DFW informs the public about DVCs and the methods that can be used to avoid

Dfw informs the public about dvcs and the methods

This preview shows page 34 - 36 out of 102 pages.

DFW informs the public about DVCs and the methods that can be used to avoid collisions through the media, via news releases and the DNREC website, especially in emphasizing when DVCs are the most prevalent. This peak usually occurs during the deer breeding season, or “rut,” that takes place in November. During this time of the year, deer are most active while seeking out potential mates. Presently, roadside fencing, constructing overpasses or underpasses for direct passage, and deer population reduction are most productive for reducing deer-vehicle collisions. Various wildlife reflectors have also been marketed in an effort to deter DVCs. Reflectors are most commonly mounted on posts along roadsides and redirect light from automobile headlights through colored lenses. The theory is that the redirected beams of light form a “fence” or optical barrier that deters deer from running into the path of the passing automobile. Thorough studies with sound experimental designs of wildlife reflectors are limited. Most recently and most convincingly, D’Angelo et al. (2007) used FLIR video to investigate the effects of wildlife reflectors on deer and found that the reflectors were ineffective in changing deer behavior such that deer-vehicle collisions would be prevented. Similarly, Reeve and Anderson (1993) concluded that roadside reflectors were not effective in reducing vehicle collisions with mule deer in Wyoming. However, there was some question as to whether the reflectors were properly maintained. Schafer and Penland (1985) documented a decrease in deer-vehicle collisions with white-tailed deer and mule deer when reflectors were used along roadsides in Washington. Due to small sample sizes, though, it is unclear whether the decrease in deer-vehicle collisions when using reflectors was a result of altered deer behavior or increased driver awareness due to the reflectors being present. The Division of Fish & Wildlife continues to monitor developments of deterrents for deer-vehicle collisions and will actively promote any advances in technology. 26
Background image
Wildlife warning whistles (deer whistles) attached to cars also have been used in an attempt to reduce deer/vehicle collisions. These whistles operate at frequencies of 16 to 20 kHz and are intended to warn animals of approaching vehicles. There is no research, however, that indicates that deer are frightened by a particular frequency or decibel level of sound, and in a Utah study, whistles did not alter deer behavior or prevent them from crossing highways. It appears wildlife warning whistles are not alarming to deer and are not loud enough to be heard above the engine noise associated with moving vehicles (Romin and Dalton 1992). Therefore, cars equipped with warning whistles will not prevent deer from crossing roads or reduce deer-vehicle collisions.
Background image
Image of page 36

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 102 pages?

  • Spring '08
  • Pfeiffer,J
  • Hunting, Deer, White-tailed deer, Deer Management, Delaware Deer, Delaware Deer Management Plan

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture