You are on page 1of 4

Joseph Przygocki

ENVL 3121 Human dimension survey lab

Perceptions of Deer in Different Areas of New Jersey


Introduction
Deer perspectives in different areas can vary widely depending on the size of
the populations and types of urbanization, or lack of urbanization in an area.
Different stakeholders in different areas can be known to have different views of
who should take majority of the responsibility of managing deer populations and
what methods they use to manage the populations. There are a number of different
methods can be used to manage deer populations, but a regulated hunting season
has been shown in studies to be the most effective way to manage populations.
Results from research on the subject of managing deer recommends
surveying various stakeholders to gain knowledge of which management methods
they prefer and to settle management disputes in general. A survey conducted in a
suburban area of Illinois showed that the top preferred methods of stakeholders
were hunting methods such as archery hunting, gun hunting and sharpshooting
(Urbanek, et. al. 2012).
Overabundance of deer is a big issue in many areas and the acceptance for
various methods can differ in different communities. Most homeowners tend to be
unaware of the cost and effectiveness of non-lethal methods for dealing with
nuisance deer populations. Homeowners are most accepting of the lethal strategies,
as in forms of hunting, is they are being directly affected by the deer problems in
their community. Educating homeowners on the cost and effectiveness of the
different management strategies is also an important part to take in when coming
up with a management plan. (Kilpatrick et. al. 2007)

Methods
An online survey was sent out to residents in different areas of New Jersey to
gain knowledge of their perspectives on the presence of deer in New Jersey, and
how and who should be managing them. The survey first split the respondents up
geographically with the first question asking whether they were from the northern,
central, or southern part of the state. A couple of other important questions and
responses were analyzed to gain knowledge of how people that reside in the certain
areas feel about the deer populations and what should be done to manage them.
Results
Figure 1: This question asked whether residents agreed or disagreed that deer were a nuisance in their
local communities.

Figure 2: This graph shows responses to whether residents would support a regulated hunting season
in their local community or not.
Figure 3: This question asked who residents believed should be responsible for dealing with deer
nuisance problems.

Discussion
In total, there were 111 respondents to the survey after it was manually sent
to people and posted to a discussion forum online that pertains to people in New
Jersey particularly. 52 respondents were from North Jersey, 49 were from Central
Jersey, and only 10 of the respondents were from South Jersey. I believe the lack of
responses that were from South Jersey residents may have caused a bit of a bias in
the responses. Looking at the results, even though the level of urbanization and
rural areas vary from North to South in the state, it seems that out of the responses
I received, most respondents had the same general opinion on deer and how they
should be managed.
Overall each area came out somewhat even on agree and disagree
responses, whether they thought deer are a nuisance in their local area. None of the
respondents in South Jersey disagreed with the statement though. In central Jersey,
a few more respondents did agree that deer are a nuisance in their areas compared
to those that disagreed with the statement. And in north Jersey the same amount of
people that agreed with statement, also had the same amount of respondents
disagree with it.
Each area in general is in support of the idea of a regulated hunting season if
deer were to become enough of a nuisance to where that should happen. The
respondents who were either neutral or not supportive of the idea of a regulated
hunting season happened to be about the same amount across all three areas of
the state.
When asked who should be responsible for dealing with deer nuisance
problems, the options given were the local government, state government,
residents, or all of the above. Again each area all were in favor of the same idea
which was the all of the above option, which means every group puts in their part to
help manage the deer nuisance problem if they were to believe that there was one.

Sources
Urbanek, Rachael E., Clayton K. Nielsen, Mae A. Davenport, and Brad D. Woodson.
"Acceptability and Conflict Regarding Suburban Deer Management Methods."
Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17.6 (2012): 389-403. Web.
Kilpatrick, Howard J., Andrew M. Labonte, and John S. Barclay. "Acceptance of Deer
Management Strategies by Suburban Homeowners and Bowhunters." Journal of
Wildlife Management 71.6 (2007): 2095-101. Web.