AD HOC DEER COMMITTEE

There are a number of reasons the committee supposed residents may be concerned about the abundance of deer. As a committee, we discussed the following and came up with common-sense recommendations for addressing these concerns.

1. Threat of Lyme disease (LD) posed by ticks which can transmit the LD bacterium
   1. This is not a deer-specific issue because deer are incompetent hosts (they cannot harbor the Lyme-causing bacterium and cannot pass it on to uninfected ticks). In fact, there is some evidence to suggest a lower density of deer may increase the Lyme risk for humans.
   2. Still, it is important for residents to be vigilant during and after outside time where they may be exposed to ticks.
   3. People should be educated about:
      1. Tick identification (black-legged ticks are Lyme carriers)
      2. When to remove (<24 hours after bite)
      3. How to remove
      4. Testing resources (Tick Research Lab of PA offers free testing of the tick for PA residents)
2. Undesired browsing of grasses, trees, and shrubs by WTD
   1. While no plant is deer-proof, there are alternatives which are less palatable commonly available at local nurseries
   2. Native plants tend to be more resistant to browsing and better able to recover after being browsed
   3. There are many repellants on the market which with varying degrees of efficacy
   4. Fencing can be an option for young or valued plantings
      1. Around individual plants (tree guards), or larger ones for garden beds or full yards
   5. Hazing can be effective, but consistency is important
   6. Adjusting expectations is critical, as deer are a natural part of our landscape.
3. Vehicle-WTD collisions resulting in personal injury and property damage
   1. Encouraging safe driving practices is the best solution
   2. Reduce visual barriers along roadways by cutting back vegetation
   3. Use speed control devices where necessary
   4. Signage can help, but it requires data about common wildlife crossing areas
   5. Set up a reporting system for typically unreported incidents
4. People may be tempted to feed deer
   1. Feeding wildlife is never a good idea
      1. it increases disease transmission between animals and from animals to humans
      2. it habituates animals to humans, making other control efforts more difficult
      3. it can disrupt a deer’s gut microbiome and make natural foods less nutritious, ultimately subjecting them to starvation
   2. Creating an ordinance prohibiting any intentional feeding of deer
   3. Share information about the harms of feeding deer
5. Deer may limit the ability of natural plant communities (i.e., forests) to sustain and regenerate
   1. While this is definitely a long-term issue state-wide, it is more of a concern for park and natural area managers than for homeowners.

Public education is a critical component of resolving any wildlife-human conflict. As such, we make the following broad recommendations:

1. Use of social media/public forums
   1. Develop strategies to present residents with pertinent information on means of repelling, preventing, and coping with deer in the community
   2. The main goal of these would be to increase community awareness/participation. If more people are participating, hopefully the problem (or their perception of the problem) decreases.
2. Use of workshops/presentations
   1. Refer to Section 1. Items a and b
   2. Possibilities include state biologists, master gardeners, health professionals, environmental engineers, landscapers, etc.
3. Cultivating Partnerships
   1. Work with local garden clubs to help push a native/deer resistant planting agenda
   2. Work with local/state agencies (e.g., PA Game Commission) to create a professional relationship

Finally, the issue with deer in our community is ultimately a people issue. The cultural carrying capacity is the abundance or density of deer a community is willing to tolerate. In Churchill, this is a far more important metric than the actual abundance or the ecological carrying capacity (the number of deer the available habitat can support). Without knowing if there is a consensus among Churchill residents on whether deer are a major concern and what an acceptable abundance of deer is, it is impossible to establish a sound deer management program or even set deer population goals that will be acceptable for residents. Hence, the first step in most established and successful deer management programs—even before assessing the deer population—is to survey residents. We acknowledge the difficulty in collecting survey information. However, without broad data on resident opinions a management program will be unlikely to meet the borough’s needs, and at worst will waste valuable borough resources.