Community Example: Duluth, Minnesota

Key facts

Duluth's all-volunteer archery hunt takes place on public and private land throughout the city
The Arrowhead Bowhunters Alliance manages the hunt at no cost to the city

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

Region: Midwest

Plan established in 2005

Duluth, Minnesota is a city of approximately 86,000 residents at the western tip of Lake Superior. The city stretches along 40 miles of shoreline and encompasses nearly 68 square miles. With 11,000 acres of green space, Duluth boasts a system of city parks and natural areas that constitute approximately 10% of its total land base. Duluth's archery program has been managed by the Arrowhead Bowhunters Alliance (ABA) since its inception in 2005. The ABA maintains rigorous standards for its hunting program, which takes place on both public and private lands. All participants are required to take a Bowhunters Education Course, a shooting proficiency test, and attend an orientation annually. A $25 hunting fee funds the administration of the program, which is considered highly successful by residents and city government.

Location

Phase 1. Problem Definition

The impetus for Duluth’s Community Based Deer Management Program was in the form of local citizens putting pressure on the City Council. With a growing number of constituent complaints about deer-car collisions, damage caused to yards and gardens, and impacts to local natural areas, an Advisory Committee comprising primarily citizens was formed. Meetings of this group were open to the public when setting up the program. One of the most influential guiding documents for this group was the St. Louis County, Missouri comparison of the cost and effectiveness of different approaches to reducing deer populations.

Phase 2. Decision-making

When the Advisory Committee presented their recommendations to the City Council, more than 100 citizens attended the City Council session. They dressed in plain clothing, rather than camouflage, although a number of hunters were in attendance. The vast majority of these residents spoke in favor of a deer management program that would include hunting. Northern Minnesota has a strong hunting culture, so a program that embraces hunting as a tool for deer population reduction was not as controversial as it can be in other locations. The negative comments received at that time were primarily focused on the need for “more science,” but the Advisory Board was very comfortable with the science garnered during the process of defining the problem and developing potential solution and that the case for more data was not compelling.

Phase 3. Implementation

The Arrowhead Bowhunters Alliance (ABA) organizes the annual hunt and provides bowhunter education each year. Part of ABA's mission is to relieve the financial and management burden that would be otherwise assumed by local governments in implementing a safe and effective deer population reduction program.

Phase 4. Evaluation and Adaptation Phase

The ABA prepares and presents an annual report with all their data at an open City Council meeting at the close of the hunting season. The reports are data rich and summarize information about number of hunters, number of deer harvested (bucks, does, and totals), etc. These numbers are also supplied to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Less clear is the degree to which direct impacts to drivers, homeowners, and vegetation are being measured. There is a sense that the volume of complaints has diminished significantly since the program was initiated, but the magnitude of that change does not seem to be directly measured. In addition, the sense is that the city’s many natural areas have made a steady recovery over the last ten years, but again, this recovery has not been quantified.

Community Survey

Survey completed by a wildlife professional

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

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

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

Gathering Information

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

A local deer committee charged with defining the problem held discussions, but the committee did not have an outside facilitator

Phase 2: Decision-Making

Structure of the decision-making process

What parties initiated or convened the process?

A deer committee created by formal leaders

Briefly summarize the decision-making process.

At a City Council meeting the decision was made to pursue a city-wide deer management program. More than 100 "plainclothed" citizens attended the meeting to express support. An advisory committee was formed and this group carried the initiative forward.

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, 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 acceptability of action alternatives

Community opinion presented by stakeholder groups:

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?

Long-term collaboration with state wildlife agency

Program Goals

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

To relieve deer overpopulation within a community, at little or no cost to the community

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

During the process of selecting action alternatives

Selecting Management Actions

Special Challenges

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

Challenge:

Early insistence that more "scientific proof" was needed to support selection of the use of lethal vs. non-lethal means

Community response to challenge:

Cited the St. Louis County, Missouri community-based deer management example and stuck with it.

Phase 3: Implementation

Key characteristics of the management program

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

Hunter organization

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?

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

Deer Committee, Arrowhead Bowhunters Alliance

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:

In 2015, the Duluth area was officially designated a a "metro deer management area," where the firearms season also would be extended a week, under the plan.

Why was the change made?:

Despite a change in 2005 that allowed higher harvests in this permit area (182), deer populations remain high and the community needed some additional relief. By extending the hunting season and allowing for an even more intensive hunt, the desired outcome is that more deer will be harvested.