Questionnaire: Assessing Deer Impact in NPS Units in the Northeastern U.S.
Preliminary Results--April 1, 2004

To understand NPS resource managers’ perspectives on deer issues throughout the northeastern U.S., representatives from park service units were asked to respond to a brief questionnaire on the project website (http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/research/deerinparks/projects/questionnaire.asp). The request was distributed via e-mail by Chief Regional Scientists to representative resource managers from all parks in the Northeast and National Capital Regions with the potential for deer interactions. Between February 21 and March 25, 2004, 44 rangers, biologists, natural resource managers/specialists, superintendents, and others representing 49 NPS units in the northeastern U.S. responded. Respondents were not asked to provide official park position statements based on data, thus responses are considered to reflect only opinions of the individual responding.

Level of Current Deer Concern

Preliminary results reveal that many NPS units (N=32, or 73%) have current deer concerns and are at various stages of taking action related to these concerns. While relatively few parks are currently planning and taking action, a large number (N=10) are collecting data and are poised for future action planning.

Level of current action (N=32)	Park
Some Concern (N=5)	Acadia NP
	Colonial NHP
	National Capital Parks-East
	Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River
	George Washington Bithplace NM & Thomas Stone NHS
Concern (N=6)	Hampton NHS & Fort McHenry NM&HS
	Hopewell Furnace NHS
	Minute Man NHP
	New River Gorge NR
	Vanderbilt Mansion NHS & Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt NHS
	Fort Necessity NB & Friendship Hill NHS
Defining Issues (N=5)	Cape Cod NS
	Catoctin Mountain Park
	Fire Island NS
	Prince William Forest Park
	Delaware Water Gap NRA
Collecting Data (N=10)	Antietam NB
	Assateague Island NS
	Chesapeake and Ohio Canal NHP
	George Washington Memorial Parkway
	Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller NHP
	Manassas NBP
	Monocacy NB
	Saratoga NHP
	Shenandoah NP
	Harpers Ferry NHP
Planning Action (N=4)	Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania NMP
	Morristown NHP
	Rock Creek Park
	Valley Forge NHP
Taking Action (N=2)	Weir Farm NHS
	Booker T. Washington NM

For parks without current deer concerns, the majority did not feel future concerns were likely.

Future concern likely? (N=12)	Park
NO (N=10)	Allegheny Portage Railroad NHS
	Appomattox Court House NHP
	Gateway NRA
	Johnstown Flood NM
	Petersburg NB
	Saint-Gaudens NHS
	Sagamore Hill NHS
	Saugus Iron Works NHS
	President's Park (White House)
	Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts
YES (N=2)	Richmond NBP
	Gettysburg NMP & Eisenhower NHS

Note: Gettysburg/Eisenhower considered themselves to have no current deer concerns rather than to be taking action because the deer counts have decreased so dramatically, although they do mention that they continue to actively manage the deer population.

Click here to see these results in map format.

Sources of Deer Concern

Sources of concern almost universally included personal observation, while data collection and reading literature on deer were also important factors. Complaints from local community members were noted as sources for almost 2/3 of the parks with current concerns. Other sources of concern included: researchers (4), deer-vehicle collisions (2), farmers (2), other park staff, animal rights groups, and other.

Impact of Deer on Park Resources

Deer were seen to have negative impact primarily on natural and cultural resources, but again relationship with local communities was listed as a large concern. Other negative impacts included: relationships with farmers, living history farm experience, and park reputation as resource stewards.

Impact of Deer on Park Management Objectives

Twenty-four parks reported that their management objectives were impeded by deer, 7 did not consider deer an impediment, and 1 did not respond. The majority of responses focused on specific aspects of natural and cultural resource stewardship. Responses referring to specific objectives and planning documents were varied and included the following:

References to planning documents:

4 Draft General Management Plan
4 General Management Plan
3 Cultural Landscape Report
2 Strategic Management Plan
2 Resource Management Plan
2 Treatment Plan
2 EIS
1 Natural Resource Plan
1 Preservation Maintenance Plan
1 Plan for Rehabilitation of the Formal Gardens
1 Government Performance Results Act Goals Ib01, Iad, Ia2x

References to specific threats:

4 Protecting and maintaining natural and cultural resources
4 Ecological processes for forest regeneration
3 Forest structure and species composition (plant and animal)
3 Rare plants and communities
3 Invasive plant management
2 Preservation and maintenance of historically significant natural resource areas
1 Soil erosion
1 Implementation of forest management practices that demonstrate sound stewardship

5 Cultural landscapes (GPRA goal Ia7)
2 Agrarian landscapes
2 Landscape plantings (ornamental and other)
2 Safe motoring
1 Maintenance of mansion grounds
1 Collaboration aimed at reducing agricultural damage
1 Interpreting park’s significance (natural and cultural) in a severely degraded environment

Other general comments

Some respondents mentioned the idea of exploring public deer hunting in national parks as a management tool, and others felt that managers need to take a proactive approach to deer management to minimize harm to park resources.

Many expressed frustration at the amount of time it takes to reach a decision and implement management measures, noting not only their own frustration but also that of volunteers and others who collaborate with parks. Both the amount of time spent on data collection and the amount of time needed to implement management actions based on recommendations from the data were cited.

Some respondents indicated that they needed more support from the Region (including funding, support of park-specific deer research, and technical assistance for writing an EIS) for implementing population management or control strategies.

Most believed that deer concerns were not likely to go away, and some seemed particularly enthusiastic about the opportunity to participate in discussion of the issue.

Many, many anecdotal reports of natural and cultural resource degradation were described, and sightings of piebald specimens were reported in this context.

Conclusion

Deer issues in northeastern NPS units are clearly variable and widespread. While resource management planning documents and threats to natural and cultural resources were primarily cited as evidence of impeded park objectives, relationship with local communities was also a notable source of concern and negative impact. The recently revised NEPA procedures and Director’s Order #75A, which stress increased public involvement, cooperative problem-solving, and consensus-based management are likely to become important in future planning for white-tailed deer management.