[simmran1]

Deer-Wildlife Nuisance & Damage Control

Nowhere do deer and man live closer and nowhere is man more affected by deer than on the farm. As much of our land is in farms, the farmer is important in the lives of deer. In turn, deer affect--for better or worse--the farmer and his crops.
Deer have fed on agricultural crops since the first settlers planted fields on their homesteads. In Colonial days deer populations were relatively sparse, farms were small, families were large and no part of the farm was left unattended for long. Damage by deer could ordinarily be controlled, and was offset by substituting venison for the lost crop. Today deer have adapted to the interspersed farm and woodland scene; herds are large, agricultural production is more complex, and deer damage to crops is both widespread and locally severe.
Recent surveys of natural resource managers and farmers defined the distribution and extent of deer damage to agriculture. Deer damage crops on 62 percent of Pennsylvania farms. Major losses occur in corn, forages, and small grains, all of which are grown commercially throughout the Commonwealth. Orchards, nurseries, and vegetables, grown in restricted areas, also are heavily damaged. The annual crop loss to deer is between 16 and 30 million dollars. Distributed evenly over all agricultural production, this represents a small proportion of total value. But the uneven distribution of damage caused by local herd size, proximity to forested deer range, and land use patterns that limit deer hunting, result in excessive losses for individual growers on a variety of crops.
The conflict created by costs to landowners and benefits to hunters and businesses is not helped by excessive numbers of deer and maturing forest growth. These forces lower the capacity of woodlands to support deer and increase the extent of feeding on high-value crops. This situation also results in excessive browsing on new growth within the forest.
Deer management programs aim to maintain the number of deer that can be supported by the range and to provide deer for recreational benefits. An ideally balanced deer herd would practically eliminate excessive and inequitable damage. But this objective is virtually unattainable because of deer distribution, interspersion of farms and woodland, and conflicting land use practices.
Control
Regulated hunting, under a flexible system that takes into account changes in range and deer numbers, strives to remove enough deer from the herds to approach a balance. Hunting decreases the risk of excessive damage, and extra hunting pressures should be encouraged where crop damage occurs on an excessive basis.
A comprehensive list of deer repellents was scientifically evaluated using captive deer at the Penn State Deer Research Facility. Included were both commercially-produced registered deer repellents and "home remedies" such as human hair, creosote, tankage and scented bar soap.

Chemical repellents have always been a popular method of keeping deer out of gardens, orchards, and other farm crops. Unfortunately, their effectiveness has not matched their enthusiastic use. While one grower reports success with a particular repellent, his neighbor has none; what seemed to work last year does not this year. Over the long run, the use of repellents has been time-consuming, labor intensive, and costly. Generally, repellent results have been poor.
(Deer-Away) has provided significant protection. Additional testing, under field conditions, is needed to fully evaluate its effectiveness before widespread use can be recommended. It is registered for use on fruit trees, nurseries, ornamentals, and conifer seedlings, all during the dormant season. Big Game Repellent cannot be used on food crops.
This does not mean that repellents won’t work in a particular deer presence. And certainly a bar of Irish Spring soap hanging from a string can be a cheap deterrent. However, some deer may be discouraged but others may not; variable deer numbers and feeding pressure will have an effect. An important factor is that repellent use is limited to specific crops, and most repellents cannot be used on food crops. For most agricultural deer damage in Pennsylvania, repellents are impractical because of high cost, limitations on use, and variable effectiveness.
Fencing
Eight-foot deer-proof fence. To effectively exclude deer, an 8-foot high barrier is needed, requiring 2 widths of 4-foot woven wire and 12-foot posts. Materials and construction costs for this deer-proof fence are prohibitive for most large areas. When constructing this fence, it is essential to keep the wire tight to ground level to prevent deer from crawling under.
Snow Fence. For small areas, such as garden plots, that require seasonal protection from deer damage, conventional snow fencing may be effective. For areas up to 40' by 60', it has been reported to work well, but when larger areas have been surrounded, deer have jumped over such fencing. Snow fencing is lower in cost than woven wire and lends itself to reuse for many seasons.
The Penn State 5-wire electric deer fence. This vertical fence was so named because it was developed as part of a Penn State research project funded by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, and to avoid confusion with other electric deer fence designs. The components, configuration, and construction differ from other electric fences. Growers now have a low-cost, effective alternative to the high-cost, 8-foot woven wire deer fence.
Deer behavior. Deer will usually try to go under or through a fence rather than jump it, even though this could easily be jumped with enough distance. Deer will typically be found trying to crawl through a 4-foot barbed wire fence rather than jump it.


Behavior Fencing
A newer fencing design study where wire is replaced with fishing line. Or in some cases string trimmer line. Where spacing and configuration of a 2-5-wire fence will be spread horizontally to posts, pillars or existing structures. The bottom string must be kept approximately 10 inches from the ground while the upper strings are spaced at 12-inch intervals, making the ‘fishing line’ fence 48 inches high.
The fishing line cannot be seen, but can be felt with proper layout and tautness. Usually a couple of heavy staples will suffice in keeping heavy fishing line in place. If you feel you must ‘tie off’ to a post, this has shown to work also.
Each straight length of line begins or ends at an end post, corner post, or gatepost, which are large in diameter, and set deep enough to be sturdy.
Fishing line posts can be metal and spaced 20-40 feet apart on level terrain where minimal lateral, upward or downward forces are expected. In curves, and on uneven terrain with dips and rises, more posts are needed to maintain the 10-inch bottom line spacing. Some of these posts may have to be larger and driven deeper to withstand the added tension stresses created. When laying out the line posts, it cannot be overemphasized to maintain the 10-inch spacing of the bottom wire of this fence. Results have shown, deer (at least in the control group) are resistant to the feel of something as small (and strong) as 30lb. fishing line, as seemingly not knowing what is above or below, they choose to turn and may walk parallel to the string for many yards or choose another route away from the protected area.
Forest Resources Extension, The Pennsylvania State University,
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pennsylvania Game Commission