Community Example: Greenwich, Connecticut

Key facts

Community Size: Medium city (10,000 to 50,000 people)

Region: Northeast

Plan established in 2004

Link(s): Greenwich White-Tailed Deer Management, 2004 Report on Managing Greenwich's Deer Herd, White-Tailed Deer Fact Sheets #1 & #2: Issues and Town Strategy, Management for Landowners

Greenwich (approximate population 63,000) is the southernmost municipality in Connecticut and is adjacent to Westchester, County New York and Long Island Sound. Fields and old pastures have grown up into mature forest and thickets or been replaced by homes with yards and gardens, all providing plenty of shelter and food for deer. In much of the township deer are inaccessible to hunters and hunting pressure is minimal. It became clear to the Greenwich Conservation Commission that without sufficient checks on the deer population, incidence of Lyme disease, loss of forest biodiversity, and deer-vehicle collisions would continue to increase.

Following the recommendations of a 2004 deer management plan, Greenwich, Connecticut hired White Buffalo, a wildlife management consulting service, to conduct a deer cull on 4 city properties, resulting in the removal of 90 deer in three nights. The Greenwich Conservation Commission continues to monitor the deer population and additional controlled hunts may be conducted in the near future.

Location

Phase 1. Problem Definition

In the summer of 2000, Greenwich’s First Selectman requested that the Conservation Commission examine the deer population and develop a deer management strategy. It had become increasingly evident that there was an over-abundance of deer in the town and that a number of problems had resulted from this burgeoning deer population, including deer-vehicle collisions, natural area impacts and increased incidence of Lyme disease. Moreover, certain branches of the town’s government, numerous neighborhood groups, and others across the town had reached a consensus that Greenwich clearly needed to control and stabilize its deer population.

The Conservation Commission recognized the need first to understand the population dynamics of white-tailed deer and then to review the various known management strategies. The Commission also considered it critical to learn about residents’ attitudes regarding the choice of management strategies. The Commission developed the following specific goals: 1) review and evaluate existing resource information on deer management; 2) establish an ongoing education and outreach program; 3) establish baseline data on the deer herd; and 4) develop and implement a long-range deer management plan.

In the course of discussions about deer management the town encountered opposition from animal rights advocates, who rejected hunting as a management tool. Greenwich addressed this opposition by focusing on the science of population biology and deer management.

Phase 2. Decision-making

Between 2002 and 2004, the Greenwich Conservation Commission worked in cooperation with the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) and The University of Connecticut (UCONN) to investigate the status of Greenwich’s deer population and to evaluate potential management strategies. They concluded that deer densities in Greenwich exceeded the ecological and cultural carrying capacity. CT DEEP wildlife biologist Howard Kilpatrick recommended reducing “Greenwich’s deer population to an environmentally and socially acceptable size estimated at less than 26 deer per square mile within three to five years.” Greenwich officials set 26 deer per square mile as the town’s deer population goal. To reach that goal, the Conservation Commission considered a range of lethal and nonlethal alternatives. These options were presented to the First Selectman, and lethal control was ultimately recommended. This recommendation was challenged by animal rights activists, who rejected hunting on philosophical grounds. However, the town decided to heed the scientific evidence about the efficacy of hunting in comparison with non-lethal tactics such as surgical sterilization. The town called a public meeting and held a vote, with a majority in favor of reducing the deer population using hunting. Greenwich did not have enough resident hunters to conduct a hunt independently, so professional service was required.

Phase 3. Implementation

Two hurdles had to be surmounted before the culling program could begin. First, the town had to make some changes to local ordinances to allow for legal hunting within city limits. Once the ordinances had been adjusted, Greenwich had to gain approval for funds to hire a private company to conduct the hunting. After funds were approved through the town’s budget process, Greenwich hired White Buffalo, a wildlife management consulting service, to conduct a deer cull.

The cull was implemented on four town properties: the Babcock Preserve, Griffith E. Harris Golf Course, Pomerance property, and the Montgomery Pinetum. During the operation, 90 deer were removed from the 4 properties in 3 nights.

Animal rights advocates continued to oppose the management program. Greenwich kept its focus on science-based deer management and continued communicating the importance of achieving outcomes related to the environment, public safety and human health. Messaging around reducing the impacts to landscaping and gardens did not resonate as strongly with Greenwich residents in making the case for deer management.

Phase 4. Evaluation and Adaptation Phase

Greenwich is considering additional controlled hunts and culls in the future. The 2004 Management Plan states the intent of the Conservation Committee to continue to monitor the deer population and assess the effect of the deer management strategies through the use of studies measuring key indicators such as: 1) recovery of vegetation/biodiversity; 2) decline in local cases of Lyme disease; and 3) reduction in deer-related traffic accidents.

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; Concern about Lyme or other tick-borne disease; 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 cases of Lyme or other tick-borne disease; 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?

Conservation Commission

Special challenges

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

Challenge:

Most deer on private properties

Community Response:

Worked with neighborhood groups

Challenge:

Not enough hunters

Community Response:

Held permitted deer cull with sharp shooter

Challenge:

Animal rightest

Community Response:

Focus on science

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?

Formal (elected or appointed) community leaders (e.g., town supervisor, town council)

What was the mechanism by which action alternative were selected in the community?

Consensus-based deliberation, Executive decision by elected or appointed community leaders

Briefly summarize the decision-making process.

Conservation Commission conducted research and presented alternatives to First Selectman. This went to a public meeting for a vote to fund a deer cull.

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 surveyed residents about decision alternatives

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, 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: