Comparison of treatment effort for immunocontraceptive vaccines and surgical sterilization in deer. (3rd September 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Evans, Charles S.; DeNicola, Anthony J.; Warren, Robert J.
• Is Part Of: Wildlife Society bulletin. Volume 40:Number 3(2016:Sep.)
• Page Start: 593
• Page End: 598
• Publication Date: 2016-09-03
• Subjects: deer -- human–wildlife conflicts -- immunocontraceptive vaccine -- Odocoileus spp -- ovariectomy -- remote immobilization; Wildlife management -- Periodicals; Wildlife conservation -- Periodicals; 333.9540973
• DOI: 10.1002/wsb.684
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0091-7648

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Fertility control via immunocontraceptive vaccines or surgical sterilization often is considered for the management of deer populations in urban–suburban communities in the United States. Immunocontraceptive vaccines have been approved for hand‐injection in deer and it has been suggested dart‐injection would be more efficient because of added effort associated with live capture. Vaccines currently exhibit nonresponder rates in deer and require booster shots in following years to prolong efficacy, whereas surgical sterilization has 100% efficacy for the entirety of the life of the individual. However, sterilization is considered less efficient because of additional person‐hours required during the first year of a project. Therefore, we recorded person‐hours required for the capture process (capture, search, and handling) for treating deer via hand‐injection and surgical sterilization during winter of 2013, 2014, or 2015 at sites in North Carolina, California, Maryland, New York, and Virginia, USA. These data were recorded for 335 deer across 6 urban–suburban communities. Capture effort consisted of pursuit (i.e., person‐hours to acquire shot opportunities) and search and handling (i.e., S&H; person‐hours to locate anesthetized deer and vaccinate the individual). On average, 91% and 9% of person‐hours were for pursuit and S&H, respectively. Surgical sterilization added an average of 153% to person‐hours required for the capture process; however, considering lower efficacy and retreatment requirements of vaccines, sterilization may be more efficient for long‐term control of deer in urban–suburban communities. Deer behavior varied across our 6 study sites and affected effort—more approachable deer required less effort to capture and treat with fertility control. Therefore, future research should include modelling deer behavior, effort, and efficacy over the long term to identify which situations are best suited for application of vaccine versus sterilization treatments in areas where lethal management of deer is impractical. © 2016 The Wildlife Society. Abstract : The application of immunocontraceptive vaccines or surgical sterilization to manage deer in urban–suburban communities in the United States is costly because of significant personnel effort. By comparing treatment effort, we demonstrated that live capture is not a limiting factor in the use of immunocontraceptive vaccines and that surgical sterilization should be considered in many urban‐suburban communities where lethal management is impractical.