Cornell UniversityThe Nature Conservancy

Community Example: Ann Arbor, Michigan

Key facts
  • Uses a combination of non-lethal and lethal approaches to deer management
  • Community Size: Large city (50,000 to 500,000 people)
  • Region: Midwest
    • Plan established in 2015
    Link(s): Ann Arbor Deer Management Program

    Ann Arbor Michigan (approximate population: 118,000) aims to decrease its deer herd to reduce negative deer-human interactions and support biological diversity in natural areas by not placing one species above another. Ann Arbor's deer management program was initiated in spring, 2014 when the City Council directed the Administrator to develop deer management information with the assistance of community partners and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division (MDNR). The directive from Council arose as a result of numerous resident reports of deer damaging landscaping and concerns regarding vehicle/deer collisions and deer-borne diseases.

    Location

    Community Survey
    Survey completed by a local government representative
    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;Organized groups of stakeholders (e.g., a local business group, others);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; Concern about Lyme or other tick-borne disease; Deer damage to forests or other native plants

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

    unspecified

    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; Evidence of deer damage to forests or other native plants; No

    Gathering Information
    How did community members and/or leaders gather information to understand the deer-related problems?
    Information about concerns, interests, attitudes of local residents

    Unsolicited complaints to local leaders; Public meetings; Survey(s) of residents

    Information about problem levels (e.g., number of deer-related vehicle accidents, amount of plant damage or crop damage)

    Contacted local police department for deer-related vehicle accident records; Contacted local naturalists/scientists for estimates of forest damage; Researched county health statistics for Lyme disease reports

    Information about local deer population size or deer density

    Consulted state wildlife agency to provide estimates, unspecified

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

    Discussions were led by a person brought in specifically to serve the local deer committee as a process facilitator (led by an outside facilitator)

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

    The City of Ann Arbor chose and hired a deer management process facilitator.

    What was the facilitator’s role?

    To facilitate the community engagement process and assist staff in the development of a community-endorsed deer management plan.

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

    A process should have been developed earlier and research funded to measure environmental impact of the deer herd on the City’s natural areas. A Natural Area Study was funded and conducted in 2015 and remains an important metric for evaluating deer management efforts. However, scientific data was not available during discussions in 2014 so deer browse damage assertions from NAP staff or volunteers were anecdotal.

    Structure of the decision-making process
    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

    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?:

    Via an RFP process (see link to RFP in Problem Definition tab)

    What was the facilitator’s role?

    To facilitate the community engagement process and assist staff in the development of a community-endorsed deer management plan.

    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 feasibility, To determine acceptability of action alternatives

    Content experts from other organizations:

    To determine acceptability of action alternatives

    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

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

    Through the MI DNR, City administrator and outreach to a variety of local organizations and interest groups.

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

    Remove up to 100 deer on public lands, employ surgical sterilization, provide educational materials to the community (living with deer, fencing ordinance, signage for deer-vehicle collision hotspots)

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

    During the process of selecting action alternatives

    Selecting Management Actions
    What actions were considered to meet your community’s goals related to managing deer-related impacts?
    Lethal Actions to manage deer population size

    Managed private lands hunt (e.g., vetted group or individuals matched to willing private landowners)

    Nonlethal actions to manage deer population size

    Deer sterilization program

    Actions to influence or modify behavior of community residents

    Information & education to encourage residents to use fencing to exclude deer from specific areas, Information & education on preventing tick-borne illnesses, Information & education on preventing or limiting deer damage to gardens and landscape plants, Information & education to change driving behavior or speed limits, Information & education to discourage deer feeding, Ordinance prohibiting feeding

    What actions were selected to meet your community’s goals related to managing deer-related impacts?
    Lethal Actions to manage deer population size

    Deer cull over bait with contracted/paid sharpshooters

    Nonlethal actions to manage deer population size

    Deer sterilization program

    Actions to influence or modify behavior of community residents

    Ordinance prohibiting feeding, Information & education to discourage deer feeding

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

    Challenge: 
    Agreeing on the goals of the program
    Challenge: 
    Agreeing on the most effective means to address the goals
    Challenge: 
    Ageeing on the validity of scientific deer management research

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

    The 2017 Deer Management Report has not been completed. However, there were a number of leasons learned from the 2016 plan. See full description in narrative.

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

    35000.00

    For how many years has the program been funded?

    2.00

    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?

    US Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Wildlife Services (WS)

    Was venison donation a component of the implementation process?

    Donation to Food Gatherers, a local Food Bank

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

    Challenge: 
    Year 1: Community feedback and civil actions by residents who did not support the cull.
    Community response to challenge: 
    Continual education and information efforts to inform the public on the nature of the program
    ,
    Challenge: 
    Year 2: Time commitment from staff in the development of the program
    Community response to challenge: 
    City will be measuring the community response to year 2 through a survey developed by an independent 3rd party.

    Considering your community’s deer management program implementation, what would you or your community have done differently?

    Focus on data collection and community engagement as early as possible. It's important to recognize up front that it may take several years to get a program the community can support. Each year is a step in that direction. Ann Arbor may not be there yet.

    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

    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

    Deer-vehicle collisions

    Collecting police reports on number of deer-related vehicle accidents in community

    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

    Aerial surveys to estimate deer population or deer density, Camera-trap monitoring studies 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

    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, Ask municipal agencies to monitor and report road kills in the community

    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?

    Elected leader(s), City employees perform or contract for assessments. Ultimately elected leaders will decide on the success of the program.

    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: 
    Focus on data collection, citizen engagement, development of plan reflecting community input, commitment to transparency
    Why was the change made?: 
    Residents needed it.

    Special challenges at this phase
    Describe any challenges your community faced in evaluating your deer management program.

    Challenge: 
    Constituency viewed success differently.
    Community response to the challenge: 
    Staff Spent time with residents to describe problem and success. Results are still pending.

    Assessment of program success overall
    What would you or your community have done differently for the evaluation of its deer management program?

    Too early in the program to assess. Lessons learned component in annual reports will continue to be used to improve the process.

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

    To be determined. The final report is not out yet.