Community Example: Bemidji, Minnesota

Key facts

Deer Management Committee created in 2003
Resolution prohibiting deer feeding within the city passed in 2005
Controlled special archery hunt authorized in 2006
Roadside spotlight surveys conducted annually since 2012 - in cooperation with students from a local college

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

Region: Midwest

Plan established in 2005

Link(s): Special Archery Deer Hunt, Student Research Supports City of Bemidji's Deer Management Programs

Bemidji, Minnesota's City Council established a Deer Management Committee in 2003 to create a deer management plan that would address a number of deer-related concerns, including damage to landscaping, natural areas, car accidents, Lyme disease and the health of the deer herd.

Location

Phase 1. Problem Definition

After 2 years of citizen complaints, the City of Bemidji created a local Deer Management Committee in 2003. This committee held public meetings and completed community surveys, which supplied local leaders with information about deer-related experiences and concerns. Initially, the Deer Management Committee only surveyed 1 out of 5 city wards since complaints were initiated by residents in only one ward (Ward 5). When complaints about deer-related problems increased in a second ward (Ward 4), the Committee decided to mail a survey to those residents to assess the needs and desire for better deer management via archery hunting.

Public meetings and surveys identified residents’ concerns about damage to gardens and plantings, damage to nearby forests and native plants, increased vehicle accidents, Lyme disease and other deer-related illnesses, and the health of the local deer herd. The Deer Management Committee gathered information about these issues from police reports, local naturalists and scientists, state wildlife agencies, and county health statistic reports.

Phase 2. Decision-making

In August 2004, the City Council passed a Resolution for the Deer Management Committee to create a Deer Management Plan for the City of Bemidji. Before offering management alternatives, specific goals for Bemidji’s deer management were identified. These goals were to

Maintain deer populations at cultural caring capacity limits
Reduce the number of car/deer crashes
Reduce the level of property damage caused by deer
Develop a framework for an operational management program to be implemented by the City in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Educate residents about ways to minimize deer problems
Determine appropriate methods to control deer populations at acceptable limits

Community members were involved through public comment meetings and surveys about decision alternatives. Feasibility of alternatives was evaluated in light of information provided by wildlife agencies (the local DNR office), stakeholder groups, and information in deer management plans from other communities.

The 2005 Deer Management Plan offered management strategies such as deer counts (through roadside surveys), observance of vegetation presence and change, surveying residents periodically, documenting deer removal, implementing a feeding ban and educating the public on the adverse impact of feeding, supervising damage caused to property, and employing methods to protect property. All of these actions were selected to meet Bemidji’s management goals because of cost effectiveness.

This plan is available publicly upon request. Please contact Teresa Hanson at (218) 759-3562 or at Teresa.hanson@ci.bemidji.mn.us.

Phase 3. Implementation

The City Council did not want to burden the management budget and taxpayers with costs associated with sharp shooting and trap/dispatch methods. The Council agreed that an archery hunt was the most practical since the management areas were conducive to hunting. As a result, the City Council opted to pass a Resolution in July 2005 prohibiting deer feeding within the City and authorized a controlled special archery hunt in 2006. The community responded favorably to the decisions made by the Council.

No specific funds were established in the city’s budget. An application fee of $8 per hunter was set to off-set costs of staff time and supplies needed for the hunt, signage, surveys, etc. No contractors were hired to assist in implementing management practices. DNR and BSU staff were available for assistance with roadside surveys as a part of their role on the Deer Management Committee.

Currently law enforcement monitors and responds to complaints of deer feeding, the City coordinates/conducts an annual archery hunt, and BSU staff and students conduct the city’s roadside deer surveys. Venison donation was not initially part of the plan’s implementation process, but has been added to the annual archery hunt. Venison donation was made possible when a local butcher volunteered to process the meat for a local food bank at no cost.

Phase 4. Evaluation and Adaptation Phase

The Bemidji Deer Management Committee developed an assessment plan for measuring progress toward their deer management goals. Information on deer herd size, number of deer-related vehicle collisions, and resident perceptions were evaluated before management implementation and used as a baseline for assessing progress.

A research project was also created in cooperation with Bemidji State University’s (BSU) Department of Biology to engage students in searching for deer with spotlights and estimate changes in deer abundance in different deer management areas. The deer spotlight surveys provide feedback on changes in local deer abundance from year to year, identifying areas of program need as well as areas of program success. BSU students conducted their fifth annual survey in 2016 and are currently planning the 2017 survey. Other methods used for measuring outcomes of management actions include GIS mapping and analysis of police reports of deer-related vehicle collisions, and resident surveys to assess public perceptions of deer and related issues.

One issue the committee faced was collecting data and area survey information. Specifically, it was difficult to assess public input and assessment of problems through a written survey because many responses were not descriptive enough of the herd sizes and damage being done. The first resident survey completed also received a low response (29%).

Monitoring efforts indicate that the deer herd was reduced from 79 per square mile in 2005 to 33 per square mile in 2016. Residents have indicated less deer-related property damage than they were experiencing prior to plan implementation. The city of Bemidji considers their management plan to be a success. They believe the herd reduction can be attributed to the feeding ban and archery hunts as identified management methods in their management plan. Nevertheless, in 2016 deer density exceeded their plan’s goal of 15-25 deer per square mile, so they plan to continue with their deer feeding ban and annual archery hunts.

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?

Residents who were having problems with deer brought complaints to their representative on the City 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; 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?

Gathering Information

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

The local Deer Management Committee (without an outside facilitator) held public meetings, surveyed residents, obtained statistics from law enforcement and consulted with local DNR staff who also serve on the committee.

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

N/A

Special challenges

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

Challenge:

We initially surveyed 1 of our 5 city wards, since complaints were initiated by residents in Ward 5 and about 29% responded.

Community Response:

We are now addressing deer concerns being raised in Ward 4 so a survey has been mailed to assess need and desire for an archery hunt in that area.

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

We only surveyed 1 of our 5 city wards, and we probably should have surveyed all residents in the city to better assess the population, damage being observed and need for management in other areas.

Phase 2: Decision-Making

Structure of the decision-making process

What parties initiated or convened the process?

A deer committee created by formal leaders

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.

The 2005 Deer Management Plan offered management strategies such as monitoring deer counts (through roadside surveys), observance of vegetation presence and change, surveying residents periodically, documenting deer removal, implementing a feeding ban and educating the public on the adverse impact of feeding, damage caused to property, methods to protect their property and deer management needs and goals. Council opted to pass a Resolution in July 2005 prohibiting deer feeding within the City and authorized a conrolled special archery hunt in 2006.

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

Leaders or deer committee held public comment meetings, Leaders or deer committee surveyed residents about decision alternatives

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, Deer management plans from other communities

How were different types of information used?

Content experts from wildlife agency:

To determine feasibility

Community opinion presented by stakeholder groups:

To determine feasibility, To determine acceptability of action alternatives

Deer management plans from other communities:

To determine feasibility, To determine acceptability of action alternatives

Program Goals

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

1) Maintain deer populations at cultural carrying capacity limits; 2) Reduce the number of car/deer crashes; 3) Reduce the level of property damage caused by deer; 4) Develop a framework for an operational management program to be implemented by the City in cooperation with the MN DNR; 5) Educate residents about ways to minimize deer problems; 6) Determine appropriate methods to control deer populations at acceptable limits.

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:

Our Deer Management Plan provided the City Council with several options for management, but cost and effectivenss were important. The Council didn't want to burden the budget/taxpayers with costs associated with sharp shooting and trap/dispatch.

Community response to challenge:

Conducting an archery hunt seemed the most practical and logical in our area since we are in an area conducive to hunting. The community seemed to respond favorably to the decisions made by the Council.

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

By inviting interested community members and organizations (e.g., MN DNR), we were able to identify problems and possible solutions. I'm not sure we could have done anything differently.

Phase 3: Implementation

Key characteristics of the management program

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

Yes. a Feeding Ban was implemented in 2005 and special archery hunts have been conducted since 2006.

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

0.00

For how many years has the program been funded?

0.00

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, Faculty experts from local university, Private residents and city staff

Was venison donation a component of the implementation process?

Venison donation was not part of the program at first, but it has been for the past 2 or 3 years and will continue to be since we have a local butcher willing to process the meat for the food shelf at no cost.

Special challenges

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

I'm not aware of anything that should have been done differently.

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-vehicle collisions

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

Residents’ perceptions

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

Spotlight counts for an index to deer abundance

Damage to forest regeneration

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

Residents’ perceptions

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

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:

none

Why was the change made?:

N/A

Special challenges at this phase

Describe any challenges your community faced in evaluating your deer management program.

Challenge:

Collecting data and survey information.

Community response to the challenge:

We researched and found other communities that were experiencing the same problems so there was a lot of information to review. In order to assess public input and assessment of the problems they were experiencing, we conducted a written survey. In that and subsequent surveys, we would have appreciated more responses to accurately gauge the herd sizes and damage being done.

Assessment of program success overall

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

I'm not sure we can or could have done it differently. We rely on the roadside surveys for the herd count and resident survey to assess deer numbers, deterence methods being used and problems experienced and damage to property.

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

Yes. The herd has been reduced in size from 79 per square mile in 2005 to 33 per square mile in 2016. The target for the Ward 5 area is set for 15 to 25 deer per square mile, so the numbers are moving in the right direction.