Protecting Trees and Shrubs From Deer
by Craig Stange, NRCS Forester
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service - North Dakota

May 2008

Many of the trees and shrubs planted in North Dakota aredamaged to varying degrees by deer. Browsing or buck rubbing
can severely injure, deform, or kill the plants.
Impacts of deer browsing vary considerably from one location toanother. The severity of browsing is affected by surrounding
habitat, the number of deer, and the presence of alternate
browse species. This fact sheet addresses common methods
used to reduce deer damage (browsing and buck rub). A shortlist of species universally favored by North Dakota deer and a listof species usually ignored by them is included.
Generally, the most effective controls are the most expensive.
Due to costs, they are used mostly for nurseries, orchards, orgardens where there is a need to protect high value vegetation.
Their high costs restrict widespread use on conservation
plantings. In descending order of cost and effectiveness, thesecontrol methods include several fence configurations, individualtree protectors, repellents, or natural regeneration.

Methods of Damage Prevention or Reduction:

Southern Forest Insect Work Conference
Archive, Bugwood.org

Apical bud of pine nipped bywhite-tailed deer.

Fence – Fences must enclose the entire planting and be specifically designed and installed toprevent entry by deer. They are usually more expensive than fences for livestock. When
properly designed, installed and maintained, fences are quite effective. They are subject todamage from animals, machinery, and weather. There are several configurations and sizes
that are effective. Less expensive, shorter fences may work during the growing season, when
deer pressure is low.
Refer to “Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage,” Hygnstrom, S. E., R. M. Timm, G. E.
Larson, 1994. http://icwdm.org/handbook/mammals/mam_d25.pdf for design considerations foreach of the following fence types. See also the North Dakota Game and Fish (NDG&F)
publication, “Preventing Deer Depredation.”
Fence types include:

North Dakota Game and Fish

Individual wire cages protecting
young trees.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Buried electronic fence with radio-collared herding dogs.
Tall (8-10’) metal woven or net fence.
Tall (8-10’) plastic mesh fence.
Tall (8-10’) vertical electric or high tensile fence.
Angled electric or high tensile fence.
Double fences.
Peanut butter fence (effective in specific situations).
Electric tape fence (effective in specific situations).

Each type of fence has advantages, disadvantages and costdifferences. Maintenance varies from infrequent to daily
depending upon the fence type and the particular situation. Longevity varies from a few years
to several decades. Installed costs vary from about $.50 per foot to over $10 per running foot.
Note: State permits may be required to haze ungulates with dogs (fence type 1, above).

Individual Plant Barriers – Materials are installed around eachplant to prevent access by the deer. Barriers include: tree
shelters, wire mesh, Vexar®, drain tile, spiral wraps, paper tree
wraps, snow fence, or other material. Deer may still browse plantsthat grow out the top of shorter barriers, but if the barrier is 5-6 feettall the plant can often grow past the reach of deer. Individualbarriers can cost $2 to more than $10 per plant and require annual
maintenance.
Repellents – A wide assortment of repellents have beendeveloped and tested. Many of the commercial varieties repel
through odor and/or taste. Several commercial varieties haveworked well during the growing season, with mixed results during
the winter. Research has shown that bar soap hung from theUSDA-NRCS
Craig Stange, NRCS, North Dkaota
limbs has some effectiveness. Some folks claim home remedies
Tree shelter protectingof egg solutions have worked, but research has not proven their
black cherry.
consistent effectiveness. Repellents require several applications
per growing season. Growth that occurs after repellent application
is usually not protected. Most repellents have reduced efficacy during the winter season orafter rains. The effectiveness of repellents is considerably reduced during times of short foodsupply as deer will eat what is available, treated or not, to stay alive. See NDG&F “PreventingDeer Depredation.”
Natural Regeneration — In areas withhigh deer numbers, the only affordable
afforestation method that shows promisein North Dakota is managing for naturalregeneration. On appropriate ripariansites, this method produces in excess of
10,000 seedlings per acre the first year.
Deer still browse some of these newseedlings, but within a few years, large
numbers of plants grow past the height ofdeer browsing. A suitable seed source ofriparian species must be close by andUSDA, NRCS
timely soil preparation is needed for
Naturally regenerated cottonwood, boxelder, andsuccessful reforestation. The site will
shrubs initially protected from deer by a dense stand ofusually be quite weedy until tree crowns
Canada thistle. Trees are just growing past the reachgrow past the deer and shade the weeds. of browsing deer.
Costs are primarily site preparation andweed control, prior to seed dispersal. Refer to page 6 in “Tree Care and Management”
http://efotg.nrcs.usda.gov/references/public/ND/Tree_Care_and_Management.pdf for specifics
about site selection and site preparation. Invasive sod-forming grasses, along with the deer,
can negatively affect the success of this method.
Population Control – Hunting is often cited as a method to reduce the number of animals thatremain to damage trees and shrubs. It may also scare deer from certain areas. Hunting mustbe focused on antlerless deer, consistently intense, and cover a fairly wide geographic area.
When deer damage occurs near urban areas, local ordinances may restrict the types ofhunting permitted. Depending upon the level of browsing, hunting may be effective in reducing
damage to acceptable levels. Hunting may be more effective in combination with other browse
reduction methods. Work with local game management officials to increase hunting pressure.
May 08

Protecting Trees and Shrubs From Deer2Interceptor Food Plots – Nurseries and others have established interceptor plots to lure thedamaging animals away from plants that need protection. Food in the interceptor plots must
be equal to or more desirable than the plants needing protection from the offending animal.
Most successful interceptor plots involve unharvested grain at locations away from plants
needing protection. Little or no success has been reported by trying to establish perennial tree
and shrubs as an interceptor plot. They are hard to get established with the pressure from theoffending animal and are not substantially different from the plants being damaged.
There are many more negatives with interceptor feeding than positives:• Expenses and labor charges could amount to several thousand dollars per year.
• Weed seeds could be spread if screenings are used.
• Diseases could be spread through the concentrated deer or to surrounding livestock.
• Additional deer may be drawn to the area, exacerbating the problem.
• Well-fed deer will result in greater fawning success.
• Intercept feeding should be considered a temporary solution, for only 1-2 months.
• It should be used as a last resort to protect trees and shrubs.
Species Preferences – In some situations, it is possible to plant species that are not a
preferred food for deer. Species preference may vary across the state. Preferences or nonpreferences should be modified based on local experiences. However, high deer numbers anda harsh winter force deer to eat whatever is available in order to stay alive. See NDG&F
publication, “Gardening Around Deer.”
Species rarely browsed by white-tailed deer in North Dakota include:
caragana, false indigo, common lilac and Russian olive
Depending upon the year or the location, even these species may be damaged.
Species preferred by white-tailed deer include:oaks, hackberries, apples, hawthorns, walnuts,
white pines, redosier dogwood, and all prunus
Fences or tree shelters will be required in areasof intense deer pressure.
Species browsed by mule deer:pines, skunkbush sumac and juniper as well as
the preferred species of white-tailed deer
When deer numbers are high, assume all species are
subject to browsing.

Buck Rub Damage
Individual plants within all of the species can be subject
to damage from buck rubbing. The same plant may bedamaged for several years, sometimes to the point ofdeath. At other times, bucks may rub and break several
plants in a row. Certain species appear to be especiallyattractive for buck rubbing such as caragana, Scots pine,
http://www.webshots.com
Rocky Mountain juniper, poplars, and eastern redcedar.
Applying the control measures previously listed can also Buck rub damage on young sapling.
reduce the incidence of buck rubbing.
May 08

Protecting Trees and Shrubs From Deer

3

Interesting Side Note:
A reforestation study from south central Minnesota found that red oak, planted with fabric matsto prevent weed growth, showed considerably more browse damage than trees without mats.
This may have been due to the higher visibility of the trees with the mats, or perhaps a greater
palatability, or easier access without the hindrance of weedy vegetation.

Documents to Review Before Design
Details about all protection practices, excluding electronic containment fence, can be found in,“Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage” http://icwdm.org/handbook/mammals/
mam_d25.pdf (See complete listing in references.) This is a very thorough resource andappropriate sections should be read before beginning deer control or management projects.
“Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage” also addresses most other types of animal
damage to crops, trees, and shrubs. Other wildlife species noted to cause problems in North
Dakota and addressed in this reference, are beaver, rabbits, and porcupines.
Information regarding electronic containment fences can be found at: “Dogs for Reducing
Wildlife Damage to Organic Crops: A Case Study” (See complete listing in references.)
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/05pubs/vercauteren056.pdf“Reducing Deer Damage at Home and on the Farm”, from Clemson University, addresses thephilosophy and methodology of effective deer control. http://virtual.clemson.edu/groups/psapublishing/pages/afw/afw6.pdf

References
Austin, D.D., A.B. Hash. 2006. Minimizing Browsing Damage by Deer. Utah Division ofWildlife Resources. http://wildlife.utah.gov/habitat/deer-browse.php
Fargione, M. J., P.D. Curtis, M.E. Richmond. 1991. Resistance of Woody Ornamental Plants toDeer Damage. Cornell Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet. Ithaca, NY.
http://www.ecovillage.ithaca.ny.us/songfiles/deerres.pdf

Hygnstrom, Scott. E., Robert. M. Timm. Gary. E. Larson. 1994. Prevention and Control ofWildlife Damage. University of Nebraska. Lincoln, NE. 2 vols.
http://icwdm.org/handbook/allPDF/Complete%20Handbook.pdf

Stange, Erik E., Kathleen L. Shea. 1999. Effects of Deer Browsing, Fabric Mats, and Tree
Shelters on Quercus Rubra Seedlings. Department of Biology. St Olaf College, Northfield,MN.
Vercauteren, K.C., W.S. Nathan, D.L. Hirchert, M.L. Jones, S.F. Beckerman. 2005. Dogs forReducing Wildlife Damage to Organic Crops: A Case Study. USDA, APHIS, Wildlife
Services.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/05pubs/vercauteren056.pdf

Woodruff, R.A., J.S. Green. 1995. Livestock Herding Dogs: A Unique Application for Wildlife
Damage Management. USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Animal Damage Control. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1456&context=gpwdcwp“Protecting Trees and Shrubs From Deer” was reviewed and approved by North Dakota Game and Fish.
May 08

Protecting Trees and Shrubs From Deer4