[MAIPC] FW: Deer control in Howard County

Sun Nov 1 04:28:56 PST 2015

A dramatic reason to control our deer to a natural density.

At the 200 acre Swann Park in Charles County, MD I have found vast uncontrollable mono-cultures of Japanese Stilt grass where the deer are out of control but very small amounts that we remove each year where the deer are much less, as evident by excellent biological diversity of native plants. No Japanese barberry and about 20 % of the protected area is thick underbrush of greenbrier and blackberry.

Marc Imlay, PhD, Chair, Biological control working Group
Conservation biologist, Park Ranger Office, Non-native Invasive Plant Control coordinator.
(301) 442-5657<blocked::blocked::tel:(301)%20442-5657> cell  ialm at erols.com<blocked::blocked::mailto:ialm at erols.com>
Natural and Historical Resources Division
The  Maryland-National   Capital   Park  and Planning Commission
www.pgparks.com<http://www.pgparks.com/>

From: Ellis, Michael
Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2015 6:25 AM
To: kgmerger <kgmerger at verizon.net<mailto:kgmerger at verizon.net>>; Imlay, Marc <Marc.Imlay at pgparks.com<mailto:Marc.Imlay at pgparks.com>>; 'ipetrus1 at verizon.net' <ipetrus1 at verizon.net<mailto:ipetrus1 at verizon.net>>
Cc: 'sgagne at erols.com' <sgagne at erols.com<mailto:sgagne at erols.com>>; bb22 at cornell.edu<mailto:bb22 at cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: FW: Deer control in Howard County

>From what I've seen hiking through MPEA, Stiltgrass and Wavyleaf are very well established in this park but have a harder time forming vast monocultures because of thick underbrush of greenbrier, rubus, and unfortunately a very bad Japanese barberry problem.  I was however told that there are several acres of the park absolutely dominated by Wavyleaf and Stiltgrass that they are unable to control, it's possible there are more deer in that section of the park.

They pull out and spray as much Wavyleaf as they can in the summer but they stop working on it by the end of August, afraid they will spread seeds. When I was there in October the Wavyleaf with seeds were all over the trails along with the Stiltgrass.

I was impressed however with vast thick brier patches which were dense enough to limit the access of deer to some sections of the park, further protecting native plant diversity.
Michael Ellis
Non-Native Invasive Plant Specialist
Natural and Historical Resources Division, Park Ranger Office
The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
www.pgparks.com<http://www.pgparks.com>

240-429-5042<tel:240-429-5042>

From: Imlay, Marc
Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2015 6:03 AM
To: 'ipetrus1 at verizon.net' <ipetrus1 at verizon.net<mailto:ipetrus1 at verizon.net>>; 'kgmerger' <kgmerger at verizon.net<mailto:kgmerger at verizon.net>>
Cc: Ellis, Michael <Michael.Ellis at pgparks.com<mailto:Michael.Ellis at pgparks.com>>; 'sgagne at erols.com' <sgagne at erols.com<mailto:sgagne at erols.com>>; 'bb22 at cornell.edu' <bb22 at cornell.edu<mailto:bb22 at cornell.edu>>
Subject: FW: Deer control in Howard County

Hi John Peter and Aylene,

Studies by Cornell University found sites where Japanese Stilt grass went away within deer exclosures. The question is what would happen with a natural density of deer with managed hunts. At the 1,000 acre MPEA park with a current natural density of 20 deer/square mile how is the stilt grass doing? Cheers

Marc

The "experimental" managed hunt proposed to the MPEF differed in many respects from the traditional hunting regulations followed by MD DNR. Its purpose was not recreational, designed with hunter satisfaction its foremost concern, but management with the frank aim of taking out enough deer to seriously reduce their number. Moreover, the area to be hunted was so imbedded in a residential area that exceptional safety precautions had to be taken and residents' safety concerns assuaged. These two principles guided the hunt protocols.

*          Schedule outside the regular deer season, so as to recruit a sufficient hunter pool by not restricting their opportunities elsewhere.
*          Deer taken not to be counted against hunter's seasonal limit
*          Two antlerless deer to be taken before every antlered deer taken, and no restriction on the number of antlerless deer. (Recall the distinction between "antlerless" and "does" above).
*          All shots to be fired from deer stands, minimum height of 10', hunters wearing safety harness, and all shots aimed downward.
*          Safety zone 150 yards from park perimeter, rather than from "occupied buildings".
*          All wounded deer to be tracked to ensure kill.
*          Hunters to be widely spaced at a density of one per 30 acres, at fixed positions.
*          An official Hunt Coordinator present with authority to oversee the placement of hunters within the site.
*          Rigorous screening of applicants, held to stricter standards than those sufficient  for a hunting license.

As required for all deer hunting in Maryland, firearms were limited to shotguns firing slugs, whose range is about 200 yards.

This was not the first managed hunt to take place in the eastern United States. Others similar had taken place in Missouri in 19895; Ohio in 19936; Gettysburg National Park in 19957; Groton Long  Point CT in 19968, Bluff Point CT in 1990 and 19969, each containing most of the elements of the MPEA hunt but none all of them.

While numbers vary from day to day, and the FLIR survey no doubt misses some animals present, it appears safe to say that the deer density at MPEA has now approached the target level of 20 deer per square mile. The annual harvest goal to maintain this density required only 5 hunt days this past season. This is a remarkable achievement after 9 years of concerted well-planned management.

Today the MPEA exhibits no obvious signs of the vegetative depredation so prominent ten years ago.  No browse line is evident anywhere in the park. A more rigorous comparison with the pre-deer overabundance conditions awaits a repeat of quantitative vegetative surveys such as were made in 1971 and 1992. Equally valuable would be a resumption of the Breeding Bird Censuses on the site that were discontinued in 1993.

From: Frederick Fallon [mailto:fwfallon at ymail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 9:31 PM
To: Sally Gagne <sgagne at erols.com<mailto:sgagne at erols.com>>; Marc Imlay <ialm at erols.com<mailto:ialm at erols.com>>
Subject: Deer control in Howard County

Sally, Marc -

Attached is my history of Howard County's deer control project. It was written at the behest of the Middle Patuxent Environmental Area Advisory Committee, and - bear in mind- some 10 years ago. A lot of historical background is included, maybe not a propos to your focus on the subject, but I think that that may lend some interest and color. In any case, here it is attached, in WP. Thanks for asking!

Fred Fallon
Huntingtown MD

________________________________

________________________________

________________________________

________________________________
5. Hansen, L.P., J. Berringer, "Managed hunts to control White-tailed deer populations on urban public areas in Missouri", in Ref B: 484-487.

6. Shafer-Nolan, A.L., "The science and politics of deer overabundance at Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area, Ohio", in Ref B: 457-461.
7. Frost, H.C., G.I. Storm, M.J. Bacheller, M.J. Lovallo, "White-tailed Deer Management at Gettysburg National Military Park", in Ref.B: 462-469.
8. Kilpatrick, H.J., W.D. Walter, "Urban deer management: A community vote", in Ref B: 388-391.
9. Kilpatrick, H.J., S.M. Shelley, G.G. Chasko, "A controlled Deer Hunt on a state-owned coastal reserve in CT: controversies, strategies, and results", in Ref B: 451-456.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.maipc.org/pipermail/maipc-maipc.org/attachments/20151101/4f1840b6/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Howard County Dear MPEApaper.wpd.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 8369214 bytes
Desc: Howard County Dear MPEApaper.wpd.doc
URL: <http://lists.maipc.org/pipermail/maipc-maipc.org/attachments/20151101/4f1840b6/attachment-0001.doc>