--Letting Nature Take its Course: Many homeowners and residents within Northern Virginia are satisfied with adjusting their lives to the overwhelming white-tail deer population. Homeowners have adjusted to living with the damage caused by the deer and have learned what not to plant in their yards. Letting nature take its course involves the cycling of the deer population. The deer population will undergo an eruptive phase that carries the population far above the biological carrying capacity. This is followed by eruptions of disease (EHD) and starvation, which causes the population to decline to about 15-25 percent of its peak level. This is not a suitable deer control method for Northern Virginia.
--Predator Reintroduction: Involves restoring native predators such as bobcats, black bears, eastern gray wolves, and eastern mountain lions. The reintroduction of predators in Northern Virginia is not a viable option. The lack of a suitable habitat for the predators, mobility of the predators, close proximity to humans, and potential for predators to kill non-target species make this method unsuitable.
--Life Capture and Relocation: Involves capturing deer alive and relocating them to more rural areas. Trained professionals used rocket nets, drop-door box traps, or tranquilizer guns to capture deer. The captured deer are then relocated to a suitable site. This deer control method has its faults as well. Capture and relocation costs $261-567 per deer. Often there are very few places to relocate the deer to due to increasing populations everywhere. The success rate of relocation is very slim. Experiments with live capture and relocation have led to high initial mortality (up to 85%) in relocated deer. This method is considered feasible for Northern Virginia.
--Managed Hunting: In areas where local laws permit, controlled public hunts may be used to attempt to control deer populations. Legal weapons may be restricted to shotguns or bow and arrow. Hunters may be required to pass safety and proficiency tests before they can participate in the hunt. Managed hunts have been cost effective in that revenue has exceeded costs. The costs are $83-237 per deer removed. Managed hunting is not necessarily efficient. The amount of deer may be reduced in the area where the hunt occurs, but it is inefficient in making a noticeable difference in the entire deer population.
--Archery Hunting: Archery has proven to be a more effective form of deer population management. Archers may hunt in residential areas where use of a firearm is too hazardous. Archers may buy out-of-season kill permits, allowing for year round deer control.
--Traditional Public Hunting: Traditional public hunting is not an effective form of deer control in Northern Virginia. It is not sufficient to address the problem of overpopulation because most hunters hunt for bucks in search of prize antlers. The increase in development and human population in Northern Virginia does not lead too much room for hunting.
--Sharpshooting Program: High-powered rifles with sound-suppressing devices to minimize noise are used by animal control personnel, police experts, or qualified and experienced volunteers. The current cost per deer removed from the population is $4.15. Benefits to the sharpshooting programs are that meat from the killed deer is donated to needy individuals or organizations. Again, this method allows for the amount of deer to be reduced in the area where the program exists, but it is inefficient in making a noticeable difference in the entire deer population. Sharpshooter should selectively remove females when they have a choice. Baiting of deer will attract more deer and add to the program’s efficiency and safety. It is important for sharpshooters to fire their weapon from an elevated location such that the bullet is fired in a downward trajectory and not fired sporadically.
--Trap and Kill: The trap and kill method can be used in areas where sharpshooting and hunting are not recommended. Deer are trapped using box traps or rocket nets and then killed by a head shot using a firearm or bolt gun. Darting with anesthetics may also be used to trap the deer. This leaves the meat unsuitable for human consumption. The trap and kill method allows for the release of non-targeted males. Researchers have determined that the trap and kill method puts more stress on the deer before its death and is therefore less humane. This method is a possibility for the heavily populated Northern Virginia community.
--Fertility Control: Fertility control in deer is not an effective control method for deer presently, but researchers believe it holds promise for the future. One of the problems with fertility control is marking deer that roam wild. It is hard to identify which deer has had the procedure done to and which has not. Steroidal/hormonal contraception (preventing conception) is very costly and difficult to implement. Immunocontraception holds more promise for the future. Contragestation (preventing gestation or pregnancy) is also a form of fertility control. A problem with fertility control is that control methods require annual retreatment of individual deer, which is very cost ineffective.
--Supplemental Feeding: This approach to deer control is designed to divert deer from landscape vegetation including gardens and yards. This method is not suitable for Northern Virginia. While supplemental feeding may improve the health of the deer population, it most certainly would drive the number of deer in Northern Virginia to higher levels.
--Scare Tactics: Sirens, lights, gas exploders, dogs, Deer Gard Super ADC, fireworks, gunfire.
--Repellents: Repellents are best suited for small orchards, gardens, and ornamentals. Repellents should be sprayed to a height of six feet and in good weather above freezing temperatures. They are generally costly and require frequent replenishment. They also have odors that may not be acceptable to humans. Types of repellent include:
--Big Game Repellent – Deer Away (37% putrescent egg solids)
--Hinder (Ammonium soaps of higher fatty acids)
--Thiram (7 – 42% tetramethylthiuram disulfide)
--Miller’s Hot Sauce Animal Repellent (2.5% capsaicin)
--Tankage (putrefied meat scraps)
--Ro-pel (benzyl diethyl [(2,6 xylylcarbomoyl) methyl] ammonium sacharide (0.065%) thymol (0.035%)
--Plant Pro-Tec (10% oil of garlic and 3% chili pepper)
--Hair Bags (Human hair)
--Bar Soap
--Fencing: Fencing is only minimally effective because deer have been noticed to leap even eight feet fences. Fencing is very costly. Types of fencing includes:
--Temporary Electric Fencing
--Invisible Electric Fencing
--Peanut Butter Fencing
--Polytape Fence
--Permanent High Tensile Fencing
--Offset or Double Fence
--Vertical Deer Fence
--Slanted Seven-Wire Deer Fence
--Permanent Woven-Wire Fencing
--Combination Fencing
When implenting a certain deer control program it is imperative that the views and ideals of all are kept in mind. Some people may choose to tolerate the damage done by deer in return for their natural beauty. Some people may understand the harmful economic effect and threat to personal safety that deer create. Either way the goal should be to maintain a healthy population of white-tail deer in Northern Virginia which are below the carrying capacity.