More communities are experiencing problems associated with overabundant white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) populations. Public acceptance of approaches for managing deer may differ within communities. Although hunting with firearms is a common practice used to manage deer populations, many suburban communities only allow bowhunting. Our objectives were to assess suburban homeowners and bowhunters acceptance of lethal and nonlethal deer management strategies. Additionally, we wanted to determine homeowner willingness to pay for deer management and how long they would be willing to wait for relief to address conflicts caused by deer overabundance. Most homeowners supported using lethal strategies to reduce and manage deer populations. Most homeowners were unaware of the cost (94%) or effectiveness (92%) of birth control agents to manage free‐ranging deer populations. Of lethal strategies, bowhunting was preferred. Establishment of a special crossbow season outside the existing archery season received the greatest support by bowhunters and was also acceptable to homeowners. As landscapes progressed from rural to more urban, hunting access, human‐wildlife conflicts, and homeowner willingness to pay for deer management decreased. Regardless of management strategy, most homeowners were willing to wait 3‐5 years to achieve a desired reduction in the deer population at no cost to them. As costs increased, homeowner willingness to wait decreased. Because exposure, tolerance of deer, and willingness to pay for management varies by landscapes, towns with diverse landscapes should consider developing regional rather than town‐wide plans to manage overabundant deer populations.

Harvest data often are used to model deer (Odocoileus sp.) population growth and evaluate harvest strategies. Understanding factors that may influence harvest‐reporting rates among methods of data collection is important in assessing the reliability of harvest data. Our objectives were to compare deer harvest‐reporting rates over a 3‐year period between mail‐in archery‐kill report cards (AKRC) and hunter surveys (HS) from the same group of bowhunters, assess the effects of harvest incentive programs, and evaluate factors influencing harvest‐reporting rates. Estimated deer harvest, based on the HS, was almost 2.5 times greater than estimated harvest from AKRC. Of hunters initially classified as unsuccessful because no AKRC were submitted, 61% reported harvesting a deer on the HS. The HS appeared to better reflect actual deer harvest, and AKRC were more representative of actual harvest when harvest incentives were provided. Hunters classified as “less active” reported harvesting more deer on the HS than on AKRC for only 1 of 3 years, while hunters classified as “more active” reported harvesting more deer on the HS than on AKRC for all 3 years. Harvest incentives such as “earn a buck” or “earn a trip” may increase harvest and harvest‐reporting rates. Hunters who spent much time hunting and harvested multiple deer in a season appeared to be more relaxed about reporting harvest on AKRC than hunters who spent less time hunting and harvested fewer deer. We concluded that harvest incentives will increase harvest‐reporting rates, especially in areas with high deer populations, and that caution should be used when evaluating effects of harvest incentive programs.

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) have adapted to, and are thriving in, residentialsuburban landscapes. Special hunts, sharpshooting programs, and fertility control efforts have been implemented in residential communities to reduce local deer populations. For these management strategies to be effective, it is important to understand deer movement and behavior patterns in suburban landscapes. Our objectives were to quantify annual and hunt-season home-range size, and evaluate the relationships between landscape characteristics, land-ownership patterns, and deer movements during the autumn hunting season. Much variation in home range size was observed for annual (15.5-173 ha) and hunt-season home range (16.8-120.7 ha) over the 2-yr study. Deer core areas were not characteristically different from home ranges with regards to forest lands or building density, but were different with regards to road density and property density. Deer use of core areas during the day was similar to, or higher than, deer use at night. Most individual properties in deer core areas were <2.8 ha. Under the current set-back distance for firearms hunting (152 m), 31% and 38% of deer had no portion of their home range potentially open to firearms hunting, and 69% and 81% had no portion of their core areas potentially open to firearms hunting in years 1 and 2. Percentage of forest in home range buffers decreased from 66% in year 1 (abundant acorns) to 46% in year 2 (moderate acorns) as deer shifted into residential development. Findings from our study emphasize the value of conducting multiyear studies and incorporating other variables such as mast abundance to improve interpretation of landscape models. The close association of deer core areas with roads suggests that sharpshooting programs that bait and shoot deer from roads may be an effective management option. In suburban landscapes, deer core areas are comprised of many different landowners, limiting hunter access and mobility to deer core areas. No-hunt buffers around buildings should be reduced to levels that increase hunter access to deer core areas, yet maintain reasonable safety zones. ß 2011 The Wildlife Society.KEY WORDS home range, hunt season, land-ownership patterns, landscapes, Odocoileus virginianus, white-tailed deer.

Firearms hunting often is limited as a deer (Odocoileus spp.) management tool in urban and suburban areas due to firearms discharge ordinances, restrictive hunting laws, or public perception about firearms safety. Many states use bowhunters to manage overabundant deer populations in urban‐suburban areas. Little information exists on the effectiveness of bowhunting as a deer management tool in developed areas. Our objectives were to evaluate the potential for bowhunting to manage deer populations in urban‐suburban areas and identify important variables influencing hunt effectiveness. We estimated deer population size and herd composition using aerial deer surveys and spotlight counts. Nonhunting mortality was determined from radiotelemetry data. We mailed a 9‐page survey to bowhunters who hunted in a residential community with high deer densities to determine harvest rates, hunter success rates, willingness to harvest additional antlerless deer, and interest in employing aggressive deer management strategies. Of 159 surveys mailed, 71% were completed and returned. We conducted model simulations using Program STELLA® (High Performance Systems Inc., Lebanon, N.H.) to determine which management strategies would contribute most to stabilizing deer population growth. Sunday hunting provided 41% fewer hunting days, yet was more effective at reducing deer population growth than a January extension. Harvesting antlerless deer that hunters were passing up had the greatest relative effect in reducing deer population size. Incentive programs for hunters to harvest antlerless deer are needed. Combining multiple hunt strategies (i.e., January and Sunday hunting) may be more effective than implementing individual hunt strategies. A special crossbow season outside the existing archery season may be an effective deer management tool in urban areas.

Three wheat cultivars were grown at five seed levels in 15 experiments under rain-fed conditions in the central wheatbelt of Western Australia in the 1986, 1987 and 1988 seasons. Guthea (released in 1982, 87 cm tall) required less seed and fewer plants on average to achieve its maximum grain yield than either Gamenya (released in 1960, 82 cm) or Aroona (released in 1981, 73 cm). At sites where Gutha was best adapted its optimum population was 65 plants m-2, about half of the population required by the other two cultivars. At sites where Aroona was best adapted its optimum population was 110 plants m-2. Gutha produced larger ears, especially at small populations, but did not increase kernel numbers per m2 in response to increased populations as much as Aroona. It is suggested that when a new cultivar is released its optimum plant population should be assessed in the area for which it is recommended.