HomeMy WebLinkAboutVCH Photo Survey Report 4.17.2015.pdfPopulation Analysis for White-tailed Deer
in the Village of Cayuga Heights, New York
April 2015
Paul D. Curtis and Michael L. Ashdown
Department of Natural Resources
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Introduction
Many communities face overabundant populations of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus) in suburban areas and a concomitant increase in human–wildlife conflicts (DeNicola
and Williams 2008, DeNicola et al. 2000, DeNicola et al. 2008). Knowing the abundance and
distribution of white-tailed deer is important for making population management decisions, and
estimates of population size before and after a management action is how the success of a
management program is often judged (Lancia et al. 1994).
Camera-trapping has been used to estimate population size for big cats (Karanth and
Nichols 1998) and free-ranging deer (Jacobsen et al. 1997, Koerth et al. 1997). This method has
the advantage that physical “recapture” of animals is not needed to get reliable data to use with
capture-recapture models. Curtis et al. (2009) documented that using infra-red triggered cameras
and the program NOREMARK (White 1996) was a reliable method for estimating abundance of
suburban white-tailed deer herds. Data gathered during earlier deer studies conducted in Cayuga
Heights were used to validate this technique and models.
The capture and tagging of deer during December 2012 and 2013 in the Village of
Cayuga Heights provided a known, marked population of deer necessary for an abundance
estimate using mark-recapture analyses. By conducting a photo survey with infrared-triggered
cameras after the deer tagging and sterilization was completed, we were able to estimate herd
size in the community with good confidence in the results.
Methods
During 2015, the Village of Cayuga Heights (1.8 square miles) was again divided into 12
equally-sized sections by overlaying a grid of approximately 100-acre blocks over a map of the
community. We made an effort to use the same properties and camera sites in all three years.
Twelve infrared-triggered, digital cameras (Cuddeback, Non Typical, Inc. Green Bay, WI) were
deployed over bait piles on properties with a high probability of deer activity within each block.
It was intended that each camera would “capture” a large sample of the deer population for that
100-acre block. In accordance with our NYSDEC permit, technicians were granted permission
by each landowner before setting up the cameras and putting out bait for deer.
Camera sites were pre-baited daily with approximately 14 pounds of dry, shelled corn for
several days prior to the camera deployment on 6 January 2015. Once the cameras were
operating, the bait was increased to as much as 30 pound per day at sites with higher deer
activity, and less than 14 pounds if there was bait left from the previous day. The cameras were
set to run continuously for 24 hours per day, with a preset delay of 5 minutes between pictures.
Every other day during the field survey, the memory cards in the cameras were changed so that
technicians could confirm the cameras were functioning properly. On 13 January 2015, the
photo survey was completed, and cameras were removed. A sufficient number of pictures were
taken in 7 days (n = 2,162 photos) with all 12 cameras functioning to run the statistical analysis
for population estimation.
After the cameras were removed from the field, all the pictures containing deer were
sorted by site and numbered. Each picture was then closely studied, and any legible ear tag
number was recorded. We also recorded the total number of deer, the number of unmarked deer,
and the number of unidentifiable marked deer for each photo. The number of bucks was
recorded in each picture, but these data were not completely reliable, as some bucks had shed
their antlers by early January. From these photographic data, the total number of times each
identifiable, marked deer was observed was entered into the program NOREMARK (White
1996), along with the total number of unmarked deer, and the total number of marked deer
known to be alive in the population during the survey.
Results
The total number of marked deer that were identifiable in the pictures was 86 (Table 1).
The potential total number of marked deer in the Village of Cayuga Heights used for analysis
was 120 (Table 1). For deer that were not collared, and not moving with a radio-collared deer, it
was impossible to know for certain if they were still in the community and alive (Table 2).
Because of this uncertainty, we decided to run the analysis three times. The upper population
bound included all the possible live deer within the analysis, whether the deer were observed or
not in the camera survey. The lower population bound included only the tagged deer observed
on camera and known to be alive during the survey. There were two tagged female deer (C70,
C141), and one male deer (H04) observed while supporting the White Buffalo, Inc., operations in
February and March 2015 that did not appear during the January 2015 camera survey.
Since deer capture and tagging were completed in December 2012, there have been 43
recorded deaths for marked deer through 1 April, 2015 (Tables 3, 4, and 5). This total does not
include the 48 deer removed by White Buffalo, Inc., via the NYSDEC Deer Damage Permit (see
below, Table 6). Sixteen of those 43 deer (37.2%) died as a result of deer vehicle collisions.
Fifteen of the 43 deer (34.9%) were legally killed by hunters on Cornell University lands. Seven
deer (16.3%) died from other causes. One deer (2.3%) died shortly after release in 2012, and this
animal was presumed to have succumbed from complications associated with either capture or
surgery. It was not possible to determine the cause of death for four deer (9.3%) because their
carcasses were too decomposed when found.
Deer population estimates generated by program NOREMARK were conducted in three
ways. The first population estimate (n = 116) and associated 95% confidence interval (109-123)
included all deer known to be alive (via photo confirmation) in the area during the time of the
camera survey in January 2015. The second population estimate (n = 161) and 95% confidence
interval (148-176), includes an additional 34 deer that may potentially be alive in the community
(Table 1), but that did not appear on photographs during the camera survey. We ran the analysis
a third time using tagged deer observed during the 2013 and 2014 photo surveys, but that were
missed in 2015. This third population estimate (n = 137) and 95% confidence interval (127-148)
provides the most reasonable estimate of deer abundance in Cayuga Heights. It is also very close
to the midpoint (138 deer) between the upper and lower possible bounds for population
estimation. So deer density in January 2015 was approximately 76 deer per square mile based on
the most likely population estimate of 137 deer. This is much lower than the 125 deer per square
mile (based on a total of 225 deer) calculated in January 2013. Sterilization surgery with 98% of
female deer treated, and observed mortality rates, resulted in about a 39% population decline
over three years.
The Village contracted with White Buffalo, Inc., staff to remove deer from the area under
a NYSDEC Deer Damage Permit (DDP) during late winter 2015. The Village police approved
use of crossbows for deer removal at selected sites. Landowner permission was obtained by the
Village for each site as required by the NYSDEC permit. A total of 48 deer were removed,
including 26 tagged deer, and 22 untagged deer (Table 7). Twenty-five of the 26 tagged deer
removed were females (Tables 8 and 9), which is not surprising given the low number of bucks
initially tagged in the Village.
Discussion
Based on our photo survey and discussions with A. DeNicola concerning the untagged
female deer removed, we believe that there may have been 11 untagged, transient deer removed
from the community by White Buffalo, Inc., staff during the deer removal effort in March 2015.
It is impossible to know for certain if these 11 deer in the Village were transient, but it is very
likely. Untagged deer in these groups did not show up on our camera survey in January, nor did
they appear at the bait sites during more than a month of pre-baiting prior to the deer removal
efforts. These deer arrived in the Village during early March after more than six weeks of deep
persistent snow, and several were in wooded areas on the west side. We saw similar movements
of deer into the Village during a severe winter about a decade ago while we were radio-tracking
animals during the initial deer fertility-control study.
Consequently, White Buffalo, Inc., staff likely removed 37 (26 tagged and 11 untagged)
deer that may have been present in the Village during the time of the camera survey in January
2015 (plus the 11 additional untagged transient deer). Subtracting these probable 37 resident
deer from the population estimate of 137 deer in January, leaves a residual population of about
100 deer in the Village (56 deer per square mile) by late March 2015. This is a 55.6% reduction
in deer numbers since the original camera survey was conducted in January 2013. Combining
lethal removal with sterilization surgery rapidly reduced the deer population because much of the
deer mortality was additive. Removal alone would have been less effective without prior
sterilization because the remaining female deer would likely have produced enough fawns to
offset the removals if those deer were still breeding.
Current deer densities are still more than double the proposed Village goal of 20 deer per
square mile. Additional deer removal will be needed to achieve this goal in future years. It will
be very important to target immigrating, untagged female deer that would likely provide a new
cohort of fawns. Given the sites available for deer removal this year, there were pockets of the
Village with very few deer removed. It will be necessary to expand the number of sites available
for deer removal in future years and conduct these efforts over a longer time period.
In the White Buffalo, Inc., 2015 report there was a concern raised about the quality of the
corn bait used. We have used the same locally-grown corn from Cornell University Farm
Services for our deer camera surveys on campus for many years with no apparent problems or
issues. Also, the same bait source has been used for deer camera surveys in the Village for the
past three years, and for baiting during deer capture efforts for sterilization surgery in 2012 and
2013. However, if corn quality is an issue, it is important to know this to improve the success of
future deer program efforts in the Village and on the Cornell University campus. With the
severe winter weather in February 2015, NYSDEC extended our Cornell Deer Damage Permit
for an additional two weeks (until April 15th). This provided an opportunity for us to conduct a
preliminary field trial to compare corn quality and deer preference between Cornell-grown corn,
and corn purchased at Ithaca Agway (locally-grown in Lansing, NY).
The moisture content of the corn from Agway and CU Farm Services was checked on the
afternoon of 7 April, 2015. Two bins of corn from CU Farm Services were tested separately with
moisture readings of 13.3% and 13.1%. One bag of corn purchased from Agway was tested at
12.8% moisture. Equal measures of each corn were weighed for comparison, and the corn
purchased from Agway tended to be slightly lighter, which was most likely accounted for by the
difference in percent moisture.
We selected six deer-removal sites on the Cornell campus and provided two piles of corn
bait at each location (one from CU Farm Services and the other from Agway) about a yard apart
during April 7 to14 (Table 10). Initial bait position (left or right side) was selected randomly,
and corn location was switched back and forth each time both piles were completely consumed.
Sites were baited late afternoon each day during the trial, and usually 7 pounds of each corn type
was placed at the site. For sites with very high deer use (Hawthorn Thicket and Arboretum
initially), 14 pounds of each corn type was used. Sites were checked the next day during late
afternoon, and the proportion of corn consumed from each pile was estimated to the nearest 5%.
It was impossible to gather and weigh remaining corn because it was sometimes trampled into
the soil and would have collected moisture. The total weight of corn consumed was calculated
based on the weight put out and proportion remaining.
We saw no predictable or significant differences in deer consumption of corn bait from
Agway versus CU Farm Services (Table 10). On a few days deer did take slightly more Agway
corn, but during most days and at most sites, the consumption of the two corn types was not
different. At the end of the trial, deer consumed 185.1 of the 203 pounds (91.2%) of the Agway
corn provided, and 175.2 of the 203 pounds (86.3%) of the CU Farm Services corn provided.
This difference was not great enough for us to switch corn sources for deer research on campus.
Also, using the bulk corn from CU Farm Services reduced camera survey and pre-baiting costs in
the Village by nearly $500 versus purchasing bagged corn from the local farm supply store. So
we believe that other deer behavior factors were likely responsible for lower early success with
deer removal by White Buffalo, Inc., staff.
Continued monitoring of the deer herd via a survey with infra-red triggered cameras will
be critical to document the impacts of the program. It may not be necessary to do a camera
survey and population estimate every year. However, camera surveys should be conducted at
least every other year to document that the deer population trajectory continues toward goal
density. Maintaining a marked component of deer in the community will be import for reliable
photo surveys, unless we shift to another method using branch antlered bucks as the “marked”
population. Within a few years, it may be possible to achieve the goal density and shift to a
maintenance program targeting primarily immigrating female deer. Much will depend on
obtaining additional removal locations on private lands in the Village to access deer that did not
use the current bait sites.
It would also be helpful to have a standardized measure of deer impact reduction over
time. It is really the impacts that are important to community members, not the number of deer.
Do numbers deer-vehicle collisions in the Village decrease over time? Are reports of plant
damage reduced? Is there a way to track the number of cases of tick-borne diseases in the
Village? We would strongly encourage developing one or more of these metrics to document
success of the program, and show that the time and funding expended were reasonable.
Recommendations
Based on the current population analysis and knowledge of deer behavior, we make the
following recommendations:
1. During summer, the DPW crew and others in the community should watch for spotted
fawns, and note their locations. That should help focus follow-up removal efforts in
areas where immigrant, reproducing female deer have established home ranges.
2. Continue to record locations of dead, tagged deer. The Village Police and DPW staff
have been very helpful in providing us with the location and tag numbers for known deer
mortalities. This will continue to help us with future population estimation.
3. Determine if follow-up sterilization surgeries are warranted. Given that current deer
removal sites only cover a portion of the Village, immigrating pregnant deer may
establish home ranges in areas that are currently not accessible for deer removal. If
additional removal sites are not found, it may be necessary to tag, capture, and sterilize
these immigrating deer to prevent population growth that would offset removal efforts.
4. Plan for follow-up deer removal in winter 2016. Removal efforts should focus on
immigrant, untagged does, and female fawns. Discussions should occur with A.
DeNicola, P. Curtis, and DEC staff (C. LaMere, DEC Region 7, Cortland, NY) to plan
for follow-up deer removal efforts and LCP renewal.
5. Develop ways to document reductions in deer-related impacts. The Village Board should
discuss and determine ways to assess the success of the ongoing deer management
program. Impact indicators could include reports of deer-vehicle collisions, reported
cases of Lyme disease, and damage to natural plants or ornamentals. Such measures will
be important for maintaining community support for the deer program.
Literature Cited
DeNicola, A. J., D. R. Etter, and T. Almendinger. 2008. Demographics of non-hunted white-
tailed deer populations in suburban areas. Human–Wildlife Conflicts 2:102–109.
DeNicola, A. J., K. C. VerCauteren, P. D. Curtis, and S. E. Hygnstrom. 2000. Managing white-
tailed deer in suburban environments: technical guide. Cornell Cooperative Extension
Information Bulletin 245. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.
DeNicola, A. J., and S. C. Williams. 2008. Sharpshooting suburban white-tailed deer reduces
deer–vehicle collisions. Human–Wildlife Conflicts 2:28–33.
Curtis, P. D., B. Bazartseren, P. M. Mattison, and J. R. Boulanger. 2009. Estimating deer
abundance in suburban areas with infrared-triggered cameras. Human–Wildlife Conflicts
3(1):116–128.
Jacobson, H. A., J. C. Kroll, R. W. Browning, B. H. Koerth, and M. H. Conway. 1997. Infrared-
triggered cameras for censusing white-tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:547–556.
Karanth, K. U., and J. D. Nichols. 1998. Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic
captures and recaptures. Ecology 79:2852–2862.
Koerth, B. H., C. D. McKown, and J. C. Kroll. 1997. Infrared-triggered camera versus helicopter
counts of white-tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:557–562.
Lancia, R. A., J. D. Nichols, and K. H. Pollock. 1994. Estimating the number of animals in
wildlife populations. Pages 215–253 in T. A. Bookhout, editor. Research and
management techniques for wildlife and habitats. Fifth edition. The Wildlife Society,
Washington, D.C., USA.
Merrill, J. A., E. G. Cooch, and P. D. Curtis. 2003. Time to reduction: factors influencing
management efficacy in sterilizing overabundant white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife
Management 67:267–279.
Merrill, J. A., E. G. Cooch, and P. D. Curtis. 2006. Managing an overabundant deer population
by sterilization: effects of immigration, stochasticity and the capture process. Journal of
Wildlife Management 70:268–277.
White, G. C. 1996. NOREMARK: Population estimation from mark-resighting surveys. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 24:50–52.
Table 1. Potential total number of marked deer alive in the Village of Cayuga Heights at the
time of the photo survey conducted during 6 January through 13 January, 2015.
Marked female deer observed in the camera survey 85
Marked male deer observed in the camera survey 1
Marked deer not observed in the village (with no mortality
report) 31
Marked deer observed in the village but not during the
camera survey 3
Potential total marked deer in the Village 120
Table 2. Deer that were not observed in the 2015 photo survey, not seen during the 2015 DDP
effort by White Buffalo, Inc., and have no recorded mortality information (n = 31). Without
functioning radio-collars, it is difficult to determine if these deer are alive, or still residing in the
Village.
Tag # Capture location
Photo
survey
2013
Observed
December
2013
Photo
survey
2014
Photo
survey
2015
C06 403 Highgate Yes No No No
C07 403 Highgate Yes Yes Yes No
C08 403 Highgate Yes No No No
C18 Winthrop No No No No
C33 Parkway/Comstock No No No No
C35 876 Highland Yes No No No
C37 876 Highland Yes No No No
C45 327 The Parkway Yes Yes Yes No
C53 Texas Yes No No No
C54 Highgate Yes No No No
C64 876 Highland Yes No No No
C65 711 Triphammer Yes Yes Yes No
C71 Lenox Yes No No No
C78 Comstock and Parkway Yes No No No
C79 South of W. Rem/Sunset Yes No No No
C86 506 Highland Yes Yes No No
C88 630 Highland No Yes No No
C96 Cayuga Heights No No No No
C97 Comstock No No No No
C98 Sheldon Yes No No No
C99 Parkway Place Yes No No No
C100 Parkway Place Yes No No No
C113 Wychoff/Cayuga Heights Yes No No No
C117 Wychoff/Cayuga Heights No No No No
C118 Cayuga Circle/Upland Yes No No No
C122 Lexington No Yes No No
C129 Triphammer Yes Yes Yes No
C130 Pleasant Grove Yes Yes Yes No
C136 Triphammer Yes No No No
C144 Burleigh N/A Yes Yes No
C145 Lexington N/A Yes Yes No
Table 3. Known mortality of tagged deer (n = 15) in Cayuga Heights during December, 2012
through May 1, 2013.
Tag# Age at
capture Capture Location Alive? Recovery
Codes*
Recovery
Date Recovery Site
C13 F 223 Highgate N HH 1/30/2013 Cornell Hunting Zone M1
C21 10+ Winthrop N DVC 4/25/2013 2213 N Triphammer Rd.
C58 5.5 Berkshire/Highgate N DVC 2/4/2013 608 Cayuga Heights Rd. right along the edge
C82 3.5 Upland/Triphammer N DVC 2/26/2013 Route 13 hill
C94 1.5 Winthrop N ND 4/16/2013 Sandra Place Walkway west of NE School
C95 1.5 Winthrop N ND 3/24/2013 201 Christopher Lane
C116 5.5 Wyckoff/Cayuga
Heights N CM 12/18/2012 Lakeview Cemetery
C119 1.5 Triphammer N HH 3/20/2013 Bluegrass Lane, north of Moakley House
C124 2.5 DPW N DVC 3/26/2013 Palmer Woods Creek near Triphammer Rd.
35 >3.5 336 N. Sunset N OC 1/22/2013 508 Cayuga Heights Rd.
59 >4.5 109 N. Sunset N OC 2/27/2013 Definitive location not provided
73 >3.5 1008 Hanshaw Rd. N DVC 4/12/2013 820 Hanshaw Rd.
H01 F The Parkway N DVC 12/21/2012 The Parkway near Upland
H08 2.5 Lexington N DVC 2/17/2013 Along Route 13 north between Triphammer and
Warren Roads.
H14 F 711 Triphammer N ND 4/2/2013 107 Sheldon Rd.
*HH= hunter harvest; DVC= deer-vehicle collision; ND= not possible to determine; CM= capture-related mortality; OC= other causes.
Table 4. Known mortality of tagged deer (n = 18) in Cayuga Heights during May 1, 2013
through April 1, 2014.
Tag# Age at
capture Capture Location Alive? Recovery
Codes*
Recovery
Date Recovery Site
131 8+ Iroquois/Parkway N OC 1/2/2014 301 Cayuga Heights Road
C04 A 403 Highgate N DVC 1/13/2014 In the median along Rte. 13 North
C23 A 327 The Parkway N DVC 7/29/2013 206 Hanshaw Road
C56 4.5 711 Triphammer N HH 3/7/2014 Palmer Woods
C62 8.5 Upland/Triphammer N DVC 7/26/2013 Route 13 by guardrail near Cayuga Heights Rd
C92 1.5 Winthrop N HH 1/14/2014 Corner of Warren Rd and Rte 13
C93 1.5 Lexington N HH 10/19/2013 In brush lot west of the Ithaca swim club on
Uptown Rd
C105 1.5 711 Triphammer N HH 2/4/2014 On CU golf course NE of Hasbrouck
Appartments
C108 2.5 711 Triphammer N HH 2/4/2014 On CU golf course NE of Hasbrouck
Appartments
C109 3.5 Sheldon N DVC 11/21/2013 Corner of Ellis Hollow and Game Farm Roads
C115 3.5 Wychoff/Cayuga
Heights N DVC 8/19/2013 Along Rte 13 near Ithaca High School
C125 3.5 DPW N HH 3/7/2014 Palmer Woods
C132 2.5 Pleasant Grove N HH 1/5/2014 Wood lot in NW part of CU golf course NE of
Hasbrouck Apt
C134 4.5 Triphammer N HH 3/17/2014 Palmer Woods
C135 4.5 Triphammer N HH 3/17/2014 Palmer Woods
H05 F 1008 Hanshaw N HH 11/5/2013 off Rt. 13a near Coy Glenn Rd
H16 F 1008 Hanshaw N HH 11/18/2013 Corner Etna Rd and Pinkney Rd
H28 F Triphammer N HH 12/13/2013 Along Stone Quarry Rd.
*HH= hunter harvest; DVC= deer-vehicle collision; ND= not possible to determine; CM= capture-related mortality; OC= other causes.
Table 5. Known mortality of tagged deer (n = 10) in Cayuga Heights during April 1, 2014
through April 1, 2015, not including deer removed with the NYSDEC Deer Damage Permit.
Tag# Age at
capture Capture Location Alive? Recovery
Codes*
Recovery
Date Recovery Site
H03 F 223 Highgate N ND 5/7/2014
Field across from 398 East Upland Rd. about 60
paces into the field walking in the direction of
cell tower. Completely scavenged by the time it
was reported.
C10 F 223 Highgate N DVC 6/6/2014 On the shoulder of the southbound lane just south
of the Cayuga Heights Road exit.
C12 F 223 Highgate N DVC 6/6/2014 On the shoulder of the southbound lane just south
of the Cayuga Heights Road exit.
C50 2.5 Highland/Highgate N DVC 6/6/2014 On the shoulder of the southbound lane just south
of the Cayuga Heights Road exit.
C01 A 808 Hanshaw N O 6/19/2014
Cornell Orchard Ithaca Farm. After returning
several times following being chased out, this doe
was darted and euthanized.
C66 6.5 711 Triphammer N O 9/30/2014
Pine Hill apartments at 709 Triphammer Rd.
Witness watched 3 coyotes take down this doe
and kill her.
C84 2.5 Upland/Triphammer N O 10/2/2014
7 Pleasant Grove Lane. Dispatched by police
after being found down with a broken arrow in
her.
C15 A 126 Lexington N HH 10/7/2014 423 Ferguson Rd. In Dryden
C14 5.5 223 Highgate N O 1/26/2015 59 Highgate Circle. Dispatched after being
caught in fence and breaking both hind legs.
C28 3.5 Upland/Highland N DVC 3/17/2015
In the median of Route 13 west of 159
Remington Rd. Had been dead a long time.
Nothing but hide and bone left.
*HH= hunter harvest; DVC= deer-vehicle collision; ND= not possible to determine; CM= capture-related mortality; OC= other causes.
Table 6. Causes for total tagged deer mortality in Cayuga Heights during December 2012,
through April 1, 2015.
Cause of Death Total Percent*
Deer vehicle mortality (DVC) 16 23.2%
Hunter harvested (HH) 15 21.7%
Other mortality causes (O) 7 10.1%
Capture-related mortality (CM) 1 1.4%
Not determinable mortality (ND) 4 5.8%
Deer damage permit (DDP) 26 37.7%
Total known deer mortality (male and female) 69
*Percent of total known mortality for tagged deer, including the 48 deer taken as part of the deer
removal effort via the NYSDEC Deer Damage Permit.
Table 7. Deer removed by White Buffalo, Inc., staff with a deer NYSDEC deer damage permit
(DDP) in the Village of Cayuga Heights, New York, during late winter of 2015.
Marked female deer removed 25
Marked male deer removed 1
Total marked deer 26
Unmarked female deer removed 14
Unmarked male deer removed 8
Total unmarked deer 22
Total deer removed during late winter of 2015 48
Table 8. Marked female deer removed via the NYSDEC Deer Damage Permit (DDP) in Cayuga
Heights, New York, during late winter 2015.
Tag# Recovery Date Recovery Site
C05 3/11/2015 Highgate Rd.
C09 3/11/2015 Highgate Rd.
C11 3/11/2015 Highgate Rd.
C16 3/6/2015 Upland Estates
C19 3/6/2015 Upland Estates
C27 3/8/2015 Cayuga Heights Rd.
C34 3/13/2015 North Sunset
C43 3/8/2015 Highland Rd.
C44 3/14/2015 Hanshaw Rd
C48 3/6/2015 Upland Estates
C55 3/12/2015 Highland Rd.
C57 3/8/2015 Highland Rd.
C60 3/13/2015 Upland Estates
C63 3/13/2015 North Sunset
C67 3/11/2015 Highgate Rd.
C80 3/12/2015 Highland Rd.
C81 3/8/2015 Highland Rd.
C83 3/6/2015 Upland Estates
C107 3/14/2015 Village DPW Garage
C121 3/9/2015 Upland Estates
C128 3/11/2015 Highgate Rd.
C133 3/7/2015 Cayuga Heights Rd.
C140 3/11/2015 Highgate Rd.
C141 3/13/2015 Cayuga Heights Rd.
C147 3/14/2015 Hanshaw Rd
Total 26 Marked females harvested
Table 9. Marked male deer recovered with NYSDEC deer damage permit (DDP) in Cayuga
Heights, New York, during late winter 2015.
Tag# Recovery Date Recovery Site
H02 3/07/2015 Cayuga Heights Rd.
Total 1 Marked males harvested
Table 10. Comparison of the percent of corn consumed during a 24-hour period for bulk corn
procured from Cornell University’s Farm Services, and bagged corn purchased from Ithaca
Agway, during April 2015.
Agway Cornell
Site Date *Corn
provided
%
consumed
Pounds
consumed
*Corn
provided
%
consumed
Pounds
consumed
Arboretum 4/7/2015 14 100% 14 14 100% 14
REM 4/7/2015 7 100% 7 7 98% 6.9
Maple Ave. 4/7/2015 7 100% 7 7 100% 7
Hungerford Hill 4/7/2015 7 100% 7 7 100% 7
Hawthorn Thicket 4/7/2015 14 100% 14 14 100% 14
McGowan Woods 4/7/2015 7 100% 7 7 98% 6.9
Arboretum 4/8/2015 7 95% 6.7 7 40% 2.8
REM 4/8/2015 7 100% 7 7 100% 7
Maple Ave. 4/8/2015 7 25% 1.8 7 25% 1.8
Hungerford Hill 4/8/2015 7 95% 6.7 7 50% 3.5
Hawthorn Thicket 4/8/2015 14 70% 9.8 14 70% 9.8
McGowan Woods 4/8/2015 7 100% 7 7 100% 7
Arboretum 4/10/2015 7 100% 7 7 100% 7
REM 4/10/2015 7 85% 6 7 85% 6
Maple Ave. 4/10/2015 7 95% 6.7 7 95% 6.7
Hungerford Hill 4/10/2015 7 100% 7 7 99% 6.9
Hawthorn Thicket 4/10/2015 14 100% 14 14 100% 14
McGowan Woods 4/10/2015 7 80% 5.6 7 80% 5.6
Arboretum 4/14/2015 7 100% 7 7 100% 7
REM 4/14/2015 7 100% 7 7 60% 4.2
Maple Ave. 4/14/2015 7 30% 2.1 7 40% 2.8
Hungerford Hill 4/14/2015 7 98% 6.7 7 90% 6.3
Hawthorn Thicket 4/14/2015 14 100% 14 14 100% 14
McGowan Woods 4/14/2015 7 100% 7 7 100% 7
Totals 203 185.1 203 175.2
*Corn provided the previous late afternoon and available overnight. Pounds consumed are
calculated from the estimated percentages.