Tifft Nature Preserve Management Plan - Buffalo Museum of Science

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