Community Example: Fremont, Michigan

Key facts

The city's police department implements deer management activities
The program is in maintenance mode after several years of successful manangement for herd reduction

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

Region: Midwest

Plan established in 2007

Fremont, Michigan (approximate population of 4,000) began its deer management program in 2007, overseen by a citizen Deer Committee, in response to citizen concerns about damage to landscaping and property, deer-vehicle collisions and degraded forest ecosystems. Over the years, police sharpshooters have harvested hundreds of deer within defined areas, deer-related damage reports have declined significantly, and Fremont is now in maintenance mode, having achieved its deer management objectives.

Location

Phase 1. Problem Definition

Local residents of Fremont, Michigan initiated the conversation about the need for a local deer management program after noticing an increase in deer damage to gardens and plantings around homes, an increase in deer-vehicle collisions, and degraded forest ecosystems. In response, the community created a citizen Deer Committee. To learn more about the issue, the committee consulted local police for information on reports of deer-vehicle collisions. They learned about local residents’ interests and concerns through unsolicited complaints, public meetings, and surveys. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources provided insight on the local herd population size and density, and local naturalists and scientists provided data on forest damage in the area.

Phase 2. Decision-making

The deer committee completed its first decision making phase in 2007. Fremont’s long-term deer management goal was to reduce deer numbers within the city and re-evaluate those numbers on an annual basis. They considered a variety of actions to reach this goal, including managed hunts and deer culls, use of deer repellents, and educational efforts to reduce deer-damage to plantings. Community members had opportunities to provide input on decision alternatives through surveys and public meetings. The deer committee determined the feasibility, cost, and acceptability of action alternatives after consulting wildlife and agricultural experts, stakeholder groups, and research reports and papers. The committee officially decided, via majority rule, that the best solution was to use police sharpshooters to complete a deer cull in defined community areas. To address concerns about damage to plantings, the community decided to develop forums, newsletters, and open meetings to educate citizens on how to prevent or reduce deer browsing.

Phase 3. Implementation

Over a nine-year period, the Fremont Deer Management Program has removed more than 345 deer using municipal police as sharpshooters, and implemented use of deer repellents in municipal areas of the community. Deer crossing signs have also been posted on streets with high deer-vehicle collision rates. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources continues to support management efforts. No new staff positions were created to administer the management program.

Phase 4. Evaluation and Adaptation Phase

The Fremont Deer Committee’s assessment plan uses reports from the Department of Natural Resources or Cooperative Extension to monitor damage to gardens and landscapes throughout the management program. Police reports on deer-related vehicle collisions are used to assess the frequency of collisions. Public perceptions about deer are assessed using resident surveys. Fremont created a system that allows residents to report complaints, and allows the city to monitor change in number and type of complaints submitted annually. Assessment findings suggest that the number of deer has been reduced to a tolerable level within the community. Deer culling efforts are now in a maintenance-only mode (relatively few deer need to be removed each year to maintain deer numbers at the desired level.) With low citizen complaints and a lowered overall local deer population, community representatives believe they have been successful in achieving their management goals.

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; 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; No

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

Special challenges

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

Challenge:

Best sollution for reducing the deer population

Community Response:

Police Sharpshooters in defined areas

Challenge:

How to educate citizens to reduce deer browsing

Community Response:

Community Forums, Newsletters and open meetings

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

Nothing

Phase 2: Decision-Making

Structure of the decision-making process

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

2007

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?

Majority rule within an appointed deer committee

Briefly summarize the decision-making process.

deer committee comprised of city leaders and citizens came to a consensus

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 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

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 feasibility, To determine acceptability of action alternatives

Research reports or papers:

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

Deer management plans from other communities:

Was not used

Other source (identified above):

Was not used

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

We reached out to local fish and game experts as well as Agricultural experts who gladly participated

Program Goals

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

to safely reduce the deer numbers in the City and to re-evaluate those numbers on an annual basis

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

Prior to discussion about action alternatives

Selecting Management Actions

Special Challenges

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

Challenge:

What was an acceptable deer population that we wanted to achieve

Community response to challenge:

Large show of support and many community members giving input

Challenge:

How we would reduce the deer numbers

Community response to challenge:

Decided police Sharphooters was the most humane and cost effective

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

Nothing

Phase 3: Implementation

Key characteristics of the management program

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

Yes, we taken 348 deer in a nine year period. We have tested deer repellents and utilized them to the best of our ability. We have also posted deer crossing signs on streets with high car/deer collision rates.

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

0.00

For how many years has the program been funded?

9.00

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

Special challenges

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

Nothing

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

Spotlight counts for an index to deer abundance

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 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?

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

Resident surveys to assess residents’ perceived level of problems with deer and how tolerable those problems are

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

Deer Committee

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:

We have greatly reduced the number of deer taken, we are now just sustaining the number we feel is reasonable

Why was the change made?:

Deer task force feels the number of deer is reasonable and only maintenance of effort is needed

Assessment of program success overall

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

Yes, Citizen complaints are low and deer damage is lower