Community Example: East Lansing, Michigan

Key facts

Community Size: Medium city (10,000 to 50,000 people)

Region: Midwest

Plan established in 2013

After consulting with numerous outside sources, the City of East Lansing initiated its deer management program. The measures taken include: 1) educational material in the form of a web page, linking residents to helpful information to reduce deer-human conflict; 2) the passage of an ordinance banning deer feeding; and 3) the passage of an ordinance that allows for future actions, if the City deems necessary, for persons acting under the direction of the State of Michigan or City of East Lansing to conduct culling in any of the City parks.

Location

Phase 1. Problem Definition

The City of East Lansing began to characterize its deer management situation by conducting an online survey of residents in 2011; 245 residents completed the survey. The main concerns identified by respondents were deer-vehicle accidents, damage to landscape and park ecosystems, and decline in deer health. The Commission on the Environment discussed deer management issues at both their January 2012 and June 2013 meetings. At the June 2013 meeting, the Commission discussed possible ways to mitigate resident’s concerns about deer. The Commission voted to direct staff to develop a deer management plan that would include a managed hunt component.

The city used three sources of information to determine if the deer population had reached a problematic level within the city: deer-vehicle accident data, results of the 2011 survey of residents, and anecdotal resident complaints of property damage/nuisance reports. By that time (2013), representatives of the city also had consulted with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, gathered research reports on deer management, and collected information from other municipalities who had implemented deer management plans. In 2013, the city’s Commission on the Environment recommended that further research be done before making any management decisions. Additional research steps included: surveying the locations of highest concern to estimate deer numbers, assessing parks for damage due to deer browse, completing more detailed analysis of deer-vehicle accident data, and correlating deer-vehicle accidents to areas of concern.

The city consulted with two Michigan State University (MSU) deer management experts in the spring of 2014 to design a baseline study to estimate deer numbers in the proposed deer management areas in the city. USDA Wildlife Services conducted herd counts in Harrison Meadows Park and White Park, which were the two areas of concern during the months of June and July of 2015. Students from MSU Fisheries and Wildlife Club also conducted herd surveys under the supervision of USDA Wildlife Service in Abbot Road Park, Fine Park, Burcham Park, and a follow up survey in Harrison Meadows Park in November of 2015. Additionally, the City of East Lansing held an East Lansing Deer Scoping Meeting/ Forum on October 30th, 2014. Dr. Rique Campa and Jordan Burroughs from MSU and DNR staff had a deer management meeting that was open to the public. In addition to the expert panel discussion, residents in the audience were given devices that allowed them to supply immediate feedback to questions about deer concerns and preferred management.

Phase 2. Decision-making

The City Council’s vote was used to decide whether or not to go through with any given deer management action. However, the city consulted with multiple outside experts before voting on any decisions.

The City considered and selected multiple action alternatives to address resident’s concerns about deer. Actions considered included: a pilot cull that would have been implemented by USDA Wildlife Services in fall of 2015; increased roadside signage in known deer-crossing areas; and a managed hunt in selected parks. After consulting with numerous outside sources such as two MSU deer management experts, a DNR biologist, USDA Wildlife Serve, MSU Fisheries and Wildlife Club, MIDNR, and other municipalities who have implemented deer management plans; the city of East Lansing decided to go with the non-lethal route of deer management. The city ultimately decided to: provide education to residents about protecting landscapes from browsing deer; attempt to change several city ordinances; and continue efforts to document deer numbers in areas of highest concern to residents.

Phase 3. Implementation

To address deer-related concerns of residents, the City of East Lansing implemented the following measures:

Education in the form of a web page linking residents to helpful information to reduce deer-human conflict.
Passage of Ordinance No. 1334; Deer Feeding Ban.
Passage of Ordinance No. 1358; prohibits discharging arrows within city parks, and requires the casing of bows within the City. Also allows for future actions, if the city deemed necessary, for persons acting under the direction of the State of Michigan or City of East Lansing to conduct culling in any of the city parks.
Community meetings focused on education and resident feedback. Additionally, the city made the original deer survey available to all residents through the deer management page, and gave residents a reporting mechanism through this page so that residents can report concerns or questions.
Staff has presented at numerous community meetings including Council of Neighborhood Presidents, Prime Time Seniors, neighborhood association meetings, and additional informational articles have appeared in both the Dialog and Curbside Journal (Local Newspapers).
USDA Wildlife Services conducted a herd count in Harrison Meadows and White Park in June and July 2015 with trail cameras, spotlight counts, and daylight observations.
MSU Fisheries and Wildlife Club under the supervision of USDA Wildlife Service surveyed deer numbers in Abbot Road Park, Fine Park, Burcham Park, and Harrison Meadows Park in November of 2015.

Phase 4. Evaluation and Adaptation Phase

The City has made the original deer survey available to all residents through the deer management page, and given residents a reporting mechanism through this page so that residents can report concerns or ask questions. The City also continues to conduct monitoring in several areas, including: deer herd estimates, monitoring park ecosystems for deer damage, collecting deer-vehicle accident data, and collecting anecdotal resident complaints and property damage/nuisance reports. All of these tools will allow the city to acknowledge whether or not the plans implemented to manage the deer problem within the city are working.

Three deer with Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) were discovered in a township adjacent to East Lansing in May 2015. Over 500 deer were subsequently removed from that township, in an effort to reduce probability of CWD transmission to other deer. Further monitoring is needed to determine how that deer removal effort affects deer numbers and deer-related problems in East Lansing.

Community Survey

Survey completed by a local government representative

Phase 1: Problem Definition

Initial discussion about deer as a community issue

Which parties initiated the original discussion about the possibility of a local deer management program?

Individual residents who were having problems with deer

Issue Drivers

What deer-related concerns were the main drivers of the original discussion about need for local deer management?

Deer damage to gardens and plantings around homes; Deer-related vehicle accidents; Concern about health of the deer herd

Any particular impact/event that was a tipping point for your community’s decision to develop a deer management program?

Increase in deer damage to gardens and plantings around homes; Increase in deer-vehicle accidents, or a particular collision with human injuries

Gathering Information

What process was used to define the deer management problem(s) in the community?

The City Council was in charge of defining the deer management problem but consulted with experts and other outside sources, such as: MDNR, USDA Wildlife Service, MSU Fisheries and Wildlife Club, and other municipalities

What was the facilitator’s role?

Consulting and giving input on decisions and conducting baseline surveys on herd populations in areas of concern in the City of East Lansing

Special challenges

Describe any challenges the community faced in defining the deer and deer management problem.

Challenge:

Defining if there was actually a deer problem

Community Response:

Continue more research and conduct more surveys

Challenge:

Determining how passionately the community felt about this topic

Community Response:

Conduct more surveys and ask for residents' opinion

Challenge:

To not be too reactive on this topic

Community Response:

To look at all of the options before making a decision

Phase 2: Decision-Making

Structure of the decision-making process

In what year did the first decision-making phase begin?

2013

What parties initiated or convened the process?

City Staff, Commission on the Environment, Community Leaders, and City Council

What was the mechanism by which action alternative were selected in the community?

Executive decision by elected or appointed community leaders, The City Council voted but consulted with Commission on the Environment and City Staff

Briefly summarize the decision-making process.

The City of East Lansing has five elected City Council members. These City Council members hold meetings that are open to the public and provide that citizens shall have a reasonable opportunity to be heard at any meeting of the Council. Three members of the Council is quorum for transaction of business at all of the meetings of the Council. The Commission on the Environment has nine members and meets monthly. They discuss and study environmental issues which include the deer management plan and make recommendations to the Council.

In what ways did community members have opportunity(s) to provide input during the decision-making process?

Leaders created a formal public comment period before making decisions, Leaders or deer committee held public comment meetings

Did your community use a facilitator to help make decisions about deer management goals and actions?

Experts came in to provide input and give information to the public and to the City Council. They also conducted baseline surveys to give us additional information about the deer in East Lansing

Where did the community find a process facilitator when defining their process?:

MSU expert, DNR expert, USDA Wildlife Service, MSU Fisheries and Wildlife Club, and MDNR

What was the facilitator’s role?

Consulting and giving input on decisions and conducting baseline surveys on herd populations in areas of concern in the City of East Lansing

What background or training did the facilitator have?

All of these people have professional experience and backgrounds pertaining to this subject

Information Gathering

What information sources were consulted by the community group that made decisions about deer management action alternatives?

Content experts from wildlife agency, Content experts from other organizations, Content experts from university, Community opinion presented by stakeholder groups, Research reports or papers, Deer management plans from other communities

How were different types of information used?

Content experts from wildlife agency:

To determine cost, To determine feasibility, To determine acceptability of action alternatives, To determine best possible solution for this specific urban environment

Content experts from other organizations:

To determine feasibility

Community opinion presented by stakeholder groups:

To determine feasibility, To determine acceptability of action alternatives

Research reports or papers:

To determine cost, To determine feasibility

Deer management plans from other communities:

To determine cost, To determine feasibility, To determine acceptability of action alternatives

How did the group find/identify the content experts they consulted?

Found information online, consulted with experts to verify and get their input, communicated personally with city leaders who were personally involved in their own city’s deer management plans.

Program Goals

What specific long-term goals were identified for this community’s deer management program?

To have a sustainable deer management plan in place to create a safer place for residents and deer. Reduce and limit deer related problems overall.

When were goals for the community-based deer management identified?

Prior to discussion about action alternatives

Selecting Management Actions

Special Challenges

Describe the two or three most important challenges the community faced during the decision-making phase.

Challenge:

The City council was torn between culling or not culling by community residents

Community response to challenge:

Continue to discuss matters and delay decision making

Challenge:

Determining threshold of when the problem/what problem needs to involve culling

Community response to challenge:

Continue to discuss and receive feedback from community about deer management

Phase 3: Implementation

Key characteristics of the management program

What is/was the annual budget for your community's deer management program?

15000.00

For how many years has the program been funded?

3.00

Did your community create any new positions to assist in implementing the deer management program?

None, deer management duties were assigned to an existing position

What partners, if any, has the community engaged in to help implement the effort?

State wildlife management agency

Special challenges

Describe the most important challenges your community faced in implementing your deer management program

Challenge:

Determining how much money was needed in the budget

Community response to challenge:

Had to decide if we were going to need money in the budget to conduct our own culling so we over budgeted to make sure there was enough money to conduct a cull if that decision was made. Most of the money in the budget was never spent because a cull was never conducted.

Challenge:

Balancing the varied concerns of residents

Community response to challenge:

To continue non lethal techniques for the time being and to continue to monitor the deer population

Phase 4: Evaluation and Adaptation

The community's approach to outcome assessment

Did the community develop an assessment plan for measuring progress towards deer management goals?

Yes

What kinds of baseline information did your community collect before implementing the deer management program?

Deer population or deer density

Deer pellet count studies, Remote camera studies to estimate deer population or deer density, Spotlight counts for an index to deer abundance

Damage to forest regeneration

Parks department or citizen science efforts to monitor deer damage to natural areas in community parks, Partner with universities to conduct plant damage studies

Deer-vehicle collisions

GIS mapping of deer-related vehicle accidents in the community, Collecting police reports on number of deer-related vehicle accidents in community, Estimate rate of deer-related vehicle accidents per miles traveled in problem areas

Rate of tick-borne disease cases in the community

Review annual reports from county health department with number of reported cases of tick-borne illnesses

Residents’ perceptions

Create a system that allows residents to report complaints, and monitor change in number and type of complaints submitted to the system, Resident surveys to assess residents’ perceived level of problems with deer and how tolerable those problems are

If an assessment plan was created, what indicators are used for measuring outcomes of management actions?

Deer population or deer density

Deer pellet count studies, Spotlight counts for an index to deer abundance

Damage to forest regeneration

Parks department or citizen science efforts to monitor deer damage to natural areas in community parks, Partner with universities to conduct plant damage studies

Deer-vehicle collisions

Rate of tick-borne disease cases in the community

Review annual reports from county health department with number of reported cases of tick-borne illnesses

Residents’ perceptions

Create a system that allows residents to report problems, and monitor change in number and type of complaints submitted to the system, Resident surveys to assess residents’ perceived level of problems with deer and how tolerable those problems are

Who is responsible for carrying out the assessment plan and monitoring the success of the deer management program?

Deer Committee, Elected leader(s), City Staff are in charge of carrying out the assessment plan but are supervised by the City Council (elected leaders) and the Commission on the Environment (deer committee)

Assessment of program success overall

Does the community consider its CBDM program to be successful in achieving its objectives? Why or why not?

We consider our CBDM program a work in progress. After talking to other communities and seeing how certain outcomes can tear communities apart we are happy with our outcome. This is a very emotional and controversial topic and can have devastating effects on communities. The deer management plan in East Lansing is reducing the deer problems while informing the residents on the possible deer issues. That outcome along with a peaceful conclusion to this topic makes this deer management plan successful.