10 (4): 455-461 (2003)ECoSCIENCE

Abundant white-tailed deer populations represent oneof the greatest challenges in natural resource managementearly in the 21st century. In much of North America,numbers of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) andnumbers of deer hunters, the principal tool for manage-ment of deer populations (Carpenter, 2000), are changingin opposite directions. White-tailed deer populations

recently exceeded record levels (Warren, 1997), whilehunter numbers declined. A declining population of biggame hunters is occurring in the U.S.A. (Enck, Decker &Brown, 2000). The decline of big game hunters has beenless severe in Canada, although a decline is still evident(DuWors et al., 1999). An aging hunter population andlow recruitment of new hunters suggest further declines inthe hunter population can be anticipated (Enck, Decker &Brown 2000). These divergent trends may have seriousimplications for society and wildlife managers.

Deer populations up, hunter populations down:Implications of interdependence of deerand hunter population dynamicson management1

Shawn J. RILEY2, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing,Michigan 48824, U.S.A., e-mail: rileysh2@msu.edu

Daniel J. DECKER, Jody W. ENCK, Paul D. CURTIS, T. Bruce LAUBER& Tommy L. BROWN, Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department of NaturalResources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, U.S.A.

Abstract: White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are managed to yield diverse impacts, including effects to ecosystems.Many conventional hunting systems manage deer abundance through rules that strive to produce recreation opportunitiesand an equitable distribution of antlered bucks among hunters. To protect against excessive harvests, antlerless deerharvests often are regulated through quotas. This approach is effective when deer productivity does not outstrip capacityof the hunter population to harvest required numbers of antlerless deer. In many areas of North America, abundance ofwhite-tailed deer has increased dramatically in the past two decades, which has caused many wildlife managers to askwhether deer populations can be controlled with conventional harvest strategies. We used population reconstructionmodeling to simulate deer populations from mixed hardwood forests in southern New York, determined antlerless deerharvests needed to stabilize or reduce populations, and evaluated whether current hunting systems can effectivelyachieve potential ecosystem objectives. Current hunter willingness to seek or use antlerless deer permits likely isinadequate to stabilize or reduce deer densities. This situation may be exacerbated in the future with occurrence ofdiseases in deer or other factors that diminish hunter participation. We discuss implications for effectiveness of ecosystemmanagement.Keywords: harvest, hunter, New York, Odocoileus virginianus, population, white-tailed deer, wildlife management.

Résumé : Les populations de cerfs de Virginie (Odocoileus virginianus) sont gérées de façon à réduire les impacts négatifsassociés à la prolifération de cet animal, notamment le broutement excessif dans certains écosystèmes. En général,l’abondance des cerfs est contrôlée par une chasse récréative qui assure une répartition équitable des mâles avec boisentre les chasseurs. Pour éviter des récoltes excessives, la chasse aux cerfs sans bois est souvent réglementée par desquotas. Cette approche fonctionne lorsque la productivité des cerfs ne dépasse pas un certain niveau et que les chasseurssont en mesure de récolter le nombre désiré de cerfs sans bois. Toutefois, dans plusieurs régions de l’Amérique duNord, l’abondance du cerf de Virginie s’est accrue de façon telle au cours des deux dernières décennies que plusieursgestionnaires de la faune se demandent si les populations peuvent être contrôlées par les stratégies de récolte habituelles.À l’aide de la modélisation, nous avons déterminé quelle doit être la récolte de cerfs sans bois pour stabiliser ou réduireles populations de cerfs. Nous avons également évalué si les programmes actuels de chasse répondent aux objectifs deprotection des écosystèmes. Le modèle s’applique aux populations de cerfs des forêts feuillues du sud de l’état de NewYork. Dans le système de chasse actuel, la bonne volonté des chasseurs pour prélever des cerfs sans bois n’est passuffisante pour stabiliser ou réduire les densités de cerfs. Ce problème risque de s'aggraver avec l’apparition de maladieschez les cerfs ou d’autres facteurs pouvant diminuer la participation des chasseurs. Nous terminons cet article par unediscussion sur l’efficacité de la gestion des écosystèmes.Mots-clés : cerf de Virginie, chasseur, gestion de la faune, New York, Odocoileus virginianus, population, récolte.

Nomenclature: Corbet, 1984.

Introduction

1Rec. 2002-09-12; acc. 2003-05-09.2Author for correspondence.

RILEY ET AL.: DEER UP, HUNTERS DOWN

456

Deer are implicated as a causal factor in preventionof forest regeneration (Tilghman, 1989), reduced songbirdnumbers (deCalesta, 1994), decreased aesthetic attributesof ecosystems (Underwood & Porter, 1991), increaseddamage to agricultural crops (Conover, 1997), increasedfrequency of motor vehicle and aviation crashes (Romin& Bissonette, 1996; Dolbeer, Wright & Cleary, 2000),and perpetuation of disease (Ostfield, Jones, & Wolff,1996). Complex relationships exist between deer densityand impacts to ecosystems from browsing. However, deerdensities > 8 deer·km-2 are thought to impede sustainabil-ity of ecosystem form and function in northern hardwoodforests (deCalesta & Stout, 1997).

Mortality from hunting of antlerless deer has been aconventional means to manage abundance of white-taileddeer (Woolf & Roseberry, 1998). Regulated hunting, his-torically rooted in a time when deer were scarce (McCabe& McCabe, 1997), protected deer populations fromexcessive harvest because growth rates of a deer popula-tion primarily are dependent on the female mortality rates(i.e., harvest). In a closely regulated hunting system, ifhunters are abundant and deer are scarce, there is littlecause for concern about excessive harvest, and antlerlesslicence/permit systems work well to distribute hunters andminimally affect deer populations (Denney, 1978).However, if deer are abundant and hunters are scarce, theability to control populations through recreational harvestmay be reduced (Brown et al., 2000).

Declining numbers of hunters, limited hunter accessto deer on private lands and developed areas, and insuffi-cient willingness among hunters to kill antlerless deer arefactors prompting agencies to carefully examine the inter-dependence of deer and hunter population dynamics(McShea, Underwood & Rappole, 1997; Wright, Kaiser& Emerald, 2001). An assumption in most conventionaldeer harvest strategies is that adequate demand for andsuccessful use of antlerless deer permits exists to achievedesired deer harvest. This assumption warrants carefulexamination. The issue of matching hunter numbers andwillingness to kill antlerless animals is not confined towhite-tailed deer in North America. States such asColorado and Montana are experiencing a new phenome-non of not being able to achieve adequate antlerless elk(Cervus elaphus) harvest to control populations (R. Kahn,pers. comm.; K. L. Hamlin, pers. comm.).

In a pilot study, Brown et al. (2000) asserted thatharvests needed to stabilize deer populations under exist-ing hunting regulations in New York exceeded reportedantlerless harvests. We report findings from more thor-ough analyses in the Northern Glaciated AlleghenyPlateau (NGAP), a dominant type of forested ecosystemcomparable to many other hardwood types in northeasternNorth America. The question we address is, can adequateharvests of antlerless deer be achieved when numbers ofdeer are up and numbers of deer hunters are down?

Methods

STUDY AREA

The NGAP ecoregion covers portions of 23 countiesin southern New York. To include only counties withsimilar deer population dynamics as related to habitat

(Severinghaus & Moen, 1983), our 25,519-km2 studyarea encompassed 13 counties where NGAP comprisedmore than 80% of the land classification type (Figure 1).Counties were used as base units of analysis because deerharvest data are most accurately collected and reported byNew York’s Wildlife Management Agency at this scale(Kautz, 1995). Study area boundaries included Lake Erieon the west, Pennsylvania (a continuation of NGAP) tothe south, gentler terrain and open, agricultural habitatsof the Erie and Ontario Lake Plain ecoregion to the north,and the Catskill Plateau to the east.

The NGAP, characterized by numerous moraines,drumlins, kettles, and other glacial features, is a subsec-tion of the Laurentian Mixed Forest (McNab & Avers,1994). Predominant land features are moderately dissect-ed plateaus, broadly rolling hills, and narrow valleys.Elevation ranges from 200 m to 610 m. Nearly 70% ofthe area is in second- or third-generation forested uplands(Alerich & Drake, 1995). Dominant forest types includeoak-hickory, mesic beech-maple, oak-pine, and hemlock-northern hardwoods. Active and idle farmland coversmuch of the landscape on lower slopes and valleys.Cities and towns are scattered adjacent to major water-ways associated with the Susquehanna, Delaware, andAllegheny watersheds.

To assess what might happen under status quo man-agement policies and to determine whether deer popula-tions could be reduced with hunter harvests, we comparedestimates of needed antlerless deer harvest, derived bymodelling deer population dynamics, with reported antler-less and potential antlerless deer harvests. Needed antler-less deer harvest was defined as harvest required to reducetotal post-hunt deer population density to ≤ 8 deer·km-2 inthe 13 NGAP counties within 5 y. This density objectivewas selected because previous studies in northern hard-woods (deCalesta, 1994) suggested impacts from herbivoryat deer densities > 8 deer·km-2 prevented regeneration ofdesirable trees such as sugar maple and diminished otherecosystem functions. A 5-y time span was chosen becauseit is a common time specified to reach objectives inwildlife planning efforts and it often is used by citizen

Lake Ontario

Lake

AdirondackMountains

BuffaloSyracuse

Albany

New York City

CatskillMoutains

N100 0 100 kilometres

78o55'W 73o47'W

42o40'N

40o44'N

Erie

FIGURE 1. Map of the 13-county (25,519 km2) study area in south-ern New York used for assessing effectiveness of hunting to controlwhite-tailed deer populations.

ÉCOSCIENCE, VOL. 10 (4), 2003

457

task forces when setting management objectives in NewYork (Stout et al., 1996). Reported antlerless deer har-vest was the number of antlerless deer killed during the1997-1998 deer season as determined by a hunter survey(Curtis et al., 2000). Potential antlerless deer harvest wasdefined as the highest total number of antlerless deerhunters reportedly would kill in a hunting season if theycould obtain an unlimited number of deer managementpermits (DMPs).

HUNTER BEHAVIOUR

New York’s deer management system, at the time ofthis analysis, allowed hunters to purchase a big-gamelicence valid for one antlered deer. Antlerless deer harvestwas regulated on a deer management unit (DMU) basisby quotas of DMPs that could be obtained prior to hunt-ing season through a lottery-type drawing. Hunters couldapply for up to two DMPs in most DMUs or for a singleDMP in each of two different DMUs. Each DMP entitleda hunter to harvest one antlerless deer, or a deer withantlers < 10 cm in length. Application for these permitswas voluntary and DMPs were free, but there was one-time US$2 application fee that had to be mailed with theapplication to the wildlife agency by a certain deadline.

We determined reported and potential antlerless deerharvest from a mail survey of 5,323 deer hunters, strati-fied proportionately by county of sale, drawn from the513,310 persons who bought a big-game licence in NewYork State for the 1997-1998 hunting season. We beganthe survey on 5 January 1999 using a conventional four-wave mailing procedure (Dillman, 1978). Nonresponsebias was assessed via telephone interviews with 50 nonre-spondents to the mail survey. We adjusted the surveyresults to account for nonresponse bias only for statewidevariables. Because we based reported and potential har-vests on respondents who actually went hunting, the num-ber of active NGAP hunters was estimated by multiplyingthe total number of persons who bought a big-gamelicence in New York State in 1997 by the proportion ofsurvey respondents (adjusted for nonresponse bias) whoindicated they hunted during 1997 (89.5%). This productwas multiplied by the proportion of respondents whohunted deer ≥ 1 d in the NGAP during 1997 to estimateAllegheny Plateau hunters (APHUNTR).

Reported antlerless deer harvest was estimated bymultiplying APHUNTR by the mean number of DMPsfor which APHUNTR applied (APPLIED) and in turnmultiplying this product by the mean per hunter permitfill rate (FILL) for NGAP hunters. These procedures like-ly overestimated harvest because hunters could apply forand fill up to two antlerless permits, but some of thosepermits may have been for other parts of New York (i.e.,outside the NGAP area). Thus, we had estimates ofAPPLIED and FILL, but did not know whether huntersapplied for or used all their permits in the NGAP.

In the questionnaire, we asked how many deer intotal (TOTDEER) hunters would want to harvest if theycould harvest an unlimited quantity and what was the min-imum number of those deer they would want to be antleredbucks (MINBUCKS). From these data, we estimated themaximum number of antlerless deer (MAXDOES) they

would want to harvest by subtracting MINBUCKS fromTOTDEER. We assumed this to be a reasonable estimatefor New York hunters because other regulations, which oth-erwise might limit hunter access to bucks, were not inplace at the time of the survey. To estimate potential antler-less deer harvest, we multiplied APHUNTR × MAXDOES× FILL. By using survey data to estimate both reportedand potential harvest (rather than an agency estimate ofreported harvest), we could compare reported and poten-tial harvests using the same dataset. We were confidentabout comparing needed harvest (calculated from harvestdata) to reported and potential harvest because our esti-mate of reported harvest was similar to agency estimatesobtained through other methods.

We determined a point estimate for reported harvestand low and high bounds on that estimate. For the twoaveraged variables (APPLIED, FILL) used in the equa-tion for reported harvest, a mean value was calculated andbounded 2 SE below (low estimate) and above (high esti-mate) the mean. Three estimates for reported harvestwere then calculated: (1) using the mean value for allvariables in the equation, (2) using the low estimates forall variables, and (3) using the high estimates for all vari-ables. Finally, we assessed whether agency estimates ofreported harvest were within the high and low bounds ofour estimate for reported harvest using survey data.

Our models for needed and potential harvest includetwo assumptions important for result interpretation. Thefirst assumption was that hunter bias against filling anantlerless permit with a fawn compared to an older femaledeer (0.75) represents hunter behaviour accurately. Thisassumption was based on observed hunter take under NewYork hunter regulations (Kautz, 1995). The secondassumption was that hunters' rate of success in fillingantlerless permits remains constant above two permits.The latter assumption likely results in a higher estimate ofpotential harvest than would be observed because successrates per permit probably decline as individual huntersobtain greater numbers of permits. Because actual experi-ence in New York has been limited to a maximum of twoDMPs, we had no data that could provide guidance onthis relationship. In Michigan, where hunters could pur-chase one license per day for antlerless deer in most hunt-ing units, 22% of hunters killed at least one deer, butonly 14% killed two or more deer (Frawley, 2002).

DEER POPULATIONS

Deer population dynamics were calculated with a pop-ulation reconstruction process (Downing, 1980) assisted byan updated version of Deer CAMP (Computer-AssistedManagement Program) (Moen, Severinghaus & Moen,1986). This version of Deer CAMP determines the popu-lation needed to support observed harvest levels and esti-mated crippling loss, illegal kill, road kill, predator kill,and summer and winter fawn mortality over a set periodof years while reaching a specified ratio of populationchange between two given years. A change ratio of 1.064,which matched observed changes in numbers of antleredbucks harvested between 1991 and 1998, was used to pro-vide the model with a target for population change. Age-structure data were derived from hunter checks in New

RILEY ET AL.: DEER UP, HUNTERS DOWN

458

York (New York Department of EnvironmentalConservation, unpubl. data).

Relatively conservative values for mortality factorswere used because no empirical estimates existed. Mortalityfactors included (1) crippling loss (10% of reported har-vest), (2) illegal kill (2% of the pre-hunt population), and(3) road and predator kills not accounted for in fawn mor-tality (1% of population). Summer-fall fawn mortality(mean, 42%; range, 37-57%) was calculated each year inproportion to fawn:doe ratios in the harvest. Winter fawnmortality (mean, 4%; range, 0.5-15%) was calculatedeach year in proportion to the yearling fraction of antleredbuck harvest the following fall. Values were conservativein that if wounding rates were higher, the summer-fallfawn mortality rates were lower, or the number of preda-tor kills was higher, a greater total deer population wasneeded to achieve the observed hunter harvest. Lowermortality rates were used for yearling and prime-agedadult deer, proportional to an age-related vulnerabilitycurve that reached a maximum at age 13. This non-randomportion of summer and winter mortality accounted forphysiological stress and included age-related predation.Rates were applied to reconstructed populations asdynamic calculations throughout the biological year ratherthan to a specific number of deer for the entire year. Noattempt was made to estimate deer abundance in areasclosed to hunting (e.g., suburban parks, preserves, etc.);therefore, density estimates should be considered mini-mum values.

Two management scenarios were tested. The firstscenario modelled what would occur if the status quo per-sisted (mean 1994-1998 harvest rates for antlered andantlerless deer). To reveal the harvest needed to achieve8.0 deer·km-2, the second scenario held harvest rates forbucks constant (mean 1994-1998 rates) and varied harvestrates for antlerless deer until the management objectivewas achieved in 5 y. Harvests from the two scenarioswere then compared with potential harvest to determinewhether hunting could be used as an effective mechanismfor population control of deer.

Results

Model estimates of pre-hunt total deer in the studyarea between 1989 and 1998 ranged from 308,661 to378,929 (Figure 2). These estimates represent densities of12.1 and 14.8 deer·km-2. The model deer population at thestart of the 1997 hunting season comprised 378,929 deer, ofwhich 33.8% were fawns, 47.5% were does (≥ 1.5 y), and18.7% were bucks (≥ 1.5 y) (Figure 3). Total reportedharvest was 81,273 deer, which included 16,601 fawns,22,314 does, and 42,358 bucks. Based on the reconstruct-ed population, harvest rates for the 1997 hunting seasonwere 13.0% for fawns, 12.4% for does, and 58.2% forbucks.

If harvest rates for antlered and antlerless deer stayedat 1997 levels, our model predicted the 2002 pre-hunt deerpopulation would increase to 407,000 deer, or about 15.9deer·km-2. To achieve a reduction in density to 8.0deer·km-2, antlerless harvest rates would need to be about26%, or the harvest level would have to start at 81,000antlerless deer and end at about 46,000 antlerless deer.

We estimated that 204,390 people hunted ≥ 1 d in thestudy area during the 1997-1998 hunting season. Thesehunters applied for and received an average of 1.082 ±0.058 DMPs (mean ± SE), and used an average of 20.2% ±2.4% of the DMPs they received. Based on these find-ings, we estimated reported antlerless harvest to be 44,642± 7,387 deer. Bounds on our estimate (37,255-52,659)encompass the wildlife agency’s point estimate of38,915 harvested antlerless deer developed through huntermail-in report cards.

Under a scenario of unlimited availability, huntersstated they would apply for an average of 1.13 ± 0.09antlerless permits. The potential antlerless harvest thatwould result from this stated willingness was estimated tobe 46,654 ± 8,817 deer, or 4.5% higher than the 1997-1998reported harvest. This indicates a possible discrepancy ofmore than 34,000 antlerless deer between potential andneeded harvest.

Discussion

What does the dilemma of deer numbers up andhunter numbers down portend for wildlife management?In New York, a potentially severe problem has developed

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Year

Total deerAdult femalesFawnsAdult males

FIGURE 2. Estimates of the 1989-1998 pre-hunting season white-tailed deer population, based on population reconstruction, by sex andage class in a 13-county (25,519 km2) region of southern New York.

Malefawn

Female Yearling Adultfawn female female

Yearlingmale

Adultmale

Age class and gender

PopulationHarvest

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

FIGURE 3. Estimates of 1997 pre-hunting season white-tailed deerpopulation by gender and age class, from population reconstruction, andharvest, based on hunter surveys, in a 13-county (25,519 km2) region ofsouthern New York.

Num

ber

of d

eer

(××10

3 )N

umbe

r of

dee

r (××

103 )

ÉCOSCIENCE, VOL. 10 (4), 2003

459

in the NGAP region. Ecosystem-oriented objectives havenot been established in our NGAP study area, and thecascade effect of herbivory by deer remains uncertain.However, deer density in the NGAP currently is far inexcess of levels needed to achieve regeneration of manyfavoured hardwood forest species (Alverson, Waller &Solheim, 1988; deCalesta & Stout, 1997; Healy, 1997),and cascade effects from these densities likely are chang-ing composition of species in the ecosystem (deCalesta,1994). The relevance of our observations likely is notrestricted to southern New York, because hunter numbersare down across much of the range of white-tailed deer ineastern North America (Enck, Decker & Brown, 2000),while deer numbers are mostly up (Warren, 1997).

By concentrating efforts, enough hunter harvest maybe achieved to control deer on small scales such as indi-vidual management units, preserves, or refuges (Kilpatrick,Spohr & Chasko, 1997), but the ability to affect white-tailed deer populations on large scales (i.e., ecosystems)is diminishing (Brown et al., 2000). Our data indicatethat hunter willingness to kill antlerless deer may not begreat enough to control deer populations, a problem thatis compounded by declining hunter numbers and dimin-ished recruitment of new hunters (Enck, Decker &Brown, 2000). Even in states, such as Michigan, thatoffer essentially unlimited numbers of licences for antler-less deer, declines in hunter number and participation areobserved (Frawley, 2002). This phenomenon may beexacerbated by several phenomena looming on the hori-zon, such as chronic wasting disease (Bartelt, Pardee &Thiede, 2003) and other factors that may increase percep-tion of risk to hunters or other consumers of hunting orvenison. For example, if consumption of venison becomesa public health concern associated with chronic wastingdisease, programs like “Hunters for the Hungry”, whichmight normally encourage some hunters to kill more deerthan they can personally use, may be less effective. Thesetypes of programs greatly decreased operations followingthe onset of chronic wasting disease in Wisconsin(Bartelt, Pardee & Thiede, 2003).

Many factors affecting recruitment and retention ofnew hunters result from macro socioeconomic (e.g., eco-nomic, social and cultural) phenomena that are mostlyoutside the purview of traditional wildlife managementactivities (Dann & Peyton, 1996). Ongoing loss of experi-enced hunters will worsen the effects of declining hunterrecruitment. Antecedents to recruitment and retention ofhunters include social support, mentoring, and apprentice-ship; however, wildlife agencies have little experience ininfluencing these factors to gain more hunters (Enck,Decker & Brown, 2000). Additional research is needed tounderstand these relationships, but such knowledge mayhave little practical importance for agency programs sinceit is unlikely any agency initiative would have sufficienteffect to reverse the trends and make a meaningful differ-ence for deer management (Decker, Enck & Brown, 1993).

Citizen task forces in the NGAP study area, in coop-eration with wildlife managers, have set objectives forreducing deer populations (Stout et al., 1996). Mechanismsto harvest more antlerless deer include multiple DMPsoffered in most DMUs and new incentive programs to

encourage landowners to harvest antlerless deer. In 2001,these efforts resulted in a total harvest of 115,513 deer,of which 47,238 were antlerless. This antlerless harvestwas very similar (584 deer greater) to our projectedantlerless deer harvest under a scenario of unlimitedDMPs. Yet, this harvest represents only 58% of the esti-mated 1998 harvest needed to initiate a reduction of deerto 8·km-2. Because 4 y elapsed between 2001 and whenour estimates were made, deer harvests now needed toreduce deer density probably are even greater.

Without an appreciable gain in hunter numbers, par-ticipation, harvest effectiveness, or willingness to kill moreantlerless deer, a greater investment is needed to developalternatives to hunting as the sole population controlmechanism. Access to hunting is limited or not feasible inmany areas. In these situations, deer are not susceptibleto conventional management regardless of whether huntersare present and willing to harvest antlerless deer, unlessnon-hunting techniques are used. These refuges likelyreplenish deer into hunted areas and magnify difficultiesof achieving herd reduction (Brown et al., 2000). Adecline in rural human populations likely will lead tofewer hunters recruited in the future (Stedman &Heberlein, 2001). Hunting eventually may become less arecreation and more a community service or civic dutyshould the impacts of deer be broadly recognized. Cullingmay be a more appropriate term for the kind and purposeof hunting under such circumstances. This situation cur-rently is being tested in Wisconsin, where preliminaryresults from that state’s attempts to eradicate all white-tailed deer within a region infected with chronic wastingdisease suggest hunter participation declines as deer popu-lations are reduced (T. Van Deelen, pers. comm.; VanDeelen & Etter, 2003).

No easy solutions exist, although several conclusionsare apparent from our experience in New York. We believea paradigm shift, already underway in some states, isneeded in public white-tailed deer management. The shiftneeded is from one of protection and distribution of ascarce resource to one of managing impacts of deer (Rileyet al., 2002). More focus on education and engagementof non-hunting stakeholders is needed to ensure that deci-sions about hunting and population control arise fromcommunity deliberation and not merely from agencies. Tobe effective, any population-control mechanism will requireacceptance by society (Curtis et al., 1997). Professionalsfrom many fields concerned with ecosystem managementwill need to get involved in deer management. No otherarea of wildlife management will require more integrativethinking than that involved with crafting solutions to thedilemma of rising deer numbers and declining hunternumbers. Solving the dilemma likely will require bringingtogether an array of disciplines such as sociology, socialpsychology, economics, education, city and regional plan-ning, communication, and wildlife ecology.

Acknowledgements

E. Kautz provided deer harvest data from New York StateDepartment of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) records.K. Sullivan compiled and entered harvest data, and A. Moen

RILEY ET AL.: DEER UP, HUNTERS DOWN

460

conducted reconstruction modeling of white-tailed deer popula-tions. Members of the NYSDEC deer management team con-tributed to the early discussions that were the genesis of thispaper, and team members provided valuable critiques of meth-ods and interpretation of results. Staff in the Human DimensionsResearch Unit at Cornell University provided support in admin-istration of hunter surveys. W. Moritz and two anonymousreviewers improved the manuscript with their suggestions.Preparation of this paper was supported in part by the CornellUniversity Agricultural Experiment Station through Hatch ProjectNYC 147-403 and by the Michigan State University AgriculturalExperiment Station through state project MICL02031.

Literature cited

Alerich, C. L. & D. A. Drake, 1995. Forest statistics for NewYork: 1980 and 1993. U.S. Department of AgricultureForest Service, Northeast Forest Experiment Station,Resource Bulletin NE-132, Radnor, Pennsylvania.

Alverson, W. S., D. M. Waller & S. I. Solheim, 1988. Foreststoo deer: Edge effects in northern Wisconsin. ConservationBiology, 2: 348-358.

Bartelt, G., J. Pardee & K. Thiede, 2003. Environmental impactstatement on rules to eradicate chronic wasting disease inWisconsin’s free-ranging white-tailed deer herd. WisconsinDepartment of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin.

Brown, T. L., D. J. Decker, S. J. Riley, J. W. Enck, T. B.Lauber & G. F. Mattfeld, 2000. The future of hunting as amechanism to control white-tailed deer populations. WildlifeSociety Bulletin, 28: 797-807.

Carpenter, L. H., 2000. Harvest management goals. Pages 192-213 in S. Demaris & P. R. Krausman (eds.). Ecology andManagement of Large Mammals in North America. PrenticeHall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Conover, M. R., 1997. Monetary and intangible valuation of deerin the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25: 298-305.

Corbet, G. B., 1984. A World List of Mammalian Species. 2nd

edition. British Museum of Natural History, London.Curtis, P. C., D. J. Decker, R. J. Stout, M. E. Richmond &

C.A. Loker, 1997. Human dimensions of contraception inwildlife management. Pages 247-255 in T. J. Kreeger (ed.).Contraception in Wildlife Management. U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Animal Plant Health Inspection ServiceTechnical Bulletin 1853, Washington, D.C.

Curtis, P. C., A. M. Moen, J. W. Enck, S. J. Riley, D. J.Decker & G. E. Mattfeld, 2000. Approaching the limits oftraditional hunter harvest for managing white-tailed deer pop-ulations at the landscape level. Human Dimensions ResearchUnit Publication 00-04, Department of Natural Resources,Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

Dann, S. L. & R. B. Peyton, 1996. Facing realities in recruit-ing, retaining and training consumptive fish and wildlifeusers. Pages 315-323 in Transactions of the Sixty-First NorthAmerican Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference,Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C.

deCalesta, D. S., 1994. Effects of white-tailed deer on song-birds within managed forests in Pennsylvania. Journal ofWildlife Management, 58: 711-718.

deCalesta, D. S. & S. L. Stout, 1997. Relative deer density andsustainability: A conceptual framework for integrating deermanagement with ecosystem management. Wildlife SocietyBulletin, 25: 252-258.

Decker, D. J., J. W. Enck & T. L. Brown, 1993. The future ofhunting – will we pass on the heritage? Proceedings of theSecond Annual Governor's Symposium on North AmericanHunting Heritage, Pierre, South Dakota.

Denney, R. N., 1978. Managing the harvest. Pages 395-408 inJ. L. Schmidt & D. L. Gilbert (eds.). Big Game of NorthAmerica: Ecology and Management. Stackpole, Harrisburg,Pennsylvania.

Dillman, D. A., 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The TotalDesign Method. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York.

Dolbeer, R. A, S. E. Wright & E. C. Cleary, 2000. Rankingthe hazard level of wildlife species to aviation. WildlifeSociety Bulletin, 28: 372-378.

Downing, R. L., 1980. Vital statistics of animal populations.Pages 247-267 in S. D. Schemnitz (ed.). WildlifeManagement Techniques Manual, 4th edition. The WildlifeSociety, Washington, D. C.

DuWors, E., M. Villeneuve, F. L. Filion, R. Reid, P.Bouchard, D. Legg, P Boxall, T. Williamson, A. Bath & S.Meis, 1999. The Importance of Nature to Canadians: SurveyHighlights. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Enck, J. W., D. J. Decker & T. L. Brown, 2000. Status ofhunter recruitment and retention in the United States.Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28: 817-824.

Frawley, B. J., 2002. Michigan deer harvest survey report:2001 season. Michigan Department of Natural ResourcesWildlife Report Number 3371, Lansing, Michigan.

Healy, W. M., 1997. Influence of deer on the structure andcomposition of oak forests in central Massachusetts. Pages224-248 in W. J. McShea, H. B. Underwood & J. H.Rappole (eds.). The Science of Overabundance: DeerEcology and Population Management. SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, D.C.

Kautz, E. J., 1995. Factors affecting deer management permitsuccess in New York. Transactions of the Northeast Sectionof the Wildlife Society, 52: 59-69.

Kilpatrick, H. J., S. M. Spohr & G. G. Chasko, 1997. A con-trolled deer hunt on a state-owned coastal reserve inConnecticut: Controversies, strategies, and results. WildlifeSociety Bulletin, 25: 451-456.

McCabe, T. R. & R. E. McCabe, 1997. Recounting whitetailspast. Pages 11-26 in W. J. McShea, H. B. Underwood & J.H. Rappole (eds.). The Science of Overabundance: DeerEcology and Population Management. SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, D.C.

McNab, W. H. & P. E. Avers, 1994. Ecological subregions ofthe United States: Section descriptions. U.S. Department ofAgriculture Forest Service, Ecosystem Management, ReportWO-WSA-5, Washington, D.C.

McShea, W. J., H. B. Underwood & J. H. Rappole, 1997.Deer management and the concept of overabundance. Pages1-7 in W. J. McShea, H. B. Underwood & J. H. Rappole(eds.). The Science of Overabundance: Deer Ecology andPopulation Management. Smithsonian Institution,Washington, D.C.

Moen, A. N., C. W. Severinghaus & R. A. Moen, 1986. DeerCAMP: Computer-Assisted Management Program.CornerBrook Press, Lansing, New York.

Ostfield, R. S., C. G. Jones & J. O. Wolff, 1996. Of mice andmast: Ecological connections in eastern deciduous forests.Bioscience, 46: 323-330.

Riley, S. J., D. J. Decker, L. H Carpenter, J. F. Organ, W. F.Siemer, G. F. Mattfeld & G. Parsons, 2002. The essence ofwildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 30: 585-593.

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

Severinghaus, C. W. & A. N. Moen, 1983. Prediction ofweight and reproductive rates of a white-tailed deer popula-tion from records of antler beam diameter among yearlingmales. New York Fish and Game Journal, 30: 30-38.

ÉCOSCIENCE, VOL. 10 (4), 2003

461

Stedman, R. C. & T. A. Heberlein, 2001. Hunting and ruralsocialization: Contingent effects of the rural setting on hunt-ing participation. Rural Sociology, 66: 599-617.

Stout, R. J., D. J. Decker, B. A. Knuth, J. C. Proud & D. H.Nelson, 1996. Comparison of three public-involvementapproaches for stakeholder input into deer management deci-sions: A case study. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 24: 312-317.

Tilghman, N. G., 1989. Impacts of white-tailed deer on forestregeneration in northwestern Pennsylvania. Journal ofWildlife Management, 53: 524-532.

Underwood, H. B. & W. F. Porter, 1991. Values and science:White-tailed deer management in eastern national parks.Pages 67–93 in Transactions of the 56th North AmericanWildlife and Natural Resources Conference, WildlifeManagement Institute, Washington, D.C.

Van Deelen, T. R. & D. R. Etter, 2003. Effort and the func-tional response of hunters. Human Dimensions of Wildlife,8: 97-108.

Waller, D. M. & W. S. Alverson, 1997. The white-tailed deer:A keystone herbivore. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25: 217-226.

Warren, R. J., 1997. The challenge of deer overabundance inthe 21st century. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25: 213-214.

Woolf, A. & J. L. Roseberry, 1998. Deer management: Ourprofession’s symbol of success or failure? Wildlife SocietyBulletin, 26: 515-521.

Wright, B. A., R. A. Kaiser & N. D. Emerald, 2001. A nation-al trend assessment of hunter access problems: Perceptions ofstate wildlife administrators, 1984–1997. Human Dimensionsof Wildlife, 6: 145-146.