114 



Mammals — Our Livin)> Rfsauncs 



85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 

 Year 

 Fig. 1. The trend in the size ot the 

 white-tailed deer piipulation in 

 nine northeastern states 

 (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, 

 Massachusetts. New Hampshire. 

 New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 

 Island, Vermont). 1983-92. 



Fig. 2. The harvest of antlered 

 white-tailed deer (number per 

 square mi or 259 ha of deer range) 

 in 13 northeastern states in 1983 

 (first value) and in 1992 (second 

 value); estimates for Virginia and 

 West Virginia include young-of- 

 the-year males (button bucks). 



has increasetj from 4..^ deei/kni- (11.1 

 deer/mi-) in 1983 lo 5.5 deer/km- (14.2 

 deer/mi-) in 1992. Density estimates ranged 

 from 2.7 deer/km- (7.1 deer/mi-) in Rhode 

 Island to 9.7 deer/km- (25.1 deer/mi-) in 

 Pennsylvania. The total 1992 population of 

 white-tailed deer in the Northeast (including 

 estimates provided by personal communication 

 with biologists from Maryland. New Jersey. 

 Virginia, and West Virginia) was estimated at 

 about 3.0 million. 



The total antlered (Fig. 2) and antlerless har- 

 vest for all 1 3 states was estimated at 600.000 in 

 1983 and 900,000 in 1992. Managers manipu- 

 late the harvest of antlei'ed to antlerless deer to 

 obtain a desired population (i.e.. appropriate 

 age and sex ratios). During the past decade, deer 

 populations in the Northeast have continued to 

 increase except in states that harvested marked- 

 ly more antlerless than antlered deer. In 

 Pennsylvania, for example, the deer population 

 increased until the harvest of antlerless deer 

 reached levels necessary to curb the upward 

 trend in the population. In contrast, 

 Massachusetts has consistently harvested more 

 antlered than antlerless deer and the population 



1983 value/1 992 value 



continues to increase. These two examples illus- 

 trate how a prescribed harvest of antlerless deer 

 can be used to achieve a population response 

 that is consistent with each state's management 

 objective. The magnitude of the antlerless and 

 antlered deer harvest is a key factor for adjust- 

 ing populations. The actual female-male ratio in 

 the population, reproductive rates, and the sex- 

 specitlc mortality caused by nonhunting factors 

 also affect the population trends of each state. 

 Ten of 1 3 states responded to the request for 



White-tailed deer tOildcoileiis viii;iniaiu(s). 



information on deer conflicts during the past 

 decade; only two of these indicated no contlict 

 between cuirent deer populations and land use 

 or other natural resources. Four of the eight 

 states with conflicts indicated increasing trends 

 in agriculture-deer conflicts. Conflicts increased 

 between deer and urban habitats in eight states, 

 and vehicle-deer collisions increased in seven of 

 the states. Seven states indicated they had prob- 

 lems between deer and forest regeneration, and 

 two of these states indicated the problem was 

 becoming commoner. Seven states reported deer 

 conflicts with parks and refuges; such problems 

 included lack of forest regeneration as well as 

 deer feeding on ornamental shrubs on private 

 propeily. Four of these states indicated increas- 

 ing trends in these kinds of problems. 



Conclusions and Present 

 Outlook 



The trends in abundance of deer in north- 

 eastern states are largely a function of regulated 

 harvests by hunters. A significant amount of 

 informadon on annual harvest by hunters and 

 deer demographics is available in each north- 

 easteiTi state. Thus, the process of managing 

 white-tailed deer inay serve as a model to eval- 

 uate monitoring techniques, population dynam- 

 ics, and effects of wildlife on cultural and other 

 natural resources. 



Managers of parks and refuges need better 

 information to predict trends in regeneration 

 and development of forests and the role of deer 

 in forest regeneration. This will require the use 

 of new and appropriate survey techniques 

 (Wiggers and Beckemian 1993) and the ability 

 to evaluate, interpret, and manage data acquired 

 during long-term monitoring of deer and habi- 

 tats used by deer (Tzilkowski and Storm 1993). 

 Management goals can only be achieved 

 throuah knowledge of trends in deer abundance 



