Deer response to exclusion from stored cattle feed in Michigan, USA

Abstract

Disease and damage from white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) continually threaten the livelihood of agricultural producers and the economy in the United States, as well as challenge state and federal wildlife managers. Threats can be partially addressed by excluding free-ranging deer from livestock-related resources. Throughout the year, use of stored livestock feed by deer in northern Lower Michigan (MI), USA fluctuates, though their presence is relatively consistent. Since 2008, use of livestock areas and resources by deer has been reduced through intensive efforts by livestock producers in cooperation with state and federal agencies. These efforts focused on excluding deer from stored cattle feed in areas where deer were abundant. We monitored deer activity from Jan 2012 to June 2013 on 6 cattle farms in northern MI using GPS collars to evaluate behavioral effects of excluding deer from stored feed. We characterized areas deer occupied before and after installing 2361 m of fences and gates to exclude deer from stored cattle feed. Following fence installation, 9 deer previously accessing stored feed shifted to patterns of habitat use similar to 5 deer that did not use stored feed. However, continued attempts to regain access to stored feed were made at low frequencies, emphasizing the need to maintain the integrity of fences and keep gates closed for damage prevention and biosecurity.

Patterns of Cattle Farm Visitation by White-Tailed Deer in Relation to Risk of Disease Transmission in a Previously Infected Area with Bovine Tuberculosis in Minnesota, USA

“…The proximity and overlap between farms and deer locations across two independent studies indicate a substantial risk factor for transmission between species both directly and indirectly through environmental contamination, which has been suggested as a cause for new herd infections in Michigan (Walter et al., ). Our results also strengthen the need for proper mitigation efforts that reduce the opportunity for deer to interact with cattle (Walter et al., ; Lavelle et al., ).…”

“…The current study aimed to enhance our understanding of the risks associated with deer–cattle interactions at the interface of a bTB outbreak. Despite a small sample, the results are strengthened by previous knowledge of deer behaviour patterns and other studies that described similar results (Berentsen et al., ; Lavelle et al., ). The temporal trends in deer movement confirmed increased night visitation, even when farm management practices (e.g.…”

“…At the farm level, these data illustrate the importance of educating farmers about the consequences of biosecurity‐related management practices, particularly when deer are a host for a disease such as bTB. Our results should reinforce the need to implement strategies shown to be effective for mitigating cattle–deer interactions, such as fencing stored feed (Lavelle et al., ), farm dogs, or designing feeding practices that minimize contact with wildlife (VerCauteren et al., ; Gehring et al., ; Phillips et al., ).…”

“…In the event that bTB is either still present (albeit at low prevalence) or again spills into deer from a new introduction, our results indicate potential spread to other farms. Further, the aggregation of northern deer in historic winter yards (Nelson and Mech, ; Nelson, ; Fieberg et al., ; Lavelle et al., ) could enhance the potential for a maintenance host to emerge (Gortázar et al., ), if bTB positive deer are present.…”

Evaluating wildlife-cattle contact rates to improve the understanding of dynamics of bovine tuberculosis transmission in Michigan, USA

“…Heterogeneity of direct contact rates within and among involved species and indirect contact rates at cattle-related resources all play into the overall complexity of disease dynamics and further complicate control, especially when physical abilities and means for excluding species differ (Grear et al, 2013;Craft, 2015;Pepin et al, 2016). White-tailed deer are relatively easy to exclude from an area with fences given routine maintenance (VerCauteren et al, 2006;Lavelle et al, 2015); however, the efficacy of such fences in deterring other species is questionable. Solid barriers and electrified fences proved effective in reducing badger visitation to farm resources in England (Judge et al, 2011).…”