WATER GAPS AND STANDARD FENCING FACILITATE WHITE-TAILED DEER MOVEMENT ACROSS HIGH FENCES WHILE MAINTAINING PROPERTY FIDELITY.

Fences can act as impermeable or semipermeable barriers to animal movement, which can reduce habitat connectivity, carrying capacity, and gene flow. Portions of standard height fence (1.4-1.5 m) and water gaps (fencing to allow water to flow through while controlling animal movement) can offset the potential negative effects of impermeable fences on wildlife by facilitating movement across the boundary. However, little is known regarding the frequency, distance, duration, and timing of deer crossing events. Therefore, we quantified the effects of temporary water gaps and sections of standard fencing on white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) property fidelity, emigration, crossing frequency, and activity patterns on a property fenced with 2.4-m tall chain link fence topped with 3 barbed wire strands. We captured and fitted 169 deer (80 F, 89 M) with GPS collars that collected 1 location every 15 or 30 minutes from 2011 to 2015. We used k-means cluster analysis to identify crossing locations post-hoc and then calculated the number of crossovers (non-returning forays) and crossover loops (completed loops), maximum distance outside of the property boundary, total distance traveled, crossing time, and time duration outside the fence for each deer. Twenty-seven deer (11 females, 16 males) left the property 340 times through 5 water gaps and an ∼500-m section of 1.4-1.5-m high 5-strand barbed wire. Twenty-six deer made 333 return trips; however, the 7 non-return events were due to dropped collars (n = 6) and one non-hunting related mortality while outside of the fence. Most crossings were crepuscular, consistent with normal deer movement patterns. Mean maximum distance and duration of crossover loops outside the fence was 705 m and 23.6 h, respectively. Results suggest that temporary water gaps and standard height fencing can facilitate fence crossings by deer while maintaining population fidelity to the property; the 2.4-m tall fence also was an effective security barrier for the property by restricting access to the site. Landowners willing to allow cross-fence movement will need to determine the allowable percentage of animals that may cross, which is dependent on management goals and dictates the type, amount, and location of crossings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]