Supplemental feeding of wildlife is gaining popularity. Practiced primarily during late autumn, winter, and early spring, deer feeding involves placing grains, apples, hay, and other feed where animals will find and consume them. A diverse array of people feed wildlife. Many are suburbanites who feed a few animals; some Wildlife agencies provide supplemental food to literally hundreds of animals within wintering areas. Feeding sites are sometimes maintained by municipalities, which commit a portion of their tax revenues to wildlife feeding, or by businesses that fund wildlife feeding operations as a cost of doing business. People are motivated to feed wildlife for a variety of reasons. They may believe wildlife cannot survive winter without supplemental food, or they believe that feeding wildlife in winter will result in a larger, huntable population the next year. Suburban landowners may believe supplemental foods will divert nuisance wildlife away from expensive shrubbery or crops, reducing costs. Others simply enjoy seeing wildlife at close range. Some business owners know that attracting wildlife also attracts customers.

Supplemental feed can disrupt natural migration patterns of some wildlife. Animals that do not migrate naturally because of supplemental feeding operations are often more vulnerable to malnutrition, because they do not have access to the right type and amount of foods found in traditional wintering habitat. Also, without the protection of wintering habitat, animals are particularly vulnerable to severe winter weather and predation.

Predation, not starvation, is the often the major cause of winter mortality for wildlife. Winter severity (deep snow, intense cold) and the quality of wintering habitat are the real determinants of survival in winter. Supplementally-fed animals are still vulnerable to predation, if wintering conditions are severe, particularly where feeding occurs in marginal habitat.

Supplemental feeding can actually lower populations by increasing predation during winter-feeding. Winter-fed animals usually congregate near the feeding sites. Concentrating animals in a feeding area for extended periods of time will attract more predators and will lead to higher predation than if the animals were spread out.

Typically winter feeding occurs near urban areas which can lead to increase in animals killed by car collisions and other human associated mortality sources.

Unnatural congregations of animals in winter feeding areas can also increase the instance of communicable disease.
Wildlife can grow accustomed to human contact and therefore be less wary which can lead to human-wildlife conflicts, accidents, increased predation and starvation.

In some instances, supplemental feeding may benefit wildlife by making it easier for biologists to model populations and regulate harvest. For instance, mule deer populations in Colorado sometimes experience high mortality in years when snow depth at higher elevation makes some wintering habitat unavailable. Stochastic, density independent events such as severe winters can make it impossible for biologists to manage for optimum economic yield (maximum sustained harvest). Supplemental feeding can help dampen severe amplitudes in population fluctuations making it easier to predict and manage population levels.

Supplemental feeding can also lower post-breeding season mortality in ungulates by helping animals put on more fat before the onset of winter.

Feeding can also help genetically “superior” animals fulfill their potential on managed private ranges by providing more nutrients for antler growth.

Increased food availability can also help depressed populations expand their range if other factors are not limiting.
Overall I feel that the disadvantages of feeding animals far outweigh the benefits except in a few specific situations. I feel that feeding wildlife will only aggravate problems associated with management mistakes, not alleviate them.

*EDIT* this is an excerpt from a short paper I wrote on supplemental feeding.