You are here

Lawsuit Over Deer Culling At Valley Forge Highlights Troubles Of Squeezed National Parks

Share

What are the odds that coyotes can control Valley Forge National Historical Park's deer populations? Pennsylvania Game Commission photo.

As urban sprawl squeezes in tighter and tighter around some national parks, it can turn some parks into wildlife sanctuaries that create their own problems. At Valley Forge National Historical Park, efforts to control a booming population of white-tailed deer have spurred a lawsuit from a group that believes a prey-predator relationship should be allowed to play out. But how realistic is that?

No longer the sleepy, bucolic landscape that existed when General George Washington and his troops wintered here in eastern Pennsylvania in 1777-78, Valley Forge today is surrounded by development, not the least of which is the King of Prussia Mall, one of the largest malls in the country in terms of commercial space.

With its 3,500 acres, many lush and green with vegetation, the park has become a magnet for white-tailed deer, which officials say are overrunning the vegetation.

The issue of too many deer did not arise overnight. While in 1983 there were an estimated 165-185 deer at Valley Forge, according to park research, by 2000 the herd had grown large enough that Congress directed the National Park Service to begin assessing the problem. Three years ago the park launched efforts to develop a deer-management plan, an effort that recently led the park officials to decide to employ sharpshooters and birth controls to cull and contain the herd, which peaked at 1,647 animals in 2008 before dipping to 1,277 this year, at 165-185 animals, according to Kristina Heister, the park's natural resource manager.

"We've said many times that this park is really a refuge in the middle of suburban Philadelphia," she said Friday afternoon during a phone conversation. "And as such it becomes even more important that the habitat that we have here is in good condition. ... We have to strike that balance. We know that we can't achieve that with the number of deer that we have today."

The culling decision hinged in part on over-browsing of vegetation in the park and associated concerns for the park's overall habitat and impacts to other animals. And while it has not yet been detected in the park, the threat of Chronic Wasting Disease, a contagious neurological disease, reaching Valley Forge also contributed to the decision. Though not directly tied to the park's decision-making, deer-vehicle collisions -- of which there are nearly 90 every year within the park's borders -- also are a concern.

Members of the surrounding community also have voiced concerns over deer devouring their gardens, the possible spread of Lyme Disease, and deer droppings. But they also have mentioned how nice it is to have such highly visible wildlife. In 2007, a study performed for the park by Cornell University researchers touched on the issue of urbanization of the area and its impact on wildlife.

Anthropogenic factors such as human population growth and land development often were described as the ultimate source of deer issues. Many interviewees perceived human-deer interactions as a symptom of broader ecological disruption (e.g. habitat loss, fragmentation) that concentrated deer in undesirable locations:

“Development has created the problem, we, mankind has (sic) developed the problem. The deer are doing their best to survive, they’re coming back at us and eating our shrubbery. What are they supposed to do, lay down and die?”

“We’re choking out the whole landscape by building up developments. There’s nowhere for them to go.”

“I usually see herds. It wasn’t like that when I was a kid. A couple of new developments were built, that’s when I noticed the difference. I attribute it to human encroachment. The zoning around here is out of control. There’s too much development bordering the park.”

While park managers believe culling and using birth control are the best approaches to managing the deer, two animal advocacy groups filed a lawsuit this week to stop that plan. In their filing, the Friends of Animals and Compassion for Animals, Respect for the Environment argued that the Park Service's approach violates the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as the National Park Service Organic Act, and even the Valley Forge National Historical Park's enabling legislation.

“Decisions under the National Environmental Policy Act cannot be based simply on seizing upon the apparently easiest answer to a perceived problem,” said Lee Hall, legal director for Friends of Animals. “Killing deer is not the answer to the decline of plant life in a sprawling, concrete-covered suburb.”

Allison Memmo Geiger, president of CARE, added that she didn't know what was worse, “shooting deer or compromising their social and reproductive interactions by imposing birth control on them.”

And Michael Harris, a law professor at the University of Denver's Environmental Law Clinic that filed the lawsuit, said the decision runs counter to the National Park Service's preservation mission.

“For the National Park Service to enter Valley Forge National Historical Park in the cover of winter to slay white-tailed deer is not only an appalling twist on the park’s history, it is another sign that the Service has abandoned its century-old mission to strive for parks in which conservation of nature is paramount,” he said in a release.

What those groups would like to see, according to Ms. Hall, is for the park to allow coyotes to control the deer population.

"The coyotes are making a comeback in the park. It seems to us that the biologist who put the papers together, who put the proposal together, would want to cultivate more respect for the coyotes," Ms. Hall told the Traveler on Friday. "You might know that the Pennsylvania Game Commission basically treats them as vermin ... I think that just makes people feel that there is something wrong with them, they are dangerous. They do live in the park, and they do have the capability of being able predators, particularly against the sick and the young deer."

In arriving at their preferred solution, Valley Forge officials did in fact consider using predators to control the deer numbers, but discarded it as unrealistic, said Ms. Heister, who added that past research has demonstrated that predators are not capable of controlling suburban deer populations.

"There is no expectation that a coyote population would be capable of regulating deer populations at this level," she said Friday. "We'd have a lot of fat, happy coyotes, but we'd probably have a similar number of deer."

While Ms. Hall was unfamiliar with a recent incident in a Canadian national park in which coyotes were said to have fatally mauled a young woman, she didn't think a coyote population in Valley Forge would pose a serious threat to visitors.

"They’re in our area. I think you have to be careful with your animals, if you have cats and dogs you have to be careful," she said. "But they’re indigenous to this area, and they belong here.”

Ms. Hall also said Valley Forge's deer population has stabilized -- a contention Ms. Heister disputed -- and that the animals are really not a problem, "other than eating people’s flowers in the area."

"I jog and hike in there and I don’t see them as a problem," she said.

Some problems created by the deer might not be obvious to all observers, though. According to Ms. Heister, the heavy foraging by deer impact ground- and shrub-nesting bird species such as black-and-white warblers and thrushes, which, she said, are in decline. And when oaks lose their acorns in fall, voracious deer eat them with relish, depriving squirrels and other ground foragers, she said.

The park is suffering "not only the indirect effects of complete removal of habitat, but direct competition for resources," said Ms. Heister. "The butterfly can't have the flower if the deer ate it already, and the squirrel can't have the acorn if the deer ate it already."

Comments

Hunting will never solve the problem. You can hunt and hunt and as long as the habitat is there, and predator-free, the deer will win over. You have to look at long term solutions, which will be a challenge in an already established area. Make sure you do not have paletable plant species along roads and highways, and in residential yards. By all means, let the coyotes do what they can to reduce fawn survivabilty. Use birth-control when necessary. Allow forests to mature. Investigate controlled burns for short term relief. Fence off small portions of Park to compare rejuvination efforts.


Denise - "Why are coyotes or wolves eating baby deer more humane than birth control?" Coyotes are vital to sustaining an ecological environment. Unfortunately, they are hunted down year-round and this has shifted the natural order.

Shooting animals with the PZP vaccine is not a great alternative, where you consider that it costs $25.00+ per shot, the sharp-shooters need to get paid - it all costs the tax payers money that can be better spent elsewhere. The life, death and control of these deer - and all free-living animals - should not be dominated by humans - it is the predator's job, not ours.

Think about the numbers - nearly 80 percent of an estimated 1,023, deer will be killed. As the deer raise their young, more are to be shot, so essentially park officials intend to kill some 1,300 deer over the next four years. We say that the deer are in our way, but the reality is - we are in their way. We have built around them and cornered them in smaller and smaller liveable areas. We are the ones encroaching on their land - they were there before us and we need to respect that.


To the commenter, "Dick": You say to "Anai", "...we have a lot more deer around here than we can use". There is so much inherently wrong with that statement. The deer were here BEFORE we were, and they are simply NOT here for our "USE", 'period. The high numbers of deer and their being close to and in the roadways does not mean that THEY are in OUR way- 'how about considering the fact that WE are in THEIRS? We are the ones that built and developed on THEIR land, and forced them closer and closer into "our territories", by destroying the areas of protected wild land and forest where they once freely roamed, far from busy roads, concrete, and entitled, cantankerous neighbors who whine about ornamental plants being nibbled on. The famously-gifted Alice Walker once wrote, "The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men." How incredibly honest...and how profoundly TRUE!

Also, just as an FYI, a lot is being said about tax payer dollars: as it stands, tax payer dollars are planned to be used to fund the sharp shooters, at an OUTRAGEOUS amount. As a federal tax payer and resident of a city where deer and elk are allowed and encouraged to roam freely and naturally (and ARE controlled by natural predators, and do limit their own numbers, which is what would happen in this case, if the VF officials would act responsibly and abandon their violent and ridiculous plan) I do NOT want my federal tax dollars spent on a plan that endangers the lives of people, nor animals. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to deduct that if you live in an area that is highly-populated with wildlife (for example, Evergreen, CO, which is where I live) you simply move there knowing that the animals were there first, that adaptations are expected to be made (on YOUR part) so that everyone may live in harmony. You do simple, logical, EASY things, like driving more SLOWLY and with your brights on in the areas where the deer are thick (and where roadways are within their grazing areas).

Evergreen has crosswalks and signs with blinking lights which sense movement on the sides of the roads, specifically created to address the safety-needs that accompany this scenario of the elk and deer freely roaming in and out of the neighborhoods, businesses, forests, and yes, even at least 5 (that I can think of off the top of my head) large, activity-filled, state parks. The deer and elk are negotiated around by mountain bikers, horseback riders, family picnic'ers, dog walkers...and even during mating season, when a bull elk attacked a woman for getting too close to try to snap a picture- SHE, the "human", was scolded and brought up on a misdemeanor charge for tampering with and endangering wildlife (she went to the hospital with minor injuries). So there ARE communities who understand that we do not "rule over", nor own, nor have any pre-assigned authority over these animals...and that to peacefully co-exist is the most intelligent, mutually beneficial, and most joyful way to live- and it works, it works VERY effectively, I might add!

Forest regeneration studies reflect a successful system (it's been studied in extreme detail in this region) wildflowers are more abundant this year than they ever have been in any past season- they are everywhere, and because most of Evergreen is privately-owned land, the deer, elk, fox, bear, and other wildlife are protected, and the "NO HUNTING ALLOWED ON PRIVATE LAND" signs are ALMOST as ubiquitous as the " 'Got Elk ?" bumper stickers that almost every vehicle seems to proudly display. These animals are literally respected to the extent that if a family of elk decides to cross a busy road at rush hour, it soon becoms one of the obstacles that makes the 5 o'clock news, and makes the traffic commute more lengthy- because EVERY car slows to a complete stop and waits for the sometimes between 15-50 members of a herd to cross, allowing them to take their sweet time in doing so.

'Two quotes to ponder as you make up your mind regarding this lawsuit, and whether or not it is "worth it" to do whatever it takes to protect these innocent animals:

"Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages." ~Thomas A. Edison

"The basis of all animal rights should be the Golden Rule: We should treat them as we would wish them to treat us, were any other species in our dominant position." ~Christine Stevens

These deer are guilty of nothing...it is an honor to share this planet with them, and SHARE is the operative word in that statement. If we continue to approach our dilemmas like the one in VF Park with bloodshed and the decimation of at least 80% of their herd, we are not only acting like barbarians in lazily reaching for the bullets when more peaceful and less-expensive alternatives are available (and realistic)... but we are also setting an example for our children as to how to take the most aggressive, self-centered, careless, violent, and IRREVERSIBLE "approach" possible. 'Shame on anyone and everyone in support of such a "plan", when perfectly viable, peaceful, less-expensive, and relatively easy alternatives are readily available. Sometimes, once a bully has shown us his fists, he doesn't want to back down, at any cost, even if there's no longer a reason to fight. The VF officials want to opt for expense, violence and bloodshed over peaceful, less expensive, and MUCH more logical solutions. Thank God someone had enough courage, intelligence, correct research/studies, motivation, and just plain respect, for both animals AND people, to bring about this suit.


There are some interesting perspectives in this thread. I'm originally from the area and when I go home, the effects of an increasing deer herd are quite obvious. There is very little understory and a distinct browse line in the local forest patches. The notion that the local coyote population is going to control the herd size is misguided. As far as I know, there isn't a sizable coyote population in the area and PA coyotes are not typically big enough to bring down deer. If proactive measures are not taken to reduce the herd size, it will decline, in potentially a massive and ugly die-off.


Here are some interesting facts, or key points in the background of all this:

1. The National Park Service was pushed into this deer reduction thing by the local Congressman.

2. The park service had no basis for eliminating deer, because there was no described park value, based in research or planning, that was at risk because of the deer. But the Congressman said local people complained about potentially hitting deer while driving, and deer eating people's gardens.

3. NPS also raised concerns that the public who was complaining were not necessarily the whole public. NPS told the congressman that he could expect, if the NPS was pushed to kill deer, a huge outcry among people who currently were not included in the discussion.

The park service also raised the point that the population of deer was high throughout the suburban area, and would continue high whether or not deer were all killed off in this very small park.

The park service pointed out that no one was seeking deer hunting on all the deer habitat in the residential areas all around the park.

The park service pointed out that the park would be better off, as a park, if the state road through the park were closed to commuter traffic anyway, and the congressman agreed to look into that, but still wanted a deer hunt, because of local pressure. The congressman produced deer experts who claimed that, even if deer populations outside the park were high, and park populations reduced or eliminated, the large populations of deer WOULD NOT move into this tiny national park. . . . .

NPS was informed that deer birth control would not be sufficiently effective, and that actually reestablishing the original predator-prey relationship was not what the congressman wanted. He wanted the park service to say they were recapitulating historical or 'natural' deer population levels, as a means to allow the NPS to kill the deer unnaturally.

4. But the congressman, with threatened legislative language and squeezing other parts of the park budget, cornered the park service into agreeing to pursue STUDIES. The idea from the congressman was to established some element of the landscape, that was being threatened by deer, as a park-value. Then, by demonstrating the newly demonstrated park value was being compromised by deer, the NPS could eliminate the deer.

5. The congressman was tossed out by his constituents in the next election.

6. Once started, just as if this was serious 'science' or 'resource management," the NPS continued to work on this thing, just as if it was a real issue of concern to the National Park System.

7. The 'other' public, waking up to the special-interest pressure, are horrified that the NPS is preparing to shoot deer, just as the NPS told the congressman would happen once this became real.


I used to feel the way many seem to until I learned deer biology. There are actually more deer (millions more) now than there were historically. Yes, it is our fault. Deer are made for open areas and by converting all the forests into farm we created prime food sources and the populations exploded. Added to that we took away the predators. Lots of food + no control = lots and lots of deer. I wish we could bring back predators. I for one would love to see wolves and mountain lions running around, but in the heavily populated east that just isn't possible. So we do need some sort of control because the deer are eating everything and starving in the winters. I would rather see a deer shot and the meat donated than watch it slowly starve to death. And it's rare for a coyote to take down a full-grown deer, the hunt small game, so I do not see them as a good means of control.

Ranger Holly


So, Ranger Holly -- assuming all you say IS true: would even killing all the deer in Valley Forge National Historical Park make any difference at all in the situation you describe?

Isn't the park just being used so local authorities can pretend they are helping, and by blaming the federal government for the problem? If they were serious about deer population reductions, why aren't they doing something about it outside the park?

Or do you think the park makes up all or most of the deer habitat in eastern Pennsylvania?


d-2, the NPS is responsible for managing VFNP, and is not responsible for managing the rest of suburban Philly nor the rest of eastern PA.

This entire conversation is so perfectly typifies many we read here.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.