Deer in Cheverly

ECOLOGY AND TECHNIQUES FOR DEER MANAGEMENT IN CHEVERLY, MARYLAND

Matt T. Salo and Sophia Riazi-Sekowski

Problem Statement

In 2020, Cheverly mayor Laila Riazi, reported to the Green Infrastructure Committee meeting that several town residents have complained of too many deer in Cheverly creating problems, such as: damage to people’s garden plots and ornamental plants. The deer are also blamed for spreading ticks that transmit Lyme disease and causing collisions with vehicles when crossing streets or highways. The mayor asked one of the authors (M. Salo) to investigate the matter and report back to the Committee. Because of her interest in wildlife biology, a student, Sophia Riazi-Sekowski, was added to the research team and has participated from the beginning of the research.

There are an estimated 250,000 deer in Maryland according to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Prince George’s County shares the deer with many adjacent communities so that more differentiated figures are neither possible nor desirable. Before the extermination of most local predators, such as bears, bobcats, cougars and wolves, the deer population remained in dynamic balance with the environment. With the loss of these predators, the only remaining controls, occasional coyotes, poachers, and vehicular traffic, are not sufficient to keep up with the natural increase, hence the regional overpopulation. However, currently the Cheverly area deer population is nearly in ecological balance with local natural resources.

Deer are mostly local animals. In Cheverly, they are present in all the Green Infrastructure Hubs and other green areas, including back yards, in between. Except for small territorial claims, some of which may be hereditary, matrilineal families spread out in a kin network loosely focused on their birth site. The deer move freely between the hubs and habitats within and outside of Cheverly; diurnal movements are generally associated with feeding, either at early dawn or at twilight. Those that have moved to another nearby area may return seasonally for the winter if the birth area provides better shelter or food for the winter. By shelter, we don’t necessarily mean protection from the elements, which in our climate zone is rarely necessary, but refuge from disturbance of any kind by humans, dogs, etc., where they can rest, ruminate and socialize.

Deer can cause a substantial amount of damage; after all, they can weigh up to 350 pounds, and eat through their environment non-stop. They trample on saplings, seedlings, shrubs and any ground cover plants. Their sharp hooves also cut into the soil and subsurface roots; regularly used deer paths tend to be scraped bare of vegetation. Deer eat constantly and, in areas of high density, over-browsing can become a serious problem. In order to know how to cope with an occasional surfeit of animals, we need more information on their distribution, movements, numbers and kind of damage caused.

Population numbers are not available, but using Euclid Woods as an example, the post-fawning season occupancy fluctuates from around 6 to 10 individuals over each year. If another family moves in for the winter the numbers may double, but returns to the original after the wintering animals leave. Any other woodlots capable of supporting a family would exhibit similar numbers and population fluctuations.

For many of the local deer, their main foraging areas remain within their native territory, but movements among the different parts of the home territory are frequent (Map #2). We have mapped the entrances and exits of the deer, concluding that Cheverly boundaries are entirely porous, allowing deer to come and go freely. Also, a few paths within Cheverly, some of which may be inherited from decades, even centuries ago, facilitate rapid movements between the hubs and formerly favored habitats. (Map #2) These movements remain to be studied as to how individuals of the herd travel and with whom. Currently this can’t be done because we have no data down to the individual level.

So without doing the equivalent of belling the cat, we have no way to determine where any of the individuals are at any particular time, but we can determine with a fair amount of accuracy where the families of the home range spend most of their time and can usually be found. The following locations frequently traversed provide a succinct overview of the movements of deer within their home range around Cheverly.

DEER HABITATS AND MOBILITY

We soon found out that many of the preconceptions people hold about deer territoriality and mobility were either false, or true only in part. Deer moving between habitats across a swath of territory are usually traveling in matrilineal family units. Their reasons for changing hangout sites may be due to the presence of people, dogs, or predators, need for better food, or sanctuary. Deer travel in a single file only rarely, but advance in a more scattered fashion, moving as a herd in phalanx formation, unless funneled or prevented by obstacles. Buck deer are more solitary, except in breeding season, and travel solo within a smaller home range.

The methodology for locating which routes the deer normally took when moving in, out or around Cheverly was simple, but effective. First, we listed all places where we had observed deer within the city limits and adjacent areas, and then expanded the reports to include any credible eyewitness observations by other observers and mapping the locations reported.

Second, we looked at any sign or spoor that would indicate deer presence and provide additional information about their behavior. These included actual dead animals or any shed parts thereof, such as bones, hair, antlers, droppings or indicators of behavior such as signs of browsing, crop-ping, digging, rubbing, scraping, or bedding sites. Mobility behavior is evinced by paths and more importantly tracks, which indicate in which direction the animal was moving. The pattern of movement can tell us whether it was just leisurely browsing, striding to get to a more distant location, or fleeing from danger, leaving a track with a longer distance between hoof marks. Such tracks may also be more heavily impressed on the ground depending on the weight of the animal.

Some critics of the above methods often dismiss their findings as merely “anecdotal,” yet they are commonly used in both the natural and social sciences. What prevents their being just “incidental,” is the frequency, duration and typicality of the observations. Matt has studied the local herds since moving to Cheverly in 1968, which include three years of participant observation, while embedded with the Euclid Woods herd. He has observed all common behaviors and established living patterns and reached a point in our studies at which we can usually predict types of behavior, situations under which they occur, and how they affect the gross movements and congregation patterns. This approach to data has been labeled “thick description” in social sciences which is a way of interpretive writing that includes, not only describing behavior and, but also the context in which that behavior occurs.

If anyone needs more precision, quantification, or statistical treatments we encourage them to collect, analyze and interpret their own data, but doubt very much that their answers, if based on careful research, would differ appreciably from those of this report.

We can look at deer movement from two perspectives: first, longer-distance travel that takes them outside the bounds of Cheverly in search of food, sanctuary, and in the case of bucks in rut, for females (Map 1). They may leave the area for several reasons, for example, fleeing from human presence, dogs and, more recently, predators. I have detected shifts away from usual habitats due to the occasional coyotes that come through and remain for a few days. The deer abandoned their usual haunts, but some also sought refuge near human habitation, which for the most part, are shunned by the coyotes.

The second perspective (Map 2) views the deer on their home turf where they spend most of their time. It is not coterminous with Cheverly, but for the sake of simplicity, we considered the boundaries of Cheverly as relevant territorial limits for discussing deer mobility.

Map #1 shows the refuge or sanctuary areas outside Cheverly to which the deer flee to escape any harassment, pursuit or other disturbance. The arrows indicate access points at which they can cross from one habitat to another. Almost all the crossover sites are two-way, i.e. the deer use them for both going and coming.

Map #2 is focused on deer movements within Cheverly boundaries. Some paths that are used to get from one area to another, especially through wooded areas, may reflect traditional routes that go back decades, even centuries. Within the town, deer use almost any street to get to their preferred destinations. They have access to almost every yard, garden patch or flower bed with ornamental plants. At night, the town is an open grid with only sparse or occasional traffic. Street or yard lights do not seem to deter them.

CROSSING SITES

Here we are including only the most frequently used crossing sites and primary obstacles.

I. Starting at the most northerly point on the map with the deer which frequent the Cheverly Nature Park, we can trace them to the nearby wooded habitats, mainly north and west, but also southward along the streets. These deer enter and exit Cheverly by crossing the Baltimore Washington Parkway west, getting into the partly wooded strips of land on both sides of the Parkway, and north across Route #202 on the east side of the Parkway. These movements were verified by observation, tracks, and finding a deer carcass (apparently struck by a vehicle), immediately north of Route #202, in the open space by the edge of the woods.

II. The second crossing is not a single site but rather a wooded strip that allows access to the eastern side of Baltimore Washington Parkway via few streets and spaces between several large buildings of the industrial park.

III. From the wooded buffer of the parkway the deer can move either north or south to get to larger pieces of the mosaic connecting them to Anacostia River Park. Crossing #Route 50 from there should be relatively easy, especially at night, or at other periods of low traffic flow. The numerous underpasses and ramps at the intersection of routes #50 and #295 allow the deer to avoid the busy main branches of the two roads and slip into the woods south of Route #50. Regardless of the numerous access routes, the crossing of the main arteries remains treacherous. Next to one of the underpasses I found the remains of a large buck with a full 16 point rack.

IV. The crossings for Route #50 extend from the eastern end of the Tuxedo stormwater mitigation site west to the Anacostia River. Once they have crossed over any part of it they are relatively safe, except for the Metro trains running parallel to Route #50. Accidents still occur and, in the absence of predators, the roads are the principal means of thinning out the surplus deer.

V. One of the most significant crossing sites is opposite the Tuxedo Mitigation Site, which provides relatively good visibility both east and west and has cover on both sides. Opportunities for crossing occur during early morning and late evening hours when the traffic is less brisk.

I had the good fortune to meet a transient squatter of the area who was very familiar with the movements of the deer. He described the drifting of the deer in small groups across route 50 which closely matched my own, more occasional, observations. He also described the dangers of transmigrating across busy travel lanes, saying a deer had been killed there only about a week before. Over the years, I have found the remains of several animals on both sides of route 50.

VI. The deer often travel on or along the berms of the roads waiting for the best opportunity to cross, which means they will often attempt to cross far from where they started. Heading east after the Tuxedo Mitigation Site there are no easy places to cross until the deer reach Cheverly Ave and Columbia Park Rd.

Without attributing overly anthropocentric, or consciously teleological motives, for the deer’s behavior, we can still admit that they know where they are going (i.e. they are goal-oriented) and are headed toward the habitats south of route 50 that provide both food and shelter. Still heading east, the next place to cross would be from the westernmost end of Woodworth Park (opposite the 7/11 store) into a swampy corner lot from which they can then branch out into the woods south and west of the Metro into Boyd Park and the woods beyond. They can also follow Cabin Branch creek which is wooded on both sides almost up to Sheriff Rd.

VII. After Crossing site VI, there are no good habitats on the opposite side of Route 50, which now runs parallel with the Metro rails. Even when Route #50 traffic is at its slowest, the Metro trains still run at 15 to 30 minute intervals and can be as lethal as the larger Amtrak trains. It may be possible for deer who have crossed directly into a section of the industrial park just north of Columbia Park Rd. to slip around the buildings into the woods. Where Cabin Branch Rd. meets Columbia Park Rd. an access road continues toward Lower Beaverdam Creek that could bring them south of the latter and thus to wooded areas. Another road in the area is Beaver Rd. which is inset away from the Lower Beaverdam Creek and thus less likely to be used.

VIII. The final stretch of Route #50 adjoins the Town Park playing field, a built up residential area and Cheverly East Neighborhood Park. Although this interchange of routes #202 and #50 with its access ramps and loops looks like a dangerous mazeway of roads where traffic could come from many directions, during the quieter parts of the day or night it can actually be one of the safer places to cross. People residing in the area report seeing frequent crossings and the hoofprints in the grassy areas inside the access loops verify their observations.

IX. After crossing Route #50, the parallel tracks for the Metro and Amtrak appear to be far more dangerous. On the South side of the tracks, we found the bones of at least 7 deer that had been struck by the trains. Because not all deer struck die immediately, but are able to drag themselves off the tracks into the woods to die, they can be difficult to locate and thereby hard to count. We found the remains of one deer on the Cheverly side.

CONCLUSIONS AND SOME SUGGESTIONS

We have documented and mapped all the habitat areas, access points and exits used by the Cheverly deer, coming to the conclusion that Cheverly boundaries on all sides are entirely porous, allowing deer to come and go freely. Although the deer readily resort to the town streets, especially at night, they also utilize several paths within Cheverly that facilitate more rapid movements internally, as well as between the hubs and other favored habitats. These give the deer access to nearly every lot in town. Deer can’t be kept away from Cheverly, or any of the properties within Cheverly.

Of course, one could build at least an eight-foot-high fence around the whole area to be protected. For most people that is not feasible, for the time, effort, and cost involved. If the deer can’t be kept away, there are just a few options to deter them. Culling by shooting, trapping or other lethal methods is not allowed within the city limits. Predators may do the job, but there aren’t enough of them and they only pass through and thus are not present reliably. Since culling within city limits is not possible, fencing off a small area, or protecting individual plants with netting, cages, sleeves or other obstacles to browsing works well. For larger yards or other open spaces the use of guard dogs may be the best solution. The use of predator scents or other odors as retardants get mixed reviews, so they are not recommended here.

Because the use of deterrents needs to be tailored for specific locations, there are no general, one-size-fits-all recommendations we can make. For more detailed information on deterring deer locally, you can consult the Maryland Cooperative Extension at the UMD. Among other services, UMD Extension has an excellent guide to "Managing Deer Damage in Maryland," by Jonathan Kays. It includes a particularly helpful section on different fence designs.

Selective planting of deer resistant plants is another possibility. Another excellent Maryland Cooperative Extension pamphlet, “Resistance of Ornamentals to Deer Damage” is also recommended; it has lists of plants that are categorized according to how susceptible they are to deer browsing. Also, because deer are opportunistic browsers, planting deer-favored plants, such as day lilies or hostas, en masse, will keep them busy while other plants needing protection might be ignored. Another option is the removal of attractants altogether, e.g. food plants; or otherwise use only plants deer avoid. We have used a combination of all these strategies and have had good results with them. You could tailor them for your garden. You might want to choose from the wealth of information available from various extension services available both locally and on the Internet. Or for more customized, site-specific, advice you can also consult with the Cheverly Green Infrastructure Committee’s Science Advisory Committee.

Submitted May 2021