Community Example: Burnsville, Minnesota

Key facts

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

Region: Midwest

Plan established in 2001

Link(s): Burnsville Deer Management Program, Burnsville Deer Observations

The City of Burnsville, Minnesota (approximate population 60,000) lies within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Burnsville first documented the need for a deer management program during its natural resource planning process in 1998. Soon thereafter, the deer management program was established. The city was divided into 6 separate management units, each with its own combination of management intensity and approaches.

Location

Phase 1. Problem Definition

Burnsville consulted with federal, state, and county wildlife management experts both to identify impacts and concerns and to develop an understanding of a range of management options. The city hired a consultant to research impacts, management options, and compile examples of approaches that other communities have taken.

Phase 2. Decision-making

A full range of options was considered, including lethal, non-lethal, and educational options. A number of public hearings were conducted to get resident's input. Ultimately, the decision to initiate Burnsville's deer management program was made by the City Council.

Phase 3. Implementation

Sharpshooting was used as the initial means to reduce the deer population, with planned follow-up with archery once the desired deer density (25/square mile) was attained. For years, high-level archery volunteers through the Metro Bowhunters Resource Base conducted the archery hunting. In some parts of the city, residents were opposed to closing the parks to accommodate hunting. The result is that in five of six of the City’s management zones, sharpshooting over bait, often at night, is the method of choice. Metro Bowhunters Resource Base still conducts one annual hunt in southeast Burnsville. Contractors implemented the sharpshooting component until 2010. At that time, the Burnsville Police Department took on the responsibility of the sharpshooting, a service paid for through the deer management program budget. The annual budget for the DMP is approximately $40,000 per year, although most years the city spends less than the budgeted amount. Burnsville's Natural Resources Technician manages the program along with other job responsibilities.

Phase 4. Evaluation and Adaptation Phase

The Parks and Natural Resource Commission provides annual reviews of the program. Progress toward objectives is tracked with aerial deer counts (and adjustment of removal numbers as needed), residents' complaints, number of deer-vehicle collisions, and sharpshooting results. Burnsville has a webpage dedicated to deer monitoring, which includes crash maps, citizen observations (collected through a web form) and aerial survey results. The annual report from the last several years is also available on Burnsville's deer management website. The program is evaluated by the commission, which makes a recommendation to the ciy council for annual approval. Overall, Burnsville considers its deer management program to be a success. Resident complaints are down, as are the number of deer-vehicle collisions. Aerial surveys indicate that deer population levels are close to the desired targets. The city finds the aerial surveys especially useful in giving residents a visual that although deer numbers are being managed, they are by no means being extirpated from the landscape.

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;Organized groups of stakeholders (e.g., a local business group, others)

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; Other

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

Long-term 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?

No. There were a variety of impacts/events (noted above) that built over time.

Gathering Information

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

A consultant was brought in to compile an overview of the impacts, other community's experiences, and potential solutions.

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:

Defining acceptable levels/thresholds -- for example for the number of car crashes per year.

Phase 2: Decision-Making

Structure of the decision-making process

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

1998

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.

City Council convened public hearings followed by a majority vote by the Council.

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

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, 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, To determine a range of management options

Research reports or papers:

To establish the case for various deer impacts and potential management options

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?

Portions of city natural areas are adjacent to the Three Rivers Park District's (Murphy-Hanrehan Regional Park), the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (federal), and Fort Snelling State Park (state). They reached out to all three management entities in an effort to share information and advice as well as coordinate management.

Program Goals

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

1. Protect the biological integrity of natural areas; 2. Improve public safety; 3. Protect residential landscapes; 4. Maintain the long-term health of the deer herd.

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

During the process of selecting 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. Sharpshooting since 2001, in combination with Archery hunts in selected areas.

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

40000.00

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

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

State wildlife management agency, State, county, or municipal park system, Federal agency, Hunter organization

Was venison donation a component of the implementation process?

All deer processed at a certified processor and donated to a food shelf that distributes it. Prior to that it

Special challenges

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

Challenge:

Conflicts with residents wanting to use the parks where archery hunts were taking place

Community response to challenge:

Sharpshooting for majority of areas

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

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

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

Deer-vehicle collisions

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

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:

Switched to sharpshooting only in five of six management units

Why was the change made?:

Management objectives were not reached using the archery hunts and and archery hunts created conflicts with other park users in some sections of town.