A LITERATURE REVIEW FOR ASSESSING THE STATUS OF CURRENT METHODS OF REDUCING DEER-VEHICLE COLLISIONS

This paper describes how many Americans are not homogenous in their feelings and attitudes regarding animals. Consideration of the various attitudes and demands of the public is necessary when addressing deer-vehicle reduction methods. An individual’s perception of the probability of deer-vehicle collisions may influence their attitudes regarding deer populations and various management objectives. The positive value associated with deer include recreational value for both hunters and sightseers, while negative values can include deer-vehicle collisions, Lyme disease, and damage to agricultural crops In a previous study, only 15% of metropolitan residents in the United States reported that they wanted reduced numbers of deer in their neighborhoods. Even in Iowa, responses to deer management decisions are varied and in a survey conducted in central Iowa in 1998, over 50% of respondents felt that deer populations were not too large and nearly 50% reported neutral feelings toward deer-interactions. “Cost-benefit analysis has made it clear that substantial investment in accident prevention measures is amply justified on purely economic grounds.” Previous research estimated that a device that prevented 1 deer-vehicle collision/yr, with a useful life of 5 yrs. could cost $3,020 in 1978 and still be economical. Properly maintained fencing is the only sure way to dramatically reduce deer-vehicle collisions on main roads. On high-speed, high volume roads, a combination of wildlife passages and fencing appears to be the most reliable method for reducing animal-vehicle collisions. Furthermore, to determine that passage structures are, indeed, effective, a monitoring system that uses infra-red detection equipment is necessary. Also, since drivers are ultimately responsible for the consequences of animal-vehicle collisions, public awareness campaigns and driver awareness programs should be part of future research efforts.

[1]  H B Graves,et al.  Deer Mortality on a Pennsylvania Interstate Highway , 1971 .

[2]  Michael R. Conover,et al.  Monetary and intangible valuation of deer in the United States. , 1997 .

[3]  H B Graves,et al.  Distribution and Activity of White-Tailed Deer along an Interstate Highway , 1975 .

[4]  James R. Gilbert.  EVALUATION OF DEER MIRRORS FOR REDUCING DEER-VEHICLE COLLISIONS , 1982 .

[5]  T. McKnight.  Barrier Fencing for Vermin Control in Australia , 1969 .

[6]  H. E. Green,et al.  Deer Mortality on a Michigan Interstate Highway , 1974 .

[7]  J. S. Lindzey,et al.  FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH HIGHWAY MORTALITY OF WHITE-TAILED DEER , 1974 .

[8]  S. Kellert.  Urban American perceptions of animals and the natural environment , 1984 .

[9]  M. Wolfe,et al.  Intercept Feeding as a Means of Reducing Deer-Vehicle Collisions , 1988 .

[10]  Daniel J. Decker,et al.  PERCEPTIONS OF RISK FROM DEER-RELATED VEHICLE ACCIDENTS: IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC PREFERENCES FOR DEER HERD SIZE , 1993 .

[11]  R. Case.  INTERSTATE HIGHWAY ROAD-KILLED ANIMALS: A DATA SOURCE FOR BIOLOGISTS1 , 1978 .

[12]  Df Reed,et al.  Methods of Reducing Deer-Vehicle Accidents: Benefit-Cost Analysis , 1982 .

[13]  F. Singer,et al.  Managing Mountain Goats at a Highway Crossing , 1985 .

[14]  G. A. Feldhamer,et al.  Effects of interstate highway fencing on white-tailed deer activity , 1986 .

[15]  Lee Gladfelter,et al.  Effect of Wildlife Highway Warning Reflectors on Deer-Vehicle Accidents , 1984 .

[16]  F. Peek,et al.  DEER MOVEMENTS AND BEHAVIOR ALONG AN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY , 1969 .

[17]  Aksel Bo Madsen,et al.  Effectiveness of Wildlife Warning Reflectors in Reducing Deer-Vehicle Collisions: A Behavioral Study , 1998 .

[18]  Df Reed,et al.  REGIONAL DEER-VEHICLE ACCIDENT RESEARCH , 1979 .

[19]  S G Ford,et al.  REFLECTOR USE AND THE EFFECT THEY HAVE ON THE NUMBER OF MULE DEER KILLED ON CALIFORNIA HIGHWAYS. FINAL REPORT , 1993 .

[20]  Terry L. Bashore,et al.  Analysis of Deer-Vehicle Collision Sites in Pennsylvania , 1985 .

[21]  D. F. Reed,et al.  Effectiveness of a Lighted, Animated Deer Crossing Sign , 1975 .

[22]  R. J. Putmam.  Deer and Road Traffic Accidents: Options for Management , 1997 .

[23]  John Ludwig,et al.  EVALUATION OF 2.4-M FENCES AND ONE-WAY GATES FOR REDUCING DEER-VEHICLE COLLISIONS IN MINNESOTA , 1983 .

[24]  R. Allen,et al.  Deer-Car Accidents in Southern Michigan , 1976 .

[25]  D. F. Reed,et al.  BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE OF MULE DEER TO A HIGHWAY UNDERPASS , 1975 .

[26]  John A. Bissonette,et al.  Effectiveness of Highway Crosswalk Structures at Reducing Deer-Vehicle Collisions , 1997 .

[27]  A Lorin Ward,et al.  MULE DEER BEHAVIOR IN RELATION TO FENCING AND UNDERPASSES ON INTERSTATE 80 IN WYOMING , 1982 .

[28]  Stanley H. Anderson,et al.  Ineffectiveness of Swareflex Reflectors at Reducing Deer-Vehicle Collisions , 1993 .

[29]  J. L. Griffis,et al.  White-tailed deer roadside behavior, wildlife warning reflectors, and highway mortality , 1991 .

[30]  E. Hazebroek,et al.  Ungulate Traffic Collisions in Europe , 1996 .

[31]  H B Graves,et al.  Highway Right-of-Way Fences as Deer Deterrents , 1978 .

[32]  Humphrey,et al.  Use of Highway Underpasses by Florida Panthers and Other Wildlife , 1995 .

[33]  Laura A. Romin,et al.  Lack of Response by Mule Deer to Wildlife Warning Whistles , 1992 .

[34]  D. F. Reed.  Mule Deer Behavior at a Highway Underpass Exit , 1981 .

[35]  Conover,et al.  Review of Human Injuries, Illnesses, and Economic Losses Caused by Wildlife in the United States , 1995 .

[36]  Stephen T. Penland,et al.  Effectiveness of Swareflex Reflectors in Reducing Deer-Vehicle Accidents , 1985 .

[37]  J. E. Knight,et al.  ELK USE OF MODIFIED FENCE-CROSSING DESIGNS , 1997 .

[38]  Laura A. Romin,et al.  Deer-Vehicle Collisions: Nationwide Status of State Monitoring Activities and Efforts , 1996 .

[39]  C. Hansen.  Costs of Deer-Vehicle Accidents in Michigan , 1983 .