Community Example: Davenport, Iowa

Key facts

Citizens expressed concerns about deer-vehicle collisions and damage to landscaping
The Parks and Recreation Department manages Davenport's deer management program
Urban hunting is part of Iowa's Deer Management Zone Hunts in cooperation with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Community Size: Large city (50,000 to 500,000 people)

Region: Midwest

Plan established in 2005

Link(s): Davenport Urban Deer Hunt Brochure 2015-2016, Iowa Deer Management Hunts

Davenport, Iowa (approximate population 102,000) initiated its deer management program in 2005. Davenport's Urban Deer Hunt is managed through the city's Parks and Recreation Department and is overseen by the Parks Supervisor. Deer management in Davenport is part of Iowa's Deer Management Zone Program, a cooperative initiative between the Iowa Department of Natural Resources and local units of government. The program, an archery hunt on private and public lands, has been successful by some measures. For example, the number of deer-vehicle collisions has been reduced by 50% from pre-management levels.

Location

Phase 1. Problem Definition

Davenport residents first came to city government with concerns over deer damage to gardens and landscaping, as well as an increase in deer-vehicle collisions. Elected officials held public meetings to hear citizen concerns, which were corroborated through consulting accident reports through the police department and the state wildlife agency for deer population estimates. At this point, Davenport contacted a Conservation Officer with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, who then connected the community with a Wildlife Depredation Biologist. The Biologist then provided information on reducing the problem through responsible management. In retrospect, the community has identified the need for an ongoing community education program involving city police to ensure understanding of the need for deer management and the approach selected.

Phase 2. Decision-making

In Davenport, the Public Safety Committee convened the decision-making process. Residents gave their input at City Council meetings at which deer management options were part of the agenda. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources provided information about the options during this phase of the process. Deer management plans from other communities were also consulted. The long-term goal for the community’s deer management program was identified as: Maintain a healthy herd and reduce the number of deer-vehicle collisions using a two phased approach: 1) a reduction phase where harvest numbers were substantial; and 2) a maintenance phase to keep the herd size at an acceptable level for the foreseeable future. After consulting with wildlife experts and other communities, Davenport’s decision process focused primarily on lethal options, but they also considered a no-action alternative. Ultimately, a managed hunt was selected with special licensing for the management zone.

Phase 3. Implementation

Davenport’s deer management program has been operating since 2007. Deer management implementation was assigned to an existing position in city government. In hindsight, Davenport flagged the selection of a skilled coordinator as a priority for program success. Ensuring that the program coordinator is managing the program as intended is of the utmost importance. The program is incentive-based, where a hunter who harvests three female deer in a season can earn an antlered deer permit for the following season. The program was designed to reduce the herd exponentially to a point where more traditional hunting regulations could be imposed. One of the challenges early on was encouraging and educating local hunters to the opportunity. Through public notices and news articles, the community was ultimately successful in getting the word out. In the early years of the program Davenport was also challenged by establishing the legitimacy of the annual harvest. This challenge was addressed by developing a check-in system ensuring that .animals reportedly harvested within the city were tagged, verified and recorded. The reporting and recording policy has also changed drastically over time. Initially only the deer head was required for verification, which unfortunately led to many road kill does being checked in as legitimate harvests. Secondly, education of the check-in personnel to ensure that proper inspection and recording occurs has curbed the number of hunters trying to skirt the system in order to earn the antlered deer tag. Issuance of hunting permits has also been improved in that verification of hunters’ qualifications has been instituted prior to their participation in the hunt.

As Davenport’s program has matured, the community has encountered challenges with enforcing regulations related to obtaining a specific permit for the urban hunt. The community is now considering allowing the use of a single state-wide deer tag. This change would afford hunters the opportunity to harvest a single antlered deer each year. Davenport is also considering a restructuring of the check-in process to allow hunters a more discreet way to check in their harvests. The recent development of an interactive GIS map overlay, which displays the only public properties which are eligible to be hunted, makes information about available areas much easier for citizens to locate. In addition, it has allowed the city to reduce the number of questions regarding parcels of property. By developing this map, Davenport was able to leave properties which would normally qualify for the hunt based on acreage and ownership, but deemed as off limits, off the map. This change may make the oversight and enforcement aspects much easier.

Phase 4. Evaluation and Adaptation Phase

Although Davenport did not develop a formal assessment plan, the community conducts annual reviews and surveys to find ways to improve the program. A baseline assessment was conducted including estimates of deer through aerial surveys. Unfortunately, shrinking municipal budgets have reduced Davenport’s ability to conduct aerial surveys going forward. In addition, prior to starting the program, police reports were collected on the number of deer- related vehicle accidents in the community. These data show that collisions have been reduced from 72 in 2007 to 35-45 annually in recent years. Davenport has also instituted a survey of hunter satisfaction, distributed by e-mail at the end of the season. Results suggest that the incentive program works, but has caused frustration for some hunters. The program is now in its maintenance phase, and has adopted new harvest practices regarding antlered animals. These new practices may help to ease that frustration and keep hunters in the program.

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; Increase in deer-vehicle accidents, or a particular collision with human injuries

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)

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

Contacted the State Conservation Officer assigned to Scott County who then directed the request to the Wildlife Depredation Biologist.

What was the facilitator’s role?

Provide a natural resources minded prospective.

Special challenges

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

Developed an ongoing communtiy education program. The program would have involved city police to ensure that the public would understand the need and the process. We still have a number of complaints each year as citizens and local law enforcement do not know that the hunt is authorized.

Phase 2: Decision-Making

Structure of the decision-making process

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

2005

What parties initiated or convened the process?

Public Safety Commitee

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?

City Council Meetings where the agenda was posted and citizens were invited to attend

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?:

Iowa DNR.

What was the facilitator’s role?

Provide a natural resources minded prospective.

What background or training did the facilitator have?

Multiple years of experience in wildlife management throughout the midwest.

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, 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 feasibility, To determine acceptability of action alternatives

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

State registry.

Program Goals

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

Maintain a healthy herd and reduce the number of deer vehicle collisions in a two phased approach. First, was a reduction phase where harvest numbers were substantial. The second phase was a maintenance approch to keep the herd size at an acceptable level for the forseeable future.

Selecting Management Actions

Special Challenges

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

Challenge:

Encouraging and educating local hunters to the opportunity.

Community response to challenge:

Public notices and news articles.

Challenge:

Legimitacy of the harvest.

Community response to challenge:

Develop a check in system to ensure that animals reportedly harvested within the city were tagged, verified and recorded.

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

Honestly, the selection of the program coordinator was a significant issue. There are many indicators that the initial coordinator was not managing the program in a way that it was intended.

Phase 3: Implementation

Key characteristics of the management program

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

Yes, We have been operating the program for 9 years now and conduct annual reviews, and surveys to find ways we can improve the program.

Did your community create any new positions to assist in implementing the deer management program?

Paid position(s), 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?

Donation is allowed but it is not a part of a program managed by the city. The state has a program.

Special challenges

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

Challenge:

Enforcing the regulations in regard to the need to obtain a specific permit for the urban hunt.

Community response to challenge:

Ongoing adjustments have us considering allowing the use of a single state wide deer tag. This change would afford hunters the opportunity to harvest of a single antlered deer each year. This resolution will help to satisfy our program participants and further reduce the number of deer vehicle collisions.

Challenge:

Recording management zone harvests.

Community response to challenge:

Restructuring the check in process to allow hunters a more discret way to check in their harvests.

Challenge:

Limited law enforcement presence.

Community response to challenge:

Working closely with the county officers to reduce the amount of time that they spend working cases that are unmerited.

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

The incentive program works but has caused some hunters great frustration. The adaptation of slightly different harvest practices regarding antlered animals after transition into the maintenance phase of the program will help ease that frustration and keep hunter in the program.

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 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

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

Deer hunt coordinator in conjunction with the Iowa DNR officials. Honestly, this program has received limited active regulation, other than conservation officer enforcement, until the 2015-2016 season.

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:

The reporting and recording policy has changed drastically. Initially only the deer head was required for verification which led to many road kill deer being checked in as legitimate harvests. Secondly, education of the check in personnel to ensure that proper inspection and recording occured.

Why was the change made?:

Too many people trying to skirt the system in order to earn the antlered deer tag. Inflated harvest number in the early stages of the program.

Change:

Change to licensing issuance.

Why was the change made?:

Several of our licensing locations were not verifying that purchasers had actually fullfilled their qualification obligation before participating in the hunt.

Change:

The development of an interactive GIS map overlay which displays the only the public properties which are eligible to be hunted.

Why was the change made?:

This adaptation will make information about available areas musch easier for citizens to locate. In addition, it has allowed us to reduce the number of questions regarding parcels of property. By developing this map, I was able to leave properties which would normally qualify for the hunt based on acreage and ownership, but deemed as off limits, off the map. This change may make the oversight and enforcement aspects much easier.

Special challenges at this phase

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

Challenge:

The city police department underwent a electronic filing system change. This change only allows us to gather deer vehicle collision information bac to 2007. The first season that the hunt was in place was 2005-2006 so we do not have baseline collision numbers to help measure our success.

Community response to the challenge:

We must work within our means. Fortunately, we can see back to 2007 where 72 collisions occured. Since 2007, the collision numbers have leveled off and are generally in the 35 to 45 collisions per year range.

Challenge:

Shrinking municipal budgets have made the likelyhood of aerial survey very unlikely.

Community response to the challenge:

Assuming that our harvest numbers are a valid indicator, we will continue to operate the program for the foreseeable future. Additionally, I developed a survey which was emailed to hunters at the end of the season. I followed up the survey with a letter to each participant who provided an address. The hope is that when the hunters see the survey results in a analyzed form, more hunters will participate in the survey and provide some valuable information which would be otherwise unavailable.

Challenge:

It is believed that there may be a significant amout of poaching of animals taking place by hunters who are either not following the regulations or are hunting within the management zone without proper permit.

Community response to the challenge:

This issue is difficult. I spend a significant portion of the season speaking to property owners and walking public property to check properties for hunting activity. When something which seems to be illegal is discovered, I conduct an invetigation to collect as much information as possible and then pass that information along to the state conservation officer.

Assessment of program success overall

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

There seems to have been not set goal for the program. This is both good and bad. The good is that the program has the potential for an unlimited life cycle. The bad is that it is very hard to measure succes other than a comparison of harvest to collision data.

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

Yes. Analysis shows that the number of deer vehicle collisions has reduced and leveled off as the program has entered the herd maintenance stage. More work needs to be done which may include the allowance of a single antlered deer to be taken by each hunter. Statistics show that the overwhelming majority of deer vehicle collisions invlove an antlered animal.