A friend called recently to ask about deer repellents. Are
there chemicals you can
apply to stop deer from browsing plants? Some of his clients had
poor results.

"Do those things really work?" he asked.

Satisfactory answers to the problem of urban deer eating
landscape plantings continue
to elude wildlife managers. Can science solve this dilemma?

Maybe a magic answer is out there. In the meantime, there is
a way to stop deer from
eating our plants. It means removing deer, mostly by having
licensed wildlife experts
shoot them after dark with spotlights and precision rifles.

You mean deer hunting along suburban streets?

Yep.

Georgians have proved that shooting works. We got rid of deer
from most of the state
with guns. Then, after a spell of deerlessness, we restocked
them, beginning in the 1950s.
Now some neighborhoods are voting to use guns to remove unwanted
deer.

Finding consensus is the key. It’s harder than removing the
deer. Often the
consensus-building process goes like this.

First, some folks get upset with deer damage to their yards
and gardens. The desire to
do something grows. Eventually the neighborhood calls in
wildlife management professionals
who explain the facts.

I see two extremes: live with a level of deer damage others
see as unacceptable, or
remove deer to bring the population down to an acceptable level.
And that means killing
them. Some folks find that unacceptable.

Next comes a time of arguing and disagreement. This goes on
for a year or two, or more.

It becomes clear that the problem lies not in the lack of
technology, but in a clash of
attitudes and values. Some people are already adjusted to the
idea of killing. Others have
values that prohibit it.

Sociology research helps us understand such clashes. Steve
Kellert of Yale University
has done landmark research on American attitudes toward
wildlife. He describes 10
attitudes. Here are two:

Moralistic — primary concern for the right and wrong
treatment of animals. Humanistic
— primary interest and strong affection for individual animals,
mainly pets.

If you value one of these attitudes, you will almost
certainly score high in the other.
Here are two more:

Utilitarian — primary concern for the practical and material
value of animals.
Dominionistic — primary interest in the mastery and control of
animals.

We don’t usually get our values by thinking. We get them from
our environment. A
college-educated woman, age 25, who grew up in the suburbs is
likely to have a different
attitude toward deer than a 50-year old man raised on a farm.

Our age, sex, profession, education and other variables
greatly affect our attitudes
and values. Self-interest plays a major role, and it often
results in change.

Muddling through public and private meetings on the way to
consensus involves
stakeholders like biologists, animal rights folks, gardeners,
politicians and others.

If you’re caught up in such a controversy, a good strategy is
to keep your sense of
humor, relax and enjoy the show. After three to five years of
acrimonious debate,
consensus emerges.

Some folks decide to have licensed experts come in to shoot
deer. Once they do, a swift
reduction in deer numbers, and relief for gardeners, is on the
way.

Not everybody is happy, of course.

The alternative is to live with the deer and let them decide
which plants will grow.
And that’s OK, too. Still, not everybody will be happy.

The main point is that the decisions are political. The
technological solutions, such
as they are, are nothing new.