Community Example: Altoona, Wisconsin

Key facts

Altoona began its deer management program with paid sharpshooting and today runs an all-volunteer archery hunt

Community Size: Small city or village (less than 10,000 people)

Region: Midwest

Plan established in 2004

Link(s): Altoona changes regulations to make deer hunting easier within city limits, Wisconsin Act 71

In Altoona, Wisconsin (approximate population 7,300) citizen complaints about an increase in deer-vehicle collisions and damage to landscaping and gardens led the City Council to take action. City leaders created a formal public comment period prior to selecting an action alternative, and Altoona's deer management program was launched in 2004. Initially, Altoona hired sharpshooters to thin the deer herd, an effective but expensive endeavor. A city employee suggested allowing archery hunting within city limits as an alternative. The City consulted with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to establish a safe way to conduct an annual archery hunt. Altoona considers the all-volunteer archery hunt to be more practical for their circumstances—and this option has been facilitated for other Wisconsin communities through the passage of a state law in 2013 loosening restrictions on deer hunting in urban areas.

Location

Phase 1. Problem Definition

The Altoona City Council initiated discussion about the need for local deer management after noticing an increase in deer damage to gardens and plantings around homes, as well as a rise in deer-vehicle collisions. The City Council held public meetings and consulted with the local police department and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WNDR) to gather information about the issue. Local residents who attended public meetings provided information about their deer-related concerns and attitudes. Local police summarized data on deer-related vehicle accidents reported in the city. WDNR staff met with the City Council to provide estimates of deer population size and density around Altoona.

Phase 2. Decision-making

The City of Altoona established one long-term deer management goal: to reduce the size of their deer population. They have gone through a deer management decision-making phase at least twice in their efforts to achieve that deer management goal. The first decision-making phase occurred in 2000, when the Altoona City Council made an executive decision to hire sharp shooters to remove deer in city parks.

Later, the City Administrator suggested permitting archery hunting within city limits (to avoid the expense of hiring sharp shooters to remove deer). This led to a second decision-making phase, where the City Council proposed that the city take actions to develop a managed hunting program on public and private lands, and establish regulations to prohibit deer feeding. Residents were allowed to express views on these proposals during a formal public comment period. After considering formal comments from residents, the City Council voted to create a managed hunting program and pursue a regulation banning deer feeding.

Phase 3. Implementation

The City consulted with wildlife experts and reviewed other community deer management plans to design a managed hunting program that it considered to be safe, feasible and cost effective. The City consulted with WDNR staff to design ordinances allowing managed hunting to occur within city limits, and those ordinances were passed by the City Council. No new staff positions were created by the City to administer the managed hunting program (existing staff administer the program).

Phase 4. Evaluation and Adaptation Phase

Altoona monitors deer numbers by tracking car-deer collisions. The community considers its deer management program to be successful in achieving its primary objective of reducing the deer population to an acceptable level.

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?

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

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

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; No

Gathering Information

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

Contacted the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Special challenges

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

Nothing

Phase 2: Decision-Making

Structure of the decision-making process

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

2000

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?

Executive decision by elected or appointed community leaders

Briefly summarize the decision-making process.

Citizen complaints prompted City Council to hire sharp shooters to thin the deer heard. It was an expensive ordeal. An employee of the City suggested that we allow archery hunting within city limits. The City consulted with the WI DNR to establish a safe way to accomplish this, staff created a process and wrote ordinances to accommodate archery hunting and City Council passed the ordinances.

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

Information Gathering

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

Content experts from wildlife agency, Deer management plans from other communities

How were different types of information used?

Content experts from wildlife agency:

To determine feasibility, To determine acceptability of action alternatives

Content experts from other organizations:

To determine feasibility

Community opinion presented by stakeholder groups:

Was not used

Research reports or papers:

Was not used

Deer management plans from other communities:

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

Other source (identified above):

Was not used

Program Goals

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

Simple >> reduce the deer herd population.

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?

Nothing

Phase 3: Implementation

Key characteristics of the management program

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

Yes

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

Was venison donation a component of the implementation process?

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-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-vehicle collisions

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

Assessment of program success overall

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

Yes