Community Example: Muscatine, Iowa

Key facts

Deer vehicle collisions and damage to landscaping and gardens drove the deer management process
The local Parks and Recreation Department implements the hunt in cooperation with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Urban hunts are conducted as part of the Deer Management Zone program

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

Region: Midwest

Plan established in 2006

Link(s): Muscatine Deer Management Authorization

In 2004, the city of Muscatine, Iowa (population approximately 23,000) adopted its community-based deer management program as an archery-only hunting season on both public and private lands--part of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources Deer Management Zone hunts. Over time, Muscatine phased out hunting on public lands, due to resident perceptions that it was unsafe to visit city lands during hunting season. The city's operating budget does not specifically include deer management activities. Aerial surveys are conducted to assess progress toward management goals.

Location

Phase 1. Problem Definition

Local residents in Muscatine, Iowa initiated the conversation about the need for deer management after feeling that there was an issue with the size of the deer population within city limits. Local hunters were taking notice of large deer flourishing due to the no hunting restrictions within Muscatine, and gardeners and landscape-conscious citizens felt vegetation was being damaged regularly by deer. The local police department had noticed an increase in deer-related vehicle accidents. As a result, the community created a deer committee to develop a deer-management plan.

Phase 2. Decision-making

The local deer management committee in Muscatine went through their first decision-making phase in 2004. They began by doing research to look for the best practices from other communities before they selected action alternatives for Muscatine. Community members were encouraged to contribute their input to decision-making through unsolicited comments, formal public comment periods, public comment meetings, and resident surveys. Once best practices were identified, the City Council formally adopted a course of action. The committee decided to pursue archery-only private and public land hunts. The Muscatine Deer Committee worked closely with a Deer Depredation Officer from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, who facilitated the the state process of adopting a Municipal Hunt in Muscatine.

Phase 3. Implementation

Muscatine's deer-management program initially included hunting on both public and private lands. In recent years, the municipal hunt has been discontinued because some local residents perceived that hunting in public areas (e.g., parks, cemetery, golf course) was unsafe. No new positions were created in the municipality to assist with implementation of deer management. Some hunters voluntarily donate deer harvested in Muscatine to the local meat locker, to be processed for the local food pantry.

Phase 4. Evaluation and Adaptation Phase

Muscatine has not developed an assessment plan for measuring progress towards deer management goals. If an assessment were created, aerial surveys to estimate deer population and density would be used as an indicator for outcomes of management actions.

Muscatine’s deer management program was adapted over time to address residents' concerns about public safety (i.e., hunting on public lands was eliminated to address those concerns).

A major challenge the community faced was determining the minimum property size for allowable hunts. Community deliberations led to a decision to establish a 2-acre minimum for hunting (private landowners who collectively agree to do so can combine their properties into a single hunting agreement to achieve the minimum hunting size requirement). Another concern was educating the hunters on safe acceptable hunting practices. In response, community input meetings are held annually to address this matter.

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; Deer damage to forests or other native plants

If you chose Other, please list the other main drivers.:

At the time our program began there was little media coverage about deer disease issues.

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

One of the drivers behind the program was the hunting public wanting residential access.

Gathering Information

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

A local deer committee charged with defining the problem held discussions, but the committee did not have an outside facilitator

How did the community find a process facilitator when considering the process they would use?

We contacted the Iowa Department of Natural Resources for assistance.

What was the facilitator’s role?

To guide us through the State process of adopting a Municipal Hunt.

Special challenges

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

Challenge:

Determining property size for allowable hunts.

Community Response:

It was decided to have two acre minimum areas that could be combined by owners.

Challenge:

To allow public property hunting.

Community Response:

We started the program allowing it but transitioned into private property only.

Given how your community identified your deer management problem, what would you or your community have done differently?

I would not have a changed anything. The program has developed with the community.

Phase 2: Decision-Making

Structure of the decision-making process

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

2004

What parties initiated or convened the process?

Formal (elected or appointed) community leaders (e.g., town supervisor, town council)

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

A study was conducted looking for best practices from other communities.

Briefly summarize the decision-making process.

Once best practices were identified, the City Council formally adopted the program.

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

Unsolicited comments on action alternatives were accepted by leaders, Leaders created a formal public comment period before making decisions, Leaders or deer committee held public comment meetings, Leaders or deer committee surveyed residents about decision alternatives

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

Discussions about deer management goals and alternatives were led by an outside person brought in to serve the local deer committee as a process facilitator.

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

Iowa Department of Natural Resources

What was the facilitator’s role?

To guide us through the State process of adopting a Municipal Hunt.

What background or training did the facilitator have?

Professional Deer Depredation Officer

Information Gathering

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

Content experts from wildlife agency, 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 acceptability of action alternatives

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, To determine acceptability of action alternatives

Deer management plans from other communities:

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

Other source (identified above):

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

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

By contacting the IDNR.

Program Goals

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

After action alternatives were selected

Selecting Management Actions

Special Challenges

Thinking back on your community’s decision-making process, what would you or your community have done differently, if anything?

No effort was made to train the community on how to mitigate the deer prior to extraction.

Phase 3: Implementation

Key characteristics of the management program

Have any actions already been taken with respect to your deer management program?

Yes

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

0.00

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

None

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

State, county, or municipal park system

Was venison donation a component of the implementation process?

Some of the hunters donate the deer to a local meat locker to be processed for the food pantry.

Special challenges

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

Challenge:

Educating the hunters on safe acceptable hunting practices.

Community response to challenge:

Community input meetings are held annually.

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?

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

Deer population or deer density

Aerial surveys to estimate deer population or deer density

Damage to forest regeneration

Parks department or citizen science efforts to monitor deer damage to natural areas in community parks

Damage to gardens and landscape plantings

Monitor Department of Natural Resources or Cooperative Extension reports of residential damage

Deer-vehicle collisions

Monitor deer-related vehicle accidents in areas where reflectors are installed on roadside

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

Deer population or deer density

Aerial surveys to estimate deer population or deer density

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

Municipal agencies

How program implementation has been adapted over time

What, if any, changes have been made to the deer management program since its initial implementation?

Change:

We no longer allow for public property to be used for the Municipal Hunt.

Why was the change made?:

Citizens felt threatened real or perceived by hunters in parks, cemetery, and golf course.