Wiring Diagram for Beechcraft Premier IA

Perennial sunflower* Pinks Plumbago Poppy Primrose Queen of the prairie Rhubarb Ribbon grass Rock-cress Rose champion Rosemary Sage Scarlet sage Scilla Sensitive fern Shasta daisy* Siberian Iris Silvermound Snakeroot Snowdrop Soapwort Society garlic Spiderwort Spike gayfeather Spurge Squill St. John’s wort Star of Bethlehem Star of Persia Statice Stella de Oro daylily Summer snowflake Sundrops Sweet Cicely Sweet William Tansy Thyme Tiger lily Toadflax Turtlehead Tussock bellflower Wild indigo Windflower (Anemone) Winter savory Wintergreen Wormwood Yarrow Yucca* (Adam’s needle) SHRUBS/TREES Allegheny serviceberry American bittersweet American Holly* Andromeda Austrian pine Bald cypress Banana shrub Barberry Beautybush Blueberry elder Bottlebrush buckeye Boxwood Butterfly bush Caryopteris Cherry laurel Chinese holly* Chinese junipers Chinese paper birch Colorado blue spruce Common buckthorn Common lilac Common sassafras Corkscrew willow Cotoneaster Cranberry Crape myrtle Creeping wintergreen Dawn redwood Deodar cedar Deutzia Douglas fir Downy serviceberry Dragon lady holly Dwarf sweet christmas box Dwarf Yaupon Eastern white pine Eleagnus English hawthorn European beech European privet European white birch False cypress Fir Firethorn Flowering quince Forsythia (border) Gardenia Ginkgo Goldenbells Gordonia Heather Heavenly bamboo Heritage birch Honey locust Honeysuckle Inkberry Japanese andromeda Japanese cedar Japanese flowering cherry Japanese holly Japanese Pieris Japanese rose Japanese wisteria John T. Morris holly Kousa dogwood Leatherleaf mahonia Leucothoe Leyland cypress* Lydia Morris hollies Mountain laurel* Mugo pine Northern bayberry Norway spruce Oleander Paper birch Panicled dogwood Paw paw Pitch pine Plum yew Red maple Red osier dogwood Red pine Redvein enkianthus River birch Rose of Sharon Rotunda Russian olive San Jose holly Scotch pine Scots pine Shadbush Shallon Spirea Spruce Staghorn sumac Sweet mock orange Sweetgum Sweetshrub Vibernum Weigela White spruce Winter daphne *Deer damage on these plants show regional differences *Some plants listed may be both annual and perennial DEER-PREFERRED PLANTS DEER-PREFERRED PLANTS DEER-PREFERRED PLANTS DEER-PREFERRED PLANTS DEER-PREFERRED PLANTS (Avoid planting these in deer country) Annuals and Annuals and Annuals and Annuals and Annuals and Biennials Biennials Biennials Biennials Biennials Dahlia English daisy Fibrous begonia Geranium Hollyhocks Impatiens Pansy Sunflower (Mexican) Violas Perennials/Bulbs Perennials/Bulbs Perennials/Bulbs Perennials/Bulbs Perennials/Bulbs Bishop’s weed Black-eyed Susan Buttercup Candytuft Cardinal flower Crocus Daisy Daylily English ivy Garden phlox Golden sunflower Grape hyacinth Hibiscus Hosta (Plantain lily) Hollyhock Japanese painted fern Jerusalem artichoke Lilies Perennial sunflower Periwinkle Rose Rose mallow Sedum “Autumn Joy” Shasta daisy Solomon’s seal Spring-flowering crocus Stock Trillium Tulip Wallflower Yucca (Adam’s needle) American arborvitae American holly Apple/crabapple Arborvitae Atlantic white cedar Atlas Cedar Aucuba Balsam fir Blackberry & Raspberry Catawba Rhododendron Cherries Chinese holly Clematis (vine) Shrubs/Trees Common winterberry Cornelian cherry dogwood Cornelian dogwood Crabapple Deciduous azalea Eastern red cedar Eastern redbud English yew English/Japanese hybrid yew Euonymus European mountain ash Evergreen azalea Evergreen holly Evergreen rhododendron Florida azalea Frazer Fir Fringe tree Goldenrain tree Hemlock Highbush blueberry Hybrid rose Hybrid tea rose Hydrangea Indian Hawthorn Japanese maple Japanese yew Juniper Leyland cypress Manchurian lilac Merserve holly Mountain laurel Nellie Stevens holly Norway maple Pear Pink shell azalea Pinxterbloom azalea Plum Quince Redbud Rhododendron Rose Saucer magnolia Western yew White pine Winged euonymus Wintercreeper Yew These tables of “deer-preferred” and “deer-resistant” plants are a compilation of information from the following sources: Reducing Deer Damage to Home Gardens and Landscape Plantings by Paul D. Curtis and Milo E. Richmond <www.dnr.cornell.edu/ext/chdp/ reducingdeerdamage.htm>; Limiting Deer Browse Damage to Landscape Plants by Jeffrey Ward, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven, Bulletin 968: Nov. 2000; Resistance of Ornamentals to Deer Damage by Jonathan Kays, 1999, Maryland Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet #655; Deer Tolerant Ornamental Plants by Jeff Jackson and Gary L. Wade, as listed under “Timely Horticulture Tips” Publication H-97-032 of the University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Cooperative Extension Service <www.ces.uga.edu/agriculture/horticulture/deer.html>. We also used deer-resistant plant species lists given to us by Carolyn Singer of Foothills Cottage Gardens in California <www.fcgardens.com>, and the Deer Resistant Nursery in Michigan <www.deerxlandscape.com>. REPELLENTS Repellents are products that are meant to disrupt and reduce deer browsing. How- ever, deer are very adaptable and may vary their taste preferences. Therefore, the ef- fectiveness of repellents will vary and will depend on a number of factors: * Seasonal changes in plant palatability * Local deer taste preferences and nutri- tional needs * Availability of alternative foods * Time of year * Deer density * Type of repellent and concentration of active ingredients * Durability of the repellent and how of- ten it is applied Plants are most vulnerable in winter, when snow cover or extreme cold reduces food availability, and in early spring when young, succulent spring growth on orna- mentals may occur before native plants. In addition, most repellents require reappli- cation at regular 3-4 week intervals and after heavy rains. This is why people may consider repellents to be labor-intensive and not always cost-effective, particularly over larger acreage. On the more positive side, repellents are easy to apply and in- visible, thus having much aesthetic appeal. What Makes Some Repellents More Effective than Others? The most effective repellents tend to be those that produce sulfurous odors and are considered “fear-inducing.” These repel- lents depend completely on detection through odor. It is believed that deer asso- ciate a sulphur smell with the presence (or carnage) of a predator. (Some deer re- pellents and homemade recipes con- tain animal-based ingredients, and their discussion here for educational purposes does not imply endorsement by The Fund for Animals.) Not all sul- phurous odors are equally effective, how- ever. For example, compounds containing garlic seem to be less effective than sul- phur compounds in urine. Aside from fear-inducing odors, repel- lents use other modes of action (some re- pellents combine several modes of action) which include: 1) Taste: these include bitter ingredients that presumably create a bad flavor. These must be continually applied to the growing parts of plants. 2) Pain: these include ingredients like hot pepper (capsaicin) or ammonia, which cause irritation on contact with the mu- cous membranes, eyes, mouth, nose or gut. 3) Conditioned aversion: these products cause animals to form an association be- tween the treated item and a feeling of sickness, usually gastrointestinal. There are two kinds of delivery systems for repellents: topical (repellent placed di- rectly on the targeted plant) and area (such as scent packets, where the protection zone is meant to extend beyond the immediate area where the repellent is present). In general, topical repellents appear more ef- fective than area-based ones and odor- based repellents tend to outperform taste-based repellents. Taste receptors in animals are different than those in humans. Some chemical compounds which are ex- tremely bitter to humans tend not to bother deer at all (Lutz and Swanson). Tips for Successful Repellent Application: 1) All repellents work best if applied be- fore the deer’s feeding pattern becomes established. This means applying repel- lents before bud-break and as new growth appears. You don’t want to break a browsing habit, but rather prevent one from forming! 2) Because rainfall washes off repellents, you’ll need to reapply repellents after heavy rains. We recommend routine re- Photo: Laura Simon A wide range of repellents are available at garden and hardware stores. application at least every 3-4 weeks so that new, growing plant parts are pro- tected as well. 3) Deer may become accustomed to the same repellent and ignore it over time. Alternating repellents may help to keep the deer confused and more wary. 4) At the height of growing season, you might consider choosing an odor repel- lent over a taste-based one. Taste-based repellents need to be constantly applied to any new growth to keep the whole plant tasting bad. 5) The longevity of some repellents can be enhanced by adding a “sticker,” which is an adhesive product that literally makes the repellent “stick” to the plant longer! Some commercial “stickers” are Wilt Pruf, Vapor Gard and Weathershield and can be purchased at garden stores. Some repellents already contain a sticker as part of their formulation. How Do I Choose a Repellent? Many repellents are stocked by your local garden, farm supply or hardware store, and it’s a good idea to ask what seems to be working best in your area since the ef- fectiveness of repellents varies locally and regionally. Ask your neighbors what works for them. Overall, the one repellent that seems to score highest most consistently is Deer Away Big Game Repellent. Table 2 gives sources for certain repellents that you may not be able to find locally. Have There Been Comparative Studies of Repellents? There have been some published stud- ies that compare various repellent products on the market. A recent study (Wagner and Nolte) reported that the most effective re- pellents (out of 20 tested) were Deer Away Big Game Repellent, Plantskydd, Bye Deer, Deer Away Deer and Rabbit Repellent (now marketed as Get-Away Animal Repellent) and Deerbuster sachets. All of these prod- ucts reduced deer browse damage for all 18 weeks of a winter study, with 2 (Big Game Repellent and Plantskydd) outper- forming the others by repeatedly, and quite effectively, protecting plants for 6-8 weeks when directly applied. Interestingly, the sachets were effective only when they were placed so that any product dissolving in rain could drop onto the plant surfaces. Another earlier study (Lutz and Swanson) reported that Deer Away Big Game Repel- lent, Hinder (mixed 1/1 ratio with water), and Miller Hot Sauce (mixed at a ratio much higher than the labeled concentration, to achieve a 6.2% product /100 gallons water ratio) were the most effective repellents in several field trials. A note of caution: Studies vary widely in the types of repellents they tested, which plant or food was used as a carrier, repel- lent concentrations, test duration, experi- mental design, and criteria for success. Overall, many factors influence repellent effectiveness, including: a) relative palat- ability of the plant to be protected, b) avail- ability of alternative forage, c) weather, d) amount and concentration of repellent used, e) size of the deer herd, and f) test duration (El Hani and Conover). There have also been less formal, consumer- based assessments, such as one published in Consumer Reports magazine which re- ported that 5 of the most effective repel- lents (out of 11 tested) were Hinder, Bobbex, Irish Spring soap, Repel Bye Deer sachets, and a homemade egg and hot pep- per spray (see homemade solution #2). NON-COMMERCIAL REPELLENTS::::: Soap Bars: Hanging a bar of soap, particu- larly Irish Spring, from a bush or tree will help protect it. Be sure to leave the soap wrapper ON and drill a hole through the center of the soap and suspend it with a string. The brand of soap you choose must be high in tallow fatty acid. Glycerin and coconut-based fatty acid soaps do NOT seem to repel deer well. Disadvantage: the sphere of protection is limited to the im- mediate area around the tree/bush. Be sure to hang the soap bars no more than 3 feet apart, up to a height of 6 feet, all around the tree/bush. Human Hair: Although hanging sachets of human hair costs very little, it does not consistently repel deer. Hair can be ob- tained from beauty salons and barbershops quite easily, however. Hair should be bagged in 1/8-inch mesh bags or nylon stockings, and contain at least 2 handfuls of hair apiece. Bags should be hung at least 3 feet apart from each other and up to a height of 6 feet if the tree/bush to be pro- tected has a wide diameter. Refresh the bags monthly with fresh hair. Some users have found that periodically spraying the bags with cologne or aftershave enhances their effectiveness! HOMEMADE SOLUTIONS::::: 1) Mix 3 eggs well in a blender. Mix with 1 gallon of water. Spray on plants. Reap- ply after heavy rains. Disadvantage: this solution may clog sprayer. 2) Mix 4 eggs, 2 oz. red pepper sauce, 2 oz. chopped garlic. Blend with enough wa- ter to make 1 quart. Strain and apply with spray can. This is the Consumer Reports recipe. A SAMPLING OF COMMERCIAL REPELLENTS: Note: See Table 2 for more options and a full ingredient list. Some commercial deer re- Some commercial deer re- Some commercial deer re- Some commercial deer re- Some commercial deer re- pellent products contain animal-based pellent products contain animal-based pellent products contain animal-based pellent products contain animal-based pellent products contain animal-based ingredients, and their listing here for edu- ingredients, and their listing here for edu- ingredients, and their listing here for edu- ingredients, and their listing here for edu- ingredients, and their listing here for edu- cational purposes does not imply endorse- cational purposes does not imply endorse- cational purposes does not imply endorse- cational purposes does not imply endorse- cational purposes does not imply endorse- ment by The F ment by The F ment by The F ment by The F ment by The Fund for Animals. und for Animals. und for Animals. und for Animals. und for Animals. Deer Away Big Game Repellent Deer Away Big Game Repellent Deer Away Big Game Repellent Deer Away Big Game Repellent Deer Away Big Game Repellent (BGR): This product comes in both a powder and liquid form (the product’s powder form seems more effective than the liquid form) and is considered by researchers to be the most consistently effective deer repellent. BGR is an odor-based repellent comprised mostly of putrescent egg solids. It is usu- ally available in garden stores. Miller’s Hot Sauce Miller’s Hot Sauce Miller’s Hot Sauce Miller’s Hot Sauce Miller’s Hot Sauce and Deer Away Deer Deer Away Deer Deer Away Deer Deer Away Deer Deer Away Deer and Rabbit Repellent and Rabbit Repellent and Rabbit Repellent and Rabbit Repellent and Rabbit Repellent (now marketed as Get-Away Animal Repellent Get-Away Animal Repellent Get-Away Animal Repellent Get-Away Animal Repellent Get-Away Animal Repellent): Both of these products rely on trigeminal nerve ir- ritation in the mouth caused by the hot pepper sensation. For severe deer brows- ing, the Miller’s Hot Sauce manufacturer may recommend that the product be ap- plied at 10-100 times the labeled concen- tration and that a sticker, such as Vapor Gard, be added to ensure higher durability. The effectiveness of any capsaicin-based (hot pepper) product appears to depend largely on the concentration of capsaicin used and that the product be reapplied ev- ery 2-3 weeks (or less) so that any new plant growth is covered. Taste-based repel- lents seem to have a shorter duration of effectiveness than odor-based. This may be due to the lack of an associated odor cue, so deer continually sample growing plants and quickly notice if the hot pepper flavor is absent from any plant parts. See Table 2 for recommended applications and more in- formation about these two products. Hinder: Hinder: Hinder: Hinder: Hinder: This is an odor deterrent, based on ammonium soaps high in fatty acid. Ad- vantage: This is one of the few products that can be used on garden vegetables. It is usually available in garden stores. Milorganite: Milorganite: Milorganite: Milorganite: Milorganite: This human sewage-based fertilizer is primarily an odor deterrent, available at most garden stores. Recom- mendation: Spread in a wide band around the perimeter of a garden, reapply as di- rected and after heavy rains. It is usually available in garden stores. At this time, we can’t say how effective this product is for deterring deer. Plantskydd: Plantskydd: Plantskydd: Plantskydd: Plantskydd: This new product that origi- nated in Scandinavia is made from dried blood and vegetable oils. Many animals re- act to the smell of blood, instinctively knowing that if blood is found outside the body, something is wrong. This product scored highly in deer repellency studies. TABLE 2: COMMERCIAL REPELLENTS NOTES: - Many of these repellents are available at your local garden store. - This list is not all-inclusive, but rather a representative sampling. - RTU means “ready-to-use” form (i.e. pre-mixed). Products marked with an asterisk* include animal ingredients and their discussion here for educational purposes does not imply endorsement by The Fund for Animals. TRADE TRADE TRADE TRADE TRADE ACTIVE ACTIVE ACTIVE ACTIVE ACTIVE COST OF ONE COST OF ONE COST OF ONE COST OF ONE COST OF ONE NAME NAME NAME NAME NAME INGREDIENT(S) INGREDIENT(S) INGREDIENT(S) INGREDIENT(S) INGREDIENT(S) QUAR QUAR QUAR QUAR QUART TT TT OF OF OF OF OF SOURCE SOURCE SOURCE SOURCE SOURCE COMMENTS COMMENTS COMMENTS COMMENTS COMMENTS READY READY READY READY READY-T -T -T -T -TO-USE O-USE O-USE O-USE O-USE *Deer Deer Deer Deer Deer AAAAAway Big way Big way Big way Big way Big Game Repellent Game Repellent Game Repellent Game Repellent Game Repellent (((((comes as a concentrate, powder, or a RTU form called “Deer and Rabbit Deer and Rabbit Deer and Rabbit Deer and Rabbit Deer and Rabbit Repellent Repellent Repellent Repellent Repellent”))))) Putrescent eggs 4.63% in RTU, 37% in concentrate Ready-to-use Ready-to-use Ready-to-use Ready-to-use Ready-to-use $17.99 Concentrate Concentrate Concentrate Concentrate Concentrate $9.95 Powder: 1 lb Powder: 1 lb Powder: 1 lb Powder: 1 lb Powder: 1 lb $24.95 Intagra 8906 Wentworth Ave. S. Bloomington, MN 55420 (800) 468-2472 www.intagra.com This putrescent egg- based repellent scores most highly in repellent studies. Powder form of product seems most effective. Odor based. Reapply every 4 weeks. *Deer Off *Deer Off *Deer Off *Deer Off *Deer Off .7813% egg solids; 0.0006% capsaicin and 0.0006% garlic in RTU $18.99 Deer Off 1492 High Ridge Rd. Suite 5 Stamford, CT 06903 (203) 968-8485 www.deeroff.com This product combines taste (capsaicin) and odor (egg) for repel- lency effect. Reapply every 3-4 weeks. *Liquid Fence *Liquid Fence *Liquid Fence *Liquid Fence *Liquid Fence Contains egg solids (co. won’t reveal %); 3% garlic powder $11.95 Liquid Fence Inc. PO Box 300 Broadheadsville, PA 18322 (888) 923-3623 www.liquidfence.com Odor and taste-based repellent. Reapply after one week and then monthly. *Plantskydd *Plantskydd *Plantskydd *Plantskydd *Plantskydd 87% edible animal protein (bloodmeal); 3% vegetable fat; 5% salt; 5% water $27.00 Tree World 4466 Stalashen Dr. Sechelt BC, Canada V0N 3A1 (800) 252-6051 www.plantskydd.com A new product from Scandinavia, odor-blood- based ingredients. Scored highly in studies. Miller Miller Miller Miller Miller’’’’’s Hot Sauce s Hot Sauce s Hot Sauce s Hot Sauce s Hot Sauce 2.5% capsaicin $98.00 per half gallon (not sold by RTU quart) Miller Chemical PO Box 333, 120 Radio Rd. Hanover, PA 17331 (800) 233-2040 www.millerchemical.com * company will consult with you to make sure product fits your problem specifics Be sure to add a sticker (ex: Vapor Gard). This This This This This product must be handled product must be handled product must be handled product must be handled product must be handled very carefully due to very carefully due to very carefully due to very carefully due to very carefully due to capsaicin (hot pepper)! capsaicin (hot pepper)! capsaicin (hot pepper)! capsaicin (hot pepper)! capsaicin (hot pepper)! Manufacturer suggestion for heavy deer browsing: Apply at ratio of 1-2 quarts repellent, 1-2 quarts sticker (ex: Vapor Gard), to 100 gallons water. *Deer Stopper *Deer Stopper *Deer Stopper *Deer Stopper *Deer Stopper Mint oil, rosemary oil, sodium chloride Egg solids: 1.52% in RTU, 15.2% in concentrate $16.99 Landscape Plus PO Box 122 Chester, NJ 07930 (908) 832-0711 www.deerstopper.com A new formulation containing herbal oils. DeerBusters Deer DeerBusters Deer DeerBusters Deer DeerBusters Deer DeerBusters Deer and Insect and Insect and Insect and Insect and Insect Repellent Repellent Repellent Repellent Repellent 3.33% garlic $19.95 with hose- end sprayer attachment DeerBusters 9735A Bethel Rd. Frederick, MD 21702 (888) 422-3337 www.deerbusters.com This garlic-based repellent doesn’t persist long so it must be re- applied every 7 days and after rain. Get-A Get-A Get-A Get-A Get-Away way way way way Animal Animal Animal Animal Animal Repellent Repellent Repellent Repellent Repellent .625% capsaicin, .21% allyl isothiocyanate (mustard) $17.99 Intagra 8500 Pillsbury Ave. Minneapolis, MN 55420 (800) 468-2472 www.intagra.com This product scored fairly well in a recent study. Taste/pain based repellent. Reapply every 2 weeks. *Hinder *Hinder *Hinder *Hinder *Hinder RTU: consists of .66% ammonium salts of higher fatty acids Concentrate:13.8% ammonium salts of higher fatty acids RTU 24 ounce $12.99 $25.00 for one gallon of concentrate E. M. Matson Jr. Co. Inc. PO Box 1820 North Bend, WA 98045 (425) 888-6212 One of the few products registered for use on edible plants. Reapply every 2 weeks. *Deerbusters Deer *Deerbusters Deer *Deerbusters Deer *Deerbusters Deer *Deerbusters Deer and Rabbit Repellent and Rabbit Repellent and Rabbit Repellent and Rabbit Repellent and Rabbit Repellent Concentrate: 13.8% ammo- nium salts of higher fatty acids $33.95 for concentrate DeerBusters 9735A Bethel Rd. Frederick, MD 21702 (888) 422-3337 www.deerbusters.com This product can be used on edible plants. Reapply every 2 weeks. sive initial outlay of funds, yet a well-maintained fence should last 5-25 years. There is a wide variety of fencing options now available. Certain fences, such as the 8-10 foot tall woven wire fence, provide an absolute bar- rier since they are high enough to prevent deer from going over them and solid enough to prevent deer from going through them. However, most other fences, such as elec- tric fences, are considered more of a “men- tal barrier” since they are low enough to jump yet the use of electric shock (nega- tive stimuli) or slanted-construction (i.e. illusion of a formidable fence) teaches the deer to stay away. Full instructions for how to build or in- stall many deer fencing options are avail- able through the book Prevention and Con- trol of Wildlife Damage (Craven and Hygnstrom, 1994 — see “Deer” Chapter) which is also available online via <www.wildlifedamage.unl.edu> (see “Re- sources” for how to access this text online). You can also consult with fencing suppli- ers (see Table 3) or your local farm sup- plies, garden, or hardware store. ELECTRIC FENCES Note: Be sure to check your local ordinances regarding electric wire fencing to find out what is permissible in your community. Electric fences are among the most ef- fective deterrents. They can be con- structed in a variety of configurations such as a baited, single strand or 5,7, or 9 wires pitched either horizontally or vertically. They are powered by high-voltage, low amperage chargers that provide timed pulses of short duration. Deer quickly learn to avoid these fenced-in areas. Electric fences are more of a “behavioral barrier” than an ab- solute barrier, which means that if they’re not properly main- tained (see Tips), deer will learn how to get through them. If you have a small garden or area to pro- tect, check with your local garden store because many sell electric fence kits that may suit your needs. Know that deer are quite resis- tant to electric shock due to their hollow, well-insulated hair, and the small, pointy design of their hooves which lessens the electrical impact. This is why they can often get through the horizontal wires of electric fences without feeling much of a shock. TIPS FOR SUCCESSFUL ELECTRIC FENCES::::: 1) INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE: Fences must be regularly inspected and maintained to remain effective. Every week, check for broken wire and do a voltage check. Deer constantly test fences and if they get through once, it is much more difficult to recondition them. 2) MOWING: Vegetation must be cleared away --- and kept away --- from the lower wires or the wire may short out. Be sure to clear a minimum 10-15 foot buffer on the outside of the fence so deer see it and don’t run through it. 3) BAITING: Many professionals believe that baiting with peanut butter or other lure is vital to make electric fences fully functional. Some fencing suppliers in- corporate bait holders into their fence kits (see Premier 1 Supplies and DeerBusters products, Table 3). Peanut butter baits can be applied to aluminum foil strips each week (see diagram A B e l o w b u t b e s u r e t o scrunch the foil around the peanut butter so it doesn’t flutter in the wind) or directly onto the electric wire/ polytape. You want the deer to first taste the pea- nut butter, not to be scared of it. When the deer make nose-to-fence contact, they get an unpleasant jolt that con- ditions them to avoid the fence in the Single strand polywire electric fence. (From S. Craven and S. Hygnstrom's “Controlling Deer Damage in Wisconsin,” Publication No. G3083, University of Wisconsin–Cooperative Extension, Madison. Reprinted with permission. AAAAA Two-strand polywire/polytape electric fence. (From S. Craven and S. Hygnstrom's “Controlling Deer Damage in Wisconsin,” Publication No. G3083, University of Wisconsin–Cooperative Extension, Madison. Reprinted with permission. BBBBB SCARE DEVICES: Another way to deter deer is to scare them. However, deer tend to habituate to most scare devices over time. Their initial fear of a device that looks, moves, or sounds strangely may even result in curiosity fol- lowed by rapid habituation as the deer learns that the device is not harmful. Scarecrow Motion Activated Sprin- kler: This is a motion sensor combined with a sprinkler that attaches to a spray hose. When a deer comes into its adjust- able, motion detecting range, a sharp burst of water is sprayed at the animal. By com- bining a physical sensation with a startling stimulus, this device appears to be more effective than other devices that rely on sights or sounds alone. This device report- edly is effective for other mammals that may come into gardens and sells for ap- proximately $99. Purchasing information can be obtained from Weitech Company at (800) 343-2659 or <www.scatmat.com.> Havahart #5250 “Electronic Deer Repellent”: This highly portable “repel- lent” consists of 3 stake-like devices, cot- ton and a scent lure and is aesthetically colored to blend into the environment. The deer are attracted to the lure and receive a mild electric shock when they reach it. The concept is to train them, through aversive conditioning, to stay away from gardens. This 3-post device covers 1200 square feet of garden, according to the company. The current produced by this device has very low amperage and duration of only a few milliseconds. It costs $99. Look for this product in the “Electrical Repellents” sec- tion under “Deer” on the Havahart website, <www.havahart.com>, or by calling (800) 800-1819. Ultrasonic Devices: There are several devices which supposedly repel wildlife by producing high-frequency, short-wave ul- trasonic sounds that are inaudible to people but are heard by animals such as deer, dogs and cats. One commonly sold “deer alert whistle” is torpedo shaped and meant to be affixed to car bumpers. How well the devices work is not scientifically known. There is anecdotal information for and against them; therefore, we are not recom- mending the use of these products at this time. FENCING OPTIONS: When deer browsing is at moderate or high levels, or a landowner isn’t willing to tol- erate even a limited amount of browse dam- age, fencing to exclude deer is the only option. This will involve a more expen- future. Clean off any old peanut butter so it doesn’t get moldy. [A recent publi- cation (Craven et al, 2001) suggests that baiting may not be necessary.] 4) LEAVE FENCE ON: Leave the electric fence ON at all times to prevent deer from testing the fence when it’s off. 5) CHARGERS AND WARNINGS: It is important to use a high quality energizer (or charger) that puts out 5000 volts. Chargers (also called energizers) are AC, battery or solar-powered. How well a charger performs is dependent on its power output measured in “joules un- der load.” To effectively repel deer, a good rule of thumb is that one joule of output from a charger will adequately power 3000 feet of fence wire. Check with your fence supplier to make sure that the charger is matched to the fence design and is appropriate for your needs (Kays 2001). And don’t forget to put up warning signs. 6) REPELLENTS: For added deterrence, after deer have made initial contact with the fence, you can take strips of cotton and soak them in an odor repellent (Table 2). Hang the strips at regular in- tervals and reapply the repellent every month. The odor will help reinforce the negative impact of the electric shock. SOME ELECTRIC WIRE FENCE TYPES: Single-Strand “Peanut Butter Fence”: This single-strand fence design relies on a peanut butter (see “A” at left) or other “bait” being attached to the wire (usually through strips of aluminum foil hung from the wire with cloth adhesive tape) to reinforce a negative message. This fence is only 2 ½ feet high and most effective for small gar- dens and nurseries under 3 acres. Use 17- gauge smooth wire and attach to wooden posts (as illustrated, except be sure to scrunch aluminum foil around the peanut butter so it doesn’t flutter in the wind). The cost is under 15 cents per linear foot. DeerBusters sells a single strand, baited fence kit for properties under 4 acres. This kit has aluminum caps built into the fence design to hold lure, which makes bait ap- plication easier and “less messy.” Polytape and Polywire Fences: These temporary fences (see “B” at left) are highly portable and best suited to home gardens, small nurseries, and orchards under 40 acres that don’t have severe browsing pres- sure. Polywire is composed of 3, 6, or 9 strands of metal filament braided with stands of colored polyethylene. Polytape is wider and more expensive, yet flutters in the wind more so it may not last as long TABLE 3: SUPPLIERS OF DEER FENCING Please note that this is a partial list of some mail order fencing suppliers. FENCING SUPPLIER FENCING SUPPLIER FENCING SUPPLIER FENCING SUPPLIER FENCING SUPPLIER COMMENTS COMMENTS COMMENTS COMMENTS COMMENTS Premier Fence Co. 2031 300th St. Washington, IA 52353 (800) 282-6631 www.premier1supplies.com The catalog contains excellent electric fence tips and a broad variety of fencing options. Call to request a catalog and for free consulting and guidance. The 3-D Scented Anti-Deer Fence (a kit that includes scent lures built into the electric wire system), Intellirope, and electrified netting are some of the fencing products available from this source. Kiwi Fence Systems, Inc. 121 Kiwi Rd. Waynesburg, PA 15370 (724) 627-8158 www.kiwifence.com The catalog contains a variety of fencing options including the relatively new five-wire electrified “spider” fence for farm use. Forestry Suppliers, Inc. PO Box 8397 Jackson, MS 39284 (800) 647-5368 www.forestry-suppliers.com This company sells solid tube seedling protectors (i.e. individual 4-foot high cylindrical tubes) that protect seedlings and saplings during the early growth stages. Gallagher Power Fence, Inc. PO Box 708900 San Antonio, TX 78270 (800) 531-5908 www.gallagherusa.com This company sells permanent and portable (tempo- rary) electric wire fence systems. They also carry the high-quality electric Turbo-tape. Benner’s Garden, Inc. 6974 Upper York Rd. New Hope, PA 18938 (800) 753-4660 www.bennersgardens.com This black, polypropylene fencing is very lightweight and blends into the environment but may entangle wildlife due to its low visibility. If used, be sure to attach light, bright streamers to the fence every 3 feet so animals see it. This fencing is for short-term use only. Kencove Farm Fence, Inc. 344 Kendall Rd. Blairsville, PA 15717 (800) 245-6902 or (800) 536-2683 www.kencove.com The website offers an electric fence manual on-line including installation strategies for 7-wire deer fence. DeerBusters 9735 A Bethel Rd. Frederick, MD 21702 (888) 422-3337 www.deerbusters.com This company offers a single strand, electric fence kit that includes warning signs, posts, corner supports, polywire, a tester, and a “deer pop” bait system (aluminum caps filled with a refillable scent lure), that attaches to the wire for easy use. Also carried is invisible, lightweight black polypropylene fencing. West Virginia Fence Co. US Route 219 Lindside, WV 24951 (800) 356-5458 www.maxflex.com This company offers electric fence and high tensile woven-wire fences to exclude deer. Margo Supplies PO Box 5400 High River Alberta, Canada T1V 1M5 (403) 652-1932 www.margosupplies.com This company offers electric fencing: portable, high tensile and a galvanized cable electric fencing. Live Wire Product, Inc. 1127 E St. Marysville, CA 95901 (800) 272-9045 This company offers woven-wire high tensile fencing systems as well as electric fences. Deer-Resistant Landscape Nursery 3200 Sunstone Court Clare, MI 48617 (800) 595-3650 www.deerxlandscape.com This company offers a nearly invisible 8 foot polypropylene fence. Be sure to attach light, bright streamers to avoid entangling wildlife. as polywire. It is best to purchase materials with the least electrical resistance (ohms/ 1000 feet) to prevent loss of voltage due to long distances. Polytape or polywire fences are usually suspended 30 inches off the ground by fiberglass rods at 2-4 foot in- tervals. It is recommended that a second wire be added to increase effectiveness, so that one is at 18 inches and the other at 36 inches. These fences can last 15+ years and be installed for less than 25 cents per linear foot. Many kits, which include all materials, are available so check fencing sup- pliers (see Table 3) and your lo- cal garden store. 3-D Scented Anti-Deer Fence: This new electrified rope system (see “C”) (sold by Premier 1 Sup- plies) takes advantage of the fact that deer have limited depth per- ception. Two electric fences are spaced 3 feet apart from each other to create somewhat of a 3- D effect. The outer fence has one rope with scent caps attached (which contain cotton to hold an apple scent lure) to attract the deer. The inner fence has 2 strands of electrified rope. Both fences are electrified by the same ener- gizer. The whole system costs under 35 cents per linear foot to install and will last 7-10 years. The apple scent is sold sepa- rately for $5 an ounce, and a few drops are used per application. It is recom- mended that the scent be refreshed ev- ery 10-14 days. Electric–Bait Kit: Deerbusters sells a single-strand electric fence kit that comes with “deer pops” (aluminum caps that hold scented lure), posts, corner supports, polywire, a tester, and warning signs. The kits come in either solar or plug-in designs. The plug-in is recommended because it’s more powerful. This kit is for small (under 4 acre) gardens. Cost of kit ranges from $225-315 depending on size of area to be covered. Electric Spider Fence: This relatively new fence is mainly used to protect domes- tic animals or crops. It contains a 5-wire system that is only 4 feet tall and uses a light 16-gauge wire (see “D”). It relies on fiberglass posts that maintain wire tension and spacing. It does not require bracing but requires wood posts on the corners. It comes with an electrified gate. Note: this is a semi-permanent fence (lasts 10-12 years), and not as durable or long lasting as woven wire. Baiting with peanut butter (as outlined above) is important to make this fence fully effective. The cost is under 50 cents per linear foot. High-Tensile Vertical Fence: These fences deter deer effectively as long as a height of 8 feet is achieved and the wires are correctly spaced so deer don’t go through them (see “E”). We recommend the design using 9 high-tensile wires (Craven et al, 2001 — see diagram). Deer will try to go under or through these kinds of fences, so the bottom wire should be no more than 2 inches off the ground (strung very tightly) with additional wires spaced at 8-9 inch in- tervals. The materi- als include high-ten- sile, smooth wire, (12 ½ gauge) and an en- ergizer that puts out 5000 volts at a maximum pulse. This fence can last as long as 25 years. Installation and materials range from 50 cents to $1.50 a linear foot. Some people run an additional, baited strand of hot wire (such as Premier Fence’s Intellitape or Intellirope) outside the fence to ensure that deer encounter elec- trified wire and get a shock before attempt- ing to go through the vertical fence. The main problem with vertical fences is that deer tend to get through them, which is why this new design (9 high tensile wires, strung no more than 9 inches apart) replaces the older recommendation of a 7-wire vertical fence, with wires 10-12 inches apart (Cra- ven et al, 2001). Slanted 7-Wire Fence: This 12 gauge fence is a variation of the vertical fence and generally more effective because it con- fuses deer. It must be slanted at a 30-de- gree angle to the ground. Because of the slanting effect, the deer see a much more formidable barrier than really exists. It measures only 5 feet high but 8 feet wide, and contains an electrical “incentive” which increases its deterrent value. This kind of fence costs about $1.50-2.00 per linear foot. The disadvantages are that it’s more difficult to maneuver around this slanting fence to do maintenance (mowing, etc.) due to its wide berth. More importantly, far fewer people use this fence because it “requires strict adherence to construction guidelines concern- ing rigid fence corner assemblies and fence configurations (Craven et al, 2001).” NON ELECTRIC FENCE TYPES: Woven Wire Fencing: The woven wire fence (see “F” top of next page) is consid- ered the most effective deer barrier. It is very durable and excludes deer quite ef- fectively as long as it is at least 8 feet high. Woven wire fencing will last 20+ years. It can be a bit expensive initially (about $5 per linear foot) and labor intensive to in- stall, but is well worth the effort! Plastic Mesh: Netting provides protection for individual ornamental shrubs and fruit plants. The netting can be draped over each individual plant or an enclosure made of netting to “box off” an entire blueberry bush area. Netting can be inexpensively bought at most garden or hardware stores. “Invisible Fence”: (see “G” top of next page) Rolls of 8-foot high plastic netting can be purchased to create an “invisible fence.” However, the advantages of this product Electric Spider Fence Photo: Kiwi Fence Systems, Inc. High Tensile Vertical Fence Craven et al, 2001. Controlling Deer Damage in Wisconsin. Cooperative Extension Publication 63083. Reprinted with permission Photo: Premier 1 Supplies 3-D Scented Anti-Deer Fence CCCCC EEEEE DDDDD (blends into environment) is what make it potentially dangerous for wild animals who may get entangled in it. This type of fenc- ing costs less then $1 per linear foot. A recent study (Rosenberry et al) reported that this material can be used to create por- table, inexpensive deer-proof fencing us- ing PVC pipes for corner posts. The net- ting used was 2.4 m, 8 foot tall plastic fenc- ing material with 2 x 2.75-inch mesh. A gas- powered auger was used to place PVC pipes underground into which corner posts were inserted. A note of caution: if an invisible fence is used, please be sure to hang long (12-18 inches) white streamers, at least 4 feet off the ground, at every 3 foot interval so that deer, birds and other wild animals see it and don’t plunge through and become entangled. Tree Shelters (also called seedling protec- tors): Tree shelters are individual corru- gated polypropylene tubes, 4 feet high, placed around individual seedlings so they can grow quickly in a pro- tected environment un- til they are fairly well out of the reach of the deer. The tubes are supported by wooden stakes. The tubes function as a “mini-greenhouse” due to the warmer and moister micro-climate contained within. Tree shelters are fairly costly, averaging about $2.50 per tube. Tree shelters are most widely used in commercial forestry practices. DISEASE: LYME DISEASE MISCONCEPTIONS Lyme Disease is spread by Ix- odes scapularis, the black- legged tick. The actual disease-carrying agent is a bacterium (Borrelia burg- dorferi). It is carried in the bloodstream of hosts who get infected when bitten by a bacterium-carrying tick. Al- though the disease is transmit- ted entirely through tick bites, the disease can be transported to new areas by birds who carry the ticks (Anderson et al, 1984). The Ixodes tick has a 3-stage life cycle in which the tick transforms from a larvae into a nymph and finally, into an adult. This life cycle takes 2 years to complete. At each stage, the tick attaches to a host and slowly takes a blood meal over the course of sev- eral days. A blood-engorged tick then drops off the host and molts into the next stage. For some unknown reason, the tick seems to prefer a progressively larger host moving through the larval, nymph and then adult life stages. Although deer are a preferred host for the adult stage of the tick, they are not the only host (the term “deer tick” is a misno- mer!). The black-legged tick is carried by 49 bird species and all mammals except bats (Anderson, 1984). Therefore, the re- moval of one host, the white-tailed deer, does not stop the spread of the dis- ease. In some cases, when deer numbers have been experimentally eradicated from an area, the ticks have been noted to switch to other hosts (Duffy et al, Mannelli et al) or occur at higher densities on the re- maining deer (Deblinger et al). DEER AND LYME DISEASE The reason that hunting doesn’t control Lyme disease is because hunting does not significantly reduce the tick population. In one study where as many as 70 percent of the deer were removed from an island, there was “no marked reduction in the abundance of the tick” (Wilson et al, 1988). In later years, the sub-adult tick numbers declined but the adult tick abundance ac- tually increased. Another study found that a gradual re- duction of deer density (from 350 to 60 deer) did not produce a rapid, precipitous decline in immature tick abundance but rather, immature ticks declined 5-7 years after the depopulation effort while adult tick numbers actually increased. The threshold of deer abundance below which tick reproduction declines remains un- known (Deblinger et al). However, it ap- pears that well over 70 percent of a deer population would need to be removed to have an impact on the tick population (pers comm, Kirby Stafford). Yet a recreational deer hunt only removes 25-30 percent of a deer population at best, therefore hunting does not come anywhere near reaching this critical threshold. There is another reason why hunting won’t reduce Lyme disease. When looking at the life cycle of the black-legged tick, one sees that the ticks tend to utilize deer in the adult stage, when they mate and take a final blood meal prior to the adult females dropping off and laying eggs. This occurs in September through November. However, hunting season in the northeastern United States takes place in late November through January, after most of the ticks have mated and dropped off the deer already. Thus, hunt- ing season occurs too late to disrupt the tick’s reproductive cycle. Ironically, hunting may actually increase the public safety risk by in- creasing the number of “questing” ticks who are looking for a host after deer numbers have been reduced. The bottom line is that Lyme disease is a serious, complex disease. An inte- grated approach is needed to curtail its spread. Current research focuses on us- ing deer feeders that have vertical roll- ers coated with an acaricide (tick-killing product) called Amitraz. The concept is that the chemical will rub off on the deer’s neck when the deer comes to feed, and thereby kill the ticks before they reproduce. Researchers are also looking at various ways to apply acari- cide treatments to the first host of the tick, the white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), so that the dis- Woven Wire Fence. From S. Craven and S. Hygnstrom, “Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage, 1994.” University of Nebraska, Cooperative Extension. Invisible fence made of plastic mesh fencing. (From “Deer Damage a Problem?,” Benner’s Gardens, Inc. Reprinted with permission.) Do not nail directly to trees. Nail a 2x4 pressure-treated board to the tree and then attach the fence to the board. Photo by Laura Simon. FFFFF G GG GG The town of Waterton, Canada sets a model in living compatibility with deer, elk, and pronghorn sheep. Wrapping protective devices around trees is so common that it has become part of the town aesthetic. ease spread is curtailed in the early stages. STEPS TO REDUCE THE RISK OF LYME DISEASE: Dress Preventatively: When outdoors, wear light colored clothing and tuck pant legs into socks. Most ticks are picked up on the lower legs and then crawl up the body seeking a place to feed. Also apply a good tick repellent (containing deet or pyrethrim) to clothing, particularly around legs and pant cuffs. Check for ticks fre- quently. Studies indicate that it takes a tick several hours to attach to a host, and, on average, it takes 24-48 hours for Lyme dis- ease transmission to occur through a bit- ing tick. Therefore continual tick checks and a nightly thorough check after remov- ing clothing should reduce the risk. If a tick is found, pull straight out carefully with a tweezers, being sure to get the mouthparts out intact. Contact your local health depart- ment if you want the tick tested for the presence of the Lyme disease bacterium. Save the tick (alive) in a small vial or jar. Watch for Rash: After being bitten by a black-legged tick, watch for reddish, some- times bulls-eye shaped rash, which is a clas- sic sign of Lyme disease onset. However, this characteristic rash does not occur in all cases, so consult your doctor if recur- ring flu, fatigue, or other symptoms develop after an Ixodes scapularis tick may have bit- ten you. Alter the Habitat: Closely cropped lawns with substantial solar exposure appear to contain fewer ticks. Simply mowing the lawn and removing debris piles and any other vegetative cover will discourage mice, which will reduce the tick population. DEER POPULATIONS AND “MANAGEMENT” METHODS Hunting deer will not significantly re- duce the incidence of Lyme disease nor is it an effective population reduction method. In fact, deer hunting actually increases deer population size. When a deer population is hunted, about 20-30 percent of the popula- tion may be removed. This results in more food being available for the remaining deer. Deer exhibit a physiological response to their nutritional condition. Scientific stud- ies show that better-nourished deer have more fawns, lower neonatal mortality, in- creased conception rates, and a higher prevalence of pregnancy in yearlings (Verme, 1969; Verme, 1982; Severinghaus and Cheatum; Mansell). For example, in hunted populations, does are more likely to have twins rather than a single fawn. One study revealed that the incidence of twin- ning was 38% on a hunted site as compared to 14% on a non-hunted site (Richter and Labisky). In other words, after hunting season, deer have more young and breed at an ear- lier age. The result is a quick rebound in population size. So as illogical as it sounds, hunting, in essence, increases deer popu- lation size. This is why hunting is more of a “temporary fix” rather than a real solu- tion to deer problems. But state fish and game agencies have several powerful motivations for not allow- ing deer populations to fall too low. First, agencies are largely funded by the sale of hunting licenses. The federal Pittman- Robertson Act apportions monies to states based on their land area and number of hunting licenses sold. Thus, the more li- censes sold, the more revenue generated for the state. Second, most fish and game agencies have a dual mandate, written into law, which presents contradictory de- mands: 1) to manage deer for recreation, i.e. to keep the deer population high enough so there are enough deer for hunters to shoot and 2) to keep deer numbers com- patible with other land uses, i.e. to keep deer numbers low enough so they don’t have a negative impact on landowners. This mandate presents an impossible challenge for agencies since they are being pressured to both increase and decrease the deer herd at the same time. However, because the agency’s funding base is so dependent on hunting license revenue, there is irresistible incentive to prioritize managing for a large deer herd. DEER/VEHICLE COLLISIONS There are reports around the country of increasing numbers of deer/vehicle col- lisions. It is estimated that there are 1.5 million deer/vehicle collisions in the U.S. every year resulting in 200 human fatali- ties and approximately 1.4 million deer deaths (Conover et al). Public officials fre- quently attribute these collisions to an in- creasingly large deer population, but fail to see the greater impact of more roadways being built, more people driving, and more roadways bisecting wildlife habitat and mi- gration routes. In addition, human activi- ties such as frequent mowing of roadsides, along with road salt use in winter, regularly attract deer to roads. Collisions are influ- enced by the weather, the time of year (spring and fall are peak collision times), amount of roadside shrubbery which can reduce visibility, and the palatability of roadside vegetation, among other factors. PREVENTION TECHNIQUES: The Wildlife Society conference* in 1996 devoted a full day workshop to seek- ing solutions to the dilemma of wildlife-highway collisions (West and Messmer). Several studies revealed that road design, road condition, and speed trav- eled were the factors that most strongly influenced the number of deer/vehicle col- lisions. Bumpier, narrower roads with twists and turns, and slower travel speeds (under 45 mph), resulted in fewer collisions with wildlife. Interestingly, the bumps and twists and turns in the road seemed to slow down drivers more than posted speed lim- its, which people tend to ignore. *For more information on this conference’s findings, please write to: Wildlife and Highways c/o Terry Messmer Jack Berryman Institute UMC 5210, Utah State University Logan, UT 84322-5210 Crossing Signs: Attempts to alert motor- ists to the presence of deer through the standard “deer crossing” signs have proven ineffectual because people grow accus- tomed to the pretty yet static silhouette of a running deer and no longer react to it. However, when signs are combined with flashing red lights, drivers tend to slow down. Fencing: One of the most successful but expensive techniques for alleviating deer/ vehicle collisions is to use fencing to prevent deer from crossing roads. At times, deer get over one fence and then are trapped on the road, creating a serious safety hazard. To counter this, some states use crossing structures, such as one-way steel return gates and earthen ramps, to allow deer to leave the roadway and not re-enter. Most effective are earthen ramps which are constructed to be easy to climb on one side (i.e. the road side) but have a steep 5 foot drop-off on the other, thereby discouraging the deer from coming back onto the road. Over/Underpasses: Deer overpasses and underpasses, which provide safe tunnels and passages over or under roadways, also help avert deer/vehicle collisions. This technique is being used by an increasing number of western states and parts of Canada and is particularly popular in Eu- rope for species ranging from amphibians to deer. However, this method is quite ex- pensive and requires proper placement where deer are likely to cross (i.e. along migration routes/common crossing areas) and also requires fencing to funnel deer to the crossings. Strieter-Lite Wildlife Warning Reflec- tors: According to Strieter-Lite, more than 50 communities in North America have re- ported a reduction in deer/vehicle collisions by 60-100 percent by using this innovative reflector system. The concept is simple: the device reflects the headlights of oncom- ing vehicles in a way that creates a per- petual “fence” which deer along roadways will see at night. The dim light is not seen by drivers, but it appears to be moving and unnatural to the deer, thus preventing them from entering the road until the vehicle has passed and the light is no longer present. Nationally, some departments of transpor- tation are experiencing the effectiveness of these reflectors firsthand. For example, on a test site in Kansas, a 68-100 percent reduction in collisions has been cited over a 10-year period. In a one-year period (the project will be evaluated over a 2-year pe- riod), the New Jersey Turnpike reported a similar decline in its test area (Strieter- Lite). Although some scientific studies on Strieter-Lite reflectors are inconclusive and require further research, anecdotal in- formation points to their effectiveness when they are installed to the manufacturer’s specifications and main- tained properly. The reflectors cost ap- proximately $3,000 per mile (the price de- pends on the type of terrain) but the long- term benefits are promising (further stud- ies are needed), as the reflectors can re- duce property damage, can save insurance costs, and can possibly last more than 20 years when maintained properly. More in- formation is available at <www.strieter- lite.com> or by calling (309) 794-9800. Motion-Sensing Flashing Warning Sys- tem: A new system currently being tested combines a motion sensor with powerful flashing lights that would be triggered only when large animals come into the danger zone along a highway. At test sites in Indi- ana and Yellowstone National Park in Mon- tana, warning signs are being installed in areas with large animal migrations. On the back of each sign is a microwave radar unit that emits a beam for detecting the move- ment of large animals. When an animal breaks the beam, flashing lights on the signs are activated. This technology is simi- lar to security systems used at military in- stallations and prisons. The beauty of this system is that it provides a novel, scary stimulus only when the deer are in a poten- tially dangerous area. Because the device is not continually operating, it is less likely that deer — and drivers — will habituate to it. SOME CURRENT RESEARCH Researchers at the Berryman Institute in Utah are testing the use of temporary signs in mule deer migration corridors. The signs are only used during migration so mo- torists will not habituate to them. Pilot studies revealed that there was a 70 per- cent reduction in deer/vehicle collisions using this technique. Studies are also be- ing done to assess whether planting less palatable plants along roadways — or plant- ing grasses that contain a fungus that grows inside the leaves and produces alkaloids — would prevent deer from being attracted to roadsides in the first place. TIPS FOR AVOIDING DEER/ VEHICLE COLLISIONS: There are steps motorists can take to reduce the likelihood of collisions: 1) BE VIGILANT: When you drive, make a habit of watching from side to side, es- pecially in areas of low visibility or where roadside shrubs or grasses are close to the road. 2) WATCH FOR GROUP BEHAVIOR: Deer tend to travel in groups. If one deer crosses the road, watch for more to fol- low. Female deer tend to stay together as “doe groups” in winter and have young fawns following them in the spring. 3) BE AWARE OF SEASONS: In the fall, bucks are on the move due to rutting and hunting seasons. In spring (May- June), yearlings are seeking new terri- tories. Be extra careful driving at these times of year. 4) BE AWARE OF TIME OF DAY: Deer are most active at dusk and dawn. Be watchful, especially during early morn- ing and evening, when wildlife may be moving across roads. 5) USE HIGH BEAMS: At night, use your high beams to see farther ahead. Slow down and watch for the eye-shine of deer near the road edges. 6) DRIVE STRAIGHT! If at all possible, do not swerve to avoid wildlife but brake firmly and blow your horn. Animals are easily confused. If you swerve, deer may run into the vehicle rather than away from it. And swerving could mean driving into another vehicle or off the road into poles or fences. RESOURCES: Haddidian, John, Guy Hodge, and John Grandy, eds. Wild Neighbors: The Hu- mane Approach to Living with Wildlife. The Humane Society of the United States. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publish- ing, 1997. Deer Resistant Nursery is a mail order company that sells a diversity of flowering plants that are generally resistant to deer browsing: <www.deerxlandscape.com> or call (800) 595-3650. Foothills Cottage Gardens is a Califor- nia-based company that sells deer re- sistant plants to California state resi- dents (many other mail order compa- nies cannot ship plants to CA due to strict requirements). They can be reached at <www.fcgardens.com> or (530) 272-4362. Scarecrow motion-sensing device to hook-up to water hose, for gardens, is available at <www.scatmat.com>. My Deer Garden is a site devoted to living with deer: <www.MyDeergarden.com>. Deerbusters is a mail order company that has a comprehensive inventory of deer repellent products. Please note that we endorse many but not all of the products in this catalogue and believe some to be ineffective. Web site: <www.deerbusters.com>. For conference proceedings on the topic of wildlife/vehicle collisions and alleviation techniques, go to <www.deercrash.com> or The Berryman Institute at < w w w. b e r r y m a n i n s t i t u t e . o r g / internetpubs.htm>. “Reducing Deer Damage to Home Gar- dens and Landscape Plantings” can be accessed online via <www.dnr.cornell/ ext/chdp/reducingdeerdamage.htm>. This document provides a good list of deer resistant plants as well as informa- tion on fencing and repellents. Continued next page. Anderson, J. “Mammalian and Avian Reservoirs for Borrelia burgdorferi.” Lyme Disease and Related Disorders. Eds. J.L. Benach and E.M. Bosler. vol. 539. NY: Annals New York Academy of Sciences, 1988. Anderson, J.F. and L.A. Magnarelli. “Avian and Mammalian Hosts for Spirochete-infected Ticks and Insects on a Lyme Disease Focus in Connecticut.” Yale J. of Biology and Medicine 57 (1984): 627-641. Conover, M.R. and W.C. Pitt, K.K. Kessler, T.J. Dubow, W.A. Sanborn. “Review of Human Injuries, Illnesses, and Economic Losses Caused by Wildlife in the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23 (1995): 407-414. Craven, S. R. and S.E. Hygnstrom, P. Peterson. “Controlling Deer Damage in Wisconsin.” An Informa- tional Bulletin of the Cooperative Extension Service, Madison, WI. Bulletin G3083. Revised 2001. Also used 1993 version of this bulletin by Craven and Hygnstrom. Craven, S.R. and S.E. Hygnstrom. “Deer.” (1994): D-25-40 In Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. Eds. S.E. Hygnstrom, R.M. Timm, and G.E. Larson. Cooperative Extension Division, Institute of Agricul- ture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska. Curtis, P.D. and M.E. Richmond. Reducing Deer Damage to Home Gardens and Landscape Plantings. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Cooperative Extension, 1994. Also, revised version available on web site: <www.dnr.cornell.edu/ext/chdp/reducingdeerdamage.html> Deblinger, R.D., M.L. Wilson, D.W. Rimmer, and A. Spielman. “Reduced Abundance of Immature Ixodes dammini (Acari: Ixodidae) Following Incremental Removal of Deer.” Entomological Society of America 30 (1) (1993): 144-150. Duffy, D.C. and S.R. Campbell, D. Clark, C. Dimotta, and S. Gurney. “Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae) Deer Tick Mesoscale Populations in Natural Areas: Effects of Deer, Area, and Location.” Entomological Society of America 31(1) (1994): 152-158. El Hani, A. and M.R. Conover. “Comparative Analysis of Deer Repellents.” In Repellents in Wildlife Man- agement Conference Proceedings. (conference held Aug 8-10, 1995 in Denver, CO). National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, CO: 1997. 147-155. Fargione, M.J. and P.D. Curtis and M.E. Richmond. Resistance of Woody Ornamental Plants to Deer Dam- age. Publication 147HGFS800.00. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1991. Hygnstrom, S.E. and S.R. Craven. “Electric Fences and Commercial Repellents for Reducing Deer Damage in Corn Fields.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 16 (1988): 291-296. Kays, J. “Managing Deer Damage in Maryland.” College Park, MD: Maryland Cooperative Extension, Uni- versity of Maryland, 2001. Kays, J.S. “Resistance of Ornamentals to Deer Damage.” A Maryland Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet #655. 1999. Lutz, J. and B. Swanson. “Comparative Analysis of Deer Repellents.” In Repellents in Wildlife Manage- ment Conference Proceedings. (conference held Aug 8-10, 1995 in Denver, CO). National Wildlife Re- search Center, Fort Collins, CO: 1997. 147-155. Mannelli, A. and U. Kitron, C.J. Jones, and T. Slajchert. “Role of the Eastern Chipmunk as a Host for Immature Ixodes dammini (Acari: Ixodae) in Northwestern Illinois.” Entomological Society of America 30 (1) (1993): 87-93. Mansell, W.D. “Productivity of White-tailed Deer on the Bruce Peninsula, Ontario.” J. Wildlife Manage- ment. 38(1974): 808-814. Richter, A.R. and R.F. Labisky. “Reproductive Dynamics Among Disjunct White-tailed Deer Herds in Florida.” J. Wildlife Management 49 (4) (1985): 964-971. Rosenberry, C.S. and L. Muller, and M.Conner. “Movable, Deer-proof Fencing.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2) (2001): 754-757. Stafford, Kirby. Dr. Stafford is the Department Head of Forestry and Horticulture, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station (New Haven, CT). Dr. Stafford has researched many aspects of Lyme Disease and the role of deer. Strieter-Lite. “Sites.” www.strieter-lite.com. (Accessed 21 Sept. 2001). Verme, L. “Reproductive Patterns Related to the Nutritional Plane of White-tailed Deer.” J. Wildlife Man- agement 33 (1969): 420-427. Verme, L. “Physical and Reproductive Characteristics of a Supplementally-fed White-tailed Deer Herd.” J. Wildlife Management 46(2) (1982): 281-301. Wagner, K.K. and D. Nolte. “Comparison of Active Ingredients and Delivery Systems in Deer Repellents.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 29 (1) (2001): 322-330. Ward, J. “Limiting Deer Browse Damage to Landscape Plants.” Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Sta- tion, Bulletin 968. November 2000. West, B.C. and T.A. Messmer, eds. Wildlife and Highways: Seeking Solutions to an Ecological and Socio- economic Dilemma. Logan UT: Jack H. Berryman Institute, 2000. Wilson, M.L. and S.A. Telford III, J. Piesman, and A. Spielman. “Reduced Abundance of Immature Ixodes dammini (Acari: Ixodidae) Following Elimination of Deer.” J. Medicinal Entomology 25 (1988): 224-228. Wilson, M.L. and J.F. Levine, A Spielman. “Effects of Deer Reduction on Abundance of the Deer Tick (Ixodes dammini).” Yale J. of Biology and Medicine 57 (1984): 697-705. “When Bambi Eats Your Flowers.” Consumer Reports October 1998: 32-33. Resources continued Full instructions for how to build or in- stall many deer fencing options are avail- able through the book Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage (Craven, S. and S.E. Hygnstrom, 1994 - see “Deer” chapter) which is also available online via <www.wildlifedamage.unl.edu>. Click on the book icon (with that title) and go to “Mammals” and then “Deer-D-25.” Electric deer fencing installation instruc- tion and tips are given here. You can also consult with fencing suppliers (see Table 3) or your local farm supplies, garden or hardware store. More information about Strieter-Lite Wildlife Warning Reflectors is available at <www.strieter-lite.com> or by calling (309) 794-9800. SPECIAL THANKS: The author (Laura Simon) would like to acknowledge certain individuals who provided assistance in the preparation of this document. Special thanks to Scott R. Craven (professor of wildlife ecology at the University of Wisconsin and wildlife specialist with Cooperative Extension) for sharing updated fencing information and diagrams; Dale L. Nolte (project leader for the National Wildlife Research Center, USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Services) in Olympia, WA for sharing his expertise on deer repellents; Larry Katz (Associate Professor of Animal Sciences at Rutgers University) for giving helpful repellents tips and background information; and the following company representatives for giving a wealth of information about their respective fields: Gordon Shelangoski (Premier 1 Supplies), Jason Wiles (Deerbusters), Mike Fiery (Miller Chemical), Joanne Engler (Intagra Inc. Necessary Organics). Also thanks to Dave Jensen of the Deer Resistant Nursery, Carolyn Singer of Foothills Cottage Gardens, and the staff of Amity Gardens in Bethany, CT for their advice on what plants have proven to be most deer tolerant. Thanks also to Paul D. Curtis (Cornell Cooperative Extension) for creating one of the source deer-resistant plant lists and to Terry A. Messmer of the Berryman Institute (Utah State University) for coordinating an excellent workshop on highway and wildlife conflicts at The Wildlife Society’s annual meeting in 2000. And finally, many thanks to Debra Gode for her invaluable assistance putting together tables and compiling the plant lists, and Scott Kealey and Diana Norris for their most helpful editing. Recycled Paper