Community Example: Kansas City, Missouri

Key facts

Archery hunting on public and private lands (5 acres or larger)

Community Size: Very large city (over 500,000 people)

Region: Midwest

Plan established in 2003

Link(s): Kansas City Parks Managed Hunts

Since 2005, Kansas City, Missouri has managed urban deer through archery hunting. The urban deer program consists of a city code/ordinance that creates the opportunity for archery deer hunting on private land, 5 acres or larger. The Missouri Department of Conservation administers and monitors the private land enrollment program. Examples of land ownership that may become enrolled for archery hunting include: cemeteries, churches, amusement parks, industrial, commercial, residential, home associations, golf courses, airports, city parks and county parks. Local Parks and Recreation Departments have also played a vital role in managing urban deer. Most notably Jackson County Parks and Kansas City Parks have led the way in controlling deer numbers within the urban parks.There has been a total of 4,959 deer harvested utilizing archery methods from 2005 - 2015 in the Kansas City, Missouri urban deer program.

Location

Phase 1. Problem Definition

The first documented public complaint concerning nuisance deer in Kansas City, Missouri was in 1979. This human/wildlife conflict was related to residential, ornamental plant damage. Although urban deer issues were minimal throughout the 1980's, the frequency of nuisance deer concerns increased vastly in the late 1990's. As urban sprawl increased, the frequency of deer/vehicle collisions began to rise. Residential plant damage continued to be a problem as well, resulting from the exponential increase in deer populations. It was at this time that the Missouri Department of Conservation Urban Wildlife Biologists conducted helicopter surveys throughout selected portions of the urban area--mostly in urban parks. These surveys found in some cases deer populations exceeding 100 deer per square mile.

Phase 2. Decision-making

This process was based on the current severity of the urban deer problem and the future consequences if neglected. The research and survey information gathered by the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) subsequently initiated a partnership between MDC and city officials. MDC staff worked with community officials, including city council representatives, in order to create a city ordinance that would allow urban archery hunting on private land. MDC concluded that it would oversee the urban deer program and landowners could enroll their lands into program. A set minimum of 5 acres was used as a baseline for property enrollment.

Phase 3. Implementation

The urban deer program was initiated in 2004. As expected, it began with minimal enrollment simply because the message hadn't had enough time to be conveyed to the public. Over the years, the urban deer program grew from an initial enrollment of 6 properties in 2004 to 173 in 2016. The success of this program has been measured, indicating fewer public complaints about nuisance deer and a significant reduction in deer-vehicle collisions.

Phase 4. Evaluation and Adaptation Phase

In 2015 the Missouri Department of Conservation noticed a declining trend in urban deer harvest since 2013. It is still unknown what caused urban deer harvest to drop by 30% to 40% in Kansas City, Missouri (KCMO) over the last 3 years. However, the two factors that have contributed are annual deer hunter harvest and hemorrhagic disease outbreaks in various years. Currently, deer populations are at a sustainable, healthy level in most areas of the KCMO. Since the commencement of the KCMO urban deer program other municipal leaders have followed suit and now have their own urban archery hunting programs that fit their city's niche. There is no "silver bullet" for urban deer management and it does not universally fit across North America. It is however, site specific / municipality specific and though human tolerances may vary, the end goal for all is to make the deer herd biologically healthier and the human population safer.

Community Survey

Survey completed by a state agency

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

Gathering Information

Phase 2: Decision-Making

Structure of the decision-making process

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

2003

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?

Executive decision by elected or appointed community leaders

Information Gathering

What information sources were consulted by the community group that made decisions about deer management action alternatives?

Content experts from wildlife agency

Selecting Management Actions

Phase 3: Implementation

Key characteristics of the management program

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

State wildlife management agency

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, Spotlight counts for an index to deer abundance

Damage to forest regeneration

Parks department or citizen science efforts to monitor deer damage to natural areas in community parks

Crop Damage

Monitor Department of Natural Resources or Cooperative Extension reports of crop damage

Damage to gardens and landscape plantings

Monitor Department of Natural Resources or Cooperative Extension reports of residential damage

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

If an assessment plan was created, what indicators are used for measuring outcomes of management actions?