White-tailed Deer Management Plan For Eagle Creek Park Indianapolis, Indiana

White-tailed Deer Management Plan For Eagle Creek Park Indianapolis, Indiana

Prepared by:

U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services

West Lafayette, IN August 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................3 DEER MANAGEMENT GOALS ...............................................................................................4 DEER ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT ...............................................................................4 History of Deer in Indiana ………......................................................................................4 Deer Ecology ......................................................................................................................5 Current Deer Management Conditions ...............................................................................6 INTEGRATED APPROACH TO MANAGE DEER DAMAGE .............................................6 Define Goals .......................................................................................................................7 Identify Problem .................................................................................................................7 Establish Monitoring ...........................................................................................................7 Develop a Management Plan ..............................................................................................7 OPTIONS FOR DEER MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................7 No Action ............................................................................................................................7 Non-lethal Damage Management .......................................................................................7 Population Management .....................................................................................................8 POPULATION MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES ..............................................................8 Regulated hunting ...............................................................................................................8 Controlled/Managed Hunts .................................................................................................8 Professional Deer Removal..................................................................................................8 Relocation ...........................................................................................................................9 Fertility Control ..................................................................................................................9 1

METHODS ....................................................................................................................................9 Deer Density Estimate ........................................................................................................9 Determination of Areas for Hunting .................................................................................10 Deer Population Management ...........................................................................................10 Collection of Deer Biological Data ...................................................................................10 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................11 Deer Density Estimate‌...................................................................................................11 Determination of Areas for Hunting .................................................................................11 Deer Population Management ...........................................................................................12 Collection of Deer Biological Data ...................................................................................12 Negative Deer Incidents ....................................................................................................12 DISCUSSION ..............................................................................................................................12 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................14 Deer Density Goals ...........................................................................................................14 Regulated or Controlled/Managed Hunting ......................................................................14 Professional Deer Removal................................................................................................15 Non-lethal Methods ..........................................................................................................15 Continual Data Collection ................................................................................................16 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................16 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................18 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................18

2

FIGURES 1. Deer-vehicle Collision Rates ..............................................................................................6 2. Map of Survey Routes and Areas of Deer Observations...................................................15

3

Executive Summary Negative impacts of white-tailed deer have been an ongoing issue in Eagle Creek Park, Indianapolis, Indiana for a number of years, most notably since 2003. The overpopulation of deer has caused considerable damage to the natural environment of Eagle Creek Park. The substantial reduction of native flora has created an imbalance of the park’s ecosystem and has stressed the plant and animal communities. Vegetation analysis studies conducted within the park found that the park has been severely impacted by the overpopulation of deer for many years (Parker 2003-2007, Jenkins 2013).

Negative incidents such as property damage, vehicle collisions, and disease concerns involving white-tailed deer, occur all across Indiana. In 2014, over 14,000 deer-vehicle accidents were reported in the state (collision with deer data, IDNR 2015). This number is likely much lower than the actual number of deer-vehicle collisions, given the approximate 50% of collisions that go unreported (Conover et al. 1995). The area of Marion County immediately surrounding Eagle Creek Park is of particular concern due to the high collision rates, as compared to the rest of the county. Damage to other resources, such as ornamental landscape plants, is notable on many properties in vicinity of Eagle Creek Park. These damages have forced property owners to implement costly exclusion techniques or replace damaged property repeatedly. Lyme disease is also a common concern for residents in areas with high deer densities.

The City of Indianapolis entered into a cooperative service agreement with U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services (WS) to assess the deer population in Eagle Creek Park and to develop a deer management plan. WS conducted deer density surveys during April 2015. The average deer density in the park was 90.7 deer per square mile before fawns were born in 2015. Approximately 553 deer were within the park, and the population has potential to increase greater than 20% annually. The population level has remained consistently high, due to limited mortality from accidents, minimal harvest outside of the park boundaries by regulated hunting, and available food resources on neighboring private property.

Regulated hunting does occur in areas near the park. However, with dense residential and commercial development the majority of the surrounding area is not suitable for regulated hunting. Since access for regulated hunters will continue to be limited because of minimal areas for safe shooting, the park should maintain professional deer removal via sharpshooting. To further reduce deer densities beyond sharpshooting within the park, regulated hunting should be promoted on private properties surrounding the park to the where feasible and safe. Once the population is reduced to a more manageable level, some sections of the park may be suitable for controlled/managed hunting to maintain the population. In areas around the park, other nonlethal methods–including proper fencing, repellents, and deer-resistant plantings–will aid in minimizing damage caused by deer. Surrounding residents and park visitors need to be educated in preventive measures to avoid bites by ticks.

Summary of Recommendations •

Continue monitoring deer densities using standardized deer population surveys, records of deer-vehicle collisions and other incidents involving deer, and gauge deer-human conflicts by communication with surrounding residents. Also continue to monitor 4

vegetation using standardized plot surveys. Select deer management actions based on these indices.

•

Continue professional deer removal via sharpshooting to reduce deer densities consistent with goals in a reasonable timeframe.

•

Promote hunting on surrounding property wherever safe and legal. Persistently encourage private landowners to allow access to hunters.

•

When and where suitable, allow controlled/managed hunting within selected areas of the park.

•

Continue educational efforts. Upon the request of Eagle Creek Park, WS is available to assist with education, continued monitoring of deer management goals, and implementation of deer management actions.

5

Introduction Eagle Creek Park (ECP) comprises approximately 6.1 square miles of land area and 2.2 square miles of water. It lies within Pike Township, Marion County in central Indiana, northwest of Indianapolis. ECP is bordered by Interstate 65 on the east, 56th St. on the south, N. Raceway Rd. on the west, and Wilson Rd. on the north. Located less than 10 miles from downtown Indianapolis, ECP is surrounded by densely populated residential housing (2010 census: Pike Township = 77,895 residents, Brown Township = 11,593 residents, and Lincoln Township = 28,665 residents). Traffic volume is relatively high, due to the location between large residential areas and areas of employment.

White-tailed deer (hereafter, deer) are common in and around ECP, and have adapted well to living in close proximity to humans. Like most urbanized areas in Indiana where regulated hunting is limited due to minimal access for hunters, negative incidents involving deer are common (Figure1.).

In particular, the reported number of deer-vehicle collisions immediately surrounding ECP was higher than the rest of Marion County in 2014. The reported collision numbers are expected to be much lower than the actual count of deer-vehicle collisions based on deer carcass collections.

For example, between October 2011 and August 2012, 61 deer carcasses were collected along I-65 and I-465 adjacent to the east side of ECP when the reported collision number was much lower (Eagle Creek Park Foundation Citizens Advisory Figure 1. Vehicle collisions involving deer, which required Committee, 2012). In addition to response by police officers in immediate vicinity of Eagle Creek collision concerns, local residents Park during 2014. have expressed concern that deer have degraded natural vegetation and caused substantial damage to ornamental landscape plants on private and public properties surrounding ECP. U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services (WS) was contacted by the Indianapolis Departments of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and Public Works (DPW) in June 2014 for assistance with management of the deer population. WS met with DPR, DPW, and ECP staff to discuss various options and begin the planning process to reduce the damages caused by an overpopulation of deer within ECP. On the evening of 11 September 2014, the DPR hosted a public meeting to discuss the issues related to deer in ECP. Approximately 400 residents and other parties concerned with the issue were in attendance. The Deputy Director of Indy Parks provided an overview of the history of damage caused by deer in ECP, and WS provided an overview of the reasons why population reduction may be necessary for ECP. Attendees of the meeting were given an opportunity to ask questions directly to technical experts. They were also able to provide written comments related to deer management. Following the public meeting, the Indianapolis Board of Parks and Recreation held a decision meeting on 25 September 2014 to 6

vote to allow the discharge of firearms on ECP, as well as allow the establishment of cooperative service agreements between the city and those parties who would assist in the deer management program. Following inputs from concerned citizens, Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), WS, and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS); the motions were passed to allow the initial reduction of the overpopulation of deer in ECP. Based on consultation with the DPR, DPW, ECP Staff, and recommendations from the IDNR, the following goals were established for managing deer in ECP.

Deer Management Goals for Eagle Creek Park 1) Reduce the negative effects of deer on natural habitats in Eagle Creek Park.

2) Reduce negative incidents involving deer, especially deer-vehicle collisions in and around Eagle Creek Park.

3) Maintain an acceptable deer population to allow recovery of the ecosystem of Eagle Creek Park.

Deer Ecology and Management History of Deer in Indiana窶的t is estimated that deer have been in existence for over 3 million years (VerCauteren 2003). Yet, with the exception of the Ice Ages, never before have deer populations range-wide seen such change in their habitat as those created by humans in the last several decades. Deer have adapted well to this change, and their numbers throughout the U.S. are estimated to be higher than at any other time in history (Curtis and Hedlund 2005).

Today, the landscape of Indiana presents an ideal combination of ample food resources, few natural predators, and sanctuary from hunting in close proximity to human development, which enabled the deer population to grow to an overabundant level.

Within the last 10,000 years, growth of deer populations was controlled by predators including wolves, mountain lions, and bears; natural mortality such as starvation and disease; and harvest by American Indians. Deer were also limited by the productivity of their habitat.

When the settlers first arrived in Indiana, deer were a widely distributed and abundant species.

However, the destruction of habitat and unregulated hunting quickly extirpated deer from the state. The last known deer was taken in Knox County in 1893.

In 1934, the Indiana Division of Fish and Game began to reintroduce the species. Over several years, deer were released on state and private lands primarily in the southern hills of the state. The deer herd grew and expanded across the state, enough that the first deer hunting season was held in 1951. The growth continued into the modern era with high concentrations in many areas across the state. These high concentrations have become problematic in urban and suburban environments due to increasing conflicts with humans.

Deer continue to be valued by humans as an important big game animal hunted for recreation and a favorite of wildlife watchers. With their voracious consumption of vegetationdeer have a tremendous impact upon the landscape. Deer are the keystone herbivores in most ecosystems in which they exist (Waller et al. 1997). The shaping of the plant species 7

composition and the physical structure of plants by deer determines the ability of other wildlife species to coexist in the same habitat.

Deer-human conflicts occur when overabundant deer populations threaten human livelihood, health and safety, property, and natural resources. These conflicts are common to communities throughout deer’s range–especially in urban and suburban environments.

Controversy often arises at the community level when lethal management is proposed to reduce deer densities and associated damage. However, in the absence of natural sources of mortality, managers have a responsibility to properly regulate deer populations for the good of humans and deer alike.

Deer Ecology–Deer are found in a variety of habitats throughout most of the United States, Canada, Mexico, Central America and northern South America. Deer almost exclusively consume plants. They are ruminants and have a highly specialized four-chambered stomach, which allows them to digest a wide variety of plant species. Deer choose the most nutritious plants and plant parts available. Deer thrive in areas with dense vegetation, especially where the edges of several habitat types converge, such as the suburban/agricultural interface.

Adult deer on average weigh between 100 and 300 pounds with males being larger than females. In Indiana, an adult male’s average live weight is 175 pounds and female’s average live weight is 120 pounds (Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2015). Adult males produce their first set of antlers during their second year of life. Females do not grow antlers. The basic social group is the doe family unit including an adult doe and her offspring. Outside of the breeding season, or rut, males may form small assemblages known as bachelor groups. In Indiana, deer breed in the fall, and most fawns are born in late May and early June. Many adult does produce two fawns each year. In ideal habitats, does may breed at approximately 6 months of age and some adult does may produce triplets.

Deer are crepuscular (primarily active near dawn and dusk), with their main movements occurring when they move from daytime bedding areas to and from nighttime feeding locations.

Bucks have larger home ranges than does, especially during the rut when bucks travel widely in search of mates. In Indiana, deer home ranges average between one and two square miles depending on the availability of local resources (Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2015).

Winter months in Indiana can be stressful for deer depending on the amount of snow fall, days with freezing temperatures, and availability of food (e.g., browse, mast crops, supplemental feeding, etc.). However, due to the available alternate sources of food in urban and suburban environments, winter is rarely a limiting factor of deer population growth. Deer populations are normally at their lowest just following the winter months, before the fawning season. The change in population size from year to year is defined as the growth rate, which is mainly driven by successful recruitment of young into the population.

Deer managers must balance the birth and death rates within a population to maintain herd health, reduce disease risks, protect ecosystems, and reduce damage. In natural settings deer populations eventually reach the biological carrying capacity, which is the point at which the habitat can support the population. At this density, deer consume most of the available browse in an area and the population is unable to sustain growth due to limited recruitment.

Each habitat has a different biological carrying capacity, which is continually dynamic in response to deer numbers, weather conditions, and other factors.

Although the biological carrying capacity is important to deer population dynamics, the concept of acceptance capacity of wildlife is oftentimes used to make management decisions 8

concerning wildlife populations. These concepts have been identified as stakeholder acceptance capacity, wildlife acceptance capacity, and others (Decker and Purdy 1988, Carpenter et al. 2000, Riley et al. 2002). For this management plan, acceptance capacity will be used. Acceptance capacity is the level of tolerance humans have in relation to wildlife populations. This can be impacted by many variables including negative impacts. Negative impacts of deer to humans include; deer-vehicle collisions, deer damage to landscaping, damage to the natural environment, disease threats, and the emotional fear by humans of interaction with deer. Deer health can also experience negative impacts in urban settings from stressors including; trauma from interactions with dogs, fences, pools, large glass windows, vehicle traffic, and the lack of adequate habitat.

Given these factors, the acceptance capacity may be lower or higher than the biological carrying capacity. It is important to understand that neither the biological or acceptance capacity is static.

Current Deer Management Conditions in Indiana–Regulated hunting is the primary mechanism to manage deer numbers in Indiana on an annual basis. The Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) regulates deer harvest through multiple seasons allowing the use of various equipment types. To minimize deer-human conflicts, IDNR developed Deer Reduction Zones (formerly known as Urban Deer Zones) to target deer reduction efforts in densely populated areas with high deer-human conflicts. The areas surrounding ECP have historically been within the Indianapolis Deer Reduction Zones (Marion County, Hendricks County East of State Road 267).

Regulated hunting during the 2014 season around ECP occurred for 139 days, from 15 September 2014 to 31 January 2015, which is similar to most years. Given the Deer Reduction Zone status of the area around ECP, hunters have historically been authorized to harvest 4 additional deer above the county bag limit. Starting in 2015, Deer Reduction Zones allow for the harvest of 10 additional deer above the county bag limit. Every deer harvested legally by regulated hunting around ECP is important to reducing the deer overabundance and associated damages. However, this alone is not sufficient to achieving a lower population.

Because of dense human housing and development around ECP, access by hunters is very limited. Regulated hunting in areas has also been limited by the equipment authorized for use.

The state of Indiana does not allow the use of high-powered rifles to hunt deer. Recreational hunters are limited to archery equipment, shotguns, handguns, muzzleloading firearms, and certain rifle cartridges. Although hunters are afforded liberal seasons and bag limits for deer in areas surrounding ECP, harvest of sufficient numbers of deer is difficult due to access and extensive division of property ownership.

An Integrated Approach to Managing Damage by Deer A well-designed deer damage management program is a necessary approach to modern wildlife management, which includes developing beneficial relationships among the public, landowners, stakeholder groups, municipalities, hunters, and wildlife professionals to reduce and maintain deer densities at desirable levels. Education about wildlife conservation and deer damage management are key elements. In addition, the incorporation of non-lethal deer damage management techniques, where practical (fencing, repellents, deterrents), and monitoring the impacts of deer on the environment should be included in the program.

9

WS recommends that our cooperators adopt an integrated approach to managing damage by deer. WS provides Federal leadership in the deer management process by conducting personal consultations with individuals and communities, educational programs, assessments of damage by deer, and direct management in the removal of overabundant deer. The following are necessary components of an integrated approach to deer damage management.

Identifying the Problem–Those parties responsible for managing the situation or those directly affected by it, i.e. the stakeholders, should obtain information on the impacts of deer damage such as deer-vehicle accident records, rates of tick-borne diseases, and estimates of damage to landscape and commercial plants. Establishing the extent and timing of how deer may be impacting the target area is the first step towards identifying whether a problem exists with deer.

Defining Goals–Those seeking to make deer damage management decisions should involve representatives of all stakeholder groups in the target area. Providing education on basic deer biology and damage management techniques is integral to the process, so that stakeholders may make informed decisions. Goals should define acceptable levels of damage by deer, which minimize deer-human conflicts.

Establishing Monitoring Programs–Information collected during the problem identification phase may be used as baseline data for long-term indices relative to goals of the program and as the basis for making management decisions. Any vegetation analyses conducted should be repeated to determine recovery rates of indicator species. Estimates of deer abundance are necessary to assess the effects of any management actions relative to the program goals.

Developing a Management Plan–A deer damage management plan should identify the level of damage caused by deer based on the supporting evidence collected, clearly defined program goals, and should propose management actions to achieve the program goals. Effective management plans must allow for the flexibility to adapt future management actions based on data collected during continued monitoring.

Options for Deer Management No Action–The “no action” alternative may be appropriate if monitoring indicates that current management practices are maintaining deer densities in balance with program goals. The “no action” alternative is sometimes chosen when public opposition is strong enough to prevent any applied management actions from being taken. Generally though, the “no action” alternative often means that forces (e.g. regulated hunting) outside of the action area (i.e. property boundary) are sufficient enough to manage the population and meet program goals.

Non-lethal Management–A myriad of non-lethal deer damage management techniques are available, and fall under three general categories: exclusion, deterrents, and repellents.

Research has demonstrated that some practices are effective while others appear to be marketing ploys. Properly installed and maintained fencing 10 feet in height and secured to the ground is the most effective exclusion tactic. Fencing can be cost prohibitive for large acreages, and many 10

communities have ordinances limiting the use or height of fences. However, fencing used to protect young plant growth can be beneficial in deterring deer browsing until plants are no longer vulnerable. Deterrents use sound, visual, or tactile cues to frighten deer from areas where they are causing damage. Deterrents which are set off by the offending deer or those with irregular cues tend to be most effective since deer may easily become acclimated to deterrents. Repellents use taste or scent to discourage deer from eating treated plants or entering treated areas. A wide variety of commercially available repellents have been reported to be effective in independent research. Repellents require reapplication after rain events and may lose effectiveness at temperatures below freezing.

Population Management–When deer become overabundant, a rapid reduction in deer density is necessary to suppress annual population growth and to reduce damages. Once management goals are reached, annual deer harvests must be conducted to maintain acceptable population levels. The methods used to remove deer will depend on safety, legal restrictions, financial constraints, timing of the management action, and effectiveness of the removal methods employed. In many deer management situations, using a combination of deer removal methods is necessary to achieve management goals. Population management is an ongoing process that requires constant evaluation and adaptations to remain effective. If one method is utilized to initially reduce the population, another less intensive method may be used to maintain the newly lowered population level depending on the situation..

Population Management Alternatives Regulated hunting–Outside ECP boundaries, regulated hunting should be encouraged whenever possible as it is generally the most economically feasible strategy to manage deer.

However, this is not currently an option within ECP boundaries. Regulated hunting is limited to areas outside of ECP and severely hinders the effectiveness of this strategy as a management alternative for ECP. With the establishment of DRZs in Indiana, hunters that can access surrounding properties have the ability to harvest additional deer during the season. There are no costs associated with this alternative since no hunting is taking place on ECP lands and no oversight is required.

Controlled/Managed Hunts–Controlled/managed hunts using hunters can be structured to maximize deer removal efforts. Stipulations may include designated dates and times of hunts, equipment restrictions, and safety certification of hunters. By concentrating hunting pressure during specific times, controlled public hunts usually increase deer harvest and require less time than standard regulated hunting. A controlled/managed hunt could be designed to enable recreational hunters the opportunity to hunt within ECP boundaries. Given the layout and human activity level of ECP, this management strategy would likely require multiple restrictions as well as enable potential conflict between hunters and ECP patrons. Success of a controlled hunt is dependent upon access to property as well as the duration of time hunting is authorized. Costs of a controlled hunt can vary widely depending on size and extent of effort and amount of staffing/oversight required.

11

Professional Deer Removal–In instances where regulated and/or controlled hunting is not practical or effective; deer removal may be conducted under a Special Purpose Deer Control permit issued by the IDNR and carried out by WS, private contractors, or other agents of the cooperator. Professional deer removal operators are permitted to use specialized equipment and methods such as; high-powered rifles fitted with suppressors to minimize noise, infrared and night vision technologies for identification of safe shooting opportunities and to increase the ability to locate deer, baiting, and shooting at night, from vehicles, and in close proximity to buildings. Deer harvested by professional operators may be donated to provide venison for charitable organizations. Professional deer removal usually requires the least amount of time and has the lowest impact on day to day operations versus other methods to reach population goals.

This management technique can be employed to minimize impact on ECP operations until the desired deer densities are achieved and can then be replaced or augmented by other methods.

The cost associated with professional deer removal are often more expensive than other methods, but final cost per unit effort in term of amount of money spent per deer removed is often the cheapest option.

Relocation–Capturing deer and relocating them to another location is not currently an option in Indiana because this practice is not legal. The IDNR does not recognize trap and relocation of deer as a viable alternative for localized population reduction and prohibits the live capture, translocation, and release of deer into a free-ranging situation. Legal considerations aside, trap and transfer of deer is expensive, relocation increases potential for disease transmission, ideal relocation sites are limited, and relocated deer suffer from low survival rates (Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2013).

Fertility Control–WS is conducting ongoing research through its National Wildlife Research Center in the development of a fertility control agent to limit deer population growth.

To date, tests of fertility control in deer populations in fenced enclosures have demonstrated limited effectiveness. Currently, no fertility control agents for use in deer have been approved for use in Indiana. If registered, future use of fertility control will have limited applicability, especially for large populations of free-ranging deer. Implementation of a fertility control program would be costly and herd reductions would still be necessary to reduce damage since fertility control does not directly reduce deer numbers. Another form of fertility control involving the surgical sterilization of female deer (does) is currently used in limited situations.

This method also has many of the same limitations for use in free-ranging populations as immunocontraception.

Methods Determination of Potential Areas for Regulated or Controlled/Managed Hunting–During January 2015, WS spent a considerable amount of time on ECP property during public hours as well as after hours. WS observed the use of ECP by patrons to be high at all times during open hours and there was also limited unauthorized use after hours. This high level of use hinders management efforts due to potential conflict as well as safety concerns. Areas outside of ECP should be utilized to the fullest extent possible for regulated hunting. This will assist in reducing the deer groups that move into and out of ECP to surrounding properties. Due to the housing 12

density and limited huntable habitat around ECP, this option alone will not be enough to manage the in-park deer population.

Deer Population Management – During the winter of 2014/2015, the initial reduction of deer within ECP took place. The reduction was conducted in two phases consisting of a controlled/managed hunt followed by professional sharpshooting, both operating under a Special Purpose Deer Control Permit. Following the initial meeting with the Indianapolis DPR, WS contacted Wounded Warrior Outdoors (WWO) to determine their ability assist in the effort.

WWO is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing therapeutic outdoor recreational activities to wounded servicemen and women across North America. Given the layout of the east side of ECP, this scenario was considered ideal for their organization. WWO was then paired with a local wildlife control company to conduct reduction activities on the east side of ECP. The wildlife control company received many requests to assist in the reduction and allowed additional local veterans to assist. ECP was closed for 3 days to allow the safe operation of the participants. Following this phase of the reduction, WS conducted night-time sharpshooting activities, after ECP public hours, to further reduce the ECP deer population.

Collection of Deer Biological Data - In order to assess the health of the population within ECP, collection of certain biological data is suggested. Age, weight, number of developed fetuses in pregnant females, as well as heart/kidney fat scores should be collected from each deer. This will give managers an indication of the health and nutrition of deer in ECP. A highly overpopulated area should expect fat scores to be very poor due to low or inadequate food availability. The number of developed fetuses will give an estimation of potential population growth rate in the deer herd. This information can be used to show an increase in deer health as the overabundance is reduced.

Deer Density Estimate–Using Global Information Systems (GIS), WS developed a randomized series of survey transects to traverse all habitat types within ECP. The design of the survey route was intended to randomly sample ECP, and to avoid biases such as: 1) surveying only where deer would be most observable, 2) surveying only habitats most suitable to deer within ECP, and 3) counting the same deer multiple times per night. The purpose of the survey was to generate an average deer density estimate for the entire ECP. The transect lengths ranged from 500 to 600 meters with an average of 536 meters (Figure 2). Two surveys were conducted on the nights of April 10 and 13, 2015. Surveys began at approximately 9:30 PM and were concluded by 3:00 AM. The survey transects were traversed once in each direction per night for each of the surveys. WS traversed transects at approximately 5 to 10 miles per hour, stopping only to record deer observations or for traffic considerations. A WS biologist utilized a Forward Looking Infrared camera to scan for deer from the vehicle. The WS biologist recorded number of deer, deer locations, and the perpendicular distance to deer from the survey route. Survey data were entered into the software program Distance 6.2 (Thomas et al. 2010) to determine densities.

This program determines the width of the survey route based on the detection probability of observations by factoring the number of deer and the distance they were observed from the route.

The program then calculates the area surveyed and deer density estimates (deer per square mile as well as overall population).

13

Results Determination of Potential Areas for Regulated or Controlled/Managed Hunting–ECP is a very popular destination for many people during all times of the year. The east side of ECP is especially accessible as it contains a very robust series of interconnected roads and trails that allow people to enjoy the property during all seasons. This would severely limit the options for regulated hunting as well as controlled/managed hunting due to safety concerns. In order to achieve effective deer management on the east side of ECP, the park would need to close and/or limit access to large sections for multiple days to allow for removal activities. This requires many man hours as access points are not limited to main roads or trails; people have been using alternate points of entry and presumably will continue to do so. The west side of ECP does not contain nearly as many roads and/or trails as the east side. Vehicle access to this side of ECP is much more limited than the east side; however, there are many access points for pedestrians.

Many people utilize the trail networks as well as golf cart paths without parking on ECP property. This reduces the ability to control entry and also requires a great amount of man-hours to limit unauthorized access.

In order to ensure safety and effectiveness of a hunting program, large areas on either side of ECP would need to have restricted access during management activities. Limiting the hunters to only small portions of ECP will not enable effective management and should not be considered. Due to the size of ECP and behavior of deer, hunter access would need to cover the majority of either side for the duration of the hunt.

Deer Population Management – During the first phase of the 2014-2015 reduction, 142 deer were removed from ECP using a managed hunt. Following this phase of the reduction, WS further reduced the ECP deer population by 101 individuals using sharpshooting. All deer were processed by a local deer processing facility. The majority of meat from the first phase was donated to local food banks. All of the meat from the second phase was donated. The processor noted that the amount of available meat per deer from the east side of ECP was greatly reduced as compared to the west side of ECP, as much as a 75% less due to poor body condition of the deer.

Collection of Deer Biological Data – Due to the processing of deer by an outside organization, WS was unable to collect desired biological data during the initial reduction of deer on ECP. This data can be collected during preparation for processing with limited additional time requirements. As management continues for ECP, collection of this data will be very useful to validate increasing health of deer as a result of the population reduction.

Negative Deer Incidents – In Indiana, the majority of deer-vehicle collisions occur during the months of October and November (collision with deer data, IDNR 2015). These 2 months accounted for 36% of the total deer-vehicle collisions in 2014. In Marion County, this same timeframe accounted for 38% of the deer-vehicle collisions in 2014. Throughout all of 2014, 9.6% of Marion County accidents occurred within one mile of ECP. This one mile buffer only accounts for 2.7% of Marion County land area.

14

Deer Density Estimate–. A total of 143 deer observations were made during the surveys with 69 deer observed on April 10, and 74 deer observed on 13 April. Deer were observed an average of 49 yards from the survey route.

The average deer density observed for ECP was 90.7 deer per square mile (95% CI: 62.9 – 130.7) or 553.4 deer within ECP boundaries.

Therefore, there is a 95% probability the deer population was between 384 deer and 798 deer at the time of the surveys. The highest deer densities were observed on the east side of ECP, along Big Pine Drive and Eagle Creek Parkway. The highest densities on the west side of ECP Figure 2: Survey transects and percentage of deer observed by location during were in the vicinity of Eagle’s Hide- April 2015 deer density surveys. Quadrants with no % had no observations during surveys.

A-Way (Figure 2). Adding the number of deer taken during the 2014-2015 reduction, the population within ECP would have been approximately 796 deer in ECP or 130.7 deer per square mile or more considering that the does removed would most likely have been pregnant as well.

Discussion The estimated deer density in ECP should be considered a conservative estimate because most mortality already occurred in the annual deer population cycle as well as a population reduction had taken place over the winter. When fawns are born in late May and early June in central Indiana, deer populations are theoretically at their maximum number. Harvest by recreational hunters occurs from mid–September through late January. Deer-vehicle collisions peak generally in the fall when bucks are chasing does for breeding purposes and in the spring when does are seeking seclusion to birth their fawns. Other sources of mortality for deer in urban environments include poaching, accidents (e.g., fences), natural processes (e.g., parasites and disease), and low levels of predation when fawns are less than one month old. Many deer populations experience fluctuations of as much as 33% annually (McDonald et al. 2006).

Regulated hunting and other sources of mortality must equal the population growth rate to stabilize the population. To decrease the population, mortality must exceed recruitment. Annual changes in population density will differ depending on local resources, mortality, and other factors.

There are several unknown variables regulating the population of deer in ECP, including mortality from illegal hunting and other sources. Also unknown is the specific reproductive potential of the deer herd. These variables are not determined exactly in most deer populations

15

and variables regulating deer populations change annually. Still, deer management actions must continue to work towards goals for reducing damage.

The population of deer in ECP has been at densities higher than acceptance capacity (i.e., the level at which deer populations can coexist with the human population without negative impacts) for multiple years as evidenced by high rates of deer-vehicle collisions and reports from surrounding residents. Deer density surveys by WS demonstrated an average deer density of 90.7 deer per square mile or 553 deer in ECP before fawning season–much higher than recommended densities for any deer management goals. Although exact rates of reproduction and mortality are not known, the population size of deer in ECP likely has varied within a similar range in recent years.

In spring 2016, fawns will be born and those surviving will be recruited into the population, potentially growing the overall population by approximately 20% annually. If no additional efforts are made to increase hunting or to institute additional deer management actions, continued population growth would be expected, assuming no changes in other causes of mortality. Research has demonstrated that deer densities should be maintained at levels between 5 and 30 deer per square mile to fully stimulate growth of tree seedlings depending on the environmental conditions (Alverson et al. 1988, Tilghman 1989). Improved habitat not only benefits the health of deer herds, but also other wildlife species, the forest, water resources and improves the natural aesthetic of communities.

Deer are reservoir hosts of the adult black-legged tick and Lyme Disease is prevalent where deer become overabundant. However, results of studies differ on the relationship between tick abundance and prevalence of Lyme Disease in areas with different deer densities. Rand et al.

(2003) found that tick abundance increased directly with deer densities and few ticks were collected in areas with deer densities less than 18 deer per square mile. Jordan et al. (2007) found that an active deer culling operation in which 47% of deer were removed resulted in no apparent effect on tick abundance over three years after deer were reduced. However, deer densities in this study were still >60 deer per square mile. Also, Rand et al. (2004) found that after complete removal of deer from an offshore island tick abundance and prevalence of Lyme Disease initially increased before crashing several years after deer removal. While the exact relationship between deer densities and Lyme Disease infection rates are not clearly understood, evidence is sufficient to support justification of managing deer at lower densities to reduce the risk of Lyme Disease to the public. In addition to Lyme Disease, Indiana State Department of Health notes that Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever and Ehrlichiosis have both occurred in Indiana within the last 5 years (ISDH 2015).

Clearly, the need exists to further reduce the population of deer in ECP to minimize conflicts. Reducing deer populations by any means is challenging in urban habitats due to limited access to safe shooting zones. Maintaining low-density deer populations also can be problematic because hunters may lose interest and reduce hunting effort when deer sightings diminish.

Reducing and maintaining deer populations at more moderate levels (i.e., 30 deer per square mile) may be more achievable and often is acceptable to the majority of stakeholders. Many ecological benefits are still realized at moderate deer densities. Ultimately, deer should be managed to minimize damages/conflict (e.g., degradation of understory, deer-vehicle collisions), while providing a role for deer in the ecosystem rather than strictly focusing on deer densities.

Recommendations 16

Given the high level of negative incidents involving deer within and around ECP that have occurred chronically for multiple years, reducing and maintaining the deer population at a lower level will be necessary to reducing damages. The current deer population, if left unmanaged, will continue to negatively affect the entire ecosystem. Further, high deer densities pose risks to human health and safety via deer-vehicle collisions and deer may act as reservoir hosts to blacklegged ticks (a.k.a. deer ticks), the primary vector of Lyme Disease. This management plan should serve as a stimulus and guide for managing deer into the future. While some ECP patrons may prefer to regularly observe high numbers of deer acclimated to humans, most people in modern society recognize the detrimental effects of overabundant deer and the advantages of balancing deer with available habitat.

Deer Density Goals–To reduce the negative impacts of deer, the population in ECP should be managed towards more moderate levels such as 30 deer per square mile or 183 deer total in ECP before fawning. During the 2014-2015 reduction efforts, this would have equated to an additional removal of approximately 370 deer. This level of culling may not be attainable without access granted to all safe shooting areas within ECP boundaries. While far lower deer densities (e.g., 10-15 deer per square mile) may be necessary to maximize forest regeneration, attempting to achieve extremely low deer densities in urban areas can be problematic. Due to perceptions regarding deer reductions, limited areas for safe shooting, limitations of non-lethal methods, and financial and time constraints; the ability to maintain low deer densities in an urban environment is difficult.

Regulated-hunting should be promoted in areas around ECP wherever possible. Due to the limitations of regulated-hunting and the limited access hunters have in the area, professional deer removal and/or controlled hunting will be necessary to reduce and maintain the ECP deer population towards management goals. However, several factors will dictate how many deer may be removed via sharpshooting or hunting. Time constraints of management activities, access to all sections of ECP with safe shooting zones, funding for additional law enforcement staff to ensure safety, funding for the time necessary to conduct sharpshooting activities, and funding to process deer for charitable food donation are factors which may limit the number of deer that may be culled.

Regulated or Controlled/Managed Hunting–ECP is surrounded by residential and commercial land that severely limits suitable sites for recreational hunters outside the park.

Within ECP boundaries, certain areas could be considered suitable for controlled/managed hunting. The west side of ECP consists of a much lower density of roads and buildings with an increase in topography and understory vegetation as compared to the east side. This area could allow use by hunters with a reduced risk of safety incidents. The east side of ECP could also allow use by hunters, however the risk of safety incidents is increased due to the vast network of roads, structures, trails, etc. If any portion of ECP is considered for hunting, buffer zones need to be developed in these areas to maximize safety.

Once an area is considered safe for hunting activity, ECP managers need to determine the amount of time the area(s) can be available for such activity. Depending on the amount of time, size and distribution of safe hunting areas, the number of potential hunters can be determined.

Once the desired number of hunters is determined, a selection process should be developed to determine who would be considered authorized to hunt the area(s). It is very likely that the 17

number of willing participants will far outweigh the number that ECP can effectively utilize. A lottery system similar to many public hunting areas should be considered. This system can identify primary as well as alternate individuals.

Due to the highly controversial nature of hunting a previously non-hunted location, safety and efficiency of all potential hunters needs to be optimized. Individuals wishing to participate need to be able to demonstrate minimum qualification standards prior to the hunt. Depending on the equipment utilized, a safety/proficiency test should be administered to determine the ability of the hunter. In addition to the safety/proficiency test, additional training should be provided to participants to ensure education of the goals of the project. WS can assist in the development of hunting programs, safety/proficiency tests, as well as additional training to provide participants.

The use of archery equipment could have less of an impact on other activities in ECP as compared to firearm use. However, any hunting would be more productive if other recreational users, especially those with dogs, are excluded during active hunting hours to reduce disturbance of deer. If hunting is to be allowed on ECP property, consultation with the Indiana Department of Natural Resources is recommended to verify that the guidelines of the hunt program are consistent with legal and safety considerations. While hunting provides recreational opportunities, it may not deliver the level of deer removal needed to achieve a maintenance level.

Professional Deer Removal–Access for hunters will continue to be limited in and around ECP because of dense residential areas and limited safe shooting areas. Therefore, hunting alone will not reduce deer densities sufficiently to meet management goals. ECP should strongly consider maintaining professional deer removal via sharpshooting to further reduce the population and maintain deer densities. Regulated hunting can be a very effective option for managing deer populations that have already been reduced. However, professional deer removal enables culling of deer where hunting may not occur due to limited access and safety concerns.

Professional deer removal is conducted annually in suburban environments across the United States with complete safety and a high level of success towards management goals. Yet, logistical limitations to removing sufficient numbers of deer still exist. Many areas that may not be optimal for hunters are perfectly suitable for professional deer removal operations. Areas with sufficient backstops for shooting must be located, bait stations must be established to concentrate deer where safe shooting may occur, and sufficient time to conduct operations should be authorized. Highly trained and tested personnel utilizing precision equipment must be employed to maximize efficiency. The success of a professional deer removal operation will depend heavily on access to all areas of ECP. Non-lethal Methods–Even at lowered densities, deer may damage natural forest regeneration and landscaping. Fencing is the most effective method to exclude deer and to reduce browsing. However, fencing must be 10 feet in height and secured to the ground. Many of the fences in and around ECP are not of sufficient height or installation to exclude deer, and traumatic accidents can occur when deer attempt to cross fences of insufficient height. Fencing should be considered to exclude deer from sensitive natural areas to stimulate plant growth.

Fenced areas also provide a basis of comparison to assess the effects of deer browsing.

Maintaining current exclosures will prove valuable in assessing the effects of deer over time as additional deer management actions are implemented.

As stated earlier, taste and smell repellents can be effective for reducing browsing of select plants by deer. At high deer densities, repellents have limited effectiveness. These should 18

be used in combination with exclusion methods and plantings with deer in mind. Using plants less desirable to deer may limit choices for residents, but will lessen the need for replanting and will reduce monetary losses.

ECP should continue to track rates of deer-vehicle collisions. This will continue to be an important index to track deer management effectiveness. Most deterrent and warning methods designed to reduce deer-vehicle collisions have shown limited effectiveness, including deer crossing signs (Curtis and Hedlund 2005). Proper deer management, improving visibility along roadways, managing the speed of vehicles, and educating residents about the seasonal risks of deer-vehicle collisions are important. During May and early June when fawns are born, female deer are more mobile and are susceptible to deer-vehicle collisions. Likewise, in late October through November, bucks are actively chasing does for breeding purposes, and motorists should be on alert. If a motorist encounters a deer in the roadway, they should slow down while applying steady brake pressure, and they should not swerve to avoid the deer. Head-on collisions with other vehicles and veering off road accidents are more dangerous than deervehicle collisions.

Nearby residents are encouraged to take preventive measures to avoid Lyme Disease and other tick-borne diseases. Using approved repellents, avoiding brushy and grassy areas, and conducting regular checks for ticks is recommended. More information may be found on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention website (CDC 2015).

Continual Data Collection– The continual monitoring of vegetation, deer-vehicle collisions and other incidents involving deer; as well as deer population surveys and deer biological data can play a vital role in the deer management program. Information gathered can greatly assist in the justification as well as highlight successes. Having the ability to demonstrate vegetative regeneration and increased deer health, reduced vehicle collisions and other negative incidents involving deer as the population is reduced can aid greatly in positively influencing perceptions. In addition, the ability to show continued vegetative degradation, ongoing poor deer health, and continued or increased negative incidents involving deer when the population is not reduced will also aid in public support. Not only will this data assist in gaining support for the program, it will help guide future management decisions.

Summary of Recommendations •

Continue monitoring, including vegetation analyses, standardized deer population surveys, records of deer-vehicle collisions and other incidents involving deer, and gauging deer-human conflicts by communication with surrounding residents. Select deer management actions based on these indices.

•

Continue professional deer removal via sharpshooting to reduce deer densities consistent with goals in a reasonable timeframe.

•

Promote hunting on surrounding property wherever safe and legal. Persistently encourage private landowners to allow access to hunters. When and where suitable, allow controlled/managed hunting within selected areas of the park.

19

•

Continue educational efforts. Upon the request of ECP, WS is available to assist with education, continued monitoring of deer management goals, and implementation of deer management actions.

20

Acknowledgements Personnel from the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department / Department of Homeland Security-Ranger Unit, especially Ranger Unit Officer in Charge Brent A. Kintner, were valuable in the planning and implementation of deer management activities and deer density surveys. Brenda Howard from Indianapolis Department of Public Works, Don Colvin and Brittany Davis Swinford from Indianapolis Department of Parks and Recreation provided valuable input to assist in the development of this management plan.

References Alverson, W. S., D. M. Waller, and S. L. Solheim. 1988. Forests too deer: edge effects in northern Wisconsin. Conservation Biology 2(4): 348–358.

Anderson, C. W., Neilsen, C. K., Hester, C. M., Hubbard, R. D., Stroud, J. K., and E. M. Schauber. 2013. Comparison of indirect and direct methods of distance sampling for estimating density of white-tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37 (1): 146-154.

Augustine, D. J. and P. A. Jordan. 1998. Predictors of white–tailed deer grazing intensity in fragmented deciduous forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1076–1085.

Australian Society for Reproductive Biology. 1997. Reproduction, fertility and development. Proceedings from the 4th International Conference on Fertility Control for Wildlife Management 9:1–186.

AVMA. AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2013 Edition. Available at: <https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Documents/euthanasia.pdf>. Accessed 20 May 2015.

Baker, S. V., and J. Fritsch. 1997. New territory for deer management: human conflicts on the suburban frontier. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:404–407.

Behrend, D. F., G. F. Mattfeld, W. C. Tierson and J. E. Wiley III. 1970. Deer density control for comprehensive forest management. Journal of Forestry 68:695–700.

Bell, R. L. and T. J. Peterle. 1975. Hormone implants control reproduction in white– tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 3:152–156.

Bernatas, S. B. 2004. White–tailed deer survey for Brookhaven National Laboratory, Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge, and Rocky Point Wilderness Area, Long Island, New York. Vision Air Research, Inc. Boise, Idaho.

Brown, S.E. and G. R. Parker. 1997. Impact of white–tailed deer on forest communities within Brown County State Park, Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Sciences.

106:39–51.

21

Butfiloski, J. W., D. J. Hall, D. M. Hoffman, and D. L. Forester. 1997. White–tailed deer management in a coastal Georgia residential community. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:491–495.

Campbell, T. A., C. A. Langdon, B. R. Laseter, W. M. Ford, J. W. Edwards, and K. V. Miller. 2006. Movements of female white–tailed deer to bait sites in West Virginia, USA. Wildlife Research 33:1–4.

Carpenter, L. H., D. J. Decker, and J. F. Lipscomb. 2000. Stakeholder acceptance capacity in wildlife management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5:5-19 Casey, D. and D. Hein. 1983. Effects of heavy browsing on a bird community in deciduous forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 47:829–836.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 2015. Preventing tick bites. <http://www.cdc.gov/lyme/prev/index.html>. Accessed 20 May 2015.

Coffey, M. A., and G. H. Johnston. 1997. A planning process for managing white–tailed deer in protected areas: integrated pest management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:433–439.

Cohn, P. N., E. D. Plotka, and U. S. Seal. 1996. Contraception in wildlife, Book 1.

Edwin Mellen Press, Ltd., Lampster, Wales, United Kingdom.

Conover, M. R. 1984. Effectiveness of repellents in reducing deer damage in nurseries. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:399–404.

Conover, M.R., W.C. Pitt, K.K. Kessler, T.J. DuBow, and W.A. Sanborn. 1995. Review of human injuries, illnesses, and economic losses caused by wildlife in the United States.

Wildlife Society Bulletin 23: 407-414.

Conover, M. R. 1997a. Wildlife management by metropolitan residents in the United States: practices, perception, costs, and values. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:306–311.

Conover, M. R. 1997b. Monetary and intangible valuation of deer in the United States.

Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:298–305.

Cote, S. D., T.P. Rooney, J. P. Tremblay, C. Dussault, and D.M. Waller. 2004. Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35: 113-147.

Creekmore, T. E., D. G. Whittaker, R. R. Roy, J. C. Franson, and D. L. Baker. 1998.

Health Status and Relative Exposure of Mule Deer and White–tailed Deer to Soil Contaminants at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18:272–279.

22

Curtis, P. D. and R. J. Warren. 1998. Proceedings of the workshop on the status and future of wildlife fertility control. 5th Annual Conference of The Wildlife Society, Buffalo, New York.

Curtis, P. D. and J. H. Hedlund. 2005. Reducing deer-vehicle crashes. Wildlife Damage Management Fact Sheet Series. Cornell Cooperative Extension. Ithaca, N.Y. Cypher, B. L. and E. A. Cypher. 1988. Ecology and management of white–tailed deer in northeastern coastal habitats: a synthesis of the literature pertinent to National Wildlife Refuges from Maine to Virginia. USFWS Biological Report 88(15).

D’Angelo, G. J., R. J. Warren, K. V. Miller, and G. R. Gallagher. 2004. Evaluation of strategies designed to reduce deer–vehicle collisions: An annotated bibliography. 74 pp.

Available at: <http://www.dot.ga.gov/BuildSmart/ResearchDocuments/reports/ Deer_Review.pdf>. Accessed 20 May 2015 D'Angelo, G. J., J. G. D'Angelo, G. R. Gallagher, D. A. Osborn, K. V. Miller, and R. J. Warren. 2006. Evaluation of wildlife warning reflectors for altering white–tailed deer roadside behavior. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:1175–1183.

D’Angelo, G. J., W. L. Wenner, and M. S. Keegan. 2012. White-tailed deer damage management in a high-density forested residential community. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference: In Press.

DeCalesta, D. S. 1994. Effects of white–tailed deer on songbirds within managed forests in Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:711–718.

Decker, D. J., and K. G. Purdy. 1988. Toward a concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:53-57 DeNicola, A. J., and R. K. Swihart. 1997. Capture–induced stress in white–tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:500–503.

DeNicola, A. J., S. J. Weber, C. A. Bridges, and J. L. Stokes. 1997. Nontraditional techniques for management of overabundant deer populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:496–499.

Eagle Creek Park Foundation Citizens Advisory Committee. 2012 Presentation to Indianapolis Park Board by Eagle Creek Park Foundation Citizens Advisory Committee regarding concerns about deer overpopulation in Eagle Creek Park. Available at: <http://www.eaglecreekpark.org/DeerWhitePaper.htm>. Accessed 20 May 2015.

Ellingwood, M. R. and S. L. Caturano. 1988. An evaluation of deer management options. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection DR–11. 12pp.

23

Fagerstone, K. A. and W. H. Clay. 1997. Overview of USDA Animal Damage Control efforts to manage overabundant deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:413–417.

Frost, H. C., G. L. Storm, M. J. Batcheller, and M. J. Lovallo. 1997. White–tailed deer management at Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower National Historic Site.

Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:462–469.

Glbert, J. R. 1982. Evaluation of mirrors for reducing deer–vehicle collisions. Federal Highway Administration Washington, D.C. RD–82/061 16pp.

Grund, M. D., J. B. McAninch, and E. P. Wiggers. 2002. Seasonal movements and habitat use of female white–tailed deer associated with an urban park. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:123–130.

Hall, L. K. 1984. White–tailed deer ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 870pp.

Healy, W. M., D. S. deCalesta, and S. L. Stout. 1997. A research perspective on white–tailed deer overabundance in the northeastern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:259–263.

Henderson, D. W., R. J. Warren, J. A. Cromwell, and R. J. Hamilton. 2000.

Responses of urban deer to a 50% reduction in local herd density. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:902–910.

Huijser, M.P., J. Fuller, M.E. Wagner, A. Hardy, and A.P. Clevenger. 2007. Animal vehicle collision data collection. A synthesis of highway practice. NCHRP Synthesis 370. Project 20-05/Topic 37-12. Transportaion Research Board, Washington DC. Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife. 2013. Urban deer technical guide. Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Available at: <http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fwUrbanDeerTechnicalGuide.pdf>. Accessed 14MAY2015 Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife. 2015. Indiana deer biology. Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Available at: http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/3359.htm. Accessed 14MAY2015 Ishmael, W. E. and O. J. Rongstad. 1984. Economics of an urban deer removal program.

Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:394–398.

Jacobson, H. A., J. C. Kroll, R. W. Browning, B. H. Koerth, and M. A. Conway. 1997.

Infrared–triggered cameras for censusing white–tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:547–556.

24

Jenkins, M. A. 2013. Effects of herbivory by white-tailed deer on forest vegetation in Eagle’s Crest and Spring Pond Nature Preserves, Eagle Creek Park, Indianapolis, Indiana. Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana Jones, J. M. and J. H. Witham. 1990. Post–translocation survival and movements of metropolitan white–tailed Deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:434–441.

Jordan, R. A., T. L. Schulze, and M. B. Jahn. 2007. Effects of reduced deer density on the abundance of Ixodes scapularis (Acari:Ixodidae) and Lyme Disease in a northern New Jersey endemic area. Journal of Medical Entomology 44:752–757.

Kirkpatrick, J. F., I. K. M. Liu, and J. W. Turner. 1990. Remotely–delivered immunocontraceptive in feral horses. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:326–330.

Kilpatrick, H. J., S. M. Spohr, and K. K. Lima. 2001. Effects of population reduction on home ranges of female white–tailed deer at high densities. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:949–954.

Kilpatrick, H. J. and W. A. Stober. 2002. Effects of temporary bait sites on movements of suburban white–tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:760–766.

Lovallo, M. J., and W. M. Tzilkowski. 2003. Abundance of white–tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) within Valley Forge National Historical Park and movements related to surrounding private lands. National Park Service Technical Report NPS/NERCHAL/NRTR–03/091, Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A. Mason, R. M. 1997. Vertebrate repellents: mechanisms, practical applications, possibilities. Wildlife Damage Management for Natural Resource Managers 11–16.

McCullough, D. R. 1982. The theory and management of Odocoileus populations. in Biology and Management of the Cervidae. Wemmer, C. (ed.) 1987:535–549. Res. Symp. Natl. Zoo. Park.

McCullough, D. R. 1997. Irruptive behavior in ungulates. Pages 69–93 in W.J. McShea, H.B. Underwood, and J. H. Rappole, eds., The Science of Overabundance: Deer Ecology and Population Management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. McDonald, J. E., D. E. Clark, and W. A. Woytek. 2006. Reduction and maintenance of a white–tailed deer herd in central Massachusetts. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1585– 1593.

McShea, W.J. and J. H. Rappole. 2000. Managing the abundance and diversity of breeding bird populations through manipulation of deer populations. Conservation Biology 14: 1161-1170.

McShea, W. J., H. B. Underwood, and J. H. Rappole. 1997. The science of overabundance–Deer Ecology and Population Management. Smithsonian Institution Press.

Washington, D.C. 402pp.

25

Miller, L. A., B. E. Johns, D. J. Elias, and G. J. Killian. 1999. Oral Vaccination of white–tailed deer using a Recombinant Bacillus Calmette–Guerin Vaccine expressing the Borrelia burgdorferi outer surface protein A: Prospects for Immunocontraception. Amererican Journal of Reproductive Immunizology 41:279–285.

Parker G. R. 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007. Assessment of white-tailed deer browsing on understory vegetation within Spring Pond and Eagle’s Crest nature preserves in Eagle Creek Park, Indianapolis, Indiana. Available at: <http://www.amosbutleraudubon.org/eaglecreek/IndyParks-scannedreports20032007forECPParkerDeerBrowseStudies.pdf>. Accessed 20MAY2015.

Peddicord, R.K. and J.S. LaKind. 2000. Ecology and Human Health Risks at an Outdoor Firing Range. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: No. 19, pp. 2602–2613.

Piccolo, B. P., K. M. Hollis, R. E. Warner, T. R. Van Deelen, D. R. Etter, and C. Anchor. 2000. Variation of white–tailed deer home ranges in fragmented urban habitats around Chicago, Illinois. Proceedings of the Wildlife Damage Management Conferences 9:351–356.

Porter, W. F.1991. White–tailed deer in eastern ecosystems: implications for management and research in National Parks. Natural Resources Report NPS/NRSSUNY/NRR–91/05.

Porter, W. F., N. E. Mathews, H. B. Underwood, R. W. Sage, and D. F. Behrend. 1991.

Social organization in deer: implications for localized management. Environmental Management 15:809–814.

Porter, W. F., H. B. Underwood, and J. L. Woodard. 2004. Movement, behavior, dispersal, and the potential for localized management of deer in a suburban landscape.

Journal of Wildlife Management 68:247–256.

Quality Deer Management Association. 2012. White–tailed deer density map. Quality Deer Management Association, Bogart, Georgia.

Rand, P. W., C. Lubelczyk, G. R. Lavigne, S. Elias, M. S. Holman, E. H. Lacombe, and R. P. Smith. 2003. Deer density and the abundance of Ixodes scapularis (Acari:Ixodidae).

Journal of Medical Entomology 40:179–184.

Rand, P. W., C. Lubelczyk, M. S. Holman, E. H. Lacombe, and R. P. Smith. 2004.

Abundance of Ixodes scapularis (Acari:Ixodidae) after the complete removal of deer from an Isolated offshore island, endemic for Lyme Disease. Journal of Medical Entomology 41:779– 784.

Riley, S. J., D. J. Decker, L. H. Carpenter, J. F. Organ, W. F. Siemer, G. F. Mattfeld, and G. Parsons.

2002. The essence of wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(2):585-593 Romin, L. A., and L. B. Dalton. 1992. Lack of response by mule deer to wildlife warning whistles. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:382–384.

26

Romin, L. A., and J. A. Bissonette. 1996. Deer–vehicle collisions: status of state monitoring activities and mitigation efforts. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:276–283.

Russell, F. L. and N. L. Fowler. 1999. Rarity of oak saplings in savannas and woodlands of the eastern Edwards Plateau, TX. Southwestern Naturalist 44:31–41.

Stout, R. J., B. A. Knuth, and P. D. Curtis. 1997. Preferences of suburban landowners for deer management techniques: a step towards better communication. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:348–359.

Techentin, D. M., E. S. Boyd, W.E. Sparks, and R.E Kissell, Jr. 2012. Using infrared imagery to estimate white-tailed deer populations on the pine bluff arsenal. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science 66: 158-163.

Thomas, L., S.T. Buckland, E.A. Rexstad, J. L. Laake, S. Strindberg, S. L. Hedley, J. R.B. Bishop, T. A. Marques, and K. P. Burnham. 2010. Distance software: design and analysis of distance sampling surveys for estimating population size. Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 5-14.

Tilghman, N. G. 1989. Impacts of white–tailed deer on forest regeneration in northwestern Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:524–532.

Turner, J. W., I. K. M. Liu, and J. F. Kirkpatrick. 1992. Remotely delivered immunocontraceptive in captive white–tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:154–157.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Station Master Plan – Tinicum National Environmental Center.

Unpublished Report 104pp.

Vavra, M., C. G. Parks, and M. J. Wisdom. 2007. Biodiversity, exotic plant species, and hervivory: The good, the bad, and the ungulate. Forest Ecology and Management 246: 66-72.

VerCauteren, K. 2003. The deer boom: discussions on population growth and range expansion of the white-tailed deer. United States Department of Agriculture National Wildlife Research Center/Staff Publications. Paper 281.

Waller, D. M. and W. S. Alverson. 1997. The white-tailed deer: a keystone herbivore. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25.2: 217-226.

Warren, R. J. 1997. Deer overabundance–special issue. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25.

Warren, R. J. 2000. Overview of fertility control in urban deer management.

Proceedings of the 2000 Annual Conference of the Society for Theriogenolgy. San Antonio, Texas. 237–246.

Woolf, A., and J. D. Harder. 1979. Population dynamics of a captive white–tailed deer herd with emphasis on reproduction and mortality. Wildlife Monographs 67:53 pp.

27