Over the past 200 years, land-use changes
resulting from colonization and western expansion by European man have greatly
altered temperate forest communities in the eastern United States (McCabe
and McCabe 1984). Changes in harvest regulations, habitat conditions and
forage supply have allowed white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
to reoccupy most, if not all, of its former 19th century range. Since the
turn of this century, white-tailed deer numbers have increased dramatically.
Today, the geographical distribution of white-tailed deer is expanding into
urban and suburban areas where populations often are protected from harvest
due to hunting restriction (Witham and Jones 1987).
Large deer populations are a concern for
managers of natural areas, especially in the eastern United States (Warren
1991). In many instances, burgeoning deer populations are creating conflicts
with other resource management objectives (Porter 1992) including those
mandated by federal legislation (e.g., Endangered Species Act, National
Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, etc.,). This situation is further
complicated by the opinions of professionals and the public regarding the
management of deer in National Parks. Attitudes are polarized and range
from complete protection to population reduction through culling, hunter
harvest, or fertility control. Apparent differences in land-management values,
even among federal agencies, are not trivial, and will require constant
dialogue and a concerted, sincere effort to resolve (Underwood and Porter
1991).
Management guidelines and some alternatives
available to the National Park Service (NPS) are described in the Natural
Resources Management Policies (USDI 1988), but the efficacy of these proposed
alternatives is virtually unknown, and their palatability in today's socio-political
climate is untested. Differences in the pattern and complexity of habitats,
regional demographic characteristics of deer populations, and the size and
shape of individual park units make it difficult to predict precisely the
outcomes of even one management alternative applied to two locations. Replicated
large-scale experimentation is not feasible due to the lack of funding.
A better understanding of the responses of deer to resources on the landscape
mosaic is essential if managers are to be successful in achieving their
land management objectives.
To address the specific deer management concerns
of the NPS, we developed the Deer
Management Simulator (DMS); an interactive, simulation environment for
personal computers (Risenhoover et al. 1997). Our primary objective in the
development of this system was to provide wildlife biologists and natural
resource managers with an interactive tool that could assist them in making
difficult management desicions regarding overabundant deer populations.
We anticipated that results from simulations would provide useful information
about potential deer population responses to a set of management alternatives.
The DMS permits users to integrate available Geographic Information System
(GIS) databases for their specific management unit with data pertaining
to the local deer population. As a result, managers gain a better appreciation
of how the composition and spatial arrangement of habitats influence the
seasonal movements and dispersion of deer across the landscape.
Literature Cited
McCabe, R.E. and T.R. McCabe 1984. Of slings and arrows: an historical retrospection. Pages 19-72 in: L.K. Halls (ed.), White-tailed deer: ecology and management. Stackpole, Harrisburg, Penn., USA.
Porter, W.F. 1992. Burgeoning ungulate populations on National Parks: is intervention necessary? Pages 304-312 in: (D.R. McCullough and R. H. Barrett, eds.), Wildlife 2001: Populations. Elsevier Applied Science, New York, USA.
Risenhoover, K.L., H.B. Underwood, W. Yan, and J.L. Cooke. 1997. A spatially-explicit modelling environment for evaluating deer management strategies. Pages 366-379 in: (W.J. McShea, H.B. Underwood, and J. Rappole, eds.), The science of overabundance: deer ecology and population management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Underwood, H.B. and W.F. Porter 1991. Values and science: white-tailed deer management in eastern national parks. Pages 67-73 in: Transactions 56th North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
U.S. Department of Interior 1988. Natural resource management. Pages 5-7 in: U.S. National Park Service, Management Policies. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA.
Warren, R.J. 1991. Ecological justification for controlling deer populations in eastern national parks. Pages 56-66 in: Transactions 56th North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Witham, J.H. and J.M. Jones 1987. Deer-human interactions and research in the Chicago metropolitan area. Pages 155-159 in (L.W. Adams and D.L. Leedy, eds.), Proceedings National Symposium on Urban Wildlife. National Instutute of Urban Wildlife, Columbia, Maryland, USA.
Return to: