Skip to main content
Dryad

Deer, people and predators: regional attitudes regarding management, conservation and coexistence in the United States

Blossey, Bernd1; Brice, Elaine12; Hare, Darragh3

Published Jun 26, 2026 on Dryad. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.cfxpnvxjr

Data files

Jun 26, 2026 version files 2.92 MB

Click names to download individual files

Abstract

While human exploitation endangers many mammals around the world, absence of large predators and insufficient human exploitation has allowed some large native or introduced herbivores to thrive, particularly in Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand. These large herbivore populations can significantly impact environmental and human health. In the United States, highly abundant cervid populations are of particular concern, but lethal management of such species often faces significant opposition by well-organized advocacy groups representing animal rights, animal welfare, or hunting interests. Debates concerning management actions are rarely informed by preferences of local residents regarding their desired conservation or human health outcomes, and often result in stalemates or ineffective management.

We used an online questionnaire to measure perspectives of residents (N= 4830) regarding lethal deer (family Cervidae) management in four regions of the United States (Northeast, Midwest, Intermountain West, and Pacific Northwest). These regions differ in deer species, habitats, land-uses, predator assemblages, and socio-economic and political orientations.

We expected large differences in attitudes regarding deer management and predator acceptance between residents in more liberal leaning coastal regions versus residents in more conservative leaning midwestern or intermountain states. Instead, we found overwhelming support (>66%) in all regions for lethal deer management if this would protect human (reduction in Lyme disease, road safety) or environmental health (protect native plants and animals, increase forest regeneration, or help in reducing effects of climate change). In contrast, we found generally low acceptance (<30%) of predators (wolves, coyotes, cougars) to help reduce large deer populations, with a clear East-West gradient.

Ethical concerns regarding human and environmental health and safety were stronger predictors of perceptions of deer management and predator return than sociodemographic characteristics or social identities. Self-identification of respondents as animal protectionists, hunters, or conservationists had minimal effects on their acceptance of lethal deer management to reduce negative ecological or human health impacts. Similarly, we found no difference in respondents’ attitudes towards deer management or predator acceptance regardless of whether they lived in rural or urban areas.

We document large common ground regarding lethal deer management to improve ecological and human health among residents in very different regions across the northern U.S. Currently, this consensus is not sufficiently acknowledged or incorporated into decision-making processes and assessments to guide deer management, but may provide opportunities to reduce the stranglehold special interest groups currently have on deer management. A better future improving ecological and human health through lethal deer control seems socially acceptable across four different regions of the U.S.