Community Example: Brookfield, Wisconsin

Key facts

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

Region: Midwest

Plan established in 2001

The City of Brookfield, Wisconsin (population 36,800) is a few miles west of Milwaukee within the Lake Michigan coastal area. Brookfield’s Deer Abatement and Control Program was initiated in 2001 with the adoption of recommendations made by the city’s Deer Task Force. The primary components of the program include 1) installation of cautionary signage in “hot spots” for deer-related traffic accidents; 2) increasing public awareness; and 3) deer population reduction and maintenance using sharpshooting and live trapping--in coordination with the neighboring community of Elm Grove and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Ongoing reduction of Brookfield's deer population occurs in areas where deer density greatly exceeds the deer density goal set by the city.

Location

Phase 1. Problem Definition

The situation in Brookfield reached a tipping point with an increase in deer damage to gardens and plantings. Individual residents registered an increasing number of complaints with city officials. A task force was convened for the purpose of assessing and analyzing the deer population and related impacts on quality of life. The task force consisted of residents representing the entire city, staff, experts, and other local community officials.

The biggest challenge during the Problem Definition phase was establishing the community’s “cultural carrying capacity”—what deer population could Brookfield residents tolerate, and how did it compare with what the city’s natural areas could actually support? The Deer Task Force tackled this question as part of the Problem Definition phase.

Phase 2. Decision-making

Brookfield’s Decision-Making phase began in 2001. Discussions about deer management goals and alternatives were led by the Deer Task Force, city staff and outside consultants with expertise in the area. The goal for deer management was established prior to discussing action alternatives: manage the deer population as close to an accepted cultural carrying capacity as possible. The alternatives were developed following many meetings, public forums, lengthy discussions, and numerous communications received from residents. Decision-Making by the task force was approached as a consensus-based deliberation process. In June 2001, the Common Council adopted the findings and recommendations of the Deer Task Force. The action alternatives selected through this process included a) installation of cautionary signage in “hot spots” for deer-related traffic accidents; b) public education about ways to minimize deer impacts; and c) a deer population reduction and maintenance program using both trained, professional sharpshooters and live trapping.

Phase 3. Implementation

Brookfield’s Urban Deer Abatement and Control Program was initiated in 2001 with the adoption of recommendations made by the city’s Deer Task Force. Brookfield implements its deer management program in coordination with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. The City’s deer management duties were assigned to an existing position, the Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry rather than creating a new position dedicated to deer management. Funding has been in place for deer management duties since the inception of the program—with a current annual budget of $35,000. Specific actions taken to date include:

Installation of reflective caution signs on roadways in problem areas.
Education (e.g., direct mailings, website) to increase public awareness of ways to reduce deer damage to landscape plantings.
Removal of deer through a combination of sharpshooting and live trapping.

Deer population reduction is currently focused on those parts of the city where the deer density greatly exceeds the target population density. Venison harvested through managed hunts is donated to a local food pantry when feasible and/or distributed through a local meat market to interested citizens.

Phase 4. Evaluation and Adaptation Phase

Brookfield developed an assessment plan that included establishing a baseline population estimate through an aerial survey. Elected leaders and municipal officials are responsible for carrying out the assessment plan and monitoring the success of the deer management program. Since beginning the management actions, changes in the following measures have been assessed over time:

Damage to gardens and landscape plantings is assessed by monitoring Department of Natural Resources or Cooperative Extension reports of residential damage.
Deer-vehicle collisions are assessed by collecting police reports on number of deer-related vehicle accidents in the community, with emphasis on areas where reflective signs have been installed.

Residents’ perceptions of deer impacts are assessed through an online reporting system where the number and types of complaints are collected.

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;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

Gathering Information

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)

Special challenges

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

Challenge:

Establishing the community's cultural carrying capacity of the deer herd

Community Response:

Community Task Force recommended plan which was approved by Common Council

Challenge:

Identifying preferred method of population control

Community Response:

Community Task Force recommended plan which was approved by Common Council

Phase 2: Decision-Making

Structure of the decision-making process

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

2001

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?

Consensus-based deliberation, 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.

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, 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 feasibility, To determine acceptability of action alternatives

Community opinion presented by stakeholder groups:

To determine acceptability of action alternatives

Research reports or papers:

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?

State agency representatives

Program Goals

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

Manage the population of the herd at accepted cultural carrying capacity as feasible

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

Prior to discussion about action alternatives

Selecting Management Actions

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?

35000.00

For how many years has the program been funded?

15.00

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

Was venison donation a component of the implementation process?

Through a local food pantry

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

Aerial surveys to estimate deer population or deer density

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

Damage to gardens and landscape plantings

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

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 problems, and monitor change in number and type of complaints submitted to the system

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

Elected leader(s), Municipal agencies