Deer Damage Management in IL
[Page 4 of 8]
requests for
white-tailed deer damage
management would be referred to the IDNR, local
animal control
agencies or private individuals, businesses or organizations. Assistance may
or
may not be
available from any of these entities.
Alternatives
Considered but not Analyzed in Detail
Two alternatives
were considered, but not analyzed in detail. These include the
following.
Live Trap and
Relocation.
Under this
alternative WS would capture deer alive using cage-type
live traps or capture drugs
administrated by
dart gun and then relocate the captured deer to another area.
Numerous
studies have
shown that live-capture and relocation of deer is relatively
expensive, time-
consuming, and
inefficient (Ishmael and Rongstad 1984, O’Bryan and McCullough 1985,
Diehl
1988, Jones and
Witham 1990, Ishmael et al. 1995). Population reduction achieved
through
capture and
relocation is labor intensive and would be costly ($273-$2,876/deer) (O’Bryan
and
McCullough 1985,
Bryant and Ishmael 1991). Additionally, relocation frequently results
in
high mortality
rates for deer (Cromwell
et. al. 1999, O’Bryan and McCullough 1985, Jones and
Witham 1990,
Ishmael et. al. 1995). Deer frequently experience
physiological trauma during
capture and
transportation, (capture myopathy) and deer mortality after
relocation, from a wide
range of causes
within the first year, has ranged from 25-89% (Jones and Witham 1990,
Mayer
et al. 1993).
O’Bryan and McCullough (1985) found that only 15% of radio-collared
black-
tailed deer that were live-captured
and relocated from Angel Island, California, survived for
one year after
relocation. Although relocated deer usually do not return
to their location of
capture, some do
settle in familiar suburban habitats and create nuisance problems for
those
communities
(Bryant and Ishmael 1991). High mortality rates of relocated deer, combined
with
the manner in
which many of these animals die, make it difficult to justify relocation as
a
humane
alternative to lethal removal methods (Bryant and Ishmael 1991). Chemical
capture
methods require
specialized training and skill. A primary limitation of darting, the limited
range
at which deer can be effectively hit,
is generally less than 40 yards. With modern scoped rifles,
however, a
skilled sharpshooter can hit the head or neck of a deer for a quick kill out to
200
yards and
beyond. Thus, chemical capture is far less efficient, more labor intensive, and
much
more costly than
lethal removal with rifles. Translocation of wildlife is also discouraged by
WS
policy (WS
Directive 2.501) because of stress to the relocated animal, poor survival
rates,
potential for
disease transfer, and difficulties in adapting to new locations or
habitats.
Population
Stabilization Through Birth Control.
Deer would be sterilized or
contraceptives administered to limit the ability of deer to produce
offspring.
Contraceptive measures for deer can be grouped into
four categories: surgical
sterilization,
oral contraception, hormone implantation, and immunocontraception (the use
of
contraceptive
vaccines). Sterilization could be accomplished through surgical
sterilization
(vasectomy,
castration, and tubal ligation), chemosterilization, and gene therapy.
Contraception
could be accomplished through hormone implantation (synthetic steroids such
as
progestins),
immunocontraception (contraceptive vaccines), and oral contraception
(progestin