Community Example: Meridian Township, Michigan

Key facts

The Township purchases large numbers of antlerless permits from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources each year and distributes them to hunters for a $15 fee
Annual operating budget includes deer management activities

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

Region: Midwest

Plan established in 2011

Link(s): Meridian Township Managed Deer Harvest

Meridian Township (population of approximately 40,000) has conducted its deer management program annually—during Michigan’s regular archery season—since 2011. Professional sharpshooters and qualified, experienced volunteer bow hunters participate in the harvest, and venison is donated to a local food pantry.

Location

Phase 1. Problem Definition

Discussions about the need for local deer management were initiated by local residents, community leaders, and the Park Commission. Noticing an increase in deer damage to gardens and landscapes, deer-related vehicle accidents, cases of Lyme and other tick-borne diseases, and deer damage to forests and native plants, the community reviewed complaints to leaders and conducted public meetings and surveys to learn the concerns and attitudes of local residents. The local police department was consulted about deer-vehicle accident records and local naturalists and scientists were consulted to ask questions about deer-related forest damage. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) provided estimates of the local deer herd population and density. A process facilitator from Michigan DNR was brought in to develop and implement a deer management program.

Phase 2. Decision-making

The Township Board began its first decision-making process in 2011. The Board directed staff to create a deer management plan and be facilitators. Staff did not have any previous background or training on deer or wildlife management. Staff consulted various local sources such as wildlife agencies, stakeholder groups, research reports and papers, other deer management plans, and university faculty to determine the cost, feasibility, and acceptability of action alternatives for management plans in the Township. The community was also involved in the process through unsolicited comments on action alternatives, formal public comment periods, public comment meetings, and resident surveys.

Meridian Township’s long-term management goal was to reduce the number of deer to a healthy population while treating the animals humanely and maintaining safety of the public, safety of hunters, and ecology of parks and land preserves. Community leaders selected lethal actions to manage deer population size including regulations to create and encourage hunting opportunity in the community, managed private and public land hunts, and deer culls with vetted volunteers. They also included some non-lethal management actions in the plan, such as managing roadside vegetation, encouraging use of fencing, deer repellents and scare devices, and information and education to change driving behaviors in areas with high deer-related accidents.

Phase 3. Implementation

Meridian went on to implement all of the selected lethal and non-lethal management actions described in their management plan. The program has been funded for 5 years with annual budget of $20,000. No new positions have been created for the management plan. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources continues to support the Meridian Township’s deer management efforts

Phase 4. Evaluation and Adaptation Phase

The community has not developed an assessment plan for measuring progress toward goals. If an assessment plan were to be created, the community would use deer pellet count studies as an indicator for deer population and density. They would also use parks department, university, or citizen science efforts and partnerships to to monitor deer damage in natural areas and conduct plant damage studies. Using GIS mapping and police report records, assessment would also include measuring the frequency of deer-vehicle collisions before and after management was in place.

At initial implementation, the community only allowed hunters to harvest antlerless deer on Township property. Later, they revised the plan to allow hunters to take bucks as long as they took a doe beforehand. This change ensured an ample supply of venison to the local food bank and kept the hunters active and interested for a longer period of time since many were interested in taking antlered deer. Overall, this change increased the number of deer harvested.

A major challenge was the public’s mixed feelings about allowing hunting in parks and preserves within the Township’s borders. In response, educational efforts and press releases were used to keep residents well-informed about the safety and effectiveness of the program. Another challenge included the need to keep parks open during hunting season. As a result, sights were posted around park areas assuring visitors that hunters were in tree stands shooting down, and that the program is archery only. The community also had difficulty deciding what to do with killed deer. The Michigan Sportsmen Against Hunger stepped in to get the processing for venison paid for and the meat distributed to local food banks.

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);Park Commission

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; 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 deer damage to gardens and plantings around homes; Increase in deer-vehicle accidents, or a particular collision with human injuries; 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?

Discussions were led by a person brought in specifically to serve the local deer committee as a process facilitator (led by an outside facilitator)

What was the facilitator’s role?

To develop and implement a deer management program

Special challenges

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

Challenge:

Allowing hunting in our parks and preserves, public feelings about hunting in the suburbs

Community Response:

education, press releases. it was well-accepted because it was happening so frequently throughout the township

Challenge:

keeping the parks open during hunting season

Community Response:

posting signs, assuring walkers that the hunters were in tree stands, shooting down, and that our program is ARCHERY ONLY

Challenge:

what to do with the dead deer

Community Response:

Michigan Sportsmen Against Hunger stepped in to get the processing paid for and the deer distributed to local food banks

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

hire sharp shooters for the entire time (while still utilizing our volunteer hunters)

Phase 2: Decision-Making

Structure of the decision-making process

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

2011

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

Briefly summarize the decision-making process.

After years of complaints and an increase in car accidents, the Township Board directed staff to develop a deer management plan

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 led by an outside person brought in to serve the local deer committee as a process facilitator.

Where did the community find a process facilitator when defining their process?:

We used staff (I am a landscape architect)

What was the facilitator’s role?

To develop and implement a deer management program

What background or training did the facilitator have?

NONE! I just asked a lot of questions to other groups such as our state wildlife biologists, other outdoor groups such as Safari Club Unlimited, Boone and Crockett, and MI Sportsmen Against Hunger

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:

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 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?

Because we live in the capital and near a large university (Michigan State University), many of the experts actually live within the township and there is never a shortage of opinions around here

Program Goals

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

to reduce the number of deer to a healthy population, to treat the animals humaely, safety of the public and hunters, and to protect our ecologically fragile parks and land preserves

Selecting Management Actions

Special Challenges

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

no - it was quite a bold step for us to initiate the program. although it doesn't seem to be making an impact, we are trying and our residents appreciate that. our resident volunteer hunters love having outdoor recreation in their own backyard.

Phase 3: Implementation

Key characteristics of the management program

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

yes - all of them

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

20000.00

For how many years has the program been funded?

5.00

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

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

Deer pellet count studies

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

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?

Deer population or deer density

Deer pellet count studies

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

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?

Elected leader(s)

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:

when we began we only allowed hunters to harvest antlerless deer on township property. later we changed that and allowed them to take a buck, as long as they took a doe first. this ensured an ample supply to the local foodbank and kept the hunters "in the field" for a longer period of time because they were waiting for the big buck to come along.

Why was the change made?:

to increase the number of deer harvested