THE FOLLOWING ARE QUOTES FROM THE 2009 USFWS FINAL COMPREHENSIVE REFUGE PLAN REGARDING THE KEY DEER:
PAGE 42:
The Key deer is the smallest subspecies of the North American white-tailed deer. It historically ranged from Key Vaca to Key West, but the current range includes approximately 26 islands from Big Pine Key to Sugarloaf Key, with the center of its population on Big Pine and No-Name Keys.
Key deer use all cover types, including those normally above tidal influence (pine rockland, hardwood hammock, freshwater wetlands), as well as tidally influenced types (mangrove, salt marsh transition). They also use residential areas extensively where they feed on ornamental plants and grasses and seek freshwater.
The Key deer remains listed as endangered due to its restricted range, sea level rise, habitat fragmentation, and high human-related mortalities and disturbances.
The Key deer population increased markedly during the 1990s and now likely exceeds habitat carrying capacity in areas of high animal densities on No Name Key and parts of Big Pine Key.
The result has been degradation of native plant communities and loss of habitat diversity, with probable but as yet unstudied impacts on other wildlife species. Several once-common plant species that are highly palatable to deer, such as black torch, have disappeared or been greatly reduced over large areas of Big Pine and No Name Keys.
Deer at high densities may exist at a lowered nutritional plane and are more susceptible to epizootic diseases.
For many years, Key deer aggregations have been particularly high near subdivisions, such as Port Pine Heights and Koehn. Their burgeoning numbers are due to the reproductive output of a large number of resident does, the availability of ornamental plants for feeding, and feeding by tourists and residents.
Deer roadkill numbers have increased steadily with deer population growth, with annual mortality sometimes exceeding 100 animals. Despite this elevated mortality, deer numbers have remained high and are offset by annual population recruitment.
Although deer numbers have increased on Big Pine and No Name Keys, there was a reduction or extirpation in other parts of the deer’s range, including Johnson, Cudjoe, and Sugarloaf Keys.
More than 30 deer were translocated to suitable habitat on Cudjoe and Sugarloaf Keys in recent years. The fate of these herds must be monitored over time to assess the efficacy of translocation as an effective management strategy to ensure the long-term viability of the species. Deer on backcountry islands also need to be monitored.
To date, detailed demographic studies have only been conducted on the core population on Big Pine and No Name Keys.
PAGE 95:
6. Maintain the Population Viability of the Key Deer
This project includes three field components to evaluate and implement complementary strategies for maintaining the population viability of Key deer and conserving the natural integrity of native habitats throughout their current range in the Lower Florida Keys Refuges.
Translocated deer on Cudjoe and Sugarloaf Keys would be monitored intensively for a 3-year period to gauge herd growth and demographics, evaluate habitat condition and carrying capacity, and include additional translocation of deer from other islands, for a total project cost of $150,000.
A second 3-year project will be conducted to evaluate the efficacy of using a wildlife immuno-contraceptive vaccine to manage deer overabundance on No Name Key and selected areas of Big Pine Key, in order to avoid catastrophic disease outbreaks and reduce excessive herbivory on the native plant community, for a total project cost of $250,000.
Thirdly, the Southeast Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study Group will be contracted to perform annual herd health checks to monitor for the presence of diseases, for an annual recurring cost of $10,000. This project includes one-time costs of $410,000 with annual recurring costs of $10,000.
The total project cost over the 15-year period of the CCP is $550,000.
PAGE 164:
Key deer carrying capacity varies greatly among areas because of differences in the distribution and availability of fresh water (particularly during prolonged droughts).
Additionally, the presence of palatable, ornamental plants in residential and commercial areas, and the illegal feeding of deer, may raise carrying capacity in some areas compared to a hypothetical case in which only natural forage existed across a landscape.
For most of the refuge’s history, Key deer were at such low numbers that bolstering their numbers and reducing roadkills to prevent possible extinction were the primary goals; carrying capacity remained a secondary concern.
Recently, the focus has shifted to include concerns about overabundance on Big Pine, No Name, and Big Munson.
PAGES 164 - 165:
Road count and mortality indices suggest that deer density within the population core (Big Pine and No Name Keys) is not dropping, but is fluctuating around a plateau-like level, which may represent a peak capacity for the environment as it currently exists.
Browsing impacts within the core (high deer density) relative to other (lower density) areas have been documented, and disease frequency appears to be higher in the last ten years compared to previous decades.
The negative effects of sea level rise and future storm surges could compound these problems by further reducing the habitat’s carrying capacity such that density-dependent disease and poor health further threaten population viability.
Hunting is routinely used by deer managers nationwide to reduce herd size and manage deer at carrying capacity; however, this is not an option for Key deer.
Wildlife contraception administered by vaccine has been used to manage a wide variety of mammals, including white-tailed deer, and may warrant evaluation as a population control method for Key deer in high deer density settings.
PAGE 325:
Under Alternative B, wildlife populations are expected to benefit from increased integration of their habitat needs into a proactive and adaptive management approach using the best available science and implementing research, monitoring, and evaluation.
On No Name and Big Pine Keys, the management of Key deer numbers using proven immuno-contraceptive practices would be evaluated. This would foster natural plant community processes, increase plant diversity, and allow plant communities to recover from the adverse effects of the recurring high deer density of the past ten years. (Note: Plan B was chosen, the NNK Key Deer herd will go on birth control)
Webmasters Note: NoNameKey.org does not support any local or private Key Deer or Refuge "groups". The Key Deer have unfortunately been misused for local, political, and personal agendas. NoNameKey.org feels that only the appropriate organization, US Fish and Wildlife Services by the direction and authority provided to them through the Endangered Species Act, should weigh-in or direct when it comes the Key Deer herd, the National Wildlife Refuges, and best management practices.
The site is presented by a voluntary association of individuals working to develop a common resource of information on the Florida Keys.Most information is taken from published articles and media reports already in the public domain but gathered here for your convenience. This information is being provided freely, and no kind of agreement or contract is created between you and the owners or users of this site. We cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here.None of the contributors, administrators, or anyone else connected with this site in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages.