This page provides landowners with several options, besides the obvious one of including less desirable plants in their landscape arrangements, that they can incorporate into their management plans for reducing deer damage problems.

Deer Damage Control Options

Deer damage control options can generally be placed into one of the following categories:

1) a device or technique designed to scare intruders away

2) some type of physical barrier to prevent entry

3) chemical repellents

4) lethal measures

In determining which of these options best suits the needs of the person experiencing deer damage, one needs to consider the type, timing, and extent of damage, as well as the deer population in the area, availability of alternate deer foods and cover, the general characteristics of the site to be protected, and the material and labor costs of the various options.

Justifying costly or extremely labor-intensive techniques is difficult unless the value of the crop warrants the expense. On the other hand, methods best suited to light damage will not be effective if deer pressure on the specific planting is heavy. Regardless of the technique used, one should bear in mind that control measures tend to be most successful when implemented prior to or during the onset of problems.

Control Methods

Scare Devices and Techniques
Probably the simplest and least expensive method for deterring deer would involve the use of streamers, flags, aluminum pie pans, or any other device or material that either moves in the breeze or throws a reflection when illuminated by a natural or artificial light. When deer pressure is light and alternate foods and cover are readily available, the motion or reflection that is produced may be sufficient to reduce damage to tolerable levels. However, deer quickly become accustomed to the disturbance that these devices produce. Unless one is willing to move these devices every two or three days within the area to be protected, their effectiveness drops rapidly. Additionally, still, moonless nights render this technique useless. One should consider this technique only if the period of damage is of short duration and the value of the plants being protected is minimal.

Propane cannons or exploders are another option available to property owners experiencing light to moderate deer damage. While considerably more expensive than streamers and reflectors, they are an affordable tool (approximately $350 and available through various mail order nursery, forestry, and agricultural supply dealers) that will last for years when given proper care. Most operate on an adjustable timer so that the frequency of discharge can be varied, and some rotate so that the sound appears to move around or originate from different locations. Additionally, they operate regardless of the weather and light conditions to more effectively scare deer and other wildlife from the area being protected. As with streamers, however, they do require attention in that they must be moved periodically to remain effective. Despite their noise, wildlife will become accustomed to the disturbance, particularly if the disturbance is stationary. Frequency of equipment movement will vary depending on local conditions - type of crop being protected, rotating or stationary cannon, availability of alternate habitat, etc. - and is best determined by monitoring the crop for evidence of continued damage.

A relatively new and interesting scare technique involves the use of one or more guard dogs confined within the area to be protected by an electric wire buried just below the surface of the ground. This "invisible fence" operates like systems used by many homeowners desiring to keep the family pet in their yard. When the dog, which is wearing a receiver on its collar, approaches the wire, it first receives a warning sound. Further movement towards the wire results in the dog receiving a mild but attention grabbing electrical shock. To be effective, the dog must remain within the confines of the area needing protection during the time that protection is needed. This necessitates proper conditioning of the dog to the device. Costs for this protection will likely be higher than for other scare devices, but because the dog is mobile it is able to more effectively protect a larger area. Depending on the size of the area and the desirability of the crop being protected, more than one dog may be needed. Research evaluating a system manufactured and marketed by Off Limits® Crop Protection Systems (1-800-923-PEST) appears promising. Contact the company for additional information.

For individuals desiring long-term protection of valuable crops such as a commercial orchard or nursery operation, the costs of an eight-foot woven wire fence may be justified. Fence construction involves setting 10- to 12-foot poles into the ground so that eight feet are above ground. Two courses of four-foot woven wire are then stapled to the poles so that the effective height of the fence is eight feet. Since this fence has considerable weight, use of the longer poles on the corners and interspersed along the sides is advised. This fence is extremely effective in excluding deer, however it is also quite expensive to construct and maintain. For this reason, it should only be considered when the crop is valuable and deer pressure is high.

On the other hand, the average homeowner trying to protect a small family garden or orchard may be satisfied with the results of a single strand of electric wire to which strips of aluminum foil covered with a thin layer of peanut butter have been attached. The strips are attached at approximately three-foot intervals. The peanut butter serves as an enticement to the deer and the foil is an excellent conductor of electricity. The end result is that the deer receives a noticeable jolt to the nose or tongue. Rarely does a deer need more than one or two experiences like that to discourage it from visiting the area. This barrier is not as effective as the woven wire fence because the barrier consists of one strand of wire, about 30 inches off the ground. If the palatability of the crop inside the wire is greater than the peanut butter, a deer has only to jump the fence, thereby reducing the fence's effectiveness. It is, however, much more affordable and requires considerably less effort to install and maintain.

For those interested in fencing, but whose needs fall somewhere between an elaborate eight-foot fence and a simple, single electric line, there are a variety of options available. The three-wire two-dimensional fence involves the construction of two separate fences, one 38 inches inside the other. As with the single wire fence, this and all successive fences are electrified. Vertical posts are set 120 feet apart with wire spacers set on 30-foot intervals between the posts. The outer fence consists of two wires, one set 15 inches off the ground, the other 43 inches from the ground. The inner fence has a single strand of wire set 30 inches from the ground. The idea is that the depth of the two fences will discourage deer from jumping the fence as they are too close for deer to easily jump each fence separately without making contact with one of the fences, and far enough apart that the deer are not able to easily jump both at the same time. Like the single strand with peanut butter enticements, this fence tends to be most successful in reducing deer damage when the deer pressure is low to moderate and the needed period of protection is short.

Another design that has received considerable attention is the Penn State Five-Wire Fence. With this design, the area is enclosed by five separate strands of wire. The first wire is attached to a vertical pole at a height of 10 inches from the ground. Each successive wire is positioned 12 inches above the previous one. Total height on this fence is 58 inches. In an effort to provide additional security, some have added one or more additional wires. All wires are then moved closer so that the overall height remains the same. This is certainly acceptable, however reducing the number of electric strands while maintaining the same overall height, which is important, is not recommended as deer may be able to successfully squeeze through the larger openings. With the Slanted Deer Fence, the electric wires are attached to a slanted seven-foot rail which in turn is attached to a vertical post. To construct this fence, vertical posts are placed no more than 60 feet apart. A rail is then attached to each post four feet from the ground so that the horizontal distance from the pole to the long end of the rail is 56 inches. The high side of the rail should be on the side furthest from the area being protected. At this point, the structure has the appearance of a right triangle with the rail serving as the hypotenuse. Wires are run from rail to rail with the first wire placed 10 inches from the ground end of the hypotenuse. Successive wires are spaced along the hypotenuse at one-foot intervals. The last two fence designs described above have been used quite successfully to exclude deer from airports, where deer on the runway are an aviation hazard, and commercial orchards. Reported deer intrusions have been rare and have generally been the result of a power failure or a gate having been left open. All fences require maintenance to ensure that they continue to function satisfactorily, however annual maintenance costs after initial construction tend to be low and some have rather long life expectancies. Additionally, the more elaborate fences work well even where deer pressure is high.

Chemical Repellents
Chemical repellents, which are as varied as fence designs, act on a deer's senses of smell and taste to reduce, rather than eliminate, plant damage. Repellents range from homemade remedies such as soap, tankage, or human hair to commercially available preparations that impart a foul taste or odor to the crop. Exercise care when applying any odor or taste repellent to edible plants as it can render them unfit for human consumption if applied at the wrong time. Be certain to follow manufacturer's guidelines and established procedures closely. That warning aside, repellents can be an economical and effective technique for achieving damage reduction, particularly if started before noticeable damage occurs. Chemical re-application is frequently needed during the growing season as any growth occurring after treatment is not protected. Additionally, rain often removes the residual repellent from the plant, thereby leaving it unprotected.

Where deer pressure is light, individuals may receive satisfactory results by hanging bags of human hair, particularly if fragrant additives such as cologne or after shave lotion have been included, from trees or stakes around and within the area to be treated. Bags of tankage and bars of soap have also been used with varying degrees of success. Heavier deer pressure typically requires the use of stronger medicine to achieve satisfactory results. Increased demand for products that reduce wildlife damage has resulted in a tremendous growth in the number of products available. Home and garden centers, as well as agricultural and supply businesses that handle seed and fertilizer, frequently carry a wide assortment of chemical repellents. Sales representatives should be capable of recommending a product that properly meets one's needs.

Lethal Measures
The Division of Wildlife recognizes the value of hunting as an important management tool and advocates its use wherever possible. Property owners, especially those in prime deer habitat, should anticipate the possibility of damage and utilize hunting, where possible, as a preventative management technique that permits the wise and responsible use of the deer resource and reduces the potential for future problems. To provide for an increased harvest in areas where deer are a problem, the Division provides landowners with permits allowing for the harvest of additional deer during any of the regular deer seasons. In many problem situations, the harvest of a relatively few deer, in addition to the regular harvest, reduces the population to a level that allows for sufficient deer for people to see and enjoy while reducing crop depredation to tolerable levels, particularly when other damage reduction techniques are utilized.

When other techniques are ineffective or impractical and the need to remove deer is urgent, the Division has a program that permits the lethal removal of deer from the problem area. After an examination of the situation, the wildlife officer may issue a permit that allows for the out-of-season culling of a limited number of deer. Landowners experiencing crop damage should consult with their county wildlife officer or contact the nearest district office for assistance.

© 2005 ODNR, Division of Wildlife