Managing Ohio's Deer Herd - Ohio Department of Natural Resources

Managing Ohio’s Deer HerdOhio’s WhitetailThe white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)is Ohio’s most popular big game animal. Beginningwith incursions from neighboring statesin the early 1930s, Ohio’s deer herd has grownfrom about 17,000 deer in 1970 to an estimated700,000 deer today. Three factors made thereturn and remarkable growth possible. First,range conditions improved, primarily as a resultof farm abandonment in eastern and southernOhio in the 1930s and 1940s. Second, was theimplementation of a zone-based harvest managementstrategy grounded in sound biologicalprinciples. Third, were effective game laws andlaw enforcement. Citizen interest and hunterparticipation have paralleled the growth in thedeer herd.Management GoalAlthough nearly everyone relishes the presenceof the whitetail, when deer become abundant,they can also become controversial. Deermay be viewed as a superb game trophy by thesportsperson, a prized addition to the landscapeby the nature enthusiast, a threat to crops by theforester and farmer, and a road hazard by themotorist. Accommodating these diverse interestshas been the responsibility of the Division ofWildlife since deer returned to the state in 1923.As Ohio’s herd grew, so did interest in deer andwith it came the need for a formal deer managementgoal. Since at least the late 1950s, our goalhas been to maintain county deer populations ata level that provides maximum recreational opportunityincluding hunting, viewing, and photographing,while minimizing conflicts with agriculture,motor travel, and other areas of humanendeavor. In short, our goal is to provide enoughdeer to hunt and enjoy, but not so many that theycause undue human hardship. This goal has receivedbroad public support. For example, pastsurveys indicated that 75 percent of farmers, 88percent of deer hunters, and 73 percent of ruralnon-farm landowners agree with this managementgoal.Management StrategyRealizing our deer management goal meansthat we must first define a deer population levelthat is satisfactory to most and then maintainit there. To do so requires that we (1) evaluatepublic attitudes toward deer and deer herd size,(2) relate those attitudes to the status of the deerherd to determine a publicly acceptable or optimumpopulation level, and (3) adjust deer herdsize accordingly. Because of differences in thequality and quantity of deer range, intensity ofagriculture, highway traffic, and human populationlevels, this process is completed for eachcounty. In essence, deer management is a complexcost-benefit analysis, a decision-makingtool used by managers in many fields. At thispoint, however, the similarity ends because deerpresent management challenges that are unique.These challenges and management solutions arediscussed below.Inventorying DeerBecause of the secretiveness and mobility ofthe white-tailed deer, which varies both seasonallyand with the age and sex of the animal, harvestand deer-vehicle accident (DVA) trends areused in place of actual counts to monitor populationsize. While we must assume that changes inthese indices (harvest and DVAs) reflect changesin the size of the actual deer herd, this may notalways be the case. Therefore, where available,aerial counts using forward-looking infrared(FLIR) technology are used to estimate herd size.Collectively, these data provide a snapshot of thestatus of the deer herd relative to each county’spopulation goal.

Optimum Deer PopulationLevelsCitizen input, as mandated by our deer managementgoal, plays a central role in the goal-settingprocess. However, the decision to maintaina deer population at a given level is not madewithout considering the potential impact thatsuch a decision might have on the whitetail, itsenvironment, and other wildlife. Technicallyspeaking, that means finding a population levelthat neither exceeds the Cultural or BiologicalCarrying Capacity.Cultural Carrying CapacityThe Division of Wildlife recognizes that allOhioans share the costs associated with deer.However, opinion surveys of agricultural producers,hunters, and general citizens indicate thatOhio’s farmers and motorists shoulder the greatestshare of the burden. Therefore, in 1979, webegan using periodic (~5 years) surveys of Ohio’sagricultural producers to aid us in defining optimumpopulation levels in all but our most heavilyurbanized counties. Among other things, surveyparticipants are asked if they would like tosee the size of the deer population increase, staythe same, or decrease in their area. Respondentswho preferred either an increase or decrease wereasked by what percent would they like to see thedeer population change. An average percentchange is computed for each survey region andthen applied to population estimates to derivecounty population goals.County deer population goals represent whatwe believe to be the most equitable solution tothe complex problem of minimizing impacts andmaximizing benefits derived from Ohio’s whitetaileddeer resource. Our reliance on survey inputfrom farmers, however, has drawn criticismfrom some who feel such an approach results inunnecessarily low levels of deer. Although opponentsargue that farmers generally hold a negativeopinion of deer, we found that farmers generallyvalue deer and hold opinions of deer thatgenerally are consistent with the general public.Between 40-50 percent of Ohio’s farmers surveyedindicated that they enjoy seeing and havingdeer around. An equal number enjoy deer,but worry about the problems they cause. Onlya very small percentage of farmers regard deer asa nuisance. A 1996 study from The Ohio StateUniversity revealed that Ohio’s farmers generallybelieve that the benefits of wildlife outweigh thecosts. Thus, while farmers play the largest role indeciding when enough is enough, their decisionis likely to be one most Ohioans can support.The deer hunter also provides important inputinto the management process. In additionto voluntary comments, we poll a representativesample of deer hunters about once every fiveyears.Over 5,000 hunters representing everyOhio county are included in the survey, whichprovides information on opinions and attitudestoward season length, legal hunting devices, baglimit, hunting pressure, and deer population levels.Where appropriate, we incorporate this informationinto the deer management process.For example, a weekend firearms season wasadded to the 2006-07 season as a direct resultof a 2005 deer hunter survey conducted by TheOhio State University. Among other things, thesurvey identified significant barriers to huntingparticipation. Finding time to hunt was noted bya majority of the respondents as a barrier. The additionalweekend was deemed biologically soundand as a result, hunters were given two additionaldays to hunt deer with a shotgun in Ohio.Biological Carrying CapacityAs deer approach biological carrying capacity,herd and habitat health begin to decline.Evidence that this is occurring might include adistinct browse line, the replacement of highlynutritious and preferred plant species with lesspalatable and nutritious ones, and a decline inthe condition of the animals themselves. Deerherd condition data, such as yearling (1.5-yearsold) antler beam and body weight data, collectedsince the early 1970s suggest that, while conditionin western Ohio remains unchanged, it hasdeclined in portions of eastern Ohio. This declineis a direct result of both lower habitat qualityand higher deer densities.In summary, population goals are set for eachcounty based largely on preferences of our agriculturalproducers. These goals may be adjustedas deer herd condition changes. We believe thatsuch an approach goes the furthest toward achievingOhio’s publicly approved deer managementgoal. The concept of optimum population levelsis an important one because it provides the Divisionof Wildlife with management direction.

Harvest ManagementThe high quality of Ohio’s deer range and virtualabsence of natural predators, coupled withthe whitetail’s remarkable reproductive potential,dictate harvest management as the most practicalmeans of maintaining deer populations nearcounty population goals. Regulations can be effectivelyused to increase, decrease, or maintainharvests of either or both the antlered and antlerlesssegments of the population. For instance,a buck-only harvest regulation was used from1965-73 to foster deer herd growth. In 1973,antlerless (does and fawn bucks) permits were issuedin limited numbers to slow herd growth inportions of the state. By 1979, all of Ohio’s 88counties were open to gun hunting and in 1984,an either-sex regulation replaced limited antlerlesspermits in many counties to further slowherd growth. Despite these changes, Ohio’s deerherd continued to grow. In 1991, bag limit increasesfrom one to two deer (the additional deerwas antlerless) were instituted in many counties.Other tools have been used as well including seasonlength extensions, new seasons, and specialhunting zones and bag limits. The status of thedeer population relative to goal, as well as experiencewith past harvest regulations, determinewhich tools are used in a given county each year.In counties where populations are above goal,liberal harvest regulations are used to reduce deernumbers. The opposite applies in counties belowgoal. Ultimately, population levels are controlledby regulating the harvest of females, which typicallyrepresent about 75 percent of the antlerlessharvest.The effectiveness of our harvest managementsystem will vary somewhat from year to year dependingon a host of factors including hunterparticipation and weather during the firearmsseasons. These variables and many others thatinfluence harvest are often difficult or impossibleto quantify. Consequently, an over or under harvestin a particular county is a fact of life. This canbe compensated for in subsequent years, however,by adjusting the harvest regulations accordingly.We expect that over the long-term, the numberof deer in the state (and in most counties) canbe maintained near the desired level with sucha system. This system works best, however, onlywhen Ohio’s deer hunters and landowners participatefully.Successful management of Ohio’s deer herdrequires a cooperative effort among Ohio’s huntersand landowners to eliminate obstacles thatcurrently limit the effectiveness of our managementapproach. These obstacles include a reluc-Number of Deer120,000100,00080,00060,00040,00020,000Statewide Deer Population Trends as Indicated byAntlered Buck Harvest and Deer-vehicle Accidents3.02.52.01.51.00.5Reported Accidents per 1,000 Registered Vehicles01990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006YearAtlered Buck HarvestDeer-vehicle Accidents0.0

tance on the part of hunters to abandon traditionalsites and seek areas with lower access andhigher deer densities and a reluctance on thepart of landowners to grant access to their lands.Hunters must work harder to cultivate positivelandowner-hunter relationships.Landownerscan help by allowing deer hunting and activelyrecruiting good deer hunters. Additionally, landownersare encouraged to take an active role inthe management of the deer on their property byimplementing their own “harvest management”guidelines. If herd reduction is the goal, it maybe appropriate to limit the harvest to antlerlessdeer or use an “earn-a-buck” strategy, wherebyonly those hunters harvesting antlerless deer firstwould be able to harvest a buck. A good ruleof-thumbis that landowners annually need toharvest 35 percent of the deer they believe areon their property and about 75 percent of theseshould be antlerless deer. In so doing, landownerswill be managing for stable deer populations.Otherwise, reduced harvests will result in increasingherd size.Special ManagementTechniques for Urban andAgricultural ProblemsBy managing for optimum deer populationlevels on a county basis, we expect to prevent oreliminate widespread agricultural problems withdeer. However, some localized crop damage isstill likely to occur. Even with a county populationat goal, deer will move to and concentrate inareas of good habitat. Farm fields and orchardsin proximity to good deer cover are especiallyvulnerable.In situations where deer need to be killed toreduce property damage, landowners or lesseesmay be issued Deer Damage Control Permits(DDCP) at the time the damage is occurring.These permits allow landowners/lessees and theiragents to kill deer during the dates and under theconditions specified on the permit. For most agriculturalproblems, these permits will only bevalid for the period of January 1 until the start ofthe archery season. Under limited crop damagecircumstances, permits may be extended untilthe start of the youth gun season. In specific circumstances,permits may be valid year-round tocontrol damage at orchards, nurseries, inside municipalities,and for safety purposes at airports.Regardless of the situation, DDCPs will expire nolater than December 31 of the year in which thepermit is issued. Except in the case of rub damageto trees, permit holders are strongly encouragedto kill antlerless deer. Permit holders mustsurrender all antlers to the Division of Wildlife.Additional information about this program canbe obtained from your local state wildlife officeror by writing to the Division of Wildlife, WildlifeManagement and Research, 2045 Morse Road ,Columbus, Ohio 43229-6693. Information isalso available by calling 1-800-WILDLIFE.In response to increasing numbers of deervehicleaccidents and low harvests, the Divisionof Wildlife established five Urban Deer Zonesencompassing all or portions of 19 urban countiesin 1994. Local ordinances permitting, hunterscould harvest two additional antlerless deerwithin the Urban Deer Zones. In 1995, the baglimit was doubled. Permit sales and harvest increased378 percent and 28 percent, respectively.Publication 87 (R408)An Equal Opportunity Employer - M/F/HTed Strickland, Governor • Sean D. Logan, DirectorDavid M. Graham, Chiefwww.wildohio.com1-800-POACHER