Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39971768›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Perspectives of New York State residents on deer management, hunting, and predator reintroduction.

Bernd Blossey, Elaine Brice, Justin Dalaba, Darragh Hare

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Why are the ticks winning, and what can we do about it?Ticks and tick-borne diseases · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Bernd BlosseyDepartment of Natural Resources and the Environment, Fernow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA. bb22@cornell.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-7043-4435
Elaine BriceDepartment of Natural Resources and the Environment, Fernow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6034-4065
Justin DalabaDepartment of Natural Resources and the Environment, Fernow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Darragh HareDepartment of Natural Resources and the Environment, Fernow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4418-9637

Funding

Anonymous no ID
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High white-tailed deer abundance in the United States represents an ecological and human health threat. Reducing deer populations by lethal means and facilitating return of large predators are two potential, but controversial, management options. We used an online questionnaire to measure perspectives on deer management and predator return among a stratified sample of New York State residents. We found widespread acceptance (> 70%) for reducing deer populations using lethal means if doing so would reduce Lyme disease, increase forest regeneration, protect native plants and animals, and improve road safety. Acceptance for shooting more deer was unaffected by ethnicity but strongest among respondents who were older, identified as hunters or conservationists, owned more land, and considered health and safety while answering our questionnaire. Respondents who identified as animal protectionists were least accepting. Restoring regionally extirpated wolves and cougars had limited acceptance (< 30%) but was strongest among those who identified as hunters or conservationists. Contrary to commonly held beliefs, preferences for deer management or predator restoration did not differ among urban and rural respondents. This common ground needs to be reflected in deer management in the state due to legal obligations to represent interests of all residents.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesDeerHuntingAnimalsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNew YorkPredatory BehaviorSurveys and QuestionnairesWolvesDeer managementEthicsHuman–wildlife conflictPredatorsSocial acceptabilityWildlife management

Identifiers

PMID39971768
PMCPMC11840124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.