Species

Muntjac Deer
(Muntiacus reevesi)

Conservation plan
Muntjac have a considerable impact on various human interests. Coppice regeneration is attacked and may be checked(5). Young, tender tree seedlings are eaten, sufficient for them to be checked. Damage appears to become severe when muntjac numbers build up in the absence of control. Recent research has shown that browing on valued plants such as orchids and bluebells can be serious and can also affect the food plants of other woodland species(6).

The British population of muntjac has been estimated at 40,000 animals, increasing at approximately 10% per year. It is simply not known whether this animal will spread into all available habitats or be limited by climate further north and at latitude, nor whether its range will be restricted by roe deer, whose distribution is partially the opposite. However, studies in eastern England suggest that the two do coexist to a large extent. If anything, the muntjac, where numerous, could be restricting the activities and numbers of roe(4).

Control of muntjac is difficult because they inhabit thick cover and rarely stand still to allow a deliberate rifle shot. They are becoming increasingly popular, mainly with trophy hunters from the Continent, and although the carcasses are too small to be of much economic value they are excellent eating.

The main emphasis for this species should lie in discouraging its spread and controlling densities. To this end. the Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions has tried to put a stop to the deliberate spread of the species and, in 1997, added it to Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981), which prevents anyone from releasing them into areas where they are currently absent.

Click on map to enlarge

• New methods of control for muntjac and exploration of techniques such as immuno-contraception.
• Studies on population dynamics in order to predict how numbers are regulated and how control can best be targeted.

Conservation actions

Curtailing the spread of this species should be an important conservation objective and Government agencies need to develop with interested parties a control strategy for containing the spread and reducing numbers.

Sources and references

1 Chapman, N., Harris, S & Stanford, A. (1994) Reeves' muntjac Muntiacus reevisi in Britain: Their history, spread, habitat selection, and role of human intervention in accelerating their dispersal. Mammal Review, 24: 113-60

2 Chapman, D.I, Chapman, N.G. & Dansie, O. (1984) The periods f conception and parturition in feral Reeves' muntjac (Muntjac reevesi) in southern England, based upon age of juvenile animals. Journal of Zoology, London, 204: 575-8

3 Chapman, N.G. & Harris, S. (1991) Evidence that the seasonal antler cycle of Reeves' muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi) is not associated with reproductive quiescence. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility, 92: 361-9.

4 Chapman, N.G., Claydon, K., Claydon, M., Forde, P.G. & Harris, S. (1993) Sympatric populations of muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus): a comparitive analysis of their ranging behaviour, social organization and activity. Journal of Zoology, London, 229: 623-40.

5 Cooke, S.S. & Lakhani, K.H. (1996) Damage to coppice regrowth by muntjac deer Muntiacus reevesi and protection with electric fencing. Biological Conservation, 75: 231-8

6 Pollard, E. & Cooke, A.S. (1994) Impact of muntjac deer Muntiacus reevesi on egg-laying sites of the white admiral butterfly Ladoga Camilla in a Cambridgewhire wood. Biological Conservation, 70: 189-91.

Back

Back to species list