[MAIPC] FW: Deer control in Howard County

Mon Nov 2 05:11:30 PST 2015

Yet in PA the Game Commission in their wisdom is intent on making as much deer habitat as they can.  Their official seal contains the words "No tree left standing, No spring left flowing, No animal left unhunted".
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 11/1/15, Imlay, Marc <Marc.Imlay at pgparks.com> wrote:

 Subject: [MAIPC] FW: Deer control in Howard County
 To: "maipc at lists.maipc.org" <maipc at lists.maipc.org>
 Date: Sunday, November 1, 2015, 7:28 AM

 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
 cell  ialm at erols.com

 Natural and Historical
 Resources Division

 The  Maryland-National   Capital  
 Park  and Planning Commission

 www.pgparks.com  

 From: Ellis, Michael

 Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2015 6:25 AM

 To: kgmerger <kgmerger at verizon.net>;
 Imlay, Marc <Marc.Imlay at pgparks.com>;
 'ipetrus1 at verizon.net' <ipetrus1 at verizon.net>

 Cc: 'sgagne at erols.com' <sgagne at erols.com>;
 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 

 240-429-5042 

 From: Imlay, Marc

 Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2015 6:03 AM

 To: 'ipetrus1 at verizon.net' <ipetrus1 at verizon.net>;
 'kgmerger' <kgmerger at verizon.net>

 Cc: Ellis, Michael <Michael.Ellis at pgparks.com>;
 'sgagne at erols.com' <sgagne at erols.com>;
 'bb22 at cornell.edu' <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>;
 Marc Imlay <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. 

 -----Inline Attachment Follows-----

 _______________________________________________
 MAIPC mailing list
 MAIPC at lists.maipc.org
 http://lists.maipc.org/listinfo.cgi/maipc-maipc.org