Community Example: Elm Grove, Wisconsin

Key facts

Featured sharpshooting originally but has increasingly incorporated netting due to changes in state regulations

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

Region: Midwest

Plan established in 2000

Link(s): Elm Grove: Background on Urban Wildlife Management, Elm Grove Ad Hoc Committee on Wildlife Management, Elm Grove Wildlife Management Plan

The Village of Elm Grove, Wisconsin (population of approximately 6,000) initiated its deer management program in 2000, when the village board approved the recommendation of its Ad Hoc Committee on Wildlife Management and implemented a sharpshooter and netting program. Elm Grove’s deer management program is coordinated in partnership with the neighboring city of Brookfield and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Location

Phase 1. Problem Definition

The need for deer management in Elm Grove, Wisconsin was introduced by local residents. After noticing an increase in deer damage to gardens and plantings around homes, as well an increase in cases of Lyme and other tick-borne diseases, local residents organized public meetings to raise the issues to community leaders. An Ad Hoc Committee on Wildlife Management was then formed by the village board. The Committee was charged with studying deer management issues and making recommendations to the village board on how to address deer-related community concerns. The Committee consulted with local police to gather information about deer-related vehicle collisions and researched county health statistics for Lyme disease cases. They also worked with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to obtain information on local deer population size and density. A leader within the Committee facilitated discussions.

Phase 2. Decision-making

The Ad Hoc Committee on Deer Management began a decision-making process in 2000. The leader of the committee facilitated discussions that led to identification of deer management goals and alternatives. Options for achieving their management goals, ranged from managed hunting and deer sterilization, to education and outreach efforts. Local residents were encouraged to provide input during this process through unsolicited comments, formal public comment periods, public comment meetings, and a survey to identify residents’ opinions on action alternatives. The committee consulted experts from the Wisconsin DNR, stakeholder groups, research reports and papers, and deer management plans of other communities to obtain information related to cost, feasibility, and acceptability of action alternatives. After a consensus-based deliberation, committee leaders ultimately selected deer culling with contracted sharpshooters and a deer trap-and-kill program to meet the community’s deer management goals.

Phase 3. Implementation

Elm Grove’s deer program has been funded continuously since 2000 (16 years at the time of this writing) and both deer culling and deer trap-and-kill efforts have taken place to reach management goals. The program has been conducted entirely with existing staff—no new positions have been created. The committee continues to work with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources on the issue. Venison from the deer culls is donated to a local food pantry.

Phase 4. Evaluation and Adaptation Phase

The community did not develop an assessment plan for measuring progress toward deer management goals. They have done extensive work to understand their deer management problem. If an assessment were created, aerial surveys about deer populations, and GIS mapping and police reports about deer-vehicle collisions would be used as indicators for measuring the outcomes deer management actions. Municipal agencies would be responsible for carrying out the assessment plan and monitoring the overall success of the program.

A major challenge in implementing deer culling was securing permission from neighbors for sharpshooting within the Elm Grove community due to residents’ concerns about public safety. In locations where residents did not agree to sharpshooting, Elm Grove opted to use netting operations for deer removal. Netting can occur with permission from one landowner (it does not require permission from surrounding homeowners).

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

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; Concern about Lyme or other tick-borne disease

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 cases of Lyme or other tick-borne disease

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

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

2000

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 facilitated by the chair or leader of the local deer committee

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 cost, To determine feasibility, To determine acceptability of action alternatives

Content experts from other organizations:

To determine cost, To determine feasibility, To determine acceptability of action alternatives

Community opinion presented by stakeholder groups:

To determine feasibility, 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

Program Goals

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

For how many years has the program been funded?

16.00

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

Was venison donation a component of the implementation process?

Donated to local food pantry

Special challenges

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

Challenge:

Securing permission from neighbors for sharpshooting

Community response to challenge:

Use netting operations. Less humane, but does not require permission form surrounding homeowners.

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

GIS mapping of deer-related vehicle accidents in the community, Collecting police reports on number of deer-related vehicle accidents in community, Ask municipal agencies to monitor and report road kills in the 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, 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

Aerial surveys to estimate deer population or deer density

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

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

Municipal agencies