Click to see signatories page

Contact between humans and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) has been increasing annually in North America. The handling of injured and orphaned fawns is one of the most controversial outcomes of human-deer contact due primarily to the expenditure of time and money, the high population levels of deer in eastern states, and the public concern over euthanasia of individuals. Many states permit wildlife rehabilitating to care for injured and orphaned fawns. However, little is known about the fate of these fawns after release into the wild. Fawns rehabilitated in 1990 and 1991 were released and tracked using radiotelemetry. Fawns were categorized according to the amount of time spent in captivity and whether they had health problems. For the study home ranges varied from 34.0 to 64.5 ha, mean daily consecutive movements ranged 113 to 487 m, and site fidelity was high. Daily consecutive movements were significantly larger in 1991 (u = 4.68, p < 0.01), with Category 3 movements being significantly different from Categories 2 and 4. With only one biological survivor in 1990, the November survival rate was 0.17. With less hunting pressure at the 1991 release site, nine fawns lived through November with a survival rate of 0.90, and there were three biological survivors.

The two critical factors for survival appear to be release site and human contact before and after release. However, additional research especially comparative work with wild deer is required to determine the relationship of these and other factors to survival. In light of these results, recommendations are made for rehabilitation of fawns. Under specific guidelines, rehabilitation can be effective in placing deer back into the wild, responding to public opinion, and providing potentially valuable information for methods of raising other wildlife species for release into the wild.

Back to Table of Contents

I would like to thank Howard and Kathy Quigley for their support and help above and beyond the call of duty. Thanks go to my committee members Dr. Ronald Barry and Dr. Edward Gates for their help. I appreciate John Hadidian's advise and the use of his resources. I would like to acknowledge the Maryland Department of Natural Resources for their assistance. I am grateful to Robert Smith for assistance, to Stanley Fetter for aerial tracking, and to Kevin Dodge and his students for their help. For their inspiration and tireless efforts, Dianne Pearce and the Chesapeake Wildlife Sanctuary staff, volunteers, and interns deserve more than thanks. I am much obliged to Mr. and Mrs. Coddington, their family and friends for graciously allowing me to release deer and track them on their land. A thank you belongs to Tracy Wrenn for her friendship and help. I thank my family for their love and support and Brad Barmoy for his love and faith.
 

Back to Table of Contents

Of the 15 native species of deer in the Americas, the most widely distributed is the white-tailed deer (odocoileus virynianus). From southern Canada, the white-tailed deer's range extends south into Peru and Brazil. The species is present in every state of the United States (U.S.) except Alaska, California, Nevada, and possibly Utah (Potman 1988). Its habitat ranges from sea level to mountains and includes forests, swamps, and open brushy areas.

Extensive research on the life history of the white- tailed deer has been carried out. Female white-tailed deer normally enter estrus in mid-october, November, or December (Potman 1988), and young are born from late May to early July. Fawns are weaned at approximately four months, but have been observed to nurse for up to one year (Potman 1988). They remain with their mother until parturition the following spring. Groups of yearlings form while adult females raise their newborns in isolation. By fall, males leave their mothers' home ranges and form male groups (Hirth 1973)2 female yearlings usually remain near their mothers and their fawns.

Since its near extirpation in the eastern states in the early l900s, the white-tailed deer has proliferated in the U.S. under wildlife management practices. Due to the increasing abundance of both deer and humans, contact between the two has continued and will continue to rise. The increasing abundance of deer increases hunting revenues yearly and enhances aesthetic values for those who enjoy the presence of deer (Nixon et al. 1991). However, the simultaneous growth in the human population has created problems for farmers, motorists, rural residents, and deer. Deer often exist in close proximity to humans. Limited forest cover, interlaced with farms, factories, and highways, make it difficult for deer to move without creating conflicts with human activities (Nixon et al. 1991). In Maryland, approximately 10,000 white-tailed deer are killed and thousands of others injured by cars annually (Josh Sands, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, pers. comm.). Estimates from Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, New Jersey, and Delaware are listed in Table 1. Of the regional states only Pennsylvania has a higher estimate than Maryland. Varying degrees of organization exist in the regional rehabilitation programs.

The care and fate of injured and orphaned fawns is one of the most controversial outcomes of human-deer interactions. During spring, fawns are encountered by peopled some are injured, but many are healthy and mistakenly thought to be abandoned.

These mistaken abandonments are due to lack of knowledge about the fawn-doe relationship. Between feedings, the doe leaves her fawn bedded. Since fawns are inactive and cryptic for most of their first month of life (Jackson et al. 1972), when the doe is not in the area, it is difficult for predators to locate fawns. When the mother leaves her fawn, she is probably being protective by not leading predators to her offspring. However, people view these fawns as abandoned.

In Maryland, it is illegal to possess captive wildlife without a permit (Annotated Code of Maryland subsection 10- 901, 10-902, and 10-908). This law was created for humane considerations and concern for public safety. Because of this law, Maryland's policy had been to confiscate and dispose of these fawns. This practice has created hostility between the public and the State. The State has been portrayed as "Bambi slayers" with no feelings for the deer or the families who try to "save" them (Tom Matthews, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, pers. comm.).

General experience indicates private citizens, believing they can care for fawns, hide them from State personnel and attempt to raise the animals themselves. This is not only illegal but often inhumane for the fawns and creates problems for the State. The State must expend time and effort confiscating these fawns, and a hand-raised fawn can be a danger to itself and to humans. Hand-raised fawns may not avoid humans, cars, or domestic animals, such as dogs. This behavior could, and has, led to accidents resulting in both deer and human injuries.

Growing public concern over the fate of injured and orphaned fawns stems from a concern for individual animals. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manages populations; their restrictive budget does not accommodate a concern for individual animals. But this has alienated the public, and for the DNR to function well, public cooperation is necessary. In New York, it was recognized that incorporating public values into the formation of management objectives was a prerequisite to a successful deer management program (Pomerantz et al. l987).

Rehabilitation is a safe and humane alternative for states to respond to this situation and restore public faith. Deer rehabilitation programs have been implemented in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, New Jersey, and Delaware (Table 1). In 1986, the Maryland DNR licensed the Chesapeake Wildlife Sanctuary (Sanctuary), a private, non-profit wildlife rehabilitation organization to rehabilitant white-tailed deer.

Since the creation of the deer rehabilitation program, many of the healthy fawns discovered by people have been returned to their mothers. Unfortunately, some people do not find out about the program until they have tried to care for a fawn for several days or longer. By this time, a fawn is usually emaciated and malnourished and the chance of a successful return to its mother is remote. Reluctant to turn fawns over to the State, some seek advice and learn about the sanctuary.

Each year, the number of deer admitted to the Sanctuary has increased, and consequently the program receives increasing attention from both supporters and critics. The increasing number of deer admissions also means increasing concern for the logistics of the program and for the fate of the released deer. The need for scientific evaluation of the Maryland rehabilitation program, and others like it, has become apparent.

One of the major concerns in wildlife rehabilitation work is the maintenance (or development) in wildlife of human avoidance behavior. Maintenance of this behavior is especially difficult in young animals. Organizations and agencies have been rehabilitating deer for several years under the assumption that it is possible to rehabilitant white-tailed deer for proper release into the wild (See Table 1). Generally, their techniques focus on isolating fawns to minimize human and domestic contact.

Another behavioral concern is that of learning. Are there particular behaviors necessary for deer survival that are not innate but learned from the doe? Two areas in which the mother could play an important role are the choice of food items and the development of the behavioral repertoire necessary for interactions with conspecifics.

If rehabilitation efforts are to be of value, such questions and concerns require closer examination. The research project presented herein attempts to identify those characteristics that influence the survival of fawns raised by humans and released into the wild. The goal of this project is to assist in the formation of specific release criteria and provide a basis for evaluating the rehabilitation program. This project is the first step in the Sanctuary ' s post-release study to document the fate of rehabilitated f awns and improve the rehabilitation program. Two hypotheses f or the study are: 1) Rehabilitated fawns can be successfully released into the wild ; 2 ) The level of human contact negatively affects fawn survival.

Back to Table of Contents

Release sites were chosen according to proximity to Frostburg State University, visibility for collecting location and behavioral data, and location of roads f rom which to radiotrack. Site selection was restricted to Maryland because if jurisdictional problems with transportation of wildlife across state lines, and state differences in wildlife management and rehabilitation programs.

In September 1990 , rehabilitated deer were released into Green Ridge State Forest (GRSF) in Allegany County (Fig . 1) . GRSF is located in a mountainous region that includes the northern extension of the Blue Ridge . This region contains a series of oak-pine, oak-hickory, and mixed mesophytic forests , most of which are less than 50 years old ( Brown and Brown 1972).

Maryland is mandated to manage the GRSF on a multiple use concept that includes management for timber and wildlife resource extraction (Francis Zumbrun, Maryland Department of Natural Resources , pers . coma. ) . Hunting pressure in this area is intense. All release sites were closed-canopy forest, except one, which was adjacent to a 4-5 ha permanent wildlife clearing.

In September 1991, rehabilitated deer were released onto 1040 hectares of privately owned land in Garrett County (Fig . 1) . The land borders the east side of the Youghiogheny River, approximately 6 km south of Friendsville. This region is considered a southern extension of the eastern hemlock-white pine-northern hardwood forest (Brown and Brown 1972 ) . Since a pellet analysis was begun the second year, plant species were identified on the property (Appendix 111).

The owner manages f or timber harvest of insect damaged trees. Approximately 90% of the property is f crested, with one 49-50 ha permanent clearing. Hunting of bucks occurs only during firearms season, with approximately 20 hunting permits issued. Mineral licks, apples, corn, and horse feed are placed at two locations by the owner for attracting wildlife.

Back to Table of Contents

Rehabilitation

Fawn rehabilitation was carried out within the wildlife rehabilitation program operations of the Sanctuary. Fawns and other wildlife species were brought to the Sanctuary by private individuals and were admitted after a physical examination. Methodology for the rehabilitation of fawns at the Sanctuary was based on methods used at the Driftwood Wildlife Association, Driftwood, Texas (Connell 1985).

Fawns were segregated according to age and health. Injured fawns and those under three weeks of age were initially placed in an intensive care ward. This ward was an isolated room (approximately 3.5 x 4.5 m) that permits monitoring of health and temperature control. Healthy fawns over three weeks of age were placed in an outside stockade enclosure. The outdoor enclosure was a small yard with a padded stall. The small yard was connected by a door to a larger area (15 x 37 m) containing natural vegetation cover. Within the enclosure, small shelters provided protection from harsh weather.

When fawns were admitted to the Sanctuary, they were first physically stimulated (because very young fawns must be stimulated to urinate and defecate). Following this, the fawns were given a physical exam. In the physical exam, age, sex, and weight were determined. Temperature and turgor were then checked along with an examination for injuries, illness, and external parasites. An initial treatment guide was created and modified during this study (see Appendix 1). During admission, as much information as possible was obtained about when, where, and why the fawn was found, along with any food or treatment the fawn had received. If the fawn was not a good candidate for return to its mother, the information provided was used in determining housing, diet, and any treatment.

Diet for each fawn was determined by its condition upon admittance. Healthy fawns that had not been fed since capture were fed Kid Milk Replacer (KMR) Land-o-Lakes, Inc., Fort Dodge, Iowa). Fawns believed to be newborn and possibly not received their motherly colostrum initially were given goat colostrum and gradually switched to KMR. Fawns that had been fed by people, dehydrated fawns, and fawns with diarrhea were given LifeGuard (SmithKline Beecham, West Chester, PA), an electrolyte solution, for approximately 24 hours and subsequently started on KMR. At the beginning of both sunders, goat milk was used initially, followed by a gradual switch to KMR. Fawns received natural forage items and fresh water daily.

If a fawn was old enough, it was placed outside in the padded stall until it learned to feed from a bottle rack (installed so visual contact between humans and fawns was prevented) and defecate on its own. Subsequently, the fawn was placed in the outside enclosure. To promote conspecific socialization, more than one fawn was present in all housing situations. During summer, fawn weight (kg), volume of KMR consumed, and medications were noted, as well as any unusual behavior that could be associated with illness.

Each year, attempts were made to reduce human contact based on the findings of the previous year's research and to improve housing and nutritional care. Also, to minimize human contact and control interactions, only the Program Coordinator and the college interns assigned to the project were allowed access to the enclosures on a regular basis. At the end of each summer, college interns were required to submit a written documentation of the rehabilitation procedure, any changes made, the results of these changes, and any recommendations for the subsequent summer.

In 1991, a number of changes were instituted at the Sanctuary. To further minimize human contact, a blind was built from which to observe the deer without entering the pen. More veterinarian care was also available. Consequently, diagnostic and treatment efficiency increased. A bottle rack was installed in the small pen to further minimize human contact. The bottles were placed in the rack from the outside of the pen without visual contact with the fawns. A larger padded stall was created with a cement floor, which allows for easier cleaning and replacement of straw.

Telemetry

Prior to release into the wild, all deer were ear- tagged and selected individuals were radiocollared. Plastic ear tags were used because of their retention and visibility (Beasom and Burd 1983). All radio collars incorporated a ''break-away'' mechanism designed to allow the collar to fall off the study animal at approximately eight months (Telonics, Mesa, AZ). Transmitters also incorporated a mortality sensor that alters the transmitting signal if the collar has not moved in 5.5 h. This alerted me to the possible death of study animals, and action was taken to retrieve the animal and determine the cause of death.

During each field season, deer were separated into categories for release. Fawns were grouped according to the time spent in captivity and whether or not they had health problems. These two factors were used as an indication of the amount of human contact the fawns received. Grouping the fawns in this way allowed determination of the effect of human contact on survival.

In 1990, there were three categories. Category 1 consisted of three fawns, plus one adult female, having the least amount of human contact while in captivity. Category 2 consisted of fawns that had been in captivity longer (approximately 100 days) than Category 3 (68 to 98 days) but had had fewer health problems and consequently required less attention. Both Categories 2 and 3 consisted of three fawns. Two fawns in each category were radiocollared; the adult was also equipped with a radio collar.

In the second field season, deer were grouped according to one of four categories:

Category 1: fawns (five) in captivity ten to 68 days, with no or few health problems;

Category 2: fawns (two) in captivity ten to 68 days, with health problems;

Category 3: fawns (four) in captivity 71 to 106 days, with no or few health problems;

Category 4: fawns (five) in captivity 71 to 106 days, with health problems.

For transport, deer were anesthetized with Rompun (xylazine hydrochloride) at a dosage of 1.1 mg/kg of body weight, and a dark hood was placed over each debris head. once immobilized, they were radiocollared. Deer were not transported until they had recovered from the Rompun; because, transporting without drugs is safer for the deer, and it helps insure the deer will be alert and ready for release as a group (Jones and Witham 1990).

Once deer were released, locations were obtained by triangulation of radio-azimuths. Locations were recorded to the nearest 100 m using X and Y Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates. For each radiocollared individual, a location was sought every 5 h for the first 24 h after release, and once per day for the following three weeks. Subsequently, a location was obtained three times per week, until the end of firearms season (last weekend of November), and once per week until the collars became inactive, fell off, or Mortality occurred. When study animals were sighted, behavior (i.e. flight, feeding, attentiveness) was noted, and if a mortality was discovered, attempts were made to discover the cause and circumstances surrounding the death.

Statistical Analysis

This project used two different periods to determine the survival of fawns and success of the Sanctuaries rehabilitation program. Immediate survival was defined as survival for up to sixty days from release. Survival beyond sixty days constituted biological survival. Within each survival period, cause of death (if known) was used for evaluating success of the rehabilitation program. Survival rates were calculated on a monthly basis by dividing the number confirmed dead by the number confirmed alive for each month. Fawns were presumed alive for the entire month in which they were last sighted.

Data collected using radio telemetry were analyzed using the program Home Range (University of Idaho). Home range is defined here as ''the area transverses by an individual in its normal activities of food gathering, mating, and caring for young'' (Burt 1943). Home ranges were calculated using the minimum convex polygon method (White and Garrott 1990). Distance between consecutive 24-hour locations were calculated and compared between the categories using analysis of variance (Cody and Smith 1991). Shifts in the center of activity were identified along with any outliers (White and Garrott 1990). Centers of Activity (CA) were determined by calculating a bicoordinate from the mean X and mean Y coordinates for the time period in question. For fidelity analysis, both weekly and monthly time periods were utilized for CAs since intensity of radio- tracking decreased with time. Mean locations for each time period were then compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test (sokal and Rohlf 1981). All statistical tests were done at the 0.05 probability level.

Back to Table of Contents

Tracking Period and Fate.

From 17 May to 31 August 1990, 29 orphaned fawns and one adult deer were admitted to the Sanctuary. Nineteen fawns died from injury or sickness, one fawn was euthanized, and nine fawns plus the adult were released (Table 2).

Rehabilitated deer were released into the GRSF in september 1990. A release site for each of the three categories was chosen (Fig. 2). Tracking period and fate of the fawns is summarized in figure 4. All three members of category 2 and Category 3 groups remained together. Both groups showed little concern for the presence of humans and could be easily approached.

Category l deer (adult(B), 47, and #19) did not remain together after release. The adult was shot on the first day of firearms season 77 days after release. Deer #7 remained in his home range until the end of October. Subsequently, his radiocollar was found approximately 2 km northeast of that area; it had been cut and removed from the animal. Deer #19 was tracked until her radiocollar fell off on 19 July 1991. She is the only known survivor of the 1990 release. There were only three sightings from this group, one sighting of deer 47 and two sightings of #19. Both of these deer fled when sighted from approximately 15 m, 30 my and 40 M. Deer #19 was observed during spring and summer of that year in the company of at least two wild deer. Fates are unknown for deer #5, #17, and #2G (not radiocollared).

In 1991, 29 fawns and two adult deer were admitted to the Sanctuary between 28 May and 29 August; seven deer died of sickness or injury, seven deer were euthanized, and 15 rehabilitated fawns, plus a fawn born at the Sanctuary, were released for study (Table 3).

In September, these deer were released at four different release sites on the Garrett County study site (Fig. 3). Tracking period and fate are summarized in figure 4. Category l deer separated soon after release. Prior to release, only deer #19 and deer #28 would tolerate the presence of humans without fleeing. Deer #26 was found dead after 12 days of radiotracking. A necropsy was performed, but the cause of death could not be determined. Deer #19 was legally shot after 94 days of radiotracking. Fates of deer #25, #28, and HB are unknown (not radiocollared).

Category 2 deer did not tolerate the presence of humans. Deer 421 was reported killed by a car on 23 December 1991. After this time, deer 418 was observed travelling with three wild deer until her collar was found on 18 May 1992. Neither of these deer could be approached within approximately 40 m.

Three of the four Category 3 deer (deer #4, #11, and 416) and deer #1 from Category 4 began travelling together approximately six weeks after release. This group tolerated the presence of humans but displayed alarm and flight behavior when sudden movements were made or when wild deer displayed alarm and flight behavior; this was not observed in the first summer's deer. After approximately six weeks, this group routinely travelled to a neighboring property where food was put out daily for the deer by the property owner. Deer 44 lost his collar on 14 October, after 30 days of tracking, but was observed with the group until she disappeared the third week of December. The collar on deer #11 fell off on 10 October 1991, and deer #1 lost her collar on 30 January 1992. However, the fawns were observed daily with the group until 19 March 1992. On l May 1992, deer #16's radio collar was found approximately 6 km north of the group's last sighting; the deer was presumed to have been illegally killed. In October, this group had been seen in the company of a wild fawn. On 4 November 1992, deer #1 was observed eating the food put out at the neighboring property. On 21 September 1991 deer #15 was observed on a neighboring property. This same property owner reported finding #15 dead. However, the fawn's tag number could not be confirmed.

Deer #6 from Category 4 was released alone at site 1. He had been treated for two broken legs and had received the most care at the Sanctuary. He was considered tame and would follow people. After release, he was unapproachable. He was observed travelling with at least one wild deer. His collar was retrieved on 18 May 1992. Deer #13 was observed travelling with 41 until 17 September 1991 and was not observed since. Fates of deer #7 and #23 are unknown.

In summary, in the first year, of ten deer released, there are five known deaths (all three categories), one known final survivor (Category 1), and the final fate of four are unknown (all three categories). Three legal and two illegal kills are believed to be the causes of death. There were seven immediate survivors (October survival rate = 0.83) and one biological survivor (November survival rate = 0.17) (Table 4). In the second year, of 16 deer released there are four known deaths (Categories 1, 2, and 3), three known final survivors (Categories 2 and 4), and the final fates of nine are unknown (Categories 1, 3, and 4). Causes of death for the second year include one legal kill, one illegal kill, one car accident, and one unknown. There were 12 immediate survivors (October survival rate = 0.90), and nine biological survivors (November survival rate = 0.90).

Home Range

Home range estimates are shown in Figure 5. For 1990, there is a positive correlation between home range and number of days tracked (r = 0.96, n = 6, p < 0.01). There is no correlation between number of days tracked and home range for 1991 (r = 0.37, n =8, p>0.05). Also, there is no correlation between release weight and home range for either year (r = 0.15, n = 6,
p > 0.05 for 1990, and r = 0.37, n = 8, p > 0.05 for 1991).

Centers of Activity were calculated for each home range, and the distance between this location and the release site was calculated. In 1990, the mean distance = 641 m (SD = 1177,
n = 6), and in 1991 the mean distance = 816 m (SD = 570: n = 8). In 1990, deer in Categories 2 and 3 retained the release site within their home ranges, distances ranged from 41 to 178 m. In Category 1, the CA was 400 m, 3 km, and 723 m (mean = 1374 my SD = 1417) from the release site for deer #7, #19, and B, respectively. For 1991, only deer #6 of Category 4 and #26 of Category l retained the release site in their home range, distances from release site to Center of Activity were 149 m and 214 m, respectively.

Daily Consecutive Movements

The mean daily consecutive movement for the study was 273 m (SD = 247). The mean daily consecutive movements for 1990 and 1991 were 155 m (SD = 130) and 345 m (SD = 274), respectively. The Mann-Whitney U test showed that daily consecutive movements were significantly larger (u = 4.68, p < 0.01) in 1991 (Sokal and Rohlf 1981). For 1990, there was no difference between categories. In 1991, there was a significant difference between categories ( F = 5.05, p < 0.01). A Duncan's Comparison Report showed that movements for Category 3 (mean = 487 my SD = 290) were significantly different from Category 2 (mean = 281 m, SD = 176) and Category 4 (mean = 201 m, SD = 116).

Fidelity

Only two significant differences were found. In 1990, deer #11 displayed significant movement between the fifth (10/6-10/12) and sixth (10/13-10/19) week of tracking (H = 20.78, p > 0.05). In 1991, deer 419 significantly moved between the third (9/14-9/20) and fourth (9/21-9/27) week of tracking (H = 28.01, p > 0.05).

Back to Table of Contents

Tracking Period and Fate

Release site appears to be an influential factor affecting survival. In 1990, the probability of survival beyond firearms season was 0.17, while in 1991 survival beyond firearms season was 0.90. The decreased mortality and the longer tracking periods in 1991 may be a reflection of the lack of hunting pressure in the Garrett County release site. This private property more closely represents the sanctuaries preferred release site criteria, which are: little or no hunting, private property, and the presence of deer.

Differences in behavior may also have influenced survival. Because of their exposure to humans while in captivity, most rehabilitated deer are easily tamed. For this reason, isolating fawns from humans during rehabilitation is essential. In 1990, only the Category 1 deer actively avoided humans. In the second year, the rehabilitation program was modified to decrease contact with humans. After release, three deer in Category 1, Category 2 deer, and one deer from Category 4, displayed alarm and flight responses to the presence of humans. Category 3 deer displayed alarm and flight responses in the first three weeks after release. subsequently, these deer habituated to a neighboring property owner who routinely fed wildlife on his property. Human contact b0th before and after release are important factors affecting survival. Activities of property owners, such as feeding wildlife, could not only affect survival but avoidance behavior as well. These activities are counter to the isolation approach in rehabilitation because they provide association with human dwellings and human activities.

Another factor affecting survival may be acceptance by wild deer. The development of flight behavior is a learning process in which fawns learn to distinguish potential sources of danger (Stuwe, 1986). Three rehabilitated fawns accepted by wild deer displayed human avoidance behavior. This included deer #6, who had the most human contact during captivity and showed an affinity for humans. Apparently, the accepted fawns learned the avoidance behavior from the wild deer. These fawns may have survival advantages over those not accepted by wild deer. These three survivors were similar in that they were travelling alone prior to being accepted by the wild deer.

It is unclear why the survivors were accepted by wild deer. Twice I observed wild deer displaying hostile behavior toward rehabilitated deer, and the same behavior was observed by the property owner. This was characterized by flattening the ears against the head, lowering the head and neck, and running toward the released fawn. The released fawn responded by running and stopping a short distance away.

Deer #6 of 1991 was travelling with a wild male fawn. This wild fawn had probably recently dispersed from his mother's home range; males usually disperse in the fall (Hölzenbein and Marchinton, 1992). This could mean acceptance by wild deer depends not only on the behavior of the rehabilitated deer and size of the release group, but also on the social status of the wild deer. Both deer #19 from 1990 and #18 from 1991 were seen travelling with three wild deer. Because sex of these wild deer were not determined it would be difficult to hypothesize on their social status.

Home Range

The correlation between home range and number of days tracked for 1990 was probably due to the early mortalities, which shortened the tracking periods. Nine of the 14 collared fawns had home ranges within the 15.5 to 49.7 ha, reported by Ozoga and Verge (1986) for Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Three fawns in 1990 had unusually small home ranges due to early mortalities, and two fawns, deer #19 (1990 survivor) and deer #16 (1991 illegally killed deer), had home ranges of 64.5 and 52.5 ha.

The greater distances between release site and center of activity for Category l deer was due to their dispersal immediately after release. This may have been because they spent the least amount of time in captivity and did not establish a social bond. The dispersal of 14 out of 16 deer released in 1991 may have been due to the decrease in human contact in the rehabilitation procedures. Although, home ranges did not include the release site, the distances to the release sites were not large.

Daily consecutive Movements

Few estimates of daily consecutive movements were available for comparison. However, estimates of 109.6 to 127.7 m for mean distances moved (Ozoga et al., 1982) were reported for fawns aged l - 56 days. Mean daily movements for rehabilitated fawns were slightly higher (113.7 to 487.2 m). Because released fawns were older than 56 days, their movements were expected to be greater. However, the absence of a mother, and unfamiliarity with the area could influence movements and make them more reluctant to travel away from the release location. Fawns raised in a confined area without the guidance of their mothers have no experience with daily movements for food searches, protection, and cover.

Fidelity

Site fidelity appears high in the radiocollared study animals. However, past research also documented such characteristics. Hölzenbein and Marchinton (1992) reported orphaned male fawns did not disperse from their native area and displayed high site fidelity. They suggested this behavior may increase survival because of familiarity with escape cover and potential dangers. High site fidelity may also be an advantage for rehabilitated deer. Other natural advantages of this behavior may include familiarity with areas of preferred food items. Fawns displaying high site fidelity would benefit from the survival characteristics of the release site such as low hunting pressure. Those fawns not displaying high site fidelity could travel into areas with potential dangers, such as greater hunting pressure, decreasing survival.

Conclusions

Rehabilitated fawns can be successfully released into the wild. From this study, release site appears to be an influential factor affecting survival. This is suggested by the differences in survival rates and hunting mortality in the two years of the study. Strong site fidelity accentuates the importance of release site characteristics.

Human contact both before and after release may influence fawn behavior and their chances of being accepted by wild deer. However, there was not enough evidence to accept or reject the hypothesis that human contact 50th before and after release affects fawn survival. Fawns normally learn potential sources of danger, escape cover, and probably even food choices by observing their mothers. Rehabilitated fawns may learn these behaviors from traveling with wild deer. since deer have strong social tendencies, fawns with little human contact may actively seek other deer and increase their chances of integrating with wild deer.

This pilot study was performed to develop methods for answering survival factor questions and identifying areas that need additional study. Further research is necessary. Comparative studies with wild deer would help determine the level of influence site fidelity, release group size, human food sources, and human contact have on survival.

Management Implications

Since the establishment of the deer rehabilitation program, many fawns have been successfully returned to their mothers. Without the rehabilitation program, these fawns would have been hidden from the State by people fearing the fawns' destruction. The Sanctuary's rehabilitation and education programs have decreased the number of mistaken abandonments, increased the potential to improve relations between the DNR and the public, and saved the State money by decreasing the number of confiscations.

If high site fidelity is a characteristic of rehabilitated deer, then reintroduction programs may benefit by using rehabilitated deer instead of translocated individuals. In 1987, Paris reported average dispersals of 7.6 km (SE = 6.6) and higher for translocated female white- tailed deer. High site fidelity would increase the chances of successful reintroduction. Cost of the Sanctuary's rehabilitation program is estimated at $750/fawn.

However, the potential for these deer to become pests or semi-domesticated is likely very high. Rehabilitation programs must strive for the highest possible level of isolation from humans. Post-release studies and evaluations would allow continued improvements in isolation and quality of care during rehabilitation.

Back to Table of Contents

The ultimate goal of a rehabilitation program is to raise healthy individuals that, when released, become as wild a component of native populations as possible. During the course of this study, possible improvements to the program became apparent. Noteworthy improvements involve changes to the deer enclosures. More than one indoor enclosure would allow isolation of sick fawns from the healthy young. This would decrease the spread of illness and decrease stress from overcrowding. Indoor enclosure bottle racks, such as those in the outdoor enclosures, would reduce deer-human contact. Because crowding and heat can be factors in stress, enlarging the outdoor enclosure to include more natural cover and large trees could improve the condition of captive fawns. External covering for rehabilitating may increase the isolation effect, although it may not be possible in certain situations if the covering inhibits needed movements.

The recommendations for release are: a minimum release weight of approximately 18 mg, a solid food diet, release sites on unfunded property, and small release groups. Each fawn could be evaluated separately for release. Early releases of fawns that meet the requirements would allow more care of those not ready, and possibly increase overall survival. Established private release sites, where the owners actively participate in the release program each yearn could also enhance survival.

Back to Table of Contents

Beasom, S.L., and J.D Burd. 1983. Retention and visibility of plastic ear tags on deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 47:1201-1203.

Brown, R.G., and M.L. Brown. 1972. Woody plants of Maryland. Port City Press, Baltimore. 347pp.

Burt, W.H. 1943. Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. J. Mama. 24:346-359.

Cody, R.P., and J.K. Smith. 1991. Applied statistics and the SAS programming language. North-Holland, N.Y. 403pp.

Connell, A.S. 1985. Careguide for white-tailed fawns based on experience in central Texas. Driftwood Wildlife Assoc., Driftwood. 38pp.

Hölzenbein S., and R.L. Marchinton. 1992. Emigration and mortality in orphaned male white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 56:147-153.

Jackson, R.M., M. White, and F.F. Knowlton. 1972. Activity patterns of young white-tailed deer fawns in south Texas. Ecology 53:262-270.

Jones, J.M., and J.H. Withal. 1990. Post-translocation survival and movements of metropolitan white-tailed deer. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16:380-384.

Nixon, C.M., L.P. Hansen, P.A. Brewer, and J.E. Chelsvig. 1991. Ecology of white-tailed deer in an intensively farmed region of Illinois. Wildl. Monogr. No. 118. 77pp.

Ozoga, J.J., L.J. Verge, and C.S. Bienz. 1982. Parturition behavior and territoriality in white-tailed deer: impact on neonatal mortality. J. Wildl. Manage. 46:1-11.

Ozoga, J.J., and L.J. Verme. 1986. Relation of maternal age to fawn-rearing success in white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 50:480-486.

Paris, R.C. 1987. Mortality, dispersal, and habitat use of resident and translocated white-tailed deer does in the Cumberland Plateau of eastern Kentucky. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Kentucky, Lexington. 83pp.

Pomerantz, G.A., R. Stumvoll, and D.J. Decker. 1987. Public values and white-tailed deer management in New York. Pages 357-365 in Valuing wildlife economic and social perspectives (Decker, D.J., and Goff, G.R. ads). Westview Press, Boulder.

Putman, R. 1988. The natural history of deer. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca. 191pp.

Sokal, R.R. and F.J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. W.H. Freeman and Co., N.Y. 859pp.

Stuwe, M. 1986. Flight order and its development in white- tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 50:699-701.

White, G.C., and R.A. Garrott. 1990. Analysis of wildlife radio-tracking data. Academic Press, Inc., N.Y. 383pp.

Back to Table of Contents

Table 1. Estimated numbers of white-tailed deer killed by cars for states surrounding Maryland and a summary of state rehabilitation programs.
view Table 1

Table 2. Physical characteristics and captivity history for rehabilitated white-tailed deer released into Green Ridge State Forest, Maryland, in 1990.
view Table 2

Table 3. Physical characteristics and captivity history for rehabilitated white-tailed deer released into Garrett County, Maryland in 1991.
view Table 3

Table 4. Monthly survival rates (numbers of fawns alive/total number of fawns) for rehabilitated white-tailed deer released in 1990 and 1991.
view Table 4

Back to Table of Contents

Figure 1. Release locations for rehabilitated white-tailed deer released in 1990 and 1991.
view Figure 1

Figure 2. Green Ridge State Forest, Maryland release sites. Category 1 deer were released at site 1 on Oldtown Road, Category 2 deer were released at site 2 on Merten Road and Category 3 deer were released at site 3, the permanent clearing on Oldtown Road.
view Figure 2

Figure 3. Garrett County, Maryland release sites. Category 1 deer were released at site 1, Category 2 deer were released at site 2, Category 3 deer were released at sites 3 and 4, and Category 4 deer were released at sites 1 and 3.
view Figure 3

Figure 4. Tracking period and fate of rehabilitated white- tailed deer released in 1990 and 1991. Animals are grouped by category and identified by number (ID). The number in parenthesis represents the release site. Filled bars represent category l deer, right slashed bars represent category 2 deer, clear bars represent Category 3 deer, and cross hatched bars represent Category 4 deer. Letters at the end of each bar represent fate; S = survived, D = dead, and U = unknown. *Release dates were 8 September and 22 September for 1990, and 31 August and 15 September for 1991.
view Figure 4

Figure 5 . Estimated home ranges and number of days tracked (in parentheses) for rehabilitated white-tailed deer released in 1990 and 1991 . Filled bars represent Category l deer, right-slashed bars Category 2 deer, clear bars Category 3 deer, and cross-hatched bars Category 4 deer.
view Figure 5

Back to Top