Antler Points

To the motorist that has just hit a deer on the road, the death of the deer may not be of first concern. Top priority thoughts may be for the damage to the car and safety of everyone inside the car. Nevertheless, the problem of deer-auto strikes is serious and it affects the deer herds and the net benefits potential from the overall deer resource.

Of course, deer do not read the "crossing" signs, but there are known crossings and these signs are placed where deer-auto strikes have occurred. R* Deer staff have studied the problem and a 11-part strategy is recommended for reducing the problem. (It can only be reduced, it will not be solved.) No one tactic in the following list will work; a comprehensive strategy is needed:

1. WORRY - We have to get the information out about the magnitude of the problem and it needs to be separated for:
   • deer loss
   • vehicle strikes
   • cost of repair
   • human injury
   • human life lost
   • trends in the above
   • probabilities of the above
2. BALANCE - We need to keep the managerial action and associated costs and time spent in balance with the problem and "level of worry."
3. HERD SIZE - It is not yet clear that accident rates (A) (#1 above) are a function of herd size. We need to assess this as one variable (S) in a model of human population (P), road speed (R), number of vehicles(V), and preventative or control devices (D), all with a time of day and season dimension. Thus, the equation for analysis is:

   A = a + bS + cP + dR + eV - fD

   It is likely that all of these factors influence accident rates or measures (the list in #1). Analysis of this equation will provide guidance on where time and money should be spent to minimize the sum of the weighted items in #1.

4. FORAGING - At least on public lands and rights-of-way, vegetation unattractive to, seldom used by, or repellent to deer may be used. This tactic is to reduce the deer moving within a desirable area into the path of a vehicle. This is not a "crossing" problem or a deer-on-a-path problem. It is not desirable to provide attractant forage or fawning areas, or winter cover near major high-speed roadways.
5. SIGNS - Signs for motorists can be used, although they become functionless to people behind the wheel soon after they have been installed. Signs need to be combined with (1) road bumps to slow vehicles, (2) fences to narrow the zone within which deer do cross, and (3) changes to new shapes and forms of signs to alert motorists. Signs need to be removed where they appear to be useless and where deer no longer cross or present no hazards. Signs need to be unified with speed signs if information about a "crossing" will be used by drivers.
6. STRUCTURES - Highway underground crossings are rarely used and the costs are very high. The deer resource users will not gain status as "users of perceived social benefits" if, as users, they appear irrational in requesting expenditures of millions of dollars on the typical underpass for deer (or other wildlife). Alternatives within a complex strategy are needed. Appearing silly or unreasonable is not a good tactic.
7. DEVICES - The "proof" of the effectiveness of devices used to prevent deer-auto strikes is difficult to obtain. The strike is a rare event and variable. Devices do need study. Many of the following have been tried but few have been studied long enough or under different conditions to justify strong conclusions about their effectiveness. Examples are:
   • mirrors (4 inches x 4 inches) on posts at right angles to the line of vehicle travel cast vehicle lights into the area near a road. Light is believed to cause deer to stop movement
   • lights on the road activated by deer movement as they begin to cross
   • sounds from vehicles
   • timing devices to change speed limits and warning to motorists based on deer behavior
   • electronic fences to reduce crossings and narrow the zone where they do cross (related to #2 above)
   • deer will follow constructed trails. Use of narrow crossings can be thereby encouraged.
8. DOGS - Reduce dog-deer chases by enforcing leash laws.
9. SHOOTS - Studies show that deer are very localized. They remain within very narrow home ranges. Hunting very near highways is prohibited, however most hunting does occur within about 0.7 miles of all roads. Where deer-auto problems do occur, it will be feasible and likely necessary for deputized agents to remove deer in key, crisis areas adjacent to high-accident road stretches. These removals are not hunts, but "shoots" and equivalent to removal of dangerous animals under the safety/health/welfare provisions of current law. Safety, human work, and proper disposal of the animals are all elements of this professional work, a type of vertebrate pest damage management.
10. DISPOSAL - Information is needed for licensed drivers about what to do when a deer-auto strike occurs. This improves information, but it can also assure proper disposal of the deer carcass including proper use of all parts and some remuneration that may reduce the net loss. It also will clarify legal issues and prevent illegal claims for insurance or for game law violations.
11. DRIVER INSTRUCTION - There is little that a driver can do, but the emphasis in most activities of the R* System staff is that simultaneous use of many tactics, because of their positive relationships, will pay off. The driver can stick to the recommended speed in deer areas, slow down or stop if a deer is seen (their behavior is unpredictable), and dim the vehicle's bright lights.

This Web site is maintained by R. H. Giles, Jr.
Last revision January 17, 2000.