Northeast Natural History Conference 2011: Selected Papers 2012 Northeastern Naturalist 19(Special Issue 6):159–172 Use of “Earn-a-Buck” Hunting to Manage Local Deer Overabundance Jason R. Boulanger1,*, Gary R. Goff1, and Paul D. Curtis1 Abstract - Management of overabundant Odocoileus virginianus (White-tailed Deer) populations in suburban and rural landscapes remains controversial, and deerreduction techniques in these areas are often impeded by public attitudes and safety concerns. Cornell University implemented an “earn-a-buck” (EAB) hunting program to mitigate deer-related impacts on lands surrounding its campus (722 ha) in Ithaca, NY in 2008, and at the University-owned Arnot Teaching and Research Forest (ATRF; 1649 ha) in Cayuta, NY in 1999. The focus of EAB was to increase the harvest of female deer and lower herd size. For the benefit of other entities challenged with White-tailed Deer overabundance, we describe implementation of an EAB hunting program on campus lands. We recorded 257 deer harvested (69–99 each hunting season) on lands near campus. At ATRF, there was an increased harvest of adult does and fawns upon EAB implementation. Moreover, the number of antlered bucks harvested dropped during the first 2 years of EAB when compared to pre-EAB levels. We demonstrated an increased harvest of female deer and improved adult sex ratio during EAB. We monitored program progress via data collected at deer check stations. Deer harvests at ATRF have declined slightly over time, proving beneficial for forest regeneration and biodiversity; however, the question remains how to maintain hunter interest in EAB programs during years of decreased deer numbers. Introduction Odocoileus virginianus (Zimmerman) (White-tailed Deer) overabundance and associated impacts continue to challenge landowners, residents, governments, and resource managers. Increasing deer populations in these areas are associated with a concomitant increase in ecosystem damage (Curtis et al. 1998, Waller and Alverson 1997), deer-vehicle accidents (DVAs; Ng et al. 2008), and agricultural and silvicultural damage (Côté et al. 2004). The annual cost of deerrelated conflicts in the US is greater than $2 billion annually (Conover 1997), resulting in control efforts such as sharpshooting (DeNicola and Williams 2008), immunocontraception (McShea et al. 1997, Warren 1997), surgical sterilization (Boulanger et al. 2009, Gilman et al. 2010, MacLean et al. 2006), and increased harvest of female deer through controlled hunting programs (e.g., earn-a-buck [EAB]; Ferrigno et al. 2002, Van Deelen et al. 2010). Thus, it is axiomatic that research on mitigation is critical. Recreational hunting is the primary tool used by resource managers to regulate deer herds in rural areas (Brown et al. 2000, Foster et al. 1997, Giles and 1Cornell University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Department of Natural Resources, B20 Bruckner Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853. *Corresponding author - jrb69@cornell. edu. 160 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 19, Special Issue 6 Findlay 2004, Weckerly et al. 2005). Burgeoning deer populations and a lack of hunter recruitment (Enck et al. 2000), however, may threaten traditional management techniques. As a result, alternative deer harvest strategies such as EAB may help control deer overabundance. In general, EAB requires the harvest of at least 1 antlerless deer before a hunter may take an antlered deer (hereafter bucks). The goal of EAB as a deer management tool is to increase the harvest of female deer and thus reduce overall deer abundance. Managers in New Jersey (Ferrigno et al. 2002) and Wisconsin (Van Deelen et al. 2010), have implemented EAB programs and demonstrated an increased harvest of antlerless deer, albeit with controversy among some hunters. EAB is unpopular with some hunters who desire to hunt only bucks, or may not wish to pass up a buck before becoming buck eligible (Holsman et al. 2010). Conversely, EAB may alter sex and age classes of deer, resulting in an increased number of older bucks, and a balanced adult sex ratio—deer herd demographics desired by many hunters (Van Deelen et al. 2010). Increasing conflicts between White-tailed Deer and Cornell University (CU) land-use objectives have resulted in the need to implement and evaluate a deer management program designed to reduce damage to agricultural crops, sawtimber regeneration, research plots, flora, and to reduce DVAs. Discussions and actions regarding deer damage management reflected CU’s goal to maintain the integrity of University lands, while being cognizant of related neighborhood impacts. Boulanger et al. (2009) estimated deer densities on campus to exceed 21 deer/km2 (56 deer/mi2). Although geographically limited, recreational deer hunting has occurred on CU lands for decades. New objectives for these areas were to increase public access, reduce deer damage, and promote forest regeneration via EAB on areas with shooting zones that meet state discharge regulations. Ultimately, we desired to reduce deer abundance by 50% on campus lands. Off campus, CU’s Arnot Teaching and Research Forest (ATRF) was also experiencing negative impacts. Prior to 1999, regeneration success of high-value sawtimber species was inadequate to maintain sustainable sawtimber production, despite use of recognized silvicultural practices (D. Schaufler, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, unpubl. data). We attributed regeneration failure to deer browsing and shading of desirable tree seedlings by undesirable understory vegetation such as Fagus grandifolia Ehrh. (American Beech) and Dennstaedtia punctilobula (Michx.) T. Moore (Hayscented Fern; G.R. Goff, unpubl. data). We implemented EAB at ATRF and areas surrounding the CU campus in 1999 and 2008, respectively. The focus was to increase the harvest of female deer and limit population growth rate, thereby reducing herd density. Archery hunting was advocated close to campus, and firearms hunting was permitted where practical, based on input from the CU Police and land managers (Boulanger et al. 2009). The ATRF has been open to public hunting for at least 40 years. Specific permitting, access, and firearm-use limitations varied over the years, but generally, 2012 J.R. Boulanger, G.R. Goff, and P.D. Curtis 161 ATRF had received nearly unrestricted hunting pressure. Hunters were encouraged to apply for New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) deer management permits that allowed antlerless deer harvests. Hunters on average harvested nearly equal numbers of antlerless and antlered deer each season before implementation of EAB. We believed that the EAB program would produce a number of benefits for CU hunters including the production of larger, healthier does and bucks, a higher proportion of bucks in the herd, and the opportunity to harvest older, large-antlered bucks. In addition, fewer deer on the landscape should allow regeneration of desirable tree species and increase habitat availability for a variety of wildlife species. We hypothesized that female deer harvest would increase with the implementation of an EAB program. Our objectives for this paper were to: 1) describe the implementation of EAB on lands near campus for the benefit of other public entities, and 2) determine the impact of EAB on doe harvest. Methods Study areas Cornell lands surrounding central campus are located in the towns of Dryden, Ithaca, and Lansing, NY and are comprised of agricultural land, natural areas, and woodlots (722 ha). In total, there were 20 disjunct hunting zones near campus ranging in size from 5.7 to 190 ha; approximately 63% of these lands are restricted to bowhunting. Close to campus, some hunting areas bordered suburban communities. Roads surrounded most of the hunting areas, making them accessible at multiple points. The ATRF (1649 ha) is a mostly contiguous tract of land located in Cayuta, NY (Fain et al. 1994) and is part of the Allegheny northern hardwood forest (Stout and Nyland 1986). Elevation at the ATRF ranges from 370 m to approximately 615 m (Fain et al. 1994). The ATRF is second-growth forest that was logged extensively for Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carrière (Eastern Hemlock) and hardwoods from 1873–1887 (Beatty 1929), and subsequently burned during 2 major fires in the early 20th century (Wilm 1932). Cornell has managed the ATRF since 1927 for multiple uses including sawtimber production, recreation, research, and formal and informal education (Fain et al. 1994). Sawtimber harvest occurs at 100-year rotations on dozens of stands that comprise the ATRF. Unlike lands near campus, hunting access to ATRF was restricted to 2 access points. Campus lands earn-a-buck hunting For decades, permission to hunt deer on lands adjacent to CU campus was limited to a select few individuals at the discretion of multiple CU faculty and researchers and facility, land, and farm managers. The hunters that had access to these lands had excellent hunting opportunities, but did little to reduce deer abundance. Our first step was to assemble a Cornell Deer Team comprised of faculty and staff with wildlife management expertise and consolidate hunting lands under 162 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 19, Special Issue 6 one Deer Program Coordinator for the implementation of public, first-come, first-served EAB deer hunting. In all but one case, the various land managers were happy to relinquish deer management responsibilities, as the vetting process traditionally required paperwork and time. Although EAB deer hunting was free to the public on lands near campus, prospective hunters had to first apply for a CU hunting permit and be screened by CU Police via a background check. We implemented an online application process in which electronic, web-based applications were sent directly to CU Police. We subsequently received a database file with vetted hunters and notified them of their status by emailing their CU hunting permits. The application period ran from the day NYSDEC hunting licenses went on sale until 15 October of each year. To hunt on CU lands, hunters had to have a valid NYSDEC big game license and a current CU hunting permit. Program staff hosted non-mandatory hunter orientation meetings for participating hunters prior to the deer hunting season each fall to stress CU policy of multi-use (e.g., research, hiking, nature watching, hunting) on campus lands, and to encourage treating other users with courtesy and respect. Because some hunting occurred adjacent to suburban communities, we stressed good-neighbor relations and that hunters should not enter private property (e.g., to retrieve a wounded deer) without permission. We further stressed that blatant disregard for policies would result in permanent loss of hunting privileges on CU lands. We encouraged hunters to donate their unwanted deer to a statewide venison donation coalition. For hunters who could not attend orientation, we implemented a comprehensive CU EAB deer-hunting web page (http://wildlifecontrol.info/deer/ Pages/DeerHunting.aspx), which was highlighted on each hunting permit, to disseminate information and rules. The CU EAB program established cooperative relationships with NYSDEC and local landowners. Each year, program staff applied for and received up to 100 NYSDEC Deer Management Assistance Permits (DMAPs) for antlerless deer to promote increased female deer harvests. Hunters received no more than 2 DMAPs per calendar year. During the first 2 years, we awarded hunters with DMAPs via lottery, but starting in the third year, hunters had to first use one of their own antlerless permits, at which point we awarded DMAPs on a first-come, first-served basis. We also formed cooperative partnerships with residents and landowners in several cases to relax the NYSDEC 152-m (500-ft) discharge regulation in archery-only hunting areas adjacent to suburban communities. Although the amount of land added to EAB hunting through this process was negligible (less than 5 ha), we were able to provide better access to hunting zones. During the hunting season, hunters had to sign in to specific hunting zones on a first-come, first-served basis, and the number of hunters allowed in each zone was limited to prevent overcrowding (Hammitt et al. 1990). We did not allow guest hunters on CU lands, but one unarmed, non-hunter (e.g., spouse, child) could accompany a registered EAB hunter. Hunters recorded their name (and guest name, if applicable), phone number, signed in and out times, and comments, if any, 2012 J.R. Boulanger, G.R. Goff, and P.D. Curtis 163 regarding the hunt. Sign-in commenced 2.5 hours before sunrise to prevent eager hunters from signing in earlier. Hunters were also required to record the number and sex and age of deer, if known, seen while afield (e.g., 8-point buck, 2 female fawns, etc.) and to deposit the report into a locked drop box. Harvested deer were brought to a mandatory, 24-hour check-in station located near the center of CU campus hunting zones so that biological data could be collected by program staff, who were typically on duty only on traditionally heavily hunted days. Staff recorded sex, dressed weight, number of antler points of bucks, and removed one-half of a lower jaw for subsequent aging based on tooth replacement and wear (Severinghaus 1949). When stations were unstaffed, hunters were to take a photo of the deer’s head with a supplied single-use camera, fill out a deer harvest report, and remove one side of the lower jaw with tools provided at the check station. Hunters sealed jaws in large coin envelopes labeled with their name, date, and deer tag number, and placed them in a refrigerator at the check station. Hunters wishing to preserve their deer for taxidermy services arranged with program staff for aging. Based on staff recordings or harvest photos, hunters had to document the harvest of 2 female deer (i.e., adult doe or female fawn) before qualifying to take 1 buck. Unlike rules in previous studies (Ferrigno et al. 2002, Van Deelen et al. 2010), antlerless bucks (e.g., male fawns) did not count towards EAB eligibility. After taking a buck, hunters started over; however, successful hunters were able to stockpile buck eligibility (i.e., double or triple buck eligibility). Harvest records for female deer were cumulative from season to season. For example, if a hunter harvested 2 female deer and no bucks in 2009, that hunter would still be buck eligible on opening day of deer season in 2010. Along with their EAB hunter permit, hunters received a parking permit to mount on the dash or rear-view mirror of their vehicle. Moreover, EAB hunters received a pin-on identification tag that had to be attached to an outer garment and be visible at all times while hunting. Although not a NYSDEC hunting regulation, we required firearms-zone hunters to wear at least 1 article of blaze orange clothing while hunting during the firearms season; archery-season hunters were exempt from this rule. We prohibited motorized vehicles for hunting access and carcass removal, with the exception of one hunting zone designated for nonambulatory hunters. Hunting zones close to CU campus or to suburban neighborhoods were restricted to archery equipment, and deer hunting was only allowed during New York State’s archery, regular firearms, and muzzleloader/late archery seasons. Outside of these areas, we permitted any legal deer hunting method; most of these areas were open for other types of hunting (e.g., turkey, small game, waterfowl) throughout the year. However, only deer hunting could occur during the respective deer-hunting seasons. Hunters could not drive deer during archery season, but could “still hunt” (i.e., hunt slowly and quietly while walking) in these areas. The only exception to this rule was if a zone was being hunted by a single party and all agreed to participate in a deer drive. 164 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 19, Special Issue 6 Program staff imposed strict regulations on treestand use on CU lands and confi scated treestands of those in violation. All treestands had to be clearly marked with the owner’s first and last name. We did not allow permanent treestands or screw-in tree steps on CU lands. However, we permitted removal of small tree limbs (<2.54 cm diameter) to set up treestands and to establish shooting lanes. We prevented hunters from installing stands more than 2 weeks before archery season began, and hunters had to remove stands within 1 week following the last day of the season. We allowed the use of ground blinds if carried in and out during each hunt. Cornell assumed no responsibility for lost or stolen treestands. During the opening weekend of firearms season, program staff would patrol hunting areas along with CU Police to check for violations. ATRF earn-a-buck hunting We implemented EAB policies at the ATRF in 1999 with the same justification, application procedures, and rules applied to CU campus lands. The only significant difference was the charge of a fee (<$20 USD) to hunters to cover administrative expenses. However, we eliminated the fee in 2009 to lessen CU’s legal liability. We did not limit the number of hunters that could hunt any one day on the property. The fi rst 2 days of fi rearms season attracted the most hunters, but at numbers (≈60) which did not constitute a safety issue. We allowed all legal hunting methods (i.e., archery, fi rearms, and muzzleloader) at the ATRF during appropriate seasons. Conservation Offi cers from NYSDEC occasionally patrolled the ATRF for potential violations. ATRF staff and volunteers occasionally patrolled the property checking for rule compliance. We collected biological data (e.g., dressed weight, age, sex, number of antler points) on about eight of the more heavily hunted days of the fi rearms season. When stations were not staffed, hunters were required to weigh the deer, take a picture with a supplied camera and complete harvest and deer-sighting forms. Results Campus lands Each year, adult female deer comprised the majority of the harvest, followed by female fawns, male fawns, and bucks (Fig. 1). Participation and harvest under EAB increased on CU lands near campus (Table 1). Harvest totaled 257 deer (69–99 each hunting season), and registration for the EAB program more than doubled from 2008 to 2009 (Table 1). We defined participation as those hunters who signed in at the deer check station at least once per season, which ranged from 40 to 60% of the registered hunters over the 3 years (Table 1). The proportion of hunters who took at least one deer ranged from a high of 0.38 during the 2008 pilot season to a low of 0.25 in 2009 (Table 1). Participants generally hunted 35 or fewer hours, and the average harvest rate ranged from 49–61 hours per deer (Table 1). The number of DMAPs filled decreased from 61% in 2009 to 29% in 2010. Based on 2012 J.R. Boulanger, G.R. Goff, and P.D. Curtis 165 deer sightings, adult sex ratios were generally stable during the first 3 years (Table 1). Implementation costs were generally low during the pilot EAB season near campus; taking into account staff time and supplies, average cost of each deer harvested was about $16.00 USD. Figure 1. Number, sex, and age of earn-a-buck Odocoileus virginianus (White-tailed Deer) harvested on Cornell University campus lands, Dryden, Ithaca, and Lansing, NY, 2008–2010. Table 1. Comparison of earn-a-buck Odocoileus virginianus (White-tailed Deer) harvest results across years on Cornell University campus lands, Dryden, Ithaca, and Lansing, NY, 2008–2010. 2008 2009 2010 Hectares available for hunting 582 638 722 Registered hunters 161 435 507 Hunters who signed in to hunt EAB lands 97 187 198 Average hours hunted 35 33 26 Average hours hunted per harvest 49 61 51 Number of deer seen per hunter day 0.7 1.3 1.0 Adult sex ratio (bucks:does) 1:2.1 1:2.5 1:3.2 Total deer harvested 69 89 99 Adult bucks harvested ≥1.5 years old 6 5 9 Proportion of successful hunters* 0.38 0.25 0.27 Proportion of hunters who became buck eligible 0.14 0.16 0.11 *Successful = harvesting at least one deer 166 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 19, Special Issue 6 During the 3 deer hunting seasons, program staff handled 19 cases of trespassing on CU lands, 6 cases of stolen treestands, 2 cases of illegal baiting, 2 complaints of fi nding an arrow on private property, and one complaint regarding fi rearms discharge within 152 m of a home. Hunters killed 2 antlered, yearling bucks thinking they were antlerless deer. Hunters discovered 9 dead deer with arrow wounds (4 adult bucks, 2 button bucks, and 3 does). One of these deer, an adult buck, had its antlers removed. We banned 1 hunter from the EAB program near campus lands for violations pertaining to illegal baiting. ATRF After an initial increase of total harvest and a peak of over 70 deer killed at ATRF in 2001, harvest fell to pre-EAB levels (Fig. 2). Adult doe harvest increased by more than 2-fold during the fi rst 4 years of EAB when compared to pre-EAB; fawn harvests also increased (Fig. 3). The buck harvest dropped during the fi rst year of EAB when compared to pre-EAB levels, then increased years 2 through 4 to about pre-EAB levels (Fig. 3). Adult sex (buck:doe) ratios in the harvest were 1:7 in 1998, 1:6 in 1999, and 1:2 in 2000; ratios have remained between 1:2 to 1:3 during subsequent years of EAB. The number of deer seen per hunter day remained relatively stable across all years, including pre-EAB levels; each hunter, on average, saw approximately 1 deer per outing. The proportion of hunters taking at least 1 deer decreased from an average of 27% for the fi rst 2 years of EAB, to an average of 13% for the last 2 years. Comparing the fi rst 2 years of Figure 2. Total harvest of Odocoileus virginianus (White-tailed Deer) at Cornell University’s Arnot Teaching and Research Forest in Cayuta, NY, 1992–2010. 2012 J.R. Boulanger, G.R. Goff, and P.D. Curtis 167 Figure 3. Number of Odocoileus virginianus (White-tailed Deer) adult does, adult bucks, and fawns harvested at Cornell University’s Arnot Teaching and Research Forest, Cayuta, NY, 1997–2010. The years 1999–2010 were under earn-a-buck rules. Figure 4. Number of hunters, total hours hunters spent in the fi eld, number of hours spent hunting per hunter, and number of hunter hours per harvest (fi rearms season only) at Cornell University’s Arnot Teaching and Research Forest, Cayuta, NY,1998–2010. The years 1999–2010 were under earn-a-buck rules. *Multiply by 100. 168 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 19, Special Issue 6 EAB to the last 2 years, the average number of hours hunted per harvested deer increased from 62 to 106 hours, respectively. Hunter effort at the ATRF has been relatively consistent over time (Fig. 4). We banned 5 hunters from the program for violations of EAB policies. Discussion We described how to implement an EAB hunting program on non-contiguous campus lands for the benefi t of other public entities challenged with Whitetailed Deer overabundance. Moreover, we presented descriptive harvest results since the implementation of EAB on campus lands and at the ATRF. Prior to the implementation of EAB near campus, the various managers collected few data, and thus we had no baseline data for comparison. We demonstrated that under EAB a majority of deer harvested on CU lands across years were female. However, we caution that increased female deer harvest does not necessarily translate into effective, long-term management of overabundance and associated impacts. Moreover, it is unknown how EAB affects deer behavior. While we limit the number of hunters in some areas, from the deer’s perspective, there may be daily hunting activity within their traditional home ranges, and this hunting pressure may reduce future sightings and harvest. Similar to previous EAB programs in New Jersey (Ferrigno et al. 2002) and Wisconsin (Van Deelen et al. 2010), we experienced at ATRF an increase in the number of antlerless deer and fewer bucks harvested during program implementation. Reduced buck harvest may have resulted from some hunters who were unable to become buck eligible. Buck eligibility at CU was likely more diffi cult than in previous studies because our program required the harvest of 2 female deer (instead of 1 antlerless deer) per buck. It remains unknown whether changing from 2 to 1 female deer per buck on CU lands would improve hunter retention and increased effort. The reduced buck harvest may also represent increased selectivity for larger bucks because hunters may have already secured venison from antlerless harvests (Van Deelen et al. 2010). In a survey of EAB hunters at ATRF, hunters were willing to harvest an average of 2.5 antlerless deer per season (Enck and Brown 2001). In general, the proportion of campus hunters who took deer was more than twice that of ATRF hunters. Deer near campus were accustomed to human activity (e.g., hikers, joggers), and thus may have been easier to hunt. Moreover, deer may be more vulnerable to hunters in areas of highly fragmented forest cover than mostly contiguous forests like ATRF (Foster et al. 1997). Another possible reason for relatively low success rates of ATRF hunters is the rugged terrain that makes some regions of the property diffi cult to access. Despite greater harvest success in the campus EAB program, we demonstrated greater improvement in adult sex ratios at the ATRF. Campus EAB sex ratios increased slightly during the 3-year study period (Table 1). It is possible that pre-EAB hunting pressure on antlerless deer was suffi cient to prevent skewedness recorded during pre-EAB years at the ATRF. 2012 J.R. Boulanger, G.R. Goff, and P.D. Curtis 169 The implementation of an EAB program may be controversial. Five hunters who participated in the previous hunting system protested against EAB changes near CU campus just prior to implementation, and these hunters subsequently left the program. Several EAB hunters suggested antler restrictions for further protection of young males with small antlers (Strickland et al. 2001). We addressed antler restrictions at hunter orientation meetings and suggested that if a majority of hunters petitioned for the change in rules, we would implement such restrictions. Under current rules, however, we believe that hunters are not likely to harvest small bucks after working towards buck eligibility (i.e., harvesting 2 female deer fi rst). At ATRF, approximately 1 out of 3 hunters left the EAB program within the fi rst few years, but we replaced them quickly with hunters who accepted the rules. Turnover rate was higher in later years when compared to pre-EAB, and based on hunter comments, was most likely due to hunters being unsuccessful or getting tired of the extra work involved with participating in EAB (G.R. Goff, unpubl. data). While the ATRF had a sufficient base of hunters, there were hunting areas near campus that were under-hunted. Although we limited the number of hunters in each hunting zone to prevent overcrowding, and despite posting signs on recreational trails of hunter presence during the hunting seasons, we could not control use of these lands by non-hunters. Based on hunter comments, proximity to non-hunters was undesirable, and may be a reason why some lands near campus did not fill to capacity. Many hunters registered with EAB and then never signed in to hunt, suggesting that potential hunters may view CU as a “backup” place to hunt or that hunters may be unable to find the time for hunting. In 2009 and 2010, we had nearly 200 hunters in the campus EAB program, but based on sign-in forms, <50 of these hunters hunted CU lands often (e.g., ≥3 hunts per week). At ATRF, only one-quarter of EAB hunters indicated that the ATRF was their primary hunting location (Enck and Brown 2001). Participation in EAB varied during years. At ATRF, for example, increased harvest in 2006 (Fig. 2) was largely due to the success of a particularly diligent and effective new group of hunters as indicated by sign-in forms. Factors that may potentially reduce hunter participation at ATRF include low overall harvest, buck harvest, and deer observation. Overall, participating hunters appeared to be satisfied with the EAB program at ATRF, at least for the first 2 years. Surveyed hunters participated in the ATRF EAB program because they believed they would have a greater chance of seeing and harvesting a mature buck, despite the fact that 50% of these same hunters were opposed to harvesting a doe first (Enck and Brown 2001). In the survey, however, most hunters (78%) were satisfied with their overall deer hunting experiences; only 13% were dissatisfied (Enck and Brown 2001). Hunters’ top reasons for participating in the EAB program at ATRF included perceptions of being less crowded, safer, and in the company of conscientious (i.e., more ethical) hunters, compared to elsewhere (Enck and Brown 2001). The ability to use free DMAPs, an integral part of CU EAB hunting programs, was another benefit cited by ATRF 170 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 19, Special Issue 6 hunters that increased satisfaction (Enck and Brown 2001). In the future, we recommend surveys of CU campus and ATRF hunters to ascertain current satisfaction levels and opinions of alternative regulations (e.g., antler restrictions). A minority of hunters challenged program staff with violations, but we promoted self-policing to EAB hunters and most of our tips on violations came from other hunters. Unlike ATRF, fragmented campus lands had an abundance of access points, which made it potentially easier for hunters to harvest female deer elsewhere and claim that the harvest took place on campus lands. Despite the possibility of infractions, we relied on the truthfulness of hunters. Since implementation of EAB at ATRF, there has been an increase in regeneration (i.e., seedling and sapling survival) of desirable sawtimber species such as Acer and Quercus when compared to pre-EAB years (D. Schaufler, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, pers. comm.). Success rates on campus lands remained high during the early years of EAB implementation; however, 3 years was not adequate to evaluate changes in negative deer impacts. In the future, we expect to see a decrease in harvests during subsequent years if harvest levels on campus lands continue. Ultimately, many hunters participate in EAB hunting for the chance to harvest a mature buck. However, retaining hunters who desire to see deer afield while concomitantly reducing deer populations remains a paradox. The question remains as to whether we can retain a sufficient number of mature bucks and hunters in the future. Acknowledgments Funding for this project comes from Cornell University, Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine, and a grant from the Northeastern Wildlife Damage Management Cooperative. We thank Michael Ashdown, Amy Bleisch, Erin Duprey, Mary Claire Eisel, Kaylan Kemink, Anna Kusler, Carolyn LaRow, Samantha Lovering, Brittany Ann Mosher, Rebecca Stanley, Ariana Verrilli, Katie Walker, Gabriella Roman and other work-study students who provided valuable field assistance and/or data entry. Diana Bryant deserves special mention for her dedication to the task of hunter registration. We also thank Cornell University EAB hunters for their continued volunteer efforts and tips on violations, and Cornell University Police for their support. Literature Cited Beatty, S.P. 1929. The Arnot Forest: Its foundation for management. M.Sc. Thesis. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Boulanger, J.R., P.D. Curtis, and M.L. Ashdown. 2009. Integrating lethal and nonlethal approaches for management of suburban deer. Proceedings of the Wildlife Damage Management Conference 13:60–67. Brown, T.L., D.J. Decker, S.J. Riley, J.W. Enck, T.B. Lauber, P.D. Curtis, and G.F. Mattfeld. 2000. The future of hunting as a mechanism to control White-tailed Deer populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:797–807. Conover, M.R. 1997. Monetary and intangible valuation of deer in the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:298–305. 2012 J.R. Boulanger, G.R. Goff, and P.D. Curtis 171 Côté, S.D., T.P. Rooney, J.P. Tremblay, C. Dussault, and D.M. Waller. 2004. Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35:113–147. Curtis, P.D., A.N. Moen, and M.E. Richmond. 1998. When should wildlife fertility control be applied? Pp. 1–4, In P.D. Curtis (Ed.). Workshop on the status and future of wildlife fertility control. The Wildlife Society, Buffalo, NY. DeNicola, A.J., and S.C. Williams. 2008. Sharpshooting suburban White-tailed Deer reduces deer-vehicle collisions. Human-Wildlife Conflicts 2:28–33. Enck, J.W., and T.L. Brown. 2001. Attitudes and beliefs of deer hunters participating in an “earn-a-buck” program at Cornell University’s Arnot Forest. New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Human Dimensions Research Unit Publication 01-10, Ithaca, NY. Enck, J.W., D.J. Decker, and T.L. Brown. 2000. Status of hunter recruitment in the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:817–824. Fain, J.J., T.A. Volk, and T.J. Fahey. 1994. Fifty years of change in an upland forest in south-central New York: General patterns. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 121:130–139. Ferrigno, D.M., S.F. Martka, J. Powers, and D. Roberts. 2002. Results of an experimental “earn-a-buck” regulation in New Jersey’s agricultural and suburban deer management zones. Pp. 62–63, In R.J. Warren (Ed.). Proceedings of the First National Bowhunting Conference. Archery Manufacturers and Merchants Organization, Comfrey, MN. Foster, J.R., J.L. Roseberry, and A. Woolf. 1997. Factors influencing efficiency of Whitetailed Deer harvest in Illinois. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:1091–1097. Giles, B.G., and C.S. Findlay. 2004. Effectiveness of a selective harvest system in regulating deer populations in Ontario. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:266–277. Gilman, R.T., N.E. Mathews, B.G. Skinner, V.L. Julis, E.S. Frank, and J. Paul-Murphy. 2010. Effects of maternal status on the movement and mortality of sterilized female White-tailed Deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1484–1491. Hammitt, W.E., C.D. McDonald, and M.E. Patterson. 1990. Determinants of multiple satisfaction for deer hunting. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:331–337. Holsman, R.H., J. Petchenik, and E.E. Cooney. 2010. CWD after “the fire”: Six reasons why hunters resisted Wisconsin’s eradication effort. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 15:180–193. MacLean, R.A., N.E. Mathews, D.M. Grove, E.S. Frank, and J. Paul-Murphy. 2006. Surgical technique for tubal ligation in White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 37:354–360. McShea, W.J., S.L. Monfort, S. Hakim, J.F. Kirkpatrick, I.K.M. Liu, J.W. Turner, Jr., L. Chassy, and L. Munson. 1997. Immunocontraceptive efficacy and the impact of contraception on the reproductive behaviors of White-tailed Deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:560–569. Ng, J.W., C. Nielsen, and C.C. St. Clair. 2008. Landscape and traffic factors influencing deer-vehicle collisions in an urban environment. Human-Wildlife Conflicts 2:34–47. Severinghaus, C.W. 1949. Tooth development and wear as criteria of age in White-tailed Deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 13:195–216. Stout, S.L., and R.D. Nyland. 1986. Role of species composition in relative density measurement in Allegheny hardwoods. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 16:574–579. 172 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 19, Special Issue 6 Strickland, B.K., S. Demarais, L.E. Castle, J.W. Lipe, W.H Lunceford, H.A. Jacobson, D. Frels, and K.V. Miller. 2001. Effects of selective-harvest strategies on White-tailed Deer antler size. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:509–520. Van Deelen, T.R., B.J. Dhuey, C.N. Jacques, K.R. McCaffery, R.E. Rolley, and K. Warnke. 2010. Effects of earn-a-buck and special antlerless-only seasons on Wisconsin’s deer harvests. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1693–1700. Waller, D.M., and W.S. Alverson. 1997. The White-tailed Deer: A keystone herbivore. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:217–226. Warren, R.J. 1997. The challenge of deer overabundance in the 21st century. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:213–214. Weckerly, F.W., M.L. Kennedy, and S.W. Stephenson. 2005. Hunter-effort-harvestsize- relationships among hunt types of White-tailed Deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:1303–1311. Wilm, H.D. 1932. The relation of successional development to the silviculture of forestburn communities in southern New York. Ph.D. Dissertation. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.