Landowners\u27 perceptions of deer damage in Henry and Weakley counties, in West Tennessee

The focus of this study was to determine if landowners in two west Tennessee counties, Henry and Weakly, who have a history of high deer harvest and soybean production, had similar perceptions of deer and deer damage as other portions of Tennessee. This was a follow up study, utilizing secondary data, from a Wildlife Survey conducted by Dawn Johnson at the University of Tennessee in 1998. This study focused on two counties out of eight Tennessee counties she surveyed. Respondents who had wildlife damage, and that also grew field crops were used for comparison. Descriptive statistics was used to summarize data. Frequencies were tabulated and used to explain data. The majority (68%) of respondents were classified as farmers and 65% managed primarily for field crops. Almost all (93%) of respondents perceived that deer populations had increased either greatly (58%) or slightly (35%). Eighty- six percent indicated that deer damage had increased either greatly (55%) or slightly (31%). Almost all (99%; N=139) of respondents reported having had crop damage from deer. Deer (91%) accounted for the most damage by any wildlife species. All respondents (n=117) experienced some damage to soybeans. The largest percentage (46%) described deer damage as moderate around the field edges and light across the field. The majority (78%) estimated losses due to deer to be between $100 to S5000. Twelve percent reported losses greater than $5000. Seven percent indicated that any damage was intolerable , while the majority (70%) felt that up to $500 was intolerable. Over half (51%) had taken measures to control deer on their property. Most (87%) indicated hunting as the most used method of control. Of all methods used, shooting outside of the season with a depredation permit was considered the most effective method, however with only average success. Almost all respondents (96%) allowed hunting on their property. Over half (59%) of the respondents have had problems with hunters on their property and 56% had posted their land with No Trespassing signs. Only seven percent of respondents belonged to a conservation group, however 50% did something to provide wildlife habitat on their property. Most (73%) indicated they managed for game birds with 45% managing for deer. The most common habitat improvement was to provide cover (81%). Time and cost were the most common reasons for not managing wildlife on property. Some 27% of the respondents were worried that managing wildlife would increase the amount of damage while 18% indicated they didn\u27t know how to manage for wildlife. Most (61%) reported they would accept cash payments to improve habitat on their property. Almost all (99%) soybean producers experienced deer damage. Crop damage affects the perception and attitude toward deer populations and damage. Hunting alone does not seem to control deer damage problems, however if used in conjunction with depredation permits, the combination may prove to be more effective. Quality Deer Management programs provide opportunities to better control the reproductive portion of the deer population thus reducing damage. Most damage occurs around field edges and in small fields surrounded by woods, thus causing a need to study these areas more deeply. Education about control methods and studies to evaluate losses in a quantitative manner are needed