To jump or not to jump: Mule deer and white‐tailed deer fence crossing decisions
Authors:
- 7 August 2018
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Wildlife Society Bulletin
- Vol. 42 (3) , 420-429
Abstract
Modified fencing structures have been recommended with the intention of enhancing ungulate movement. Ungulates such as mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ) and white‐tailed deer ( O. virginianus ) typically negotiate fences by jumping over them. We examined 2 fine‐scale fence crossing decisions to determine factors influencing 1) crossing success and 2) the mode of crossing by 2 sympatric deer species. From 2010 to 2016, we used remote cameras along fence lines in 2 study areas—Canadian Forces Base Suffield in southeastern Alberta, Canada, and The Nature Conservancy's Matador Ranch in north‐central Montana, USA—that captured images of deer–fence interactions before and after fence modifications were installed. We used logistic regression to model the probability of deer successfully crossing a fence and mode of crossing (jumping over vs. crawling under) based on fence characteristics and demographic factors. We documented 486 crossing attempts, of which 313 were successful (64.4%), indicating that pasture fences acted as a semipermeable barrier to deer. Of these 313 successful attempts, 152 crawled under the fence (48.6%) as opposed to jumping over it. We documented behavioral differences in mode of crossing between species when successfully crossing a fence. Results indicate that deer are selecting known crossing sites at broad scales as places to negotiate fences, and when assessing finer scale decisions at these sites, white‐tailed deer seemed to acclimate better than mule deer to our imposed changes (switched from crawling under to jumping over the fence). Though sample size was low in terms of use at modified fence sites, we recommend visually inconspicuous modifications (such as clips to increase the bottom wire height as opposed to goat‐bars) when implementing pasture fencing that was friendlier for deer. We also recommend modifications be implemented strategically; placement of modifications may be just as important to consider as the modification type. © 2018 The Wildlife Society.Keywords
Funding Information
- Alberta Conservation Association
- National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (#45418)
- Alberta Conservation Association
- National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (#45418)
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- Identifying impediments to long‐distance mammal migrationsConservation Biology, 2014
- Modeling Fence Location and Density at a Regional Scale for Use in Wildlife ManagementPLOS ONE, 2014
- A framework for understanding semi‐permeable barrier effects on migratory ungulatesJournal of Applied Ecology, 2012
- Comparing Habitat Suitability and Connectivity Modeling Methods for Conserving Pronghorn MigrationsPLOS ONE, 2012
- Assessment of Abilities of White‐Tailed Deer to Jump FencesThe Journal of Wildlife Management, 2010
- Characteristics of Ungulate Behavior and Mortality Associated with Wire FencesWildlife Society Bulletin, 2006
- Fences and Deer-Damage Management: A Review of Designs and EfficacyWildlife Society Bulletin, 2006
- One hundred years of eruptions of house mice in Australia - a natural biological curioBiological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005
- Summer Movements, Home Range, Habitat Use, and Behavior of Mule Deer FawnsThe Journal of Wildlife Management, 1984
- Movements, Habitat Use, and Predation on Pronghorn Fawns in AlbertaThe Journal of Wildlife Management, 1984