br />
Population Control Options<br />
Habitat Alteration – This non-lethal approach is similar to Alternative <strong>Plan</strong>tings<br />
addressed above, but applied over a broad area. To be effective this approach might<br />
<strong>Tifft</strong> <strong>Nature</strong> <strong>Preserve</strong> <strong>Management</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> 31