Overview
The title of the paper I will be reviewing is “Urban and Suburban Deer Management by State Wildlife-Conservation Agencies.” The primary reason this study was conducted is because of increasing populations of white-tailed deer in urban and suburban areas throughout the United States. Human-wildlife conflicts have increased as a result of this population growth, which has led to the implementation of various deer management strategies in urban areas. These strategies can either be lethal or nonlethal. Some examples of urban management strategies are bow hunting, firearm hunting, contraception, sharpshooting, trap-and-relocate, and trap-and-kill. There are significant amounts of data available regarding public opinion of various deer management methods in urban areas. However, there has been little effort to understand the management techniques that are preferred by wildlife biologists at state agencies. This study focused on two primary goals. The first of these was to determine what deer management techniques are currently being used by state conservation agencies, their perceived efficacy, and their legality. The second goal was to identify possible drivers for differences in opinions between deer biologists and the general public.
Methods
The primary method of data collection used in this study was an online survey that was provided to deer biologists who worked at state wildlife agencies. The survey was sent to 41 different state agencies, and 34 of these agencies provided a response. The survey included 10 questions to be answered by deer biologists. These questions mainly focused on the management techniques currently being used in each state, their level of effectiveness, reasons for managing deer populations, and the legality of management techniques.
Results
The results from this survey were informative for providing answers to the questions being answered by this study. The majority of states indicated that their urban/suburban deer populations were increasing, and the majority of deer biologists believed that urban/suburban deer populations were an issue in their state. One interesting finding was that 64.7% of deer biologists have not done any surveys of local communities regarding their opinions on urban/suburban deer management. The most popular and effective management techniques according to deer biologists were archery hunts, sharpshooting, and firearm hunts. The least popular methods according to deer biologists were trap-and-kill, contraception, sterilization, and trap-and-relocate. The legality of the previously mentioned methods is an influential factor for determining how much they are used in certain states. The vast majority of deer biologists indicated that the primary reasons for management of urban/suburban deer populations were deer-vehicle collisions and damage to gardens. Other popular reasons for management were native vegetation damage and agricultural damage due to deer populations. Additionally, 88.2% of states concluded that the current management of urban/suburban deer populations in their state was effective.
Critiques/Reflection
This study was able to collect valuable information regarding the opinions of deer biologists on managing urban/suburban deer populations. Although deer biologists and the public commonly agree on the reasons for managing these deer populations (car collisions and garden damage), they have not been able to reach a consensus on the methods that should be implemented. The public is typically not heavily involved with decision making regarding urban deer management policies. This was shown in the survey results since 64.7% of state deer biologists have not made the effort to survey communities about their opinions on deer management. This study could be improved by asking an additional question relating to public opinions. Instead of simply asking if public opinion surveys had been conducted in each state, the questionnaire should have also asked for the reasoning behind this decision. If the state agencies chose not to involve public opinion when making decisions on urban/suburban deer management, then it would be valuable to know why this was the case. There could be a variety of reasons (lack of funds, lack of public interest, inability to reflect public opinion in policies, etc.) for not surveying public opinions, but this study does not provide data to answer this question.
Another suggestion to improve this study could be to modify the methods used for data collection. Overall, there was a high response rate to the survey that was sent to the state wildlife agencies. Although many of the agencies responded to the survey, increasing the amount of data collected would increase the reliability of the study’s findings. This study chose to send the survey in an email and then send a reminder email two weeks after the first email was delivered. I believe that choosing to send the reminder email was a beneficial idea, however, I think that this could be improved. Instead of solely communicating with the wildlife agencies through email, I think that the researchers should have made phone calls to the state wildlife agencies that had not responded to the survey. The agencies could have overlooked the email, or they may not have been certain about the legitimacy of the survey. By making a phone call to the agency, the researchers could have made a more personal connection to the deer biologists who work there. This could have led to higher response rates to the survey, which would have led to larger amounts of data being available to analyze for the study.
Reference
Rachael E. Urbanek, et al. “Urban and Suburban Deer Management by State Wildlife-Conservation Agencies.” Wildlife Society Bulletin (2011-), vol. 35, no. 3, 2011, pp. 310–15. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/wildsocibull2011.35.3.310. Accessed 11 Sept. 2025.