Source: http://georgesoutdoornews.bangordailynews.com/2020/02/03/legislative-news/6663/
Timestamp: 2020-02-20 22:14:52
Document Index: 128412364

Matched Legal Cases: ['§10659', '§10105', '§11452', '§11452', '§10105', '§10659', '§3', '§11452', '§1', '§9', '§171', '§422', '§10105', '§14', '§1821', '§1', '§1821', '§1', '§11452', '§10105', '§10659', '§ 10902']

DIFW’s Deer Feeding Report and Recommendations | George's Outdoor News
The legislature’s IFW Committee will work on LD 1804 today, a bill about deer baiting and feeding. DIFW has prepared a report and recommendations for the committee. Here is their report.
Applications and Impacts of White-tailed Deer Feeding with Recommendations for Maine
Nathan R. Bieber
Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
Deer Feeding in the Northeast and in Maine ………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
Impacts of Deer Feeding …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
Recommendations …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14
Literature Cited …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 18
Appendix 1. Legislative document content, LD 638 and LD 1804 …………………………………………………….. 19
Appendix 2. Rules and regulations related to artificial feeding and baiting of deer. ………………………….. 21
Appendix 3. Meeting agenda and notes from intradepartmental meeting on deer
feeding, Sept. 9, 2019. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 26
Appendix 4. Meeting agenda and notes from stakeholder meeting on deer feeding,
Oct. 15, 2019. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 32
In Maine, deer feeding practices are governed both by Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and
Wildlife (MDIFW) rules and by Maine State statutes. During the First Regular Session of the 129th Maine Legislature, legislative changes were proposed to change allowable feeding practices. In order to make more informed responses to these proposed changes, MDIFW was asked to review feeding practices and impacts and provide recommendations for Maine.
Four feeding practices were identified and discussed (artificial feeding, baiting, food plots, and mineral licks), and the scientific literature were reviewed on these topics. Through a series of intradepartmental meetings, stakeholder meetings, and public survey, public and stakeholder perspectives were gathered and discussed. In addition to scientific literature review, these perspectives helped form recommendations for consideration by the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.
Perspectives were mostly consistent regarding baiting, food plots, and mineral licks. After consultation and literature review, there was no identified need to change current practices and allowances for baiting, food plots, or mineral licks. MDIFW does not recommend any changes be implemented regarding these practices. The Dept. has not developed informational materials related to food plots, and it is recommended that such materials be developed and distributed.
Perspectives on artificial feeding were much more mixed both within MDIFW and stakeholder groups. The scientific literature suggests that artificial feeding may improve survival and condition of deer during severe winters. However, if improper feeding practices are followed, negative impacts of feeding include artificial concentration of animals and increased likelihood of disease transmission, increased localized deer-vehicle collisions, habituation to and dependence on people, and degradation of habitat surrounding feeding sites.
Given the seriousness of the negative impacts associated with artificial feeding with implications for both deer and human safety, it is not recommended that MDIFW maintain status quo. However, intradepartmental and stakeholder discussions revealed a consensus that MDIFW messaging on artificial feeding has been mixed and inadequately promoted. Therefore, MDIFW recommends an approach to artificial feeding beginning with improved messaging and education. MDIFW will adopt a more cogent message on artificial feeding, which will be spread through MDIFW and to the public and will promote voluntary changes to feeding practices. Additionally, MDIFW proposes creating a pilot program, which will demonstrate the use of artificial feeding in a manner that minimizes negative impacts and encourages use of existing wintering habitat. We will continue to monitor negative impacts of artificial feeding and rely on existing authorities to control problem areas. Though legislative change is not recommended at this time, if negative impacts associated with feeding grow and existing authorities prove inadequate to address problems, legislative change may be pursued in the future.
The ability of artificial feeding to facilitate the spread of communicable diseases is widely acknowledged in the scientific literature and by MDIFW and stakeholders. If a communicable disease of deer is found in Maine with implications for the deer population, MDIFW will pursue regulatory or legislative changes to prohibit feeding in proximity to disease cases.
During the First Regular Session of the 129th Maine Legislature, the Joint Standing Committee on Inland
Fisheries and Wildlife carried over two legislative documents- LD 638 (An Act To Legalize the Use of Supplemental Minerals To Assist with Wildlife) and LD 1804 (An Act Regarding the Baiting of Deer)- to the Second Regular Session to provide the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) with additional time to review the scientific literature, explore and discuss options within the Department and with stakeholders, and develop recommendations for how to proceed in response to these legislative documents. This report will define terms associated with deer feeding, discuss applications of each feeding method, report on the use of these methods throughout the Northeast and in Maine, discuss the impacts and implications of deer feeding, and present recommendations for the consideration of the Committee.
Artificial feeding, baiting, placement of mineral blocks, and planting of food plots are all commonly used methods of manipulating the environment and deer to benefit deer, hunters, and others interested in deer. In the following section, I will present definitions of terms associated with deer feeding as they are discussed in the scientific literature. These definitions will serve as a baseline for further discussions throughout this report.
Types of Deer Feeding
“Artificial feeding” of deer- also referred to generally as deer feeding or supplemental feeding- involves placing natural or artificial foods or food materials on the landscape to augment the quantity and or quality of food available to deer in an area (Dunkley and Cattet 2003, Sonant and Maestro 2006, Sorenson et al. 2014). Applications may overlap in some cases with baiting, but most commonly include improving condition of deer, limiting mortality rates associated with limited food resources particularly in winter, and encouraging deer away from areas where deer may have damaging impacts by improving food sources elsewhere. Artificial feeding may also be incidental as deer may take advantage of food provided to other wildlife species, such as seeds from bird feeders, agricultural spillage, and other products of agriculture, such as hay bales, which are not intended for deer but may be utilized where available (Dunkley and Cattet 2003).
Maine deer feeding statutes handle baiting and feeding similarly and restrict only the timing of when these practices are allowed, so by these definitions and by statute, deer baiting is also legal from December 16th through May 31st, though there are no open hunting seasons on deer during this time. This statute also covers the use of salt and any other bait, which includes mineral licks and blocks. Mineral and salt blocks may be used as standalone or supplementary components in deer baiting or artificial feeding.
“Baiting” involves placing natural or artificial foods or food materials on the landscape to manipulate deer behavior and influence deer movement to an area (Dunkley and Cattet 2003, Sonant and Maestro 2006, Sorenson et al. 2014). Though other materials and attractants may be used to similar effect, we will focus primarily on the placing of foods and nutritional supplements in this report. Baiting is most often associated with hunting, where bait piles may be used to lure deer into shooting range. Other applications may include using bait to capture or remove research or nuisance animals or capture animals for relocation (Sonant and Maestro 2006). Baiting may also be used to lure deer into range for photography. Baiting is typically a small-scale exercise where the amount of food introduced onto the landscape is low and replenished as needed.
“Food plots” are annual or perennial plantings of grains, cover crops, forbs, legumes, or a mix of these used to provide food for deer (NRCS 2009). The purpose of food plots may be to provide nutritional benefits to deer, to create openings and persistent food sources, and to improve wildlife viewing or hunting opportunities. The NRCS recommends food plots of 5-10 acres, though in areas where most private landownership consists of small parcels, food plots less than this size are likely much more common.
“Mineral licks” are artificial aggregates of salt or other mineral(s) placed on the landscape to provide supplemental nutrients or manipulate deer behavior and influence movement to a specific place on the landscape.
Deer Feeding in the Northeast and in Maine
Deer Feeding in the Northeast
New England and Northern Middle Atlantic States
• Baiting – Hunting deer over bait is allowed, by permit – during defined seasons.
• Feeding – Deer feeding is allowed but discouraged.
eregulations.com/newhampshire/hunting/general-huntingregulations/wildlife.state.nh.us/hunting/baiting-wildlife.html Vermont
• Baiting – No person may hunt or take deer over bait. Exemptions include incidental feeding related to livestock operations, standing crops or food plots, agricultural spillage, and naturally deposited vegetative food sources.
• Feeding – Deer feeding is prohibited except by permit for research or nuisance control, planting crops for agricultural purposes or food plots, incidental feed associated with livestock operations, brush and tree cutting, and incidental feed associated with bird feeders.
eregulations.com/vermont/hunting/deer-
hunting/legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/10APPENDIX/001/00037
• Baiting – Baiting of white-tailed deer is prohibited during and 10 days prior to the deer hunting season. Bait includes any natural or artificial substance that is ingested and used to entice deer.
eregulations.com/massachusetts/huntingandfishing/deerhunting/mass.gov/regulations/321-CMR-300-hunting#3-02-4-hunting-and-tagging-ofdeer
• Baiting – Baiting of wild white-tailed deer is prohibited.
• Feeding – No person shall intentionally feed deer or moose at any time except with a license or permit to conduct research or special control activities, by use of automated feeding devices with 4-poster ‘Tickicide’ as permitted by DEC, by cultivating vegetation, distributing feed for livestock, or cutting trees or brush. dec.ny.gov/animals/7197.htmldec.ny.gov/regulations/117666.html
• Feeding – No person shall feed cervids at any time unless part of a bona fide research, bona fide agricultural practices, wildlife food plots, brush cutting or bird feeding from elevated feeders within 100 feet of dwelling.
eregulations.com/rhodeisland/hunting/deer-hunting/
• Baiting – Hunters are allowed to use bait in 2 out of the 12 Deer Management Zones. You may hunt over planted fields where normal agricultural planting, harvesting, or post-harvest manipulation is used.
• Baiting – Hunting of deer over bait is allowed.
• Feeding – Deer feeding is allowed but discouraged. Legislation is currently being considered that would ban deer feeding. law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2016/title-23/section-23-4-24.4
• Baiting – State law prohibits baiting throughout most of the state, but regulations have been created to allow its use to assist in urban deer removal on a limited basis in SE Pennsylvania. State law currently allows the feeding of deer, but it is unlawful to take advantage of or make use of a feeding (baited) area while hunting.
• Feeding – Feeding of elk has been banned. Statewide feeding of deer has not yet been banned, but PGC is promoting this action. Feeding is prohibited in the DMAs (disease management areas). legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/34/34.HTM
• Baiting- Hunting of deer over bait is allowed.
• Feeding- Deer feeding is allowed but discouraged.
• Feeding- Deer feeding is allowed but discouraged. Legislation is currently being considered that would ban deer feeding and/or baiting.
Deer Feeding in Maine
Deer feeding is currently prohibited in Maine from June 1 to December 15 (12 M.R.S. §10659). The commissioner of MDIFW has statutory authority to prohibit deer feeding if chronic wasting disease (CWD) is present in or within 50 miles of Maine and/or if feeding is creating a public safety hazard or is detrimental to the animals (12 M.R.S. §10105). Hunting deer over bait in Maine is prohibited with exceptions allowing deer to be targeted over bait in matters of nuisance deer control and special controlled hunts; this prohibition includes salt blocks but does not include standing crops or foods left over from agricultural practices (12 M.R.S. §11452). Food plots are not specifically addressed though it is implicit in §11452 that a hunter may plant food plots for deer and may hunt over them. Relevant rules and statutes are presented in Appendix 1.
The extent to which deer are fed in Maine is not fully known, but Maine’s deer feeding culture appears to be more extensive than what’s seen in other Northeastern states, perhaps owing to relatively severe winters. It is generally agreed upon that feeding is prevalent south to north but that the scale of feeding varies regionally. Southern Maine is believed to consist of predominantly small backyard feeding sites, and while northern Maine has these as well, deer feeding is occasionally much larger in scale and much more organized in northern Maine. (Reserved for public survey results. Results expected by 1/14/2020.)
MDIFW messaging on deer feeding has been that the Department would prefer people not feed deer, but that deer feeding is legal. Messaging approach has been inconsistent. Some staff have simply stated that the public should not feed deer and cited negative impacts. Others have additionally expressed that there are preferred methods of feeding and have provided guidance. Guidance on preferred feeding methods has included:
• Feed near natural wintering areas.
• Feed away from plowed roads.
• Provide natural browse by cutting tops and dropping branches.
• Slowly introduce artificial feeds.
• Feed until spring green-up.
This guidance and other supporting information were incorporated into an informational handout entitled, “Living on the Edge. Winter Feeding of Deer: What You Should Know.” This informational handout was made available in February of 2011, is available on the MDIFW website, and is the first search hit if one searches for “Maine winter deer feeding” in any web browser (MDIFW 2011).
To inform recommendations and better understand the dynamics of deer feeding in Maine, a series of meetings and calls with department staff were held during fall 2019. On September 9, a meeting was held at the Bangor office of MDIFW with Wildlife Division administrative, Research and Assessment Section, Wildlife Management Section, and Warden Service staff in attendance. This meeting was used to catalog Department views on deer feeding and inform recommendations to present to stakeholders. Notes from this meeting are presented in Appendix 2.
Throughout the course of the Sept. 9 meeting, several common themes and perspectives were shared that are summarized below.
• Feeding deer in Maine is likely much more widespread than we currently realize.
• Feeding can disrupt natural deer wintering behaviors and deer being drawn away from yards to feeding areas. This leaves zoned wintering areas unoccupied, which leaves them at risk for dezoning.
• Deer-vehicle collisions in areas with both large and small-scale feeding are concerning. Large feeding operations support more deer leaving them vulnerable to nearby road traffic. Smallscale feeders support fewer deer, but deer often travel between small feed sites as local feed resources are depleted, and they encounter vehicle traffic while making these regular movements between feeding sites.
• CWD is a serious threat, and we should be proactive rather than reactive.
• MDIFW messaging on feeding has been weak and unclear. We shouldn’t continue to message that deer feeding is a risky behavior while simultaneously providing direction to those who want to feed.
• Feeding is supporting more deer than the habitat alone can. We are in some areas treating deer as if they were livestock. Keeping deer “wild” has value.
A meeting with department staff and stakeholders was held October 15 at the Sportsman’s Alliance of
Maine facility in Augusta, Maine. Representatives were present from the Aroostook County
Conservation Association, Aroostook County Quality Deer Management Association, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Maine Department of Transportation, Maine Farm Bureau, Maine
Municipal Association, Maine Professional Guides Association, Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, and University of Maine. This meeting was held to discuss pressing matters related to deer feeding, discuss possible recommendations, and gather information on stakeholder perspectives. Notes from this meeting are presented in Appendix 3.
Throughout the course of the Oct. 15 meeting, several common themes and perspectives were shared that are summarized below.
• Deer baiting was not widely supported but there was some diversity of perspectives. Some expressed that deer baiting could still be a useful management tool in controlled hunt situations and that it may be a more palatable option if deer densities got too high in some areas.
• General support for food plots was expressed and no groups equated them with deer baiting. It would be impossible to differentiate between food plots, agriculture, and gardens, and there was no support for requiring any sort of permit or fee to plant a food plot.
• There was little or no support from groups to allow mineral blocks to be used for a longer portion of the year. There were some concerns about mineral block sites remaining attractive due to soil permeation after block is removed.
• There was a wide array of perspectives on artificial feeding.
o Some groups expressed that MDIFW should make more effort to educate the public about deer feeding and how to do it properly. o Some groups voiced understanding that detection of CWD would greatly change opinions on deer feeding and supported actions. o The group was split on whether deer feeding has drawn deer into towns or whether deer moving into towns has necessitated feeding.
o Most agreed that there should be regional considerations, north vs. south. Largely in agreement that feeding deer is not necessary in central and southern Maine, but that feeding operations are much smaller in these parts of the state.
In cooperation with the University of Maine and the lab of Dr. Carly Sponarski, we administered a public survey covering topics related to deer feeding practices by and impacts on the Maine public. This survey divided the state into two regions, northern and southern, and sought to generate insight into the following questions:
1. How prevalent is deer feeding in Maine? For those who feed, why are they feeding, what are they feeding, what time of the year are they feeding, and what do they spend on feed each year?
2. What are Mainers perceptions of different types of deer feeding: baiting, artificial feeding, and food plots? (Are they the same? Are some fair and others not?)
3. What are the perceived impacts of deer feeding on deer and on people in Maine? (Impacts on deer mortality, impacts on deer condition, impacts on deer-human conflict levels, etc.)
4. Given various threats (CWD, deer-vehicle collisions, etc.), what management actions would Mainers support with regard to deer feeding?
A summary of survey findings is presented below and complete survey results will be included with this report and are available upon request.
Feeding Prevalence and Practices
• 10% indicated that they feed deer; 10% indicated that they have planted a food plot for deer
• Most agreed that they believe people who feed deer have good intentions and that landowners should be able to do what they want on their private lands, but that feeding deer creates problems with nuisance animals
• Most people are spending a couple hundred dollars a year on feed; large feeders are uncommon
• Most feeders are feeding within ½ mile of a town road or highway
• The most important reasons people feed deer are to provide food or stabilize populations in the winter and to view deer
• If MDIFW were to provide guidance on feeding, few people who are not currently feeding would start feeding; of those who are already feeding deer, 43% of feeders are less likely to change their current feeding practices, 35% of feeders are unsure if they’d change, and 22% are more likely to change
Deer and Human Health and Safety
• Nearly 80% agreed that in the presence of CWD, feeding should either be banned statewide or banned in the areas around positive cases (38% and 41% respectively)
• People are more willing to consider more extreme management responses when it comes to deer and human health and safety issues
• Survey recipients view hunting over bait, mineral licks, and food plots all unfavorably with bait being the least supported followed by mineral licks followed by food plots
• 31% agreed that they would bait during the hunting season if it was legal (13% slightly agreed, 18% strongly agreed)
• 28% responded that the presence of CWD would slightly or strongly deter them from hunting deer (17% and 11% respectively)
Impacts of Deer Feeding
As other comprehensive reviews on the impacts of feeding deer have been prepared and are readily available to the public, this report has focused on information specific to Maine. In this section, I will provide a brief review of summary findings with additional literature review on other topics related to deer feeding that have received less coverage in existing reviews on artificial feeding.
A Comprehensive Review of the Ecological and Human Social Effects of Artificial Feeding and Baiting of Wildlife – Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre (Dunkley and Cattet 2003) Ecological Effects of Artificial Feeding and Baiting
• Feeding impacts spatial distribution of deer by artificially concentrating animals near food sources, increasing competition among individuals in some cases and potentially disrupting normal movements.
• Risk of disease transmission is a great concern, noting connections between feeding and Bovine tuberculosis cases in Michigan and chronic wasting disease spread in Colorado.
• Feeding programs may increase reproductive success and physical condition during severe winter conditions.
• Increased survival may result in a population of deer with inadequate habitat to support it. This may negatively impact plant and animal biodiversity and increase dependence of humans.
• Artificial feeding may introduce invasive plant species if food is not sourced carefully.
Human Social Effects of Artificial Feeding and Baiting
• Since many issues associated with feeding and baiting are philosophical or ethical in nature, education and messaging may be more appropriate than scientific research to address them.
• Differences across jurisdictional lines make messaging and enforcement very challenging.
• Public opinion toward hunting over bait varies between groups and jurisdictions.
• Impact of baiting on harvest is variable.
• Artificial feeding too near motorways may increase likelihood of deer-vehicle collisions.
• Wild animals may lose their fear of humans and become a public hazard or nuisance.
Baiting and Feeding of Game Wildlife Species: Wild Ungulates – The Wildlife Society (Sonant and Maestro 2006)
• Artificial feeding may habituate wildlife and make them reliant on humans for food.
• Impacts of feeding on social and migratory behaviors is variable, but migratory impacts appear to be minimal.
• Artificial feeding may improve body condition and increase survival depending on quality and quantity of feed provided.
• The impact of baiting on hunter success rates is highly variable.
• Concentrating animals at feed sites can lead to degradation of adjacent habitats and increase risk of disease spread and transmission.
• There is a lack of information about costs and benefits associated with artificial feeding.
Wildlife Health and Supplemental Feeding: A Review and Management Recommendations- Biological Conservation (Murray et al. 2016)
• Artificially feeding deer may increase survival and reproductive success and improve body condition.
• Animals that are being fed may experience elevated risk of infection from increased contact rates, environmental contamination, immunosuppression, and stress.
• Artificial feeding may concentrate animals, which may decrease range requirements and increase contact rates.
• If provided, artificial feed should be presented in lower quantities spread through time and space to avoid artificially concentrating animals and should be foods that are particularly appealing to the target species to reduce likelihood of feeding other species.
• It is important to understand stakeholder perspectives to increase likelihood of compliance with voluntary feed guidelines or regulations.
To Feed or Not to Feed? Evidence of the Intended and Unintended Consequences of Feeding Wild Ungulates- Journal of Wildlife Management (Milner et al. 2014)
• Artificial feeding has varied results, but many studies suggest improved survival, reproductive, and population growth rates and body condition.
• Artificial feeding may result in increased aggression behavior and stress.
• Local browsing and loss of plant diversity may be associated with artificial feeding.
• Increased contact rates can lead to increased transmission of pathogens and parasites.
• Artificial feeding should not be used to exceed natural carrying capacity of available habitat, should be spread on the landscape, should be most appealing to the target species and ideally consist of natural forage; impacts should be monitored, and long-term feasibility should be assessed before any artificial feeding program begins.
• Mineral licks increase site visitations and use by deer and elk raising concerns about disease spread risk (Lavelle et al 2014).
• Supplemental minerals did not impact body or antler mass, but milk protein levels may impact first antler growth of offspring (Schultz and Johnson 1992, Gomez et al. 2008).
• Mineral content in diet may be reflected in mineral content of antlers (Estevez et al. 2009).
• Mineral contents in soil remain elevated after removing mineral licks from the landscape, but deer utilization of sites decreases in early fall regardless (Peterson et al. 2015).
It was widely agreed that MDIFW messaging has been unclear and not accessible on this subject. While both telling people not to feed and providing recommendations on how to feed, the Department has adopted a mixed message. In acknowledgement of this, we recommend an approach to artificial feeding that begins with improved messaging, education, and outreach efforts. In order to provide an example of best feeding practices, we also recommend initiating a pilot program designed to demonstrate best feeding practices and use artificial feeding as a tool to increase use and survival of deer within existing deer wintering habitat.
Our approach to artificial feeding in Maine should begin with the development of a more cogent message on deer feeding. We recommend messaging going forward focus on current regulations, impacts of feeding, and recommendations for how to feed and avoid negative impacts. Educational materials should be updated and promoted. Materials should include enhanced public messaging and intradepartmental guidance on how to message to the public and on when it is appropriate to exercise existing statutory authorities related to deer feeding. Intradepartmental guidance may be provided in the form of memos, policy updates, and in meeting discussions.
We recognize that to credibly advocate for a set of feeding practices, it would be beneficial to demonstrate an example of feed being used in a manner that limits negative impacts. We believe- and the scientific literature supports- that it is bad practice to rely solely on artificial feeding to increase deer survival and that there must be underlying efforts to increase use of available habitats. We recommend developing a pilot program that will demonstrate the use of feed as a tool to increase use of and enhance survival in existing deer wintering habitat. We plan for this program to begin during the winter of 2020/2021 and will maintain feeding efforts for at least 3 years before evaluating the effectiveness of the program and of improved messaging. This program will seek to:
• Identify a pilot program area, which will consist of a large deer wintering area with some history of artificial feeding nearby conducted by an organized feeding group or town. We will work with the feeding group to alter feeding practices and help facilitate moving feed towards existing wintering habitat.
• Use artificial feeding to encourage deer to use existing deer wintering cover and enhance survival of deer in the area.
• Use rotational and selective forest cutting adjacent to the deer wintering area to enhance the availability of natural foods.
• Direct predator management program participants to conduct predator removal in the area.
Desired outcomes will include:
• Increased deer use of the deer wintering area
• Increased deer survival within the deer wintering area
• Decreased deer use of adjacent artificial feeders
• Continued consultation with area feeding group as they shift feeding practices towards wintering habitat
The Department does not endeavor to create a long-term feeding program, rather to provide an example for large-scale feeders of how feed may be used constructively and in a manner that limits negative impacts. The pilot program will seek to provide proof of concept, and the Department will consult with willing feeders to improve their practices accordingly, but the Department does not intend to feed deer in any location indefinitely. We recognize that this approach will not be feasible for smallscale/backyard feeders, but components of this program would be adoptable at any scale.
We recommend monitoring the negative impacts of deer feeding to assess whether promoting best feeding practices has any impact on improving deer feeding practices and reducing negative impacts. Monitored impacts and approaches may include but are not limited to:
• Deer-vehicle collision rates. This will require identification of areas experiencing high levels of collisions associated with artificial feeding.
• Public perceptions of artificial feeding. Through public survey, we may monitor public perceptions of artificial feeding and see how these perceptions change through time with enhanced messaging efforts. Additionally, feeders may be surveyed to determine whether enhanced messaging on artificial feeding has any impact on feeding practices.
• Habitat degradation. Areas adjacent artificial feeding that are experiencing habitat degradation may be assessed periodically to determine whether conditions improve in response to enhanced messaging about feeding.
We do not recommend regulatory changes to feeding practices at this time, however, we will continue to monitor negative impacts, and we will provide guidance to department personnel on when to exercise existing authorities to close problem feeders. If enhanced messaging and education do not change and improve feeding practices in problem areas, we will first encourage department staff to use existing authorities to alleviate problems, and if this is unsuccessful and if problems persist broadly, it may be necessary to pursue regulatory change in the future. Possible regulatory changes include:
• Prohibiting feeding within proximity of roads of a given posted speed limit
• Limiting the amount of feed that may be placed per parcel or per land area
Through department and stakeholder meetings, it was widely recognized that the landscape for feeding would be greatly changed if CWD or another communicable disease were detected in or near Maine. The commissioner of MDIFW, pursuant to 12 M.R.S. §10105, may prohibit artificial feeding if CWD is found within Maine or within 50 miles of the Maine border or in situations where artificial feeding may create a public safety hazard or be detrimental to deer. Other jurisdictions have exercised similar authority by prohibiting artificial feeding within a certain distance of positive cases of CWD.
If CWD or another communicable disease of cervids with population implications is discovered in or near Maine, we recommend prohibiting artificial feeding within at least 15 kilometers of positive cases, and we recommend a concerted effort be made to identify and close large feeding operations as these represent the greatest risk.
Given a lack of support among department staff, stakeholders, and the general public, lack of need as a management tool except in rare circumstances with controlled hunts or removal efforts, and given uncertainty about harvest and success rate impacts, we recommend no changes to allow baiting are made at this time.
Given considerable law enforcement challenges associated with differentiating between food plots and agriculture or gardens, given the lack of support among department staff and among stakeholders for requiring a permit or fee to plant food plots, and given that no other jurisdiction has equated food plots and deer baiting, we recommend no regulatory changes to disallow or regulate food plots are made at this time.
There is concern that food plots offer an unfair advantage to landowners that have more resources available to cultivate land and maintain food plots. As the Department works to improve messaging materials related to deer feeding, we recommend incorporating more information about food plots with suggestions for improving planted or natural deer foods on small and large plots and with limited resources. Messaging themes may include but are not limited to:
• Purpose and impacts of food plots
• Basic recommendations for establishing food plots, small and large
• Working with neighboring or area landowners to increase available land for food plots
• Options for improving natural browse through selective tree and shrub removal
Given lack of consensus in the scientific literature that mineral blocks would have desirable impacts, given lack of current need as a management tool, given lack of department and stakeholder support for increasing the allowance for mineral block placement, and given challenges with enforcing mineral block removal, we recommend no regulatory changes to allow mineral blocks to be placed for a longer portion of the year are made at this time.
Dunkley, L. and M.R.L. Cattet. 2003. A comprehensive review of the ecological and human social effects of artificial feeding and baiting of wildlife. Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre: Newsletters & Publications, 21. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmccwhcnews/21
Estevez, J.A., T. Landete-Castillejos, A. Martinez, A.J. Garcia, F. Ceacero, E. Gaspar-Lopez, A. Calatayud, and L. Gallego. 2009. Acta Theriologica. 54(3): 235-242.
Gomez, J.A., T. Landete-Catillejos, A.J. Garcia, E. Gaspar-Lopez, J.A. Estevez, and L. Gallego. 2008. Lactation growth influences mineral composition of first antler in Iberian red deer Cervus elaphus hispanicus. Wildlife Biology 14(3): 331-338.
Lavelle, M.J., G.E. Phillips, J.W. Fischer, P.W. Burke, and N.W. Seward. 2014. Mineral licks: motivational factors for visitation and accompanying disease risk at communal use sites of elk and deer. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 36: 1049-1061.
Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). 2011. “Living on the edge. Winter feeding of deer: what you should know.” Fact sheet. Retrieved from https://www.maine.gov/IFW/docs/deer_winter_feeding.pdf
Milner, J.S., K.T. Schmidt, F.M. van Beest, and R.K. Brook. 2014. To feed or not to feed? Evidence of the intended and unintended effects of feeding wild ungulates. Journal of Wildlife Management. 78(8): 1322-1334.
Murray, M. H., D. J. Becker, R. J. Hall, and S. M. Hernandez. 2016. Wildlife health and supplemental feeding: A review and management recommendations. Biological Conservation 204: 163-174.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2009. “Wildlife Food Plots.” Fact sheet. Retrieved from https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs141p2_035572.pdf
Peterson, B. C., K. D. Koupal, A. K. Schissel, and C. M. Siegel. 2015. Longevity of mineral supplements within the soil and associated use by 2hite-tailed deer. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies. 479. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tnas/479
Schultz, S.R. and M.K. Johnson. 1992. Effects of supplemental mineral licks on white-tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulleting. 20: 303-308.
Sonant, K. and D. Maestro. 2006. Baiting and feeding of game wildlife species. The Wildlife Society: Technical Review, 06-1.
Sorensen, A., F.M. van Beest, and R.K. Brook. 2014. Impacts of wildlife baiting and supplemental feeding on infectious disease transmission risk: A synthesis of knowledge. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 113:
Appendix 1. Legislative document content, LD 638 and LD 1804.
LD 638 – An Act to Legalize the Use of Supplemental Minerals to Assist with Wildlife Nutrition
Sec. 1. 12 MRSA §10659, sub-§3 is enacted to read:
3. Exception; supplemental minerals. Notwithstanding subsection 1, from March 1st to July 31st, both days inclusive, a person may place supplemental minerals for deer if:
A. The supplemental minerals are placed on the person’s own land or, if the person is placing supplemental minerals on another person’s land, the person has obtained oral or written permission of the owner of that land to place the supplemental minerals; and B. The supplemental minerals do not contain any grain or food products.
Sec. 2. 12 MRSA §11452, sub-§1, as affected by PL 2003, c. 614, §9 and amended by c. 655, Pt. B, §171 and affected by §422, is further amended to read:
1. Prohibitions. A Except as otherwise permitted by section 10659, subsection 3, a person may not, during an open hunting season on deer:
A. Place salt or any other bait or food in a place to entice deer to that place; or
This bill allows a person to place supplemental minerals for deer from March 1 to July 31 if the supplemental minerals are placed on that person’s own land, or on another person’s land with the other person’s oral or written permission, and the supplemental minerals do not contain any grain or food products.
LD 1804 – An Act Regarding the Baiting of Deer
This bill is a concept draft pursuant to Joint Rule 208. This bill proposes to make changes to the laws regarding the baiting of deer.
Appendix 2. Rules and regulations related to artificial feeding and baiting of deer.
Chapter 3: PUBLIC INTERACTION AND CONFLICTS WITH WILDLIFE
3.0 Feeding of Deer
In accordance with Title 12 §10105, sub-§14, the Commissioner may regulate the feeding of deer in order to minimize potential public safety hazards or detrimental effects on deer, as well as minimize the risk of chronic wasting disease, as defined in Title 7, §1821, sub-§1.
The Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife recognizes the interest from the citizens of Maine in watching and feeding wildlife. However, it has been documented that when done inappropriately, feeding deer can increase mortality due to malnutrition, vehicle collisions, predation and disease. To assist the public in minimizing these conflicts, the Department provides information on its website and works with landowners to ensure feeding is done appropriately. This rule outlines a process where, when the issues listed in statute arise, the Department will work with the landowner to address them first through education, second by suggesting adaptations for feeding to minimize the problem and then if activities that are detrimental to deer as outlined in D3 below still exist, issue a warning and then a summons if needed.
1. Public safety hazard – A Public safety hazard may include but is not limited to the following:
a. Increased incidence of motor vehicle accidents
b. Causing a traffic hazard
2. Responsible party – The individual(s) actually feeding deer.
3. Deer Feeding – The placement of food(s) determined to be attractive and/or consumed by deer in an area accessible to deer.
4. Food Items – Foods determined to be attractive to and/or consumed by deer.
C. Regulations on Introduction of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD)
If there is documented evidence of chronic wasting disease in deer in the State of Maine, as defined in Title 7, §1821, sub-§1, the Commissioner may prohibit the feeding of deer or cause the removal of previously placed food items consumed by deer at any location, in the county of occurrence, or any adjacent county to it within the State.
D. Regulations on Feeding Deer
1. When a deer feeding activity creates a situation that is determined by the Department to be detrimental to deer and/or a public safety hazard, the Department will provide the responsible party or parties with a written notice of required actions to modify the feeding activity, or require that the feeding activity cease and food items be cleaned up and removed. The required action(s) will focus on avoiding the public safety hazards and activities detrimental to deer associated with the feeding activity. A written warning may be issued along with the written notice of required action(s).
2. If the required action(s) are not initiated and completed within 48 hours of receipt of a written warning, a summons may be issued for a violation of a Commissioner’s rule, Title 12, Section 10650.
3. Activities detrimental to the deer population include but are not limited to:
a. Providing food to deer that could or does result in the death of deer by acidosis (grain overload) and enterotoxemia (overeating disease-proliferation of Clostridium);
b. Increased vulnerability to collisions with vehicles, predation or other mortality risks.
Nothing in this rule is meant to supersede statutes prohibiting the baiting of deer as provided in Title 12, sub-§11452.
12 M.R.S. §10105. Other powers (of the Commissioner)
14. Regulating the feeding of deer, bear, moose and wild turkey
The commissioner may by rule:
A. Prohibit or limit the feeding of deer, bear, moose and wild turkey at any location if there is documented evidence of chronic wasting disease, as defined in Title 7, section 1821, subsection 1, in the State or within 50 miles of the border of the State or if the commissioner has reason to believe that the type or location of feed may create a public safety hazard or may have a detrimental effect on deer, bear, moose and wild turkey; and B. Repealed.
§10659. Feeding or baiting of deer
A person may not place salt or any other bait or food in a place to entice deer to that place from June 1st to the start of an open hunting season on deer and, if all open hunting seasons on deer are closed before December 15th for that year, from the close of the last open hunting season on deer to December 15th.
§ 10902 7-C. Hunting deer over bait.
A hunting license of a person convicted of placing or hunting over bait in violation of section 11452, subsection 1 must be revoked, and that person is ineligible to obtain a hunting license as follows: A. For a first offense, for a period of one year from the date of conviction; and
B. For a 2nd offense, for a period of 2 years from the date of conviction.
A. “Bait” means an animal or plant or a part of an animal or plant used to attract wild animals for the purpose of hunting. “Bait” does not include:
(2) Packaging or container materials that fall within the definition of “litter” under Title 17, section 2263, subsection 2.
B. “Bait site” means the place where the bait has been placed and the immediate surrounding area.
1-A. Prohibited bait
Notwithstanding any authorization to use or place bait or bear bait under this Part, a person may not place a medicinal, poisonous or stupefying substance to entice an animal to that place. A person who violates this subsection commits a Class E crime.
2. Placement of bait
A person may not place or hunt over bait without the oral or written permission of the landowner or the landowner’s agent. The bait site must be plainly labeled with a 2-inch-by-4-inch tag identifying the name and address of the person establishing the bait site. This subsection does not apply to bear baiting, which is governed by section 11301.
3. Hunting over another’s bait
A person may not hunt at a bait site established by another person unless that person has permission from the person that established the bait site.
4. Bait site cleanup
A person placing bait may not leave the bait or bait label at the bait site and must clean up the bait site immediately after the landowner requests the removal of that bait or, if not requested by the landowner, within 20 days from the last day the bait site was hunted over by the person that established the bait site.
5. Litter at bait sites
A person establishing a bait site under this section is subject to the littering provisions of Title 17, chapter 80.
Nothing in this section authorizes hunting of wild animals that is otherwise prohibited by law or rule.
A. Bear baiting under section 11301;
B. Placing of bait on the ice of inland waters.
A person may not, during an open hunting season on deer:
A person who violates subsection 1 commits a Class E crime
Appendix 3. Meeting agenda and notes from intradepartmental meeting on deer feeding, Sept. 9, 2019.
September 9, 2019- Deer Feeding Meeting: Agenda
Wildlife Division- Nate Webb, Bob Cordes.
Management Section- Ryan Robicheau, Scott Lindsay, Cory Stearns, Brad Zitske, Keel Kemper, Kendall Marden, Josh Matijas, Carl Tugend, Chuck Hulsey, Sarah Boyden, Scott McLellan, Mark Caron, Allen Starr, Shawn Haskell, Amanda DeMusz.
Research and Assessment Section- Wally Jakubas, Nathan Bieber, Lee Kantar, Connor White, Brittany Peterson.
Warden Service- Dan Scott, Durward Humphrey, Scott Martin, Eric Blanchard, Joe McBrine, Josh Beal,
Ethan Buuck, Michael Latti, Justin Fowlie (phone)
Purpose: Meeting held in Bangor to discuss regional and law enforcement perspectives on deer feeding in Maine. Information gathered will be used to develop department recommendations, which will be presented in a report to the Maine Legislature.
10:00 – 10:15: Introduction and Background
10:15 – 12:00: Regions and Warden Service have the floor:
– 10:15 – 10:25: Region A
– 10:27 – 10:37: Region B
– 10:39 – 10:49: Region C
– 10:51 – 11:01: Region D
– 11:03 – 11:13: Region E
– 11:15 – 11:25: Region F
– 11:27 – 11: 37: Region G
– 11:39 – 12:00: Warden Service
12:30 – 2:00: Open discussion guided by common discussion topics from first half of meeting
September 9, 2019- Deer Feeding Meeting: Notes
Note- meeting proceeded differently with bios and wardens from each region commenting rather than having a dedicated time slot for warden service comments.
These notes are not comprehensive, but I’ve documented some of the primary discussion topics as they occurred. Comments are organized by Fish and Wildlife Region, though both biologists and area Wardens provided comments during each relevant discussion period. These comments are not successive and do not represent the natural flow of the conversations.
– Feeding not prevalent in the region; a ‘large’ feeder here may accommodate 20 deer or so
– Higher deer densities in this area, so people may not feel feeding is needed
– There are a few special hunts where baiting is currently used; baiting may be a useful tool in some Wildlife Management Districts where we aren’t currently meeting management objectives
– Few complaints related to deer feeding are reported in this region
– General feeling is that most of the public in this region do not feed deer and do not support deer feeding, but there would likely be pushback if we did anything to change feeding regulations
– Mixed opinions on whether baiting and food plots are equivalent
– Some issues described with orchards giving away apple pulp to be used as deer feed so they don’t have to deal with disposal
– Lots of small-scale feeding, which typically causes no issues
– Large-scale feeders have been problematic and Warden service and bios have worked together to clean up these issues
– Food plots are prevalent in this region, mostly plots less than an acre
– Scale of operations tends to increase as you head north in the region and in the state
– Food plots are used as a management tool on some WMAs
– Wardens commented that they primarily see conflicts when people who live adjacent to feeders are impacted: “One landowner wants to ‘save the deer’ by feeding them and the other wants to shoot them as they damage their property.”
– If we tell people they have to stop feeding, they will likely continue anyways
– Lots of feed sale occurring at Agways, Walmart, etc.; feed sellers would be highly impacted by any changes
– General agreement that food plots and baiting are not the same and that enforcement related to food plots would be problematic
– Enforcement hasn’t been too bad for the way things are currently; citations for baiting are common and compliance in this region generally is good
– Challenging to deal with large feeders who then question why small feeders can continue
– Some over-browsing near feed areas has been observed, but this is very localized
– Mostly small-scale feeding in this region; mostly coastal
– This region gets less snow and yarding behavior is less prevalent, so people may not feel the need to feed
– Met with 2 large feeders in Machias and E. Machias last year after experiencing high number of deer-vehicle collisions- these towns were receptive to changing practices
– Increase in penalty for baiting has drastically cut down on amount of baiting seen in the region
– Not much ag. remaining in the region and food plots have become much more common as a way to support deer
– All of the small corner stores sell deer feed of some kind and are generally responsible about only selling it at a time of the year when feeding is legal
– Winter feeding has caused issues in areas with high-use roadways
– Most feeders are older folks 50+ and mostly retirement age
– Most feeders think they are having a positive impact on limiting deer winter mortality
– Most people do not feed or bait and don’t support it, but those who do think it’s critical for deer
– Dept. messaging has been too soft and mixed over the years, “Don’t feed deer, but if you do, here’s how to do it.”
– Feeding in general is much more prevalent probably than we realize and most deer in the state are probably impacted in some way by non-natural feed
– Regional bio: favors ban of feed in areas where winter is less severe and regulating it in areas where winter is a more severe
– Dept. messaging has been that feeding is bad for a long time, yet we allow it and provide advice on how to do it
– Feeders often unwilling to move feed away from roads because then they can’t see the deer
– Very concerned that zoned PFWs that are unoccupied may lose their zoning, but many are unoccupied and there is belief that they are unoccupied because deer feeding is drawing deer away from them
– Some deer yards are being heavily degraded by over-stocking; are we trying to support more deer in the winter than the habitat can handle?
– Many deer-vehicle collisions noted around large feeding operations
– One regional bio: recognizes some of the possible benefits of feeding, but feels the practice is very detrimental on the whole
– Extent of feeding not well understood in some areas as it’s very labor intensive to ID all feeders
– Having a biologist and a warden deliver a unified message to a feeder is often effective
– Agreement with others that feeding is more prevalent than we realize
– Deer using small feeders will travel between feeders on a feeding circuit looking for feed and this often makes them cross roads
– Regional bio: we are getting complaints that the dept. isn’t doing enough to monitor or control feeding; perhaps a more realistic and graphic message about the impacts of feeding would resonate
– A lot of small-scale operations, but there are a few large ones (NE Carry, Pittston, etc.)
– Deer-vehicle collisions are a big issue, primarily right around feeding operations
– Some issues noted with potato feeding: one regional bio: has seen extensive diarrhea in woods associated with potato feeding
– Plenty of local places sell feed
– Change to baiting laws have lessened the number of issues enforcement deals with
– Agree with previous comments that deer are leaving traditional wintering areas to go to feeding stations; their absence from deer yards puts zoning at risk
– Dept. messaging has not been clear; RE: food plots, dept. has not put out any messaging on this, and food plots have become common. What is our message on this?
– Warden: how can we continue to allow the large feeding operations given the seriousness of CWD and given how far deer are traveling in winter to feed operations. This is a spread risk.
– Regional bio: landscape of deer wintering areas has been ‘demolished.’ Deer are moving to feed; agreed with concern over yards losing their zoning status because deer are leaving them for feeding operations
– Regional bio: Though he’d like to see feeding stop, doing it immediately would be bad. A more gradual approach should be used.
– Question raised by several: Should we try to artificially support a higher number of deer or just carry fewer deer as the habitat allows?
– Have seen some forest regeneration issues around feeding areas
– Feeding widespread in this area with some large feeders – Regional bio: Brownville feeding operation is ridiculous.
– Some feeders that have been contacted have been unwilling to make changes
– Sale of feed is prevalent; “Stores are selling it, so people buy it…”
– I-95 deer-vehicle collisions very common around Sherman. Warden: does not believe this is related to deer feeding in this particular spot.
– Concern about deer being drawn away from PFWs by feeding operations, which puts zoning at risk. This concern has been raised by several groups.
– Saw increased harvest this year during late rifle and muzzleloader because early snows made deer move to their winter feeding areas early where they were easy targets – Regional bio: Supports outright ban of feeding.
– Food plots are tricky since we use them as a management tool on DWAs and things to support wildlife
– There are fairness questions to consider with the food plot vs. baiting debate
– Food plots are not drawing deer away from deer wintering areas like feeding
– Deer feeding messaging has been bad, we agree about that: “Don’t feed, but here’s how.”
– Agreed that we need to decide on whether to support the number of deer the habitat can sustain or artificially maintain higher levels than we have habitat for; regional bio: Rather just support fewer deer
– Enforcement has not been a big issue
– Signs for deer wintering areas along roads have not been that effective
– Majority of deer are using towns for feed now and rely on it
– There are smaller independent feeders, which haven’t typically caused issues. Then there are the large and very coordinated feeding operations that are very difficult to manage.
– ACCA has been developing a feeding program and based their business model on PCCA; they are selective about who they support with their program and provide feed to; something like 160 bales of alfalfa hay used this year
– We continue to artificially increase carrying capacity with feed, which packs deer into towns where they’re feeding
– Coyote program has had some success
– Regional bio: Concerned with how big coordinated feeding programs like the ACCA program are getting; will the number of feeders continue to increase as the program grows? What happens if a large feeding program dies down and can’t support the same number of deer anymore?
– Regional bio: introducing CWD via feed is not a risk if the feed is locally sourced; if CWD shows up, we should stop feeding in area around CWD cases but allow feeding elsewhere.
– Warden: total ban on feeding is going to be impossible to enforce or accomplish politically; is there a way to regulate feeding and go from there?
– Warden: no deer left in the big woods areas where deer aren’t being fed.
– Regional bio: collared deer during early snows went to feed sites, found that feeders weren’t feeding yet, left to return to their summer ranges, and then came back later.
– Warden: if we just stop feeding, we’ll lose all our deer. Regional bio agreed.
– RAS bio: deer have been existing without feed for thousands of years. They won’t just sit in a place with no feed and die if feeding is stopped. They’ll revert to natural behaviors.
– Ras bio: we need to stop treating deer in a way that equates them with livestock. They are wild animals.
– Warden: whatever we do, we need to do something that’s enforceable. We have to take a stance on what the correct path forward is and stick to that message.
– Regional bio: if we stop feeding, we need to have an aggressive habitat management plan to support deer as best we can.
– Regional bio: If we made changes, would we retain ability to use bait and mineral licks as a management tool for special hunts and control efforts?
– Warden: We don’t need baiting as a management tool currently, so why would we make it legal?
– Warden: Envision a lot of conflicts between people maintaining bait piles for hunting and other area hunters.
– Warden: Baiting and food plots are completely different things.
– Warden: It’s basically going to be unenforceable if you try to regulate food plots. How will you differentiate between a food plot and someone with ag. fields or something with a garden or someone with some apple trees in their yard?
– Warden: Baiting trains deer to show up and use a particular area to where it’s no longer fair chase.
– Wildlife division: There may be R3 implications if Maine can market itself as a bait free and CWD free state.
– Warden: A mineral lick is bait. It is placed.
– Warden: Regulating the distance from roads where feed can be placed would effectively end feeding in some areas.
– Wildlife division: Something needs to be done before we have CWD; we shouldn’t wait until it shows up to try and fix the issue.
– Warden: If we do any sort of regulating, we must be able to explain why some people can feed in some ways and others can’t. That could be seen as endorsing feeding at some level.
– Wildlife division: May be worth having a CWD expert present to the committee.
– Several: Need to continue to be strong on enforcement around the border and on messaging about carcass transport laws.
– Regional bio: Favors requiring feed to be ‘X’ distance from a road, or a road of a certain traffic level or speed limit or some other measure of use.
– Regional bio: Our recommendations must pass the straight face test. Saying all feeding is bad may not be correct. Some small and occasional feeders may not have much impact or any impact relative to big feeders.
– RAS bio: We have to consider what changes would actually be palatable to public and legislators. What positive steps can we realistically propose?
– Regional bio: If people say they feed deer to help them survive, then they shouldn’t be deterred by a distance-from-road requirement. People deterred by this probably just wanted to watch them in their yard.
RAS bio: Can we have a sunset clause on feeding to prepare feeders for the eventuality?
Appendix 4. Meeting agenda and notes from stakeholder meeting on deer feeding, Oct. 15, 2019.
October 15, 2019- Deer Feeding Stakeholder Meeting: Agenda
Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW): Tim Peabody, Dan Scott, Chris Cloutier, Nate
Webb, Bob Cordes, Ryan Robicheau, Wally Jakubas, Nathan Bieber
Maine Dept. of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (MDACF)- Carolyn Hurwitz
Maine Dept. of Transportation (MDOT)- Eric Ham
Aroostook County Conservation Association (ACCA)- David Farnum
Aroostook County Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA)- Jon Roark with Debbie Roark
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (BHA)- Jon Robbins
Maine Farm Bureau (MFB)- Julie Ann Smith
Maine Municipal Association (MMA)- Rebecca Graham
Maine Professional Guides Association (MPGA)- Don Kleiner
Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM)- Gerry Lavigne
University of Maine (UMaine)- Carly Sponarski, Francesca Gundrum
1:30- Background and Meeting Purpose: MDIFW Wildlife Division Director, Nate Webb, will provide an overview of Legislative efforts related to deer feeding and the purpose of the meeting.
1:40- Introductions: Stakeholder groups will introduce themselves and their stake in deer feeding.
1:55- An Overview of Feed-related Issues: MDIFW Deer Biologist, Nathan Bieber, will provide an overview of issues central to the deer feeding discussion and issues central to Legislative efforts related to deer feeding.
2:10- Discussion of Issues
– Artificial deer feeding and winter deer feeding
– Hunting over bait
– Mineral licks
3:25- Break
3:35- Continued Discussion of Issues
4:50- Meeting Conclusions and Adjournment
October 15, 2019- Deer Feeding Stakeholder Meeting: Notes
MPGA- Can any of these (artificial feeding, baiting, food plots, mineral licks) actually increase or decrease deer populations? Are there other areas where feeding is done that are comparable to Maine and have study results to look at? Trying to get beyond the fact that our collaring study in Maine is not complete yet.
QDMA- Perhaps Alberta or another province would have comparable data to look at?
ACCA- How prevalent is feeding really in southern Maine? Never see it there.
SAM- If we are going to claim that a deer population is being fed or not, we have to do some sort of survey to verify this.
MDIFW- It has been very surprising to see the difference in survival rates so far in our study sites that are fed vs. those that are unfed.
ACCA- Southern and northern Maine are very different and should be treated as such. Northern Maine is the big issue; one big storm can be catastrophic if there isn’t supplemental feed to keep deer going. Cited Portage Lake as an area where deer don’t have quality winter habitat and have been driven into town by predators and have eaten much of what was growing around town. Feeding is necessary in northern Maine to get more deer through the winter. They have seen it work and believe it is necessary. Fawn production and fawn survival has increased in northern Maine areas where supplemental winter feeding occurs. We can’t increase the deer population without fawn survival.
QDMA- People will be less likely to harvest young deer if there are more deer and they feel they’re likely to see more if they pass one up.
On hunting deer over bait…
SAM- Baiting is much different from food plots.
ACCA- In northern Maine, once you get 8” of snow, deer are going to migrate no matter what you do.
MPGA- Surveyed about 30 members; there was no support among the group for hunting deer over bait; there was quite a bit of support for allowing some level of feeding.
BHA- No support among group for hunting deer over bait.
MFB: Mixed support by farmers for hunting deer over bait: some farmers think it could lead deer away from crops and be beneficial, and others think it will just draw deer into an area where they’ll target crops.
ACCA- Deer will eat what they want regardless of what you put out for food. They’ll pick and choose what they like. We don’t believe that food plots or baiting will significantly affect keeping deer away from agricultural crops.
MPGA- Is there some framework to allow hunting over bait in areas that need deer reduction?
MDIFW- We have the ability to use bait for reduction hunts; this would likely be a component of deer reduction efforts around cases of CWD if CWD is found in Maine.
SAM- Sharpshooters and bait can be used effectively for deer reduction.
MDIFW- We don’t call shooting deer over bait “hunting,”; if baiting were allowed at some scale, such as the town scale, this would not likely be much of an enforcement challenge, but land access is the trouble in many towns with too many deer, and baiting doesn’t alleviate that problem.
MDIFW- Hunting over bait was allowed at Wells Reserve, did that pose any enforcement challenges?
MDIFW- RE: MFB points, baiting would occur during the hunting seasons, Oct-Nov; main crop damage issues are earlier in July-Sept.
MDIFW- If baiting did increase hunting success rates, we would have to consider ways to prevent excessive harvest, which may involve altering hunting season length.
MFB- If we allow bait during hunting, how will that impact enforcement of feeding during other times of the year? There is concern that learned behaviors from feeding and food plots may influence deer and deer movements to where they gravitate towards crops.
MDIFW- There is a distinction between food plots, which are rooted and growing, and bait, which is placed. It’s unlikely that baiting or food plots would significantly impact deer habits.
ACCA- ACCA plants food plots for late summer and fall to benefit deer as they go into the winter; some species they plant aren’t even palatable until hard frosts, so these shouldn’t impact deer movements or crop damage.
MDIFW- Have any groups heard support for hunting over bait?
SAM- Let’s address the ‘fair chase’ issue; fair chase is on a spectrum, and certain management actions will be more accepted at certain deer densities; some less popular or “less fair” methods may be more acceptable when deer densities are too high. In Maine, there’s not enough deer to justify allowing a less popular, less ‘fair chase’ method.
ACCA- Consider Maine, North vs. South, when talking about baiting as well. Baiting is not recommended for northern Maine. We are not overpopulated with deer like southern Maine.
On food plots…
MDIFW- Some people have expressed that food plots and hunting over them are not fair as not everyone has the resources and land to grow and tend a food plot. Thoughts? The Legislative Committee has asked that we discuss the implications of banning food plots.
MPGA- Where is the line between food plots and agriculture? Too hard to sort that out.
MFB- Very concerned about implications of regulating what we can grow. Consider license costs in some other jurisdictions- there will always be some kind of barrier to hunting opportunities.
ACCA- The group plants a lot of food plots, but few actually hunt over them, and even fewer do so successfully. This is not a fair chase issue in northern Maine.
MDIFW- There is a difference between bait and food plots when it comes to disease spread dynamics. No other jurisdictions currently regulate food plots.
ACCA- Deer in deer wintering areas are congregated at higher densities than usual. This is similar to concentrating deer at baiting or feeding sites. Not a disease issue in the North.
SAM- Are there any studies that have looked at contact rates in natural environments vs. feeding areas? Especially in areas with CWD?
BHA- This organization has no issues with food plots.
QDMA- It’s a slippery slope when you try to legislate fairness. Is this issue really a high priority for the legislature? QDMA relies heavily on food plots in their management activities.
MDIFW- It seems groups are generally supportive of food plots. The Legislature has asked that we discuss the idea of having fees or permit to maintain food plots.
BHA, ACCA, MPGA, MMA, others: We would not support requiring a fee or permit to maintain food plots.
QDMA- We would like the state to help with food plots.
SAM- The ‘how to distinguish between food plots, ag, gardens’ issue is a problem.
MDIFW- The difficulty in distinguishing between a food plot and agriculture or a garden would make food plot regulations unenforceable.
On mineral licks…
MDIFW- A bill was put in to extend allowance for mineral licks to allow them from March 1st to July 31st with exceptions. This would require that we define mineral lick in statute.
SAM- Originally, someone close to SAM wanted to pursue an allowance for baiting; SAM members worked with them to provide information and reach some helpful middle ground, which was an extension to mineral lick allowances. Deer and moose crave salt in spring. Once you place these on the landscape, however, they may sink into soil and prove attractive even when the source has been removed. Removing ‘salt’ from the allowance may help with this.
MDIFW- The burden of proving what was used at a site with the source removed would be on IFW. There are a lot of different products out there now, and some have taken to removing ingredients labels. On the enforcement end, it won’t be possible to determine what’s been used at a site.
SAM- As a counter-point to our own bill, deer and moose have existed for centuries and centuries finding the minerals they need naturally without people providing supplements.
BHA- Our group opposes the use of mineral blocks and licks. CWD is a big concern and reducing risks is very important.
On captive cervids…
SAM- There is concern about the transport of captive cervids.
MDACF- You can still move live cervids into Maine, but it is very difficult to do so. We are testing (for CWD) all escaped cervids that are killed and have increased testing of captive cervids greater than a year old that die.
MDIFW- If a salt lick soaks into the soil, and if infectious CWD prions were shed there, that becomes a very high risk feeding area that will be infectious for a long time.
MPGA- We view mineral licks the same as baiting.
On artificial feeding…
MDIFW- To provide a summary of associated issues: – There is some question as to benefits of feeding, and a variety of staff and public perspectives – Vehicle collision rates when feed is near roads may be high – If CWD arrives, artificial concentration of deer is a real problem – Deer may have negative impacts on habitat around feeding sites. We have some deer yards that are suitable but unoccupied; is this feed related? Feeding is very socially ingrained in Maine. The Legislature has asked for general guidance on whether a change is needed.
MDIFW- In some cases, the number of deer fed and the condition of feed sites lead them to look like livestock operations. How do people feel about these large feeding sites?
ACCA- Last year, we provided $18,000 of feeding support to 51 feeders. We used to use only oats and barley as a mix, as recommended by the state deer biologist at the time, but now we saw that alfalfa bales have been used in Canada. Last year, we experimented with using 38 round bales of alfalfa for feeding deer. This year ACCA bought 120 bales of alfalfa hay. Bales are very large and available all day, require less maintenance, and provide more opportunity for young deer to feed. Bales can be used to keep deer further away from roads. We help feed hundreds of deer in 51 locations in 10 towns in northern Maine. In Portage Lake, we feed over 100 deer yearly, up to 70 at a time. We don’t support the large feeding operations that resemble livestock operations. Migration is not likely disrupted by feeding, we don’t believe that’s the case. The deer yards that remain are like an island in the ocean; they are too fragmented and lack interspersed foods. If we stop feeding altogether, we’ll lose 50-70% of our deer in northern Maine in a year with a severe winter. All of our feed is locally grown.
QDMA- We’ve planted soybeans, chicory, peas, oats, we’ll try everything. Results are not clear yet. We typically plants smaller food plots of a few acres.
UMaine- Are people participating in your feed programs from within your organization or are other members of the public that are interested participating?
QDMA- We do some work with non-members; a lot of people want to help but lack the time.
ACCA- We provide seed for free if they join the group. Membership is $20 and a 1-acre bag of seed costs us $33. We give our deer feed away.
MDOT- We monitor for collision hot spots and recommend that we avoid activities that encourage deer to hang out around or cross roads.
SAM- There is a new road buffer project going on between [Augusta] and Waterville. This may attract deer.
MDOT- This is a pollinator plant mix, which hopefully will not prove attractive to deer.
MMA- Absentee landowners are common and difficult to reach; some landowners on water bodies struggle with community plant damage. It’s not clear what the best path forward is to deal with some of the localized issues.
ACCA- Our group is particular about who feed is given to, and we’ve stopped giving feed to some people that were feeding deer near roads and the like. We work with Wardens to find better places to feed.
MDIFW- Is there anything from a regulatory perspective that we should be doing to alleviate some of the risks and negative impacts of feeding? How do we address feeding in response to CWD?
ACCA- Existing feed regulations have been sufficient in the North. Some feeders have been shut down that were causing problems. ACCA recognizes that it’s a whole different ball game if CWD is found in Maine.
MFB- Some have asked for a longer hunting season to remove more deer and alleviate crop damage.
SAM- Deer over-browse habitats adjacent to feeders and prevent regeneration. Feeding can spiral out of control; once feeding starts, more deer will eventually come and feeders won’t be able to afford to feed the increasing numbers. This puts the habitat at risk and puts young deer at risk. We surveyed habitat around Wilson’s Mills and others in 2003(?) and found a lot of dead young deer that never got to feed.
MDIFW- Deer naturally lower their metabolism in winter. Will removing feeding really result in a large increase in mortality or just cause deer to revert to more natural winter feeding habits?
SAM- If feeding is stopped, deer may move along and browse elsewhere… or they might just stick around in towns where they were previously fed and die.
ACCA- The problem began with forestry practices cutting deer yards, not with feeding. Deer without feed will have nowhere to go. If there’s no feed, deer will starve. Deer won’t go elsewhere to find food.
SAM- My guess is that most of the deer that are feeding in Portage Lake, etc. did not originate there. There was a major mortality event and only the deer around towns were able to survive. Those that persisted are feed dependent now.
MPGA- IFW should provide information on how to feed deer. Saying ‘no’ to feeding isn’t working. IFW should provide guidance.
MDIFW- IFW has a long history of saying ‘feeding is bad, but it’s legal and here’s how to do it.’ This has not been effective messaging. Should MDIFW take a more proactive stance towards feeding?
ACCA- You can’t change the type of feed you provide mid-winter. There are some do’s and do not’s. This type of guidance could be given by IFW.
MPGA- And guidance like ‘don’t feed by roads’ can be provided.
MDIFW- Is there interest or support for regulating the distance feed must be placed from a road?
ACCA- Hard to draw a line like that. Some feed sites near roads will never cause a problem but some will.
MDIFW- If the best thing for deer is to feed them away from the road, will people still do it?
MPGA- People will understand if we explain best feeding practices.
MDIFW- We knocked on doors in western Maine to inform people how to feed deer better, but it hasn’t been impactful.
MDIFW- Deer have lived without supplemental feed for ages. Do they need it now? Feed is just used to carry more deer than the habitat can support. Maybe we should just carry fewer deer.
MDACF- In addition to CWD, there are many other pathogens and parasites that could be spread more easily in an environment where deer are fed and concentrated.
ACCA- Deer came to towns because the habitat was cut.
MDIFW- When would you say the deer moved into town as you noted?
ACCA- ~15 years ago.
MDIFW- How important do you feel feeding is in northern Maine vs. southern Maine? Is there a substantial difference between central and southern Maine?
BHA and ACCA- People in central and southern Maine want to see deer. Deer don’t need the feed.
BHA- Our grouped is focused on CWD risks when we say that we don’t support feeding deer in central and southern Maine.
MDIFW- What do we tell the legislature about feeding in central and southern Maine?
BHA- We shouldn’t be feeding in central and southern Maine.
MMA- Consider the reasons behind the north vs. south differences. We should focus on voluntary compliance and a better education campaign.
MDIFW- Would municipal bans on feeding be effective when so many feed sellers exist?
MMA- It would be very difficult to enforce. There are a lot of people selling feed.
MDIFW- We’re not going to ticket people just feeding a little bit in their yard to watch deer.
MDIFW- Education is a tough way to solve this. We have educational materials on this subject readily available, but many people still haven’t seen them.
SAM- Are we harming deer by feeding them at a small scale in central and southern Maine? It’s mostly small feeders and likely these are not causing any problems. It’s not worth making feeding illegal if impacts are minimal. If CWD shows up, impacts of feeding are less certain then.
UMaine- Edmundston, NB recently put an ordinance in place to ban feeding. The town is now trying to walk that back and use changes to societal norms rather than laws to change feeding practices.
MPGA- We don’t know for sure if feeding is good or bad for deer, so let’s help the people that are trying to do some good by feeding to do it better.
MMA- Educational campaign would be a better way to reach absentee landowners.
MDIFW- Messaging via towns may be more impactful than messaging through IFW website.
MDIFW- We’ll compile and circulate meeting notes for comments and corrections.
On deer feeding public survey-
UMaine- Our human dimensions lab studies people’s attitudes, beliefs, and perspectives on species, management options, etc. Partnering with colleagues in New Brunswick and now MDIFW to survey the public and better understand public perspectives on deer feeding and deer impacts. Results available ~mid January and will be included in report to Legislature.
I certainly would have loved to be there myself, as I personally have a very strong opinion against winter feeding of deer,as well as baiting of deer, which in my opinion includes food plots. This past Spring I started working on a PowerPoint Presentation regarding winter deer feeding(especially because it is a major problem in Dexter where I live).
My brother has been a commercial truck driver since 1983, he has traveled over 500,000 miles between Guilford and Newport during that time. We have had countless discussions regarding the negative impact that winter deer feeding is having on the deer herd in our area(and I am sure it’s the same in other areas).
We have spoken to dozens of people regarding the issue over the years, including those who think they are helping the deer by feeding them. I put my PowerPoint into a video format because it is easier to send a link, as the file is too large to send via email. There are still things I want to add to it, but I wanted to send it to you regardless, as I would like share my findings. Here is the link : https://youtu.be/w5PW6Yznjo
I believe the Department needs to somehow get control over who can feed deer and where, or completely put a stop to it. My 9 question online survey will also help to lead the Department towards a possibly solution. Over 64% of people who answered the survey would stop if the Department regulated winter feeding with a fee.
After learning that radio collared does are travelling, in some cases, over 20 miles to winter where they are fed in winter, deer/car collisions and disease spread at these feeding sites will have a huge impact on surrounding populations. I also have the fear that this has gone on so long that a complete ban would be devastating to the population, as they don’t travel to natural wintering areas. My thoughts would be to slowly phase out winter feeding over something like 5 years.
In regards to legalizing baiting of deer in Maine during hunting season, I certainly hope the
Department is against that. Maine has a small population compared to most states. I believe the Department needs to be thinking of finding ways to improve our population, rather than allowing more ways to harvest more deer. Maine already has a super long season compared to states in the mid west, our liberal firearms season takes place during all phases of the rut thus allowing more deer to be harvested. Maine needs to work on the quality of our deer population before we add more ways for people to harvest deer easier. I also think the Department can find a solution without losing the revenue needed to run the Department.
I would love to hear your thoughts and the thoughts of others on the subject. Thank you very much for your time,
To: Nathan Webb, Wildlife Division Director, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Fr: Rebecca Graham, Legislative Advocate, Maine Municipal Association
Re: Deer Feeding Stakeholder Meeting
The Maine Municipal Association appreciates the opportunity to participate in the stakeholder process regarding deer feeding and the issues associated with this activity. In some instances municipalities use their publicly owned lands to provide feeding stations in their communities, however most feeding occurs on private land and can result in significant public impact in terms of public safety, public health, land owner relations, and water quality when shoreland zone buffers are consumed when feeding stops.
Just as the department has the power to prevent feeding in areas where issues are identified, municipalities have the power to pass ordinances to prevent the feeding of deer at the local level. Municipalities report that enforcement of such ordinances is a barrier either because the problem is limited to a single landowner and the solution would not be proportional to the problem, there is little political will to enact an ordinance to restrict the activity, or because potential violators are short-term rental occupants of property owned by absentee landowners acting without knowledge. Other municipal officials report that larger scale operations to be most problematic while small residential feeding stations are largely unnoticed.
One community has worked closely with the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of Transportation in erecting temporary road warning signs to reduce vehicle strikes near one large scale private feeding station. The department worked with the town officials to convince the land owner to reduce the amount of feeding in an effort to shrink the number of deer attracted to the area. Vehicle strikes are a constant problem in communities where deer feeding happens near roadways or natural crossings and this joint cooperative approach netted some change in behavior on the part of the landowner.
Additionally, municipalities expressed concerns about public health where large congregations of deer are encouraged to gather by artificial feeding, particularly in areas where tick-borne illness is most prevalent. Lake health is also a concern in communities that have experienced a blue green algae bloom and spent significant municipal resources in mitigation. Preventative shoreland zone buffer plantings have become a favorite supplemental food target for artificially fed deer once the available source is depleted undermining protective efforts.
All municipal officials report that the easy access to cheap deer feed at local supply stores, lack of public awareness of the impacts of feeding, and the challenge and lack of local capacity to prohibit feeding activities pose significant barriers to using the existing enforcement mechanisms. Municipal officials comments centered on theme of a public education as a more effective tool than prohibition. A general consensus is that residents are generally well-meaning and may be unaware of the lack of nutrients some readily available feed may provide for deer, or the elevated risks of tick borne illness that may come with inviting herds into a small yard for residents and neighbors.
As with other activities such as hunting, trapping, fishing, and the stocking of ponds, perhaps deer feeding may benefit from a department led and administered permitting system with a fee that supports efforts in providing science-based best practices for such activity. Such a process could then provide additional data for understanding the true impact this activity on all aspects of public health, safety, and wildlife and environmental management.
Municipal officials feel strongly that it is important to maintain their ability to restrict such activity and their current municipally supported programs, provided they adhere to the department determined best management practices. Ultimately, a permitting process may provide the department with the best data possible in the event of a wildlife health issue, enhance much needed public education around deer feeding, and supply well-meaning residents with better informed practices to support the deer population.
P.O. Box 160 • 170 Whitetail Way • Bogart, GA 30622
PHONE: 800.209.3337 • FAX: 706.353.0223 • www.QDMA.com
To: Nathan Webb, Wildlife Director
From: Kip Adams, Director of Conservation
Re: Baiting for deer
On behalf of the Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA) I am writing to voice our opposition to legalizing baiting for white-tailed deer in Maine. The QDMA is a national nonprofit wildlife conservation organization dedicated to ensuring the future of white-tailed deer, wildlife habitat and our hunting heritage. The QDMA has over 60,000 members nationwide and our membership includes hunters, landowners and natural resource professionals.
I understand there is ongoing discussion for allowing baiting for hunting deer in Maine, and listed below are several of our concerns:
• Baiting has the potential to accelerate transmission of diseases such as chronic wasting disease (CWD) and bovine tuberculosis (TB) should they ever be discovered in Maine.
• Numerous national surveys confirm that the vast majority of the hunting and non-hunting public objects to hunting over bait.
• Legalization of baiting has been shown to create both “offensive” and “defensive” baiting situations among neighboring hunters, thus increasing conflicts.
• Baiting can alter deer behavior patterns, increasing movement and feeding activity at night rather than during the day. Research has clearly shown that deer harvest does not increase with legalized baiting.
• Experience in other states suggests a 4- to 8-fold increase in the amount of artificial food on the landscape following legalization of baiting.
• Evidence confirms that predators key in on feed sites to ambush deer – thus increasing deer mortality rates.
• Baiting has been shown to increase reproduction/spread of nuisance animals such as raccoons.
Legalizing baiting for deer would not be good for hunting, wildlife management, or wildlife conservation.
For all these reasons, we urge you to oppose this allowance. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Maine Residents’ Perceptions of Deer and
Dr. Carly Sponarski, Francesca Gundrum MSc, & Melissa Flye MSc
Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, & Conservation Biology University of Maine, Orono, ME, 04469
Human Dimensions of Wildlife Lab University of Maine
This publication is a report produced by the Human Dimensions of Wildlife Lab (HDWL) dealing with public issues in natural resource management and conservation. The HDWL, in the Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Conservation Biology at the University of Maine (UMaine), studies social impacts of resource management – the community interactions, associated conflicts, and decision making. Further information, including a copy of this report, can be found on our webpage: https://umaine.edu/sponarskilab/
Sponarski, C.C., Gundrum, F.A. and Flye, M. (2020). Maine Residents’ Perceptions of Deer and Deer Feeding. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Lab Publication 19-01. Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Conservation Biology. University of Maine, Orono, Maine. 1-53.
Thank you to Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife for funding this work. We would like to thank the UMaine undergraduate students who helped with data collection, Amalea Banks, Denise Cole, Danielle Donadio, and Anna Fitch.
HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE LAB UNIVERSITY OF MAINE ……………………………………………………………………………….. II TO CITE THIS REPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. II ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… II TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. III
GENERAL EXPERIENCES & PERCEPTIONS OF DEER 3
DEER FEEDING DEMOGRAPHICS & PERCEPTIONS 7
Deer Feeder Demographics 8
DEER HUNTER PERCEPTIONS 13
DEER MANAGEMENT PERCEPTIONS 14
DEER MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS 19
Scenario Acceptability 19
Scenario 2 21
Scenario 3 22
Scenario 4 23
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 24
Age Range 24
Participation in Wildlife Recreation Activities 25
Participation in Environmental Organization 26
APPENDIX A: INTRODUCTORY LETTER 28
APPENDIX B: MAINE DEER SURVEY 29
APPENDIX C: MAINE DEER SURVEY COMPLETE RESULTS 41
Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) contracted Dr. Carly Sponarski’s Human Dimensions of Wildlife laboratory at the University of Maine to do a survey of Maine’s residents to explore their perceptions of deer and deer feeding. This work is nested within a larger collaboration called the Northeast Deer Research Partnership (NEDRP), a group of government agencies, private companies, university researchers, and non-government organizations from Maine and New Brunswick. This group works together to understand the abiotic, biotic, and social factors influencing white-tailed deer survival and abundance in both the state of Maine and the province of New Brunswick. One factor that may be influencing deer survival and abundance is the presence or absence of feeding by residents. Feeding may have broader impacts on both the deer population and on public health and safety. These impacts may include an increase in the number of deer-vehicle collisions, a growing concern about the introduction of Lyme disease-carrying ticks, and social conflicts between those who feed, and their neighbors who may be concerned about these risks. Although deer feeding is strongly discouraged by MDIFW, people are feeding deer throughout Maine.
The goal of this study was to survey the public of Maine about deer feeding and deer management in order to better understand their perceptions and opinions toward this subject. This information will support deer management decisions concerning wildlife feeding in the state.
1. What are the perceived impacts of deer feeding on deer and on people in Maine? (Impacts on deer mortality, impacts on deer condition, impacts on deer-human conflict levels, etc.)
2. What are Mainers perceptions of different types of deer feeding: baiting, artificial feeding, and food plots? (Are they the same? Are some fair and others not? etc.)
3. How prevalent is deer feeding in Maine? For those who feed, what are they feeding, what time of the year are they feeding, and what do they spend on feed each year?
4. Given various threats (CWD, deer-vehicle collisions, etc.), what management actions would Mainers support with regard to deer feeding? (Ban if CWD is found, ban sale of feed, regulate how feeding can be done, etc. Also, include spatial element, i.e. statewide actions vs. actions only in problem areas.)
A self-administered questionnaire (Appendix B) was designed and distributed by mail to a random sample of 2,000 Maine residents using an Address-Based Sample (ABS); ABS provides the best possible coverage (nearly 100% of postal households) of households (Dillman, 2007; Dillman et al., 2009). The sampling frame, used by Responsive Management for the 2016 big game perceptions survey, was slightly altered in order to produce data that is comparable to this recent survey (Responsive Management, 2016). The State of Maine was divided into two regions; Northern and Southern. 1,000 questionnaires were mailed to residents in northern Maine. The southern Maine region was divided into two: 500 questionnaires were mailed to residents of the city of Portland, and 500 were mailed to residents in other parts of southern Maine. Of the 2,000 survey packages mailed to Maine residents,164 survey packets were returned to our mailing facility because the address was marked as vacant. The overall response rate was 17% (316/1,836).
The questionnaire was composed of both closed-ended and open-ended questions. Using the modified Dillman Method, the survey was distributed using the following procedure: (1) an introductory letter was sent to all participants (Appendix A), (2) a survey package was sent—including a cover letter, informed consent form, the survey booklet, and a return postmarked envelope, and (3) two weeks after the initial survey package, an additional survey package was sent (Dillman, 2007; Dillman et al., 2009).
Participants could also opt-in to the study by completing the survey online; a URL was provided in each mailing. Sending three mailings have shown to significantly increase response rate. The questionnaire contained 36 questions and is provided for reference in Appendix B.
This section contains graphic depictions of the results found in this study. The results in this section were selected due to their relevance to management entities. Note that all graphs and legends should be read from left to right. For a complete summary of our results, please see Appendix C.
General Experiences & Perceptions of Deer
When asked about their experiences with deer, the majority of respondents reported having a variety of different interactions with deer (Figure 1). Most respondents reported interactions with deer while driving, deer eating greenery, and interactions with ticks.
Driven or been a passenger in a vehicle that had to swerve or brake to avoid hitting a deer.
Driven or been a passenger in a vehicle that has hit a deer.
Had deer eat trees, shrubs, or gardens in my yard.
Put out food specifically for deer to eat.
Planted a food plot to benefit deer.
Taken trips specifically to view deer at feeding sites.
Found ticks on myself or a family member.
Found ticks on a pet. 58 42
Figure 1. The percentages of different types of experiences respondents have had with deer in Maine.
The majority of respondents’ descriptions of the deer population indicated that the population is ‘about right’ or ‘low’ throughout Maine (Figure 2).
Your neighborhood currently
Your neighborhood 5 yrs. ago
Too Low Low About Right High Too High Not Sure
Figure 2. Percentage of respondents who described the deer population relative to the following: (a) in Maine, (b) currently in their neighborhood, and (c) their neighborhood five years ago.
When asked about their attitudes toward deer, the majority of respondents reported favorable attitudes toward deer (Figure 3); a small percentage of the overall sample indicated that they have unfavorable attitudes toward deer.
Attitudes toward Deer
Strongly Slightly Neither Slightly Strongly
Figure 3. Percentage of respondents who feel specific attitudes toward deer.
The overall trend in respondents’ beliefs about deer in Maine was largely positive (Figure 4). Respondents overwhelmingly agreed that deer are an important animal for hunting and that deer presence is a sign of a healthy environment. Notably, 43% of respondents believe that deer should not live in residential neighborhoods.
Deer are nuisance animals.
Deer populations should be completely protected.
Deer are an important animal for hunting.
The presence of deer is a sign of a healthy environment.
Deer should live in residential neighborhoods.
Forests should be managed to prioritize deer habitat.
Deer populations are maintained above natural levels for the hunting community.
Declines in the deer population are a sign of poor forest management.
Deer are a non-native species.
Figure 4. Percentage of respondents who believe the following about deer in Maine: (a) deer are nuisance animals, (b) deer populations should be completely protected, (c) deer are an important animal for hunting, (d) the presence of deer is a sign of a healthy environment, (e) deer should live in residential neighborhoods, (f) forests should be managed to prioritize deer habitat, (g) deer populations are maintained above natural levels for the hunting community, (h) declines in the deer population are a sign of poor forest management, and (i) deer are a non-native species.
When asked about threats to the deer population’s survival, respondents largely agreed that all of the options presented, except CWD, were a threat to deer survival (Figure 5). More than half of respondents indicated that they neither agree nor disagree with CWD being a threat to the deer population.
Figure 5. Percentage of respondents who believe the deer population in Maine is threatened by the following: (a) harsh winters, (b) coyotes, (c) loss of habitat, (d) loss of available food in forests, and/or (e) Chronic Wasting Disease.
Deer Feeding Demographics & Perceptions
The majority of respondents (n = 280; Figure 6) indicated that they do not feed deer while 10% said they did (n = 30).
Figure 6. Percentage of respondents who feed deer.
The overall trend of respondents’ beliefs about people who feed deer was positive, but there were options with mixed responses (Figure 7). The majority of respondents indicated that people who feed deer have good intentions, however, 65% of respondents also indicated that feeding deer creates nuisance deer and 38% indicated that town bans on deer feeding would enhance public safety.
People who feed deer have good intentions.
Feeding deer creates nuisance deer.
Landowners should maintain the right to do what they want on their land.
People who feed deer do so for selfish reasons.
The public has enough chances to share opinions about deer management.
Town bans on feeding deer will hurt the deer population.
Town bans on feeding deer will enhance public safety.
Figure 7. Percentage of respondents who believe the following about people who feed deer: (a) people who feed deer have good intentions, (b) feeding deer creates nuisance deer, (c) landowners should maintain the right to do what they want on their land, (d) people who feed deer do so for selfish reasons, (e) the public has enough chances to share opinions about deer management, (f) town bans on feeding deer will hurt the deer population, and/or (g) town bans on feeding deer will enhance public safety.
Deer Feeder Demographics
If a respondent indicated that they feed deer, they were prompted to answer questions about their deer feeding practices. The results compiled below display answers only from those that indicated that they feed deer in Maine (10% of respondents; Figure 6).
The majority of self-identified deer feeders in Maine feed deer in the winter and early spring (Figure 8): December, January, February, and March.
Figure 8. Percentage of self-identified deer feeders who feed during specific months of the year: (a) September, (b) October, (c) November, (d) December, (e) January, (f) February, (g) March, (h) April, (i) May, (j) June, (k) July, and (l) August.
The majority of self-identified deer feeders in Maine feed deer in the same location each year (Figure 9).
Feeding in Same Location
Figure 9. Percentage of self-identified deer feeders who feed deer in the same location each year.
The majority of self-identified deer feeders purchase their deer feed from Tractor Supply Company (Figure 10). All written responses regarding where self-identified deer feeders acquire their deer food were included.
Figure 10. Percentage of self-identified deer feeders who purchase deer feed from the following supplier types (all categories were created based on written responses): (a) Aubuchon Hardware Company, (b) a bakery, (c) Sam’s Club, (d) a local general store, (e) a local feed store, and (f) Tractor Supply Company.
The most popular food type fed by self-identified deer feeders was store bought feed followed by corn and apple trees/apples (Figure 11). All written responses regarding deer food types that self-identified deer feeders use were included.
Grain/Oats
Figure 11. Percentage of self-identified deer feeders who use specific food types from the following categories (all categories were created based on written responses): (a) bread, (b) carrots, (c) cedar bows, (d) clover, (e) molasses, (f) rye, (g) food plots, (h) grains/oats, (i) mineral licks, (j) vegetable/fruit scraps, (k) apples, (l) apples, (m) apple trees, (n) corn, and (o) store bought feed.
The majority of self-identified deer feeders spend between $100-$499 on deer feeding each year (Figure 12). All written responses regarding the amount of money that self-identified deer feeders spend on deer feeding annually were included.
Figure 12. Percentage of self-identified deer feeders’ annual deer feeding expenditures (all categories were created based on written responses): (a) $15-$49, (b) $50-$99, (c) $100-$499, (d) $500-$999, and (e) $1,000 or more.
The majority of self-identified deer feeders began feeding within the last five years (Figure 13).
Figure 13. Percentage of the range of years that self-identified deer feeders’ have been feeding deer: (a) 0-5 years, (b) 5-10 years, (c) 10-15 years, (d) 15 or more years.
The majority of self-identified deer feeders feed within 0-0.5 miles from a town road or state highway (Figure 19). Notably, no self-identified deer feeders reported feeding farther than 2 or more miles from a town road or state highway.
Figure 19. Percentage of self-identified deer feeders who feed within the following distances to a town road or state highway: (a) 0-0.5 miles, (b) 0.5-1 miles, (c) 1-2 miles, (d) 2 or more miles.
The majority of self-identified deer feeders reported that they believe that their deer feeding practices are probably not negatively impacting their neighbors (Figure 20).
Concern for (-) neighbor impact
Figure 20. Percentage of self-identified deer feeders who believe that their deer feeding practices probably does not negatively impact their neighbors.
Self-identified deer feeders indicated that viewing deer, stabilizing the population in the winter, and their belief that there is a lack of natural food for deer in the winter were among the most important reasons for feeding deer (Figure 21). Somewhat contradictory to these reasons, 56% of self-identified deer feeders indicated that feeding deer because deer rely on them for food was not important. Additionally, the majority of self-identified deer feeders indicated that attracting deer to a hunting area and community tradition were not important reasons for deer feeding.
Attracting deer to an area where I hunt
Deer feeding is a tradition in my community
Stabilizing the population in the winter
Lack of natural food for deer in the winter
Deer rely on me to feed them
Figure 21. Percentage of self-identified deer feeders who indicated how important the following reasons for deer feeding are to them: (a) attracting deer to an area where I hunt, (b) viewing deer, (c) deer feeding is a tradition in my community, (d) stabilizing the population in the winter, (e) lack of natural food for deer in the winter, and (f) deer rely on me to feed them.
Deer Hunter Perceptions
Just over two-thirds of respondents indicated that they do not hunt deer (Figure 22).
Figure 22. Percentage of respondents who hunt deer.
If a respondent indicated that they hunt deer, they were prompted to answer a question about their involvement with deer hunting (Figure 22). The results compiled below display answers only from those who indicated that they hunt deer in Maine (31% of respondents).
The majority of self-identified deer hunters indicated that deer hunting is an important activity in their lives, they have spent a lot of money on deer hunting equipment, and that hunting deer for meat are central reasons for why they hunt deer (Figure 23). 55% of self-identified deer hunters agreed that they would not bait deer if it were legal.
If I stopped deer hunting, an important part of my life would be missing.
I have invested a lot of money in deer hunting equipment.
I would bait deer during hunting season if it were legal.
I mainly hunt deer only to bring the meat home to eat.
I mainly hunt deer to harvest a trophy deer.
The presence of CWD in a deer population will deter me from hunting deer.
Figure 23. Percentage of self-identified deer hunters who indicated how much they agree with the following about their involvement with deer hunting: (a) if they stopped deer hunting, an important part of their life would be missing, (b) they have invested a lot of money in deer hunting equipment, (c) they would bait deer during hunting season if it were legal, (d) they mainly hunt deer only to bring the meat home to eat, (e) they mainly hunt deer to harvest a trophy deer, and (f) the presence of Chronic Wasting Disease in a deer population would deter them from hunting deer.
Deer Management Perceptions
Overall, respondents indicated that their greatest concerns are contracting Lyme disease and deervehicle collisions (Figure 24).
Deer frequently eating home gardens
Living near a deer population that is infected with CWD
Consuming deer from a population that is infected with CWD
No Concern Moderate Concern High Concern
Figure 24. Percentage of respondents who were concerned about the following in terms of public health and safety: (a) deer frequently eating home gardens, (b) deer-vehicle collisions, (c) contracting Lyme disease, and/or (d) consuming deer from a population that is infected with CWD.
When asked about their trust in MDIFW, respondents indicated positive perceptions of trust in the agency’s abilities to effectively manage deer and engage with the public about deer management (Figure 25).
Effectively manage deer populations.
Effectively manage deer habitat.
Provide best available information on deer populations.
Provide best available information on deer management strategies.
Provide opportunities for the public to voice their concerns about deer management.
Figure 25. Percentage of respondents who trust MDIFW to do the following: (a) effectively manage deer populations, (b) effectively manage deer habitat, (c) provide best available information on deer populations, (d) provide best available information on deer management strategies, and/or (e) provide opportunities for the public to voice their concerns about deer management.
When asked about their trust in relevant information sources, respondents indicated positive perceptions of trust for all options (Figure 26). Respondents indicated that they trust information from federal government conservation biology professionals slightly less than the other options.
Non-government conservation biology professionals.
State government conservation biology professionals.
Federal government conservation biology professionals.
Figure 26. Percentage of respondents who trust the following relevant information sources: (a) university researchers, (b) non-government conservation biology professionals, (c) state government conservation biology professionals, and (d) federal government conservation biology professionals.
Respondents’ perceptions of the importance of specific deer management goals revealed a trend in agreement surrounding three management goals: reducing disease transmission, reducing deer-vehicle collisions, and managing forests to benefit deer habitat (Figure 27). Respondents indicated that prohibiting winter deer feeding was the least important management goal. Maintaining enough deer to satisfy hunters and wildlife viewers were also identified as less important management goals.
Maintaining enough deer to satisfy hunters.
Maintaining enough deer to satisfy wildlife viewers.
Managing forests to benefit deer habitat.
Prohibiting winter feeding of deer.
Reducing the risk of disease transmission within the deer herd. (e.g., CWD)
Reducing the risk of disease transmission from deer to humans. (e.g., Lyme)
Reducing the risk of deer-vehicle collisions.
Figure 27. Percentage of respondents who consider the following important in terms of deer management: (a) maintaining enough deer to satisfy hunters, (b) maintaining enough deer to satisfy wildlife viewers, (c) managing forests to benefit deer habitat, (d) prohibiting winter feeding of deer, (e) reducing the risk of disease transmission within the deer herd (e.g., Chronic Wasting Disease), (f) reducing the risk of disease transmission from deer to humans (e.g., Lyme Disease), and/or (g) reducing the risk of deer-vehicle collisions.
When respondents were prompted to consider how much they agreed that feeding deer with bait, mineral licks, and/or food plots in order to hunt deer was considered fair chase, the majority of respondents indicated that all three activities were not considered fair chase hunting (Figure 28). Hunting deer over food plots was the most acceptable practice of the three options. Respondents were provided with the following definitions of the three feeding types: bait can be any animal, plant, or a part of an animal or plant used to attract wild animals for the purpose of hunting, mineral licks are typically blocks of salt provided to attract deer for the purpose of hunting, and food plots are standing crops of grain, fruit, nuts, or other foods known to be attractive to deer.
Hunting deer over bait is considered fair chase
Hunting deer over mineral licks is considered fair chase
Hunting deer over food plots is considered fair chase.
Figure 28. Percentage of respondents who consider hunting deer over the following as fair chase hunting: (a) bait, (b) mineral licks, and (c) food plots.
When presented with the information that MDIFW has major concerns about feeding deer, such as increased deer-vehicle collisions, risk of disease spread amongst deer, impacts of certain feed on deer health, etc., the majority of respondents indicated that MDIFW deer feeding guidelines would not encourage them start feeding deer (Figure 29). Notably, 38% of respondents indicated that MDIFW deer feeding guidelines would not change the way they feed deer currently.
MDIFW guidelines would encourage you to start feeding
MDIFW guidelines would encourage you to change your current feeding practices
Figure 29. Percentage of respondents who considered whether MDIFW deer feeding guidelines would encourage them to do the following: (a) start feeding deer and (b) change the way they feed currently.
When presented with the information that professional wildlife biologists believe that CWD spreads by direct deer-to-deer contact, 41% of respondents indicated that a ban on deer feeding in CWD infected areas (4 miles surrounding area where deer with CWD was identified) was the most appealing option to mitigate the spread of CWD throughout Maine (Figure 30). 38% of respondents indicated that a statewide ban on deer feeding was the most appealing option to limit the spread of CWD.
Options to Mitigate CWD
Spread 0 20 40 60 80 100
Ban feeding statewide Ban feeding in CWD area No feeding ban
Figure 30. Percentage of respondents who selected one of the following options as their preference for how to limit the spread of CWD: (a) ban feeding state-wide (it should remain legal state-wide), (b) feeding deer should be banned only in CWD infected areas (4 miles surrounding area where deer with CWD was identified), and (c) feeding deer should be banned state-wide
Deer Management Scenarios
Respondents were asked to give their opinions about four scenarios:
1. Deer are frequently eating your home garden or your neighbor’s garden;
2. You or your neighbors are experiencing frequent deer-vehicle collisions;
3. Lyme disease rates are increasing in your region; and 4. Chronic Wasting Disease is found in deer in your region.
Scenario Acceptability
More than half of all respondents indicated that all of the scenarios were highly or slightly unacceptable. CWD presence, Lyme presence, and deer-vehicle collisions were ranked the most unacceptable scenarios of the four (Figure 31)..
Deer are frequently eating your home garden or your neighbour’s garden.
You or your neighbours are experiencing frequent deer-vehicle collisions.
Lyme disease rates are increasing in your region.
Chronic Wasting Disease is found in deer in your region.
Highly Unacceptable Slightly Unacceptable Neither Slightly Acceptable Highly Acceptable
Figure 31 Percentage of respondents’ acceptability of the four scenarios.
For Scenario 1, deer are frequently eating home gardens, there was a range of acceptability for all possible management actions (Figure 32). Offering advice/monitoring the situation and regulating deer feeding in problem areas were the most acceptable management actions, while regulating deer feeding state-wide and banning deer feeding state-wide were the least acceptable management actions.
Offer advice/monitor the situation
Discourage deer feeding
Regulate deer feeding in problem areas
Regulate deer feeding state-wide
Ban deer feeding in problem areas
Ban deer feeding state-wide
Increase hunting permits
Figure 32. Percentage of respondents who consider the following management actions acceptable when deer are
frequently eating their home gardens or their neighbor’s garden: (a) offer advice/monitor the situation, (b) discourage deer feeding, (c) regulate deer feeding in problem areas, (d) regulate deer feeding state-wide, (e) ban deer feeding in problem areas, (f) ban deer feeding state-wide, and (g) increase hunting permits.
For Scenario 2, deer-vehicle collisions are occurring frequently, results were in line with responses to Scenario 1; however, respondents indicated slightly more acceptability for all management options than in Scenario 1 (Figure 33). Regulating deer feeding state-wide and banning deer feeding state-wide were the least acceptable management actions.
Figure 33. Percentage of respondents who consider the following management actions acceptable when they or their neighbors are experiencing frequent deer-vehicle collisions: (a) offer advice/monitor the situation, (b) discourage deer feeding, (c) regulate deer feeding in problem areas, (d) regulate deer feeding state-wide, (e) ban deer feeding in problem areas, (f) ban deer feeding state-wide, and (g) increase hunting permits.
For Scenario 3, increasing Lyme disease rates, respondents indicated strong acceptability for all management actions (Figure 34). Notably, 33% of respondents indicated that banning deer feeding state-wide was an unacceptable management action.
Figure 34. Percentage of respondents who consider the following management actions acceptable when Lyme disease rates are increasing in their region: (a) offer advice/monitor the situation, (b) discourage deer feeding, (c) regulate deer feeding in problem areas, (d) regulate deer feeding state-wide, (e) ban deer feeding in problem areas, (f) ban deer feeding state-wide, and (g) increase hunting permits.
For Scenario 4, presence of CWD, acceptability of all possible management actions parallels the acceptability of management actions for Scenario 3 with two exceptions. Respondents indicated that regulating deer feeding state-wide due to the presence of CWD was slightly less acceptable than it was for Lyme disease presence (Figure 35). Additionally, respondents indicated that banning deer feeding in problem areas was more acceptable in this scenario than it was in Scenario 3.
Figure 35. Percentage of respondents who consider the following management actions acceptable when Chronic
Wasting Disease is found in deer in their region: (a) offer advice/monitor the situation, (b) discourage deer feeding, (c) regulate deer feeding in problem areas, (d) regulate deer feeding state-wide, (e) ban deer feeding in problem areas, (f) ban deer feeding state-wide, and (g) increase hunting permits.
Of our respondents, 56% were male and 43% were female (Figure 36).
Figure 36. Percentage of respondents who are (a) female, (b) male, or (c) preferred not to say.
The majority of our respondents were between the ages of 50 and 79 years old (Figure 37).
18-20 yrs. old
50-59 yrs. old
60-69 yrs. old
70-79 yrs. old
80-89 yrs. old
90+ yrs. old
Figure 37. Percentage of respondents who are the following ages: (a) 18-20 years old, (b) 20-29 years old, (c) 3039 years old, (d) 40-49 years old, (e) 50-59 years old, (f) 60-69 years old, (g) 70-79 years old, (h) 80-89 years old, or (i) 90 years old or older.
Respondents duration of residence in Maine varied between 0 to 80 plus years (Figure 38). 18% of our respondents reported that they have lived in Maine for 30-39 years.
Figure 38. Percentage of respondents who have been residents of Maine for the following number of years (a) 0-9 years, (b) 10-19 years, (c) 20-29 years, (d) 30-39 years, (e) 40-49 years, (f) 50-59 years, (g) 60-69 years, (h) 70-79 years, or (i) 80 years or more.
Participation in Wildlife Recreation Activities
In terms of recreational activities, 79% of our respondents reported that they have participated in wildlife viewing and 62% reported that they have participated in deer viewing (Figure 39). Fewer reported participating in consumptive recreational activities. Only 7% indicated that they do not participate in any of the recreational activity options.
Figure 39. Percentage of respondents who participate in the following activities: (a) hunting, (b) deer hunting, (c) wildlife viewing, (d) deer viewing, and/or (e) none.
Only 21% of respondents indicated that they are members of a natural resource-related organization (Figure 40).
Participation in an organization
Fishing/hunting organizations
Animal rights/welfare organizations
Figure 40. Percentage of respondents who are members of a natural resource organization and/or a specific type of natural resource organization.
Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York, NY: Wiley.
Responsive Management. (2016). The opinions of Maine residents, landowners, and hunters regarding deer, moose, bear, and turkey. Conducted for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife: Harrisonburg, VA.
Appendix A: Introductory Letter
You have been selected to participate in a research project being conducted by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and Dr. Carly Sponarski, a faculty member at the University of Maine. The goal of this project is to learn about human-deer interactions in your community and public perceptions of deer supplemental feeding. You were randomly selected to participate in this study. We received your name from a national database company when we requested a sample of Maine resident names.
If you decide to participate in this survey, you will be asked to submit an anonymous survey. The entire survey will only take approximately 15-20 minutes to complete, and will arrive by mail shortly. If you prefer to take the survey online, instructions for how to take the online survey will be included in the survey. You must be at least 18 years of age to participate in this study. Risks
Aside from the time and inconvenience, there are no expected risks to individuals who participate.
There will be no direct benefits to you. However, this research will result in a better understanding of the social and cognitive factors associated with deer management in Maine. You are one of a small group of people that have been selected to represent the views of all Mainers.
To compensate you for your time, upon completion of the survey, you may choose to be entered into a raffle for $100 to L.L. Bean. Four survey participants will each win a $100 gift certificate to L.L. Bean. At the end of the survey, you will be redirected to a separate survey that will ask for your address or email address to contact you if you win. This will be collected separately from your survey responses.
All survey data will be collected anonymously. The names of participants will not be collected at any point in time. Completed questionnaires will be stored in a locked drawer in Dr. Sponarski’s possession until all data from the questionnaires have been transferred from paper copies into an electronic database. Once the data has been electronically archived, all paper copies of the survey will be destroyed. This data transfer and subsequent paper copy destruction process will be completed no later than April 2024. Dr. Carly Sponarski will maintain this electronic data archive on her password protected computer after the completion of the project.
Participation is voluntary. If you choose to take part in this study, you may stop at any time. You may skip any questions you do not wish to answer. Participating in the survey implies consent to participate.
If you have any questions, please contact Research Scientist Francesca Gundrum at (207) 200-1245 or francesca.gundrum@maine.edu or you may also reach Dr. Sponarski at (207) 581-2909 or carlycs@maine.edu. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the Office of Research Compliance, University of Maine, (207) 581-2657 (or email umric@maine.edu).
Dept. of Wildlife, Fisheries, & Conservation Biology University of Maine
Appendix B: Maine Deer Survey
You are invited to participate in a research project being conducted by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and Dr. Carly Sponarski, a faculty member at the University of Maine. The goal of this project is to learn about human-deer interactions in your community and public perceptions of deer supplemental feeding in your region.
You were randomly selected to participate in this study. Your address was obtained using public tax records, allowing us to contact you for the purposes of this research. This questionnaire should take about 20 minutes to complete. We request the adult, a person 18 years and older, with the most recent birthday should complete the questionnaire. To thank you for your time, four participants will be randomly selected to win $100 L.L. Bean gift cards.
Your participation is voluntary, but your participation is valuable to our study and we would appreciate your help. We encourage you to answer all questions in a way that accurately reflects your own feelings and beliefs. Your individual responses will be kept confidential. Please answer the questions as openly as possible. At no point will your personal information be collected in association with this study.
When you have completed the questionnaire, please seal your completed questionnaire in the postmarked envelope provided and place it in the mail for return. You may choose to take the survey online at the following address: https://tinyurl.com/mainedeersurvey
Thank you in advance for your help with this important study. If you have any questions about the study or need help completing your questionnaire, please do not hesitate to contact Francesca Gundrum at (207) 200-1245 or by email at francesca.gundrum@maine.edu.
Francesca Gundrum Dr. Carly Sponarski
e. francesca.gundrum@maine.edu; t. (207) 200-1245 e. carlycs@maine.edu; t. (207) 581-2909
You are invited to participate in a research project being conducted by the Maine Department of Inland
Fisheries and Wildlife and Dr. Carly Sponarski, an Assistant Professor of the Wildlife, Fisheries, and Conservation Biology Department at the University of Maine. The goal of this project is to learn about attitudes toward deer supplemental feeding in Maine. You must be at least 18 years of age to participate.
If you decide to participate in this survey, you will be asked to submit an anonymous paper survey. It will take approximately 20 minutes to complete the survey. Once you have finished, we request that you return your survey as stated in the instructions page of this packet. You may choose to take the survey online at the following address: https://tinyurl.com/mainedeersurvey
Aside from the time and inconvenience, there are no expected risks to individuals who participate in this research.
There will be no direct benefits to you. However, this research will result in a better understanding of the social factors associated with deer management in Maine, and help the state better manage Maine’s deer population.
All survey data will be collected anonymously. The names of participants will not be collected at any point in time. Completed questionnaires will be stored in a locked drawer in Dr. Sponarski’s possession until all data from the questionnaires have been transferred from paper copies into an electronic database. Paper copies of the surveys will be destroyed no later than April 2024. The electronic database will be stored permanently on Dr. Sponarski’s password protected computer with access to this information only granted to those with Institutional Review Board permission and training.
SECTION 1: In this section you will be asked questions about your beliefs about wildlife in general.
1. To what extent do you disagree or agree with each of the following? (Circle one number for each statement)
Disagree Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
Humans should manage wildlife populations so that humans benefit. 1 2 3 4 5
Wildlife should have rights similar to the rights of humans. 1 2 3 4 5
We should strive for a world where there’s an abundance of wildlife for hunting and fishing. 1 2 3 4 5
I view all living things as part of one big family. 1 2 3 4 5
Hunting does not respect the lives of wildlife. 1 2 3 4 5
I feel a strong emotional bond with wildlife. 1 2 3 4 5
The needs of humans should take priority over wildlife protection. 1 2 3 4 5
I care about wildlife as much as I do about people. 1 2 3 4 5
Wildlife are on earth primarily for people to use. 1 2 3 4 5
Hunting is a positive and humane activity. 1 2 3 4 5
We should strive for a world where humans and wildlife can live side by side without fear. 1 2 3 4 5
I value the sense of companionship I receive from wildlife. 1 2 3 4 5
Wildlife are like my family and I want to protect them. 1 2 3 4 5
People who want to hunt should have the opportunity to do so. 1 2 3 4 5
SECTION 2: In this section you will be asked about your beliefs about deer in Maine.
1. In your opinion, describe the deer population size: (Circle one number for each statement)
Maine 1 2 3 4 5 6
Currently in your neighborhood 1 2 3 4 5 6
Your neighborhood five years ago 1 2 3 4 5 6
2. In general, do you think of deer as:
Harmful 1 2 3 4 5 Beneficial
Which of the following experiences have you personally had in Maine? (Check all that apply)
… driven or been a passenger in a vehicle that had to swerve or brake to avoid hitting a deer.
… driven or been a passenger in a vehicle that has hit a deer.
… had deer eat trees, shrubs, or gardens in my yard.
… put out food specifically for deer to eat.
… planted a food plot to benefit deer.
… taken trips specifically to view deer at feeding sites.
… found ticks on myself or a family member.
… found ticks on a pet.
4. To what extent do you disagree or agree with each of the following statements about deer in Maine? (Circle one number for each statement)
Deer are nuisance animals. 1 2 3 4 5
Deer populations should be completely protected. 1 2 3 4 5
Deer are an important animal for hunting. 1 2 3 4 5
The presence of deer is a sign of a healthy environment. 1 2 3 4 5
Deer should live in residential neighborhoods. 1 2 3 4 5
Forests should be managed to prioritize deer habitat. 1 2 3 4 5
Deer populations are maintained above natural levels for the hunting community. 1 2 3 4 5
Declines in the deer population are a sign of poor forest management. 1 2 3 4 5
Deer are a non-native species. 1 2 3 4 5
5. To what extent do you disagree or agree with each of the following statements about deer in Maine? (Circle one number for each statement)
I believe deer population growth is limited by … Disagree Slightly
Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
… harsh winters. 1 2 3 4 5
… coyotes. 1 2 3 4 5
… loss of habitat. 1 2 3 4 5
… loss of available food in forests. 1 2 3 4 5
… Chronic Wasting Disease*. 1 2 3 4 5
* Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is a highly contagious and fatal disease that affects deer, moose, and elk, but is not yet known to infect humans or livestock. CWD has not yet been detected in Maine.
6. In terms of your personal health and safety, how concerned are you about the following?
Deer frequently eating home gardens 1 2 3 4 5
Deer-vehicle collisions 1 2 3 4 5
Contracting Lyme disease* 1 2 3 4 5
Living near a deer population that is infected with Chronic Wasting Disease 1 2 3 4 5
Consuming deer from a population that is infected with Chronic Wasting Disease 1 2 3 4 5
* Lyme disease is a disease from ticks that affects humans and is carried by deer.
SECTION 3: Your opinions about deer management in Maine.
1. To what extent do you disagree or agree with each of the following statements?
(MDIFW is the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife—the agency in charge of wildlife.)
I trust MDIFW to… Strongly Disagree Slightly
Agree nor Disagree Slightly Agree Strongly Agree
… effectively manage deer populations. 1 2 3 4 5
… effectively manage deer habitat. 1 2 3 4 5
… provide best available information on deer populations. 1 2 3 4 5
… provide best available information on deer management strategies. 1 2 3 4 5
… provide opportunities for the public to voice their concerns about deer management. 1 2 3 4 5
2. To what extent do you disagree or agree with each of the following statements? (Circle one number for each statement)
I trust information from… Disagree Slightly
… university researchers. 1 2 3 4 5
… non-government conservation biology professionals. 1 2 3 4 5
… State government conservation biology professionals. 1 2 3 4 5
… Federal government conservation biology
1 professionals. 2 3 4 5
3. On the topic of deer management, how important do you consider ea (Circle one number for each statement) ch of the f ollowing con sideration s?
Maintaining enough deer to satisfy hunters. 1 2 3 4 5
Maintaining enough deer to satisfy wildlife viewers. 1 2 3 4 5
Managing forests to benefit deer habitat. 1 2 3 4 5
Prohibiting winter feeding of deer. 1 2 3 4 5
Reducing the risk of disease transmission within the deer herd (e.g., Chronic Wasting Disease). 1 2 3 4 5
Reducing the risk of disease transmission from deer to humans (e.g., Lyme Disease). 1 2 3 4 5
Reducing the risk of deer-vehicle collisions. 1 2 3 4 5
4. To what extent do you disagree or agree with each of the following statements about different methods of deer feeding for hunting purposes in Maine? (Circle one number for each statement)
• Bait can be any animal, plant, or a part of an animal or plant used to attract wild animals for the purpose of hunting.
• Mineral licks are typically blocks of salt provided to attract deer for the purpose of hunting.
• Food plots are standing crops of grain, fruit, nuts, or other foods known to be attractive to deer.
I believe hunting deer over… Strongly Disagree Slightly
… bait is considered fair chase. 1 2 3 4 5
… mineral licks is considered fair chase. 1 2 3 4 5
… food plots is considered fair chase. 1 2 3 4 5
5. To what extent do you disagree or agree with each of the following statements about deer feeding by the public in Maine? (Circle one number for each statement)
I believe … Strongly Disagree Slightly
… people who feed deer have good intentions. 1 2 3 4 5
… feeding deer creates nuisance deer. 1 2 3 4 5
… landowners should maintain the right to do what they want on their land. 1 2 3 4 5
… people who feed deer do so for selfish reasons. 1 2 3 4 5
… the public has enough chances to share opinions about deer management. 1 2 3 4 5
… town bans on feeding deer will hurt the deer population. 1 2 3 4 5
… town bans on feeding deer will enhance public safety. 1 2 3 4 5
6. MDIFW has major concerns about feeding deer, such as increased deer-vehicle collisions, risk of disease spread amongst deer, impacts of certain feed on deer health, etc. One disease that is of particular concern is Chronic Wasting Disease (not currently found in Maine yet), a highly contagious disease, which spreads through saliva and is fatal to deer. Since deer feeding is not illegal, MDIFW could offer guidelines (e.g., best food types, locations, etc.) for how to properly feed deer.
Given what we know about the risks associated with feeding deer, how unlikely or likely are you to do the following if MDIFW offered guidelines? (Circle one number for each statement)
Start feeding deer 1 2 3 4 5
Change the way you feed deer currently 1 2 3 4 5
7. Professional wildlife biologists believe that Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) spreads by direct deer-to-deer contact. To limit the possibility of CWD spreading to areas of Maine, which of these options is most appealing to you? (Please check only one option)
Feeding deer should not be banned (it should remain legal state-wide).
Feeding deer should be banned only in CWD infected areas (4 miles surrounding area where deer with CWD was identified).
Feeding deer should be banned state-wide.
SECTION 4: Your opinions about hypothetical human-deer situations in Maine.
PLEASE READ BEFORE ANSWERING MORE QUESTIONS
This section contains a series of questions about 7 hypothetical human-deer situations in Maine. For each situation, please rate the acceptability of the scenario and the management actions that might be used to address the situation. The management actions include:
• Offer advice and monitor the situation. Authorities take no immediate action but monitor the situation and provide information to the public about how to protect themselves, their families, pets or property. This could include posting warning signs. As the situation develops, however, authorities might need to take further action.
• Discourage deer feeding. Authorities notify homeowners of issues connected to attracting deer to the area and recommend that deer feeding be discontinued.
• Regulate deer feeding in problem areas. Local authorities regulate deer feeding in identified problem areas (e.g., 4 miles around where a deer with CWD was identified) with a local deer feeding and management plan.
• Regulate deer feeding state-wide. Authorities regulate deer feeding with a state-wide deer feeding and management plan.
• Ban deer feeding in problem areas. Local authorities notify homeowners of issues connected to attracting deer in their neighborhood and implement a fine for anyone found to be feeding deer.
• Ban deer feeding state-wide. Authorities notify homeowners of issues connected to attracting deer in the state and implement a fine for anyone found to be feeding deer.
• Increase hunting permits. State authorities increase the number of deer hunting permits in order to decrease the deer population in the area. This usually involves increasing the number of doe (female deer) permitted to be hunted.
SCENARIO 1. Deer are frequently eating home gardens of you and/or your neighbors.
How unacceptable or acceptable are the following … Highly Unacceptable Slightly
Unacceptable Neither Slightly
Deer are frequently eating your home garden or your neighbor’s garden. 1 2 3 4 5
Possible management actions …
… Offer advice/monitor the situation 1 2 3 4 5
… Discourage deer feeding 1 2 3 4 5
… Regulate deer feeding in problem areas 1 2 3 4 5
… Regulate deer feeding state-wide 1 2 3 4 5
… Ban deer feeding in problem areas 1 2 3 4 5
… Ban deer feeding state-wide 1 2 3 4 5
… Increase hunting permits 1 2 3 4 5
SCENARIO 2. Your neighborhood is experiencing frequent deer-vehicle collisions.
You or your neighbors are experiencing frequent deer-vehicle collisions. 1 2 3 4 5
SCENARIO 3. Lyme disease (a disease from ticks that affects humans and is carried by deer) rates are increasing in your region, and researchers suggest that it is linked to a high population of deer in your area.
Lyme disease rates are increasing in your region. 1 2 3 4 5
SCENARIO 4. Chronic Wasting Disease (a highly contagious and fatal disease that affects deer, moose, and elk, but is not yet known to infect humans or livestock) is found in deer in your region. Researchers suggest that it spreads through high concentrations of deer at feeding sites.
Chronic Wasting Disease is found in deer in your region. 1 2 3 4 5
SECTION 5: We are interested to know about whether or not you are feeding deer.
1. Do you feed deer? (Check one)
Yes (Please answer questions below) No (Go to Section 6) Prefer Not To Say (Go to Section 6)
2. What months of the year do you feed deer? (Check all that apply)
3. Do you feed deer at the same place each year? (Check one)
4. What type of food do you use to feed deer? (Please write your answer below)
5. Where do you buy your deer food? ____________________________________________________________
6. On average, how much money do you spend on deer food each year? ________________________________
7. How much deer food do you buy each year? _________________________________________________ _
8. How long have you been feeding deer? (Check one)
0 – 5 years 5 – 10 years 10 – 15 years 15+ years
9. How close is the nearest road (e.g., town road or state highway) to where you feed deer? (Check one)
0 – 0.5 miles 0.5 – 1 miles 1 – 2 miles 2+ miles
10. Are you concerned that deer feeding may negatively impact your neighbors? (Check one)
Yes No Not Sure Prefer Not To Say
11. People feed deer for many reasons. Listed below are several reasons why deer feeding may be important to you. Please indicate how important each of these reasons are in influencing you to feed deer. (Circle one number for each statement)
2. To what extent do you disagree or agree with each of the following statements related to your involvement in deer hunting? (Circle one number for each statement)
If I stopped deer hunting, an important part of my life would be missing. 1 2 3 4 5
I have invested a lot of money in deer hunting equipment. 1 2 3 4 5
I would bait deer during hunting season if it were legal. 1 2 3 4 5
I mainly hunt deer only to bring the meat home to eat. 1 2 3 4 5
I mainly hunt deer to harvest a trophy deer. 1 2 3 4 5
The presence of Chronic Wasting Disease in a deer population will deter me from hunting deer. 1 2 3 4 5
SECTION 7: Please provide the following information about yours elf.
1. Are you: Female Male Prefer Not To Say
2. What year were you born: _________ (YYYY)
3. How many years have you lived in Maine? _________ years
4. Have you ever participated in the following activities? (Check all that apply)
Hunting Deer hunting Wildlife viewing Deer viewing None
5. Are you a member of any environmental, conservation, fishing, hunting, animal rights or animal welfare organizations?
a. Yes (Please answer #5b) No
b. Please check all that apply and write organization(s) name(s).
Environmental or conservation organizations Name: _________________________________
Fishing or hunting organizations. Name: _________________________________
Animal rights or animal welfare organizations. Name: _________________________________
6. Would you be interested in participating in future studies about wildlife management in Maine? If so, please provide your email address:
Thank you for your participation! Your opinions are greatly appreciated!
If you have comments or feedback, please use the space below.
If you would like to be entered to win 1 of 4 $100 L.L. Bean gift cards, please go to the following website: http://tinyurl.com/mainedeersurveyraffle
Appendix C: Maine Deer Survey Complete Results
Humans should manage wildlife populations so that humans benefit. 17% 20% 20% 23% 20%
Wildlife should have rights similar to the rights of humans. 22% 21% 18% 22% 18%
We should strive for a world where there’s an abundance of wildlife for hunting and fishing. 4% 7% 15% 29% 46%
I view all living things as part of one big family. 7% 7% 21% 28% 36%
Hunting does not respect the lives of wildlife. 39% 25% 15% 12% 9%
I feel a strong emotional bond with wildlife. 6% 9% 21% 32% 32%
The needs of humans should take priority over wildlife protection. 26% 22% 22% 24% 7%
I care about wildlife as much as I do about people. 10% 21% 18% 24% 26%
Wildlife are on earth primarily for people to use. 44% 19% 20% 10% 8%
Hunting is a positive and humane activity. 11% 11% 23% 25% 31%
We should strive for a world where humans and wildlife can live side by side without fear. 10% 12% 26% 20% 31%
I value the sense of companionship I receive from wildlife. 5% 7% 28% 27% 33%
Wildlife are like my family and I want to protect them. 13% 16% 26% 24% 22%
People who want to hunt should have the opportunity to do so. 3% 5% 9% 32% 51%
Maine 5% 15% 35% 13% 7% 25%
Currently in your neighborhood 10% 20% 42% 11% 9% 8%
Your neighborhood five years ago 9% 16% 37% 12% 6% 20%
Bad 1% 3% 26% 18% 52% Good
Harmful 4% 10% 24% 23% 38% Beneficial
Negative 2% 5% 28% 20% 46% Positive
3. Which of the following experiences have you personally had in Maine? (Check all that apply)
77% driven or been a passenger in a vehicle that had to swerve or brake to avoid hitting a deer.
40% driven or been a passenger in a vehicle that has hit a deer.
63% had deer eat trees, shrubs, or gardens in my yard.
18% put out food in the winter specifically for deer to eat.
10% planted a food plot to benefit deer.
27% taken trips specifically to view deer at feeding sites.
67% found ticks on myself or a family member.
58% found ticks on a pet.
Deer are nuisance animals. 45% 16% 24% 12% 3%
Deer populations should be completely protected. 26% 22% 19% 20% 14%
Deer are an important animal for hunting. 5% 2% 12% 29% 52%
The presence of deer is a sign of a healthy environment. 0% 3% 20% 38% 39%
Deer should live in residential neighborhoods. 18% 25% 35% 15% 7%
Forests should be managed to prioritize deer habitat. 4% 9% 27% 32% 29%
Deer populations are maintained above natural levels for the hunting community. 15% 15% 50% 14% 5%
Declines in the deer population are a sign of poor forest management. 8% 19% 34% 25% 14%
Deer are a non-native species. 62% 10% 26% 1% 2%
I believe deer population growth is limited by … Strongly Disagree Slightly
… harsh winters. 4% 4% 11% 36% 45%
… coyotes. 3% 8% 18% 32% 38%
… loss of habitat. 4% 4% 14% 33% 45%
… loss of available food in forests. 3% 7% 20% 33% 37%
… Chronic Wasting Disease*. 15% 4% 53% 16% 11%
6. In terms of your personal health and safety, how concerned are you about the following? (Circle one number for each statement)
Deer frequently eating home gardens 49% 16% 21% 7% 7%
Deer-vehicle collisions 6% 14% 36% 19% 26%
Contracting Lyme disease* 7% 12% 23% 18% 40%
Living near a deer population that is infected with Chronic Wasting Disease 28% 22% 20% 10% 20%
Consuming deer from a population that is infected with Chronic Wasting Disease 31% 15% 16% 11% 27%
8. To what extent do you disagree or agree with each of the following statements?
… effectively manage deer populations. 6% 9% 17% 39% 29%
… effectively manage deer habitat. 7% 10% 20% 37% 25%
… provide best available information on deer populations. 3% 5% 16% 38% 38%
… provide best available information on deer management strategies. 5% 5% 20% 36% 35%
… provide opportunities for the public to voice their concerns about deer management. 4% 10% 27% 28% 31%
9. To what extent do you disagree or agree with each of the following statements?
I trust information from… Strongly Disagree Slightly
… university researchers. 2% 7% 21% 32% 38%
… non-government conservation biology professionals. 3% 8% 22% 37% 30%
… State government conservation biology professionals. 3% 7% 17% 43% 30%
… Federal government conservation biology professionals. 8% 12% 22% 35% 23%
10. On the topic of deer management, how important do you consider each of the following considerations? (Circle one number for each statement)
Maintaining enough deer to satisfy hunters. 15% 25% 28% 23% 9%
Maintaining enough deer to satisfy wildlife viewers. 17% 23% 30% 21% 9%
Managing forests to benefit deer habitat. 2% 12% 27% 34% 25%
Prohibiting winter feeding of deer. 27% 25% 24% 13% 11%
Reducing the risk of disease transmission within the deer herd (e.g., Chronic Wasting Disease). 3% 8% 20% 32% 38%
Reducing the risk of disease transmission from deer to humans (e.g., Lyme Disease). 1% 8% 14% 31% 45%
Reducing the risk of deer-vehicle collisions. 3% 13% 28% 26% 31%
11. To what extent do you disagree or agree with each of the following statements about different methods of deer feeding for hunting purposes in Maine? (Circle one number for each statement)
… bait is considered fair chase. 65% 16% 9% 5% 5%
… mineral licks is considered fair chase. 62% 17% 11% 5% 5%
… food plots is considered fair chase. 50% 15% 15% 9% 11%
12. To what extent do you disagree or agree with each of the following statements about deer feeding by the public in Maine? (Circle one number for each statement)
… people who feed deer have good intentions. 3% 6% 21% 42% 28%
… feeding deer creates nuisance deer. 6% 10% 20% 39% 26%
… landowners should maintain the right to do what they want on their land. 8% 11% 18% 29% 34%
… people who feed deer do so for selfish reasons. 20% 18% 40% 15% 7%
… the public has enough chances to share opinions about deer management. 10% 19% 46% 18% 7%
… town bans on feeding deer will hurt the deer population. 21% 19% 33% 18% 8%
… town bans on feeding deer will enhance public safety. 11% 15% 36% 22% 16%
13. MDIFW has major concerns about feeding deer, such as increased deer-vehicle collisions, risk of disease spread amongst deer, impacts of certain feed on deer health, etc. One disease that is of particular concern is Chronic Wasting Disease (not currently found in Maine yet), a highly contagious disease, which spreads through saliva and is fatal to deer. Since deer feeding is not illegal, MDIFW could offer guidelines (e.g., best food types, locations, etc.) for how to properly feed deer.
Start feeding deer 56% 12% 19% 7% 7%
Change the way you feed deer currently 38% 5% 35% 8% 14%
14. Professional wildlife biologists believe that Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) spreads by direct deer-to-deer contact. To limit the possibility of CWD spreading to areas of Maine, which of these options is most appealing to you? (Please check only one option)
21% Feeding deer should not be banned (it should remain legal state-wide).
41% Feeding deer should be banned only in CWD infected areas (4 miles surrounding area where deer with CWD was identified).
38% Feeding deer should be banned state-wide.
Deer are frequently eating your home garden or your neighbor’s garden. 19% 31% 25% 18% 7%
… Offer advice/monitor the situation 2% 5% 14% 27% 52%
… Discourage deer feeding 7% 7% 18% 28% 40%
… Regulate deer feeding in problem areas 8% 6% 14% 34% 38%
… Regulate deer feeding state-wide 19% 14% 19% 23% 25%
… Ban deer feeding in problem areas 10% 11% 17% 27% 35%
… Ban deer feeding state-wide 27% 18% 20% 13% 22%
… Increase hunting permits 15% 10% 21% 29% 25%
You or your neighbors are experiencing frequent deer-vehicle collisions. 42% 25% 24% 5% 4%
… Offer advice/monitor the situation 4% 5% 11% 28% 52%
… Discourage deer feeding 6% 4% 16% 26% 48%
… Regulate deer feeding in problem areas 5% 6% 12% 29% 47%
… Regulate deer feeding state-wide 16% 10% 23% 21% 29%
… Ban deer feeding in problem areas 10% 7% 12% 25% 46%
… Ban deer feeding state-wide 22% 17% 21% 14% 26%
… Increase hunting permits 13% 9% 18% 29% 31%
Lyme disease rates are increasing in your region. 55% 19% 16% 6% 4%
… Offer advice/monitor the situation 5% 3% 8% 23% 61%
… Discourage deer feeding 5% 5% 13% 25% 52%
… Regulate deer feeding in problem areas 5% 6% 10% 25% 54%
… Regulate deer feeding state-wide 15% 10% 19% 21% 35%
… Ban deer feeding in problem areas 7% 8% 11% 23% 50%
… Ban deer feeding state-wide 20% 12% 21% 16% 30%
… Increase hunting permits 13% 8% 17% 27% 35%
Chronic Wasting Disease is found in deer in your region. 62% 18% 15% 3% 2%
… Offer advice/monitor the situation 4% 4% 8% 18% 65%
… Discourage deer feeding 5% 5% 12% 18% 60%
… Regulate deer feeding in problem areas 5% 4% 9% 21% 61%
… Regulate deer feeding state-wide 15% 6% 16% 21% 42%
… Ban deer feeding in problem areas 9% 4% 11% 21% 55%
… Ban deer feeding state-wide 19% 12% 18% 18% 33%
… Increase hunting permits 14% 8% 18% 27% 33%
4% September
4% October
11% December
17% January
19% February
7% April
6% May
3% June
3% August
11% Prefer Not To Say
All written responses were included.
1% Bread
1% Carrots
1% Cedar Bows
1% Rye
2% Food Plot
2% Grain/Oats
2% Mineral Licks
3% Vegetable/Fruit Scraps
6% Apple Trees
10% Store Bought Feed
5. Where do you buy your deer food? (Please write your answer below)
7% Aubuchon Hardware
7% Bakery
7% Sam’s Club
14% Local General Store
21% Local Feed Store
43% Tractor Supply
6. On average, how much money do you spend on deer food each year? (Please write your answer below)
17% $15-$49
17% $50-$99
42% $100-$499
17% $500-$999
8% $1000+
7. How much deer food do you buy each year? (Please write your answer below) Insufficient Results.
48% 0 – 5 years
15% 5 – 10 years
7% 10 – 15 years
30% 15+ years
57% 0 – 0.5 miles
33% 0.5 – miles
10% 1 – 2 miles
0% 2+ miles
Attracting deer to an area where I hunt 80% 3% 10% 3% 3%
Viewing deer 30% 13% 13% 10% 33%
Deer feeding is a tradition in my community 82% 0% 14% 0% 4%
Stabilizing the population in the winter 21% 7% 41% 10% 21%
Lack of natural food for deer in the winter 10% 3% 31% 21% 34%
Deer rely on me to feed them 56% 30% 11% 0% 4%
SECTION 6: We are interested to know about whether or not you are a deer hunter.
If I stopped deer hunting, an important part of my life would be missing. 8% 6% 14% 18% 54%
I have invested a lot of money in deer hunting equipment. 12% 15% 14% 31% 29%
I would bait deer during hunting season if it were legal. 41% 14% 15% 13% 18%
I mainly hunt deer only to bring the meat home to eat. 3% 6% 18% 27% 45%
I mainly hunt deer to harvest a trophy deer. 59% 16% 17% 8% 0%
The presence of Chronic Wasting Disease in a deer population will deter me from hunting deer. 17% 11% 24% 20% 28%
SECTION 7: Please provide the following information about yourself.
2. What year were you born:
1% 18-20 years old
6% 20-29 years old
10% 30-39 years old
11% 40-49 years old
18% 50-59 years old
28% 60-69 years old
20% 70-79 years old
7% 80-89 years old
2% 90+ years old
3. How many years have you lived in Maine?
12% 0-9 years
8% 10-19 years
10% 20-29 years
18% 30-39 years
11% 40-49 years
13% 50-59 years
13% 60-69 years
11% 70-79 years
4% 80+ years
45% Hunting
43% Deer hunting
79% Wildlife viewing
62% Deer viewing
21% Yes (Please answer #5b)
79% No (Thank you, you are finished)
b. Please check all that apply:
15% Environmental or conservation organizations
7% Fishing or hunting organizations
4% Animal rights or animal welfare organizations
← Driving deer to distraction	Legislature debates deer baiting and biodegradable lures →