Community Example: Granville, Ohio

Key facts

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

Region: Midwest

Plan established in 2007

Link(s): Definition of Deer Related Problems in the Village of Granville, Granville Ohio Deer Management

The Village of Granville is a small community (approximate population 5,600) in the greater metropolitan area of Columbus, Ohio’s capital city. It is home to Denison University. Complaints about deer-related problems were voiced at Village Council meetings beginning in 1997 and increased each year as the deer population grew. Damage to landscaping became widespread and residents’ demands led to the creation of a deer management program. Using input from a series of public meetings, consultations with the state wildlife agency, and other information, a deer management plan was developed with multiple action recommendations. The Village went on to authorize managed hunting on both public and private lands in 2007. Granville has administered a controlled bow hunting program since 2007 and residents report a reduction in deer sightings and deer-related problems.

Location

Phase 1. Problem Definition

Granville's Village Council began receiving complaints about deer-related problems in 1997. A tipping point occurred as the deer population grew and damage to fruit trees, vegetable gardens, and ornamental plants became widespread. A group of residents raised awareness of the issue and pushed for action. The Village Council held a public meeting and authorized staff to assemble a deer management plan that would define the problem(s). An extensive effort was made to gather information from various sources to better define the problem. Staff consulted with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources – Division of Wildlife for population estimates, the Granville Police Department for accident records, and local naturalists to estimate forest damage. They collected statistics to assess the incidence of Lyme disease and secured aerial surveys to estimate the deer population size. Staff consulted wildlife agencies, universities, hunters, and neighboring communities to identify action alternatives and their potential feasibility in Granville. Staff used this statistical and scientific data to characterize the size of the local deer herd, describe the nature and extent of deer-related problems, and recommend a range of actions to address deer-related problems.

Phase 2. Decision-making

In 2007, the Village Council adopted a 10-year deer management plan. They considered a range of lethal and non-lethal approaches to deer management before deciding on a program involving two main components: public education and a managed bow hunting program on public and private lands.

To arrive at this decision, the Village Council took public input on the draft plan through public meetings and during official comment periods. Unsolicited comments from the public were also considered.

The main challenge Granville faced during the decision-making process was gaining public support for a managed bow hunt within the Village. To address this challenge, the Village took steps to inform residents about the hunter selection process and how meat from harvested deer would be provided to a food pantry. Many residents desired action to control the deer population and the decision was generally supported by the community.

Phase 3. Implementation

To implement their deer hunting strategy, the Village opened a select number of public lands to managed bowhunting. A number of private landowners have also enrolled in Granville’s bowhunting program. Deer hunters must follow all applicable hunting laws and use their own deer permits to harvest deer. The Village signed a contract with a local meat processor to allow hunters to donate harvested deer, which is then processed into one- pound packages and donated to a local food pantry. Wildlife managers from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources facilitate implementation of the hunting program.

In addition, Granville has taken steps to prohibit local feeding of deer, installed fencing to prevent deer from entering sensitive natural areas within local parks, and has applied deer repellents to high value plantings. The Village has taken steps to educate residents about fencing and other actions to prevent deer damage to landscape plantings and gardens.

One of the major concerns that the residents expressed was safety of children and pets in areas where bow hunting would occur. To address these concerns, the Village requires hunters to complete a background check, pass a shooting proficiency test, and hunt only in the specific hunting locations that they are assigned. The program operates with a relatively low number of hunters who are proficient, responsible, and matched to specific landowners.

Phase 4. Evaluation and Adaptation Phase

Granville established a baseline to evaluate the deer population using a few different kinds of data. They conducted aerial surveys to estimate the size of deer herds. With the assistance of local county parks and Denison University estimations of the size of the deer population were compiled. The Village referred to police records for an indication of the number of deer collisions with vehicles. Village data were also supplemented with local health records of deer related diseases.

Although no formal plan to measure the progress of the plan is in place, the local residents report seeing fewer deer and are satisfied with the current plan.

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; Concern about Lyme or other tick-borne disease; Deer damage to forests or other native plants; Concern about 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?

Increase in deer damage to gardens and plantings around homes; size of deer herds routinely seen in backyards

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:

The few people who were against any sort of program or action

Community Response:

Majority of community was in support of action after 10 years of talking about the issue

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

not waited 10 years

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?

lead by Village staff

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.

Council held a public meeting to discuss issue and authorized staff to develop a deer management plan using bow hunting as culling method

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

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, Content experts from university, 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

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?

internet searches

Program Goals

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

The only goal was to put a program in place and begin culling program for at least 10 years.

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:

Public support for culling deer

Community response to challenge:

Education of how hunters would be selected, paying for meat processing to give to food pantry, education programs offered by Village

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

not waited 10 years

Phase 3: Implementation

Key characteristics of the management program

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

Program has been in place for 9 years

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

1500.00

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

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?

Contracted with 1 local processor to allow hunters to donate a deer. Meat is processed into 1 pound packages and given to food pantry.

Special challenges

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

Challenge:

Concerns about hunters shooting children and animals

Community response to challenge:

Screening process for hunters and keeping the program low key

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?

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

Damage to forest regeneration

Parks department or citizen science efforts to monitor deer damage to natural areas in community parks, Partner with universities to conduct plant damage studies

Deer-vehicle collisions

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

Rate of tick-borne disease cases in the community

Review annual reports from county health department with number of reported cases of tick-borne illnesses

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

Damage to forest regeneration

Partner with universities to conduct plant damage studies

Deer-vehicle collisions

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

Rate of tick-borne disease cases in the community

Review annual reports from county health department with number of reported cases of tick-borne illnesses

Residents’ perceptions

Create a system that allows residents to report problems, and monitor change in number and type of complaints submitted to the system

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

Village staff member

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:

none

Special challenges at this phase

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

Challenge:

none

Assessment of program success overall

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

N/A

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

Yes, residents see a reduction of deer herds