- Joined
- Aug 25, 2001
- Messages
- 3,765
- City & State/Province
- Pamelot, TN, Ghost Ranch, MT, Palmilla, Los Cabos
A six-year research project on feeding deer during the winter indicates that feeding is rarely a good long-term solution.
Although feeding may have benefits as an occasional supplement, over time a regular winter feeding program has multiple negative impacts as well, according to the research led by Chris Peterson, now a wildlife biologist at Izembek National Wildlife. Peterson conducted the research from 2001-07 as a graduate student at Utah State University, collaring 101 female mule deer in Cache Valley and monitoring them several times a week. Peterson�s busy schedule at Izembek precluded her from participating in a telephone interview, so she responded to The Herald Journal via email.
�While winter-feeding programs may affect survival and productivity of mule deer, they also have impacts on deer behavior and habitat use,� Peterson said.
Those impacts included deer spending more time on winter range, thus increasing the impact on bitterbrush and potentially harming range conditions for future years. One surprise, according to USU professor Terry Messmer, who served on Peterson�s graduate committee, was that experts had believed feeding would pull deer away from roads and decrease deer-vehicle collisions. Instead, Messmer said, �the opposite occurred.�
�I was surprised at just how many DVCs there were,� Peterson agreed, noting that 34 percent of the deer that died during the study were killed by vehicles. �At the beginning of the study, I did not expect deer-vehicle-collision to be a major factor.�
Other cause of mortality were listed as malnourishment (33 percent), predation (4 percent), birthing problems (4 percent), poaching (2 percent) and age-related causes (5 percent). Approximately 19 percent of the deaths were unknown but not related to vehicle collisions.
Although feeding seemed to help the deer initially, over time it actually increased mortality in the study, which Messmer said is the first published experimental study that looked at long-term effects. The bottom line, Messmer said, is that winter feeding �cannot serve as a surrogate for habitat protection and restoration programs,� although Peterson noted that each location is unique and feeding may produce better results in some areas than others.
�Altogether this suggests that a general, wide-scale application of a winter-feeding program may not be efficient, but that each site should be considered individually, and monitored for outcome,� Peterson said.
The group also polled Utah residents, he said, and found that most people preferred habitat management over feeding. Controlling winter habitat is difficult on the Cache and along the Wasatch Front, where urban development has consumed much of what used to be winter range for big game.
Utah Division of Wildlife Services has opposed winter feeding in most cases, but has participated in some local feeding efforts that were spearheaded by sportsmen. Messmer predicted that �winter feeding of deer will likely remain popular among sportsmen, who generally prefer direct management approaches such as predator control and the propagation and releases of gamebirds ... because of the perception of a more immediate response in increasing game. The effect of indirect management approaches such as habitat management ... typically take longer to produce a positive population effect.�
Peterson said at the beginning �I really had no opinion about feeding mule deer,� and as she got deeper into the study she realized that whether or not feeding occurs has a lot to do with public opinion. Her goal was to develop a scientific basis on which to base decisions. The study was published in the Wildlife Society Bulletin.
�Working on this study magnified for me the need for really good, strong science, with support from all the stakeholders,� she said. �Our results should help both local hunters and DWR understand that a winter-feeding program for mule deer in northern Utah is not a cure-all. Additionally, there are other factors such as DVC that may have similar or even greater effect on the herd. These factors may be more �manageable�, i.e., slower speed limits in high risk DVC areas may result in a greater and longer term increase in survival of wintering mule deer, and may be a more obtainable goal than increased survival due to increased nutrition.�
Although feeding may have benefits as an occasional supplement, over time a regular winter feeding program has multiple negative impacts as well, according to the research led by Chris Peterson, now a wildlife biologist at Izembek National Wildlife. Peterson conducted the research from 2001-07 as a graduate student at Utah State University, collaring 101 female mule deer in Cache Valley and monitoring them several times a week. Peterson�s busy schedule at Izembek precluded her from participating in a telephone interview, so she responded to The Herald Journal via email.
�While winter-feeding programs may affect survival and productivity of mule deer, they also have impacts on deer behavior and habitat use,� Peterson said.
Those impacts included deer spending more time on winter range, thus increasing the impact on bitterbrush and potentially harming range conditions for future years. One surprise, according to USU professor Terry Messmer, who served on Peterson�s graduate committee, was that experts had believed feeding would pull deer away from roads and decrease deer-vehicle collisions. Instead, Messmer said, �the opposite occurred.�
�I was surprised at just how many DVCs there were,� Peterson agreed, noting that 34 percent of the deer that died during the study were killed by vehicles. �At the beginning of the study, I did not expect deer-vehicle-collision to be a major factor.�
Other cause of mortality were listed as malnourishment (33 percent), predation (4 percent), birthing problems (4 percent), poaching (2 percent) and age-related causes (5 percent). Approximately 19 percent of the deaths were unknown but not related to vehicle collisions.
Although feeding seemed to help the deer initially, over time it actually increased mortality in the study, which Messmer said is the first published experimental study that looked at long-term effects. The bottom line, Messmer said, is that winter feeding �cannot serve as a surrogate for habitat protection and restoration programs,� although Peterson noted that each location is unique and feeding may produce better results in some areas than others.
�Altogether this suggests that a general, wide-scale application of a winter-feeding program may not be efficient, but that each site should be considered individually, and monitored for outcome,� Peterson said.
The group also polled Utah residents, he said, and found that most people preferred habitat management over feeding. Controlling winter habitat is difficult on the Cache and along the Wasatch Front, where urban development has consumed much of what used to be winter range for big game.
Utah Division of Wildlife Services has opposed winter feeding in most cases, but has participated in some local feeding efforts that were spearheaded by sportsmen. Messmer predicted that �winter feeding of deer will likely remain popular among sportsmen, who generally prefer direct management approaches such as predator control and the propagation and releases of gamebirds ... because of the perception of a more immediate response in increasing game. The effect of indirect management approaches such as habitat management ... typically take longer to produce a positive population effect.�
Peterson said at the beginning �I really had no opinion about feeding mule deer,� and as she got deeper into the study she realized that whether or not feeding occurs has a lot to do with public opinion. Her goal was to develop a scientific basis on which to base decisions. The study was published in the Wildlife Society Bulletin.
�Working on this study magnified for me the need for really good, strong science, with support from all the stakeholders,� she said. �Our results should help both local hunters and DWR understand that a winter-feeding program for mule deer in northern Utah is not a cure-all. Additionally, there are other factors such as DVC that may have similar or even greater effect on the herd. These factors may be more �manageable�, i.e., slower speed limits in high risk DVC areas may result in a greater and longer term increase in survival of wintering mule deer, and may be a more obtainable goal than increased survival due to increased nutrition.�
