Cornell UniversityThe Nature Conservancy

Community Example: Mumford Cove Homeowners' Association, Connecticut

Key facts
  • Community Size: Small city or village (less than 10,000 people)
  • Region: Northeast
    • Plan established in 1999

    Mumford Cove, Connecticut is a small residential community (fewer than 150 households) located on a small peninsula surrounded on three sides by Long Island Sound. Residents contacted the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), expressing concerns about Lyme disease and deer damage to shrubs and gardens in 1991. Growing concerns led the community to endorse a DEP study of deer movement beginning in 1995, and a deer reproduction control experiment by the Humane Society of the US (HSUS) beginning in 1997. By 1999 residents’ concerns about Lyme disease had become so great that the Mumford Cove Homeowners’ Association (MCHA) formed a tick committee, which recommended that MCHA implement lethal deer management. A vote by MCHA members resulted in decisions to eliminate the community’s no-hunting ordinance, initiate a deer hunt, and terminate the deer reproduction experiment. A wildlife management committee was formed to design and coordinate the highly controlled annual hunt, which has occurred since 2000. Monitoring has documented that the deer population has been substantially reduced, plant damage is less severe, tick abundance has declined, and residents perceive a lower incidence of Lyme disease.

    Location

    Phase 1. Problem Definition

    Individual residents began contacting the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in 1991, expressing concerns about Lyme disease and deer damage to shrubs and gardens. DEP suggested ways residents might reduce deer damage, but took no further action. Mumford Cove is bordered on its north and south by state-owned open space areas where deer hunting was prohibited, and local ordinance prohibited hunting within Mumford Cove. DEP eventually proposed a study to assess deer population and movements between Mumford Cove and bordering lands. The MCHA accepted this offer and a deer movement study was initiated in 1995 and continued until 2001.

    Several community residents felt strongly that lethal deer management was urgently needed to reduce the negative impacts of deer. In 1996, an individual from outside the community heard about the proposal for lethal deer management and came to Mumford Cove with a proposal for research by HSUS and the University of New Hampshire to conduct a study of deer reproduction control. The MCHA was receptive to the proposal, but it would not pay for the study.  The person who originally contacted the HSUS offered to fund the study, and it was initiated in 1997, concurrent with the deer movement study.

    Phase 2. Decision-making

    In 1999, Mumford Cove formed a tick committee to address the issue of ticks in the area.  All but one member of the committee agreed that the homeowners’ association needed to implement some form of lethal deer management.  Committee members could not come to consensus on management actions, so they held an association member vote to make their decision. The association members voted on the following action alternatives: (1) eliminate the no-hunting ordinance, (2) implement a hunt in cooperation with the DEP, (3) continue the reproductive-control study, or (4) begin a new tick control study.  The vote resulted in decisions to eliminate the Mumford Cove no-hunting ordinance, initiate a hunt, and terminate the reproductive-control study. The Mumford Cove Wildlife Management Committee (MCWMC) was formed to coordinate the details of the hunt.

    Phase 3. Implementation

    The MCWMC and the DEP held a series of meetings between July and November of 1999 to design a hunt for the area. They decided on hunter density, the days of the hunt, the weapons to be used, and other issues related to implementing a hunt. Hunters are carefully screened, must pass a shooting proficiency test, and are assigned to specific locations. The first hunt occurred in 2000. In 2001, the hunt area was expanded to include the adjacent community of Groton Long Point.

    Phase 4. Evaluation and Adaptation Phase

    DEP sponsored surveys of Mumford Cove residents before after the 2001 deer hunt, as well as deer population and movement research between 1995 and 2001. The agency later sponsored research to assess tick abundance. Research documented a substantial reduction in deer numbers and density (from about 80 per square mile to 10 per square mile). Surveys indicated that residents saw deer less frequently and perceived less plant damage and a lower incidence of Lyme disease after several years of deer population reduction. Survey results also reveal strong community support for the hunting program.

    Community Survey
    Survey completed by a wildlife professional
    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; Concern about Lyme or other tick-borne disease

    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; No

    Gathering Information
    How did community members and/or leaders gather information to understand the deer-related problems?
    Information about concerns, interests, attitudes of local residents

    Unsolicited complaints to local leaders; Public meetings

    Information about local deer population size or deer density

    Sponsored biological research, Consulted state wildlife agency to provide estimates

    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)

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

    1999

    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?

    Community vote

    In what ways did community members have opportunity(s) to provide input during the decision-making process?

    Leaders or deer committee created a community vote process to select 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.

    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

    How were different types of information used?
    Content experts from wildlife agency:

    To determine feasibility

    Content experts from other organizations:

    To determine feasibility

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

    Residents contacted CT Dept of Environmental Protection (DEP) staff for help with deer management problems in 1991. They builts working relationships with DEP and the Humane Society of the US (HSUS) and those relationships helped them find the expertise needed to understand the impacts of deer and possible management alternatives.

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

    Prior to discussion about action alternatives

    Selecting Management Actions
    What actions were considered to meet your community’s goals related to managing deer-related impacts?
    Lethal Actions to manage deer population size

    Managed private lands hunt (e.g., vetted group or individuals matched to willing private landowners), Deer cull over bait with trained and vetted volunteer hunters

    Nonlethal actions to manage deer population size

    Deer contraception program

    Actions to influence or modify behavior of community residents

    Information & education on preventing tick-borne illnesses

    What actions were selected to meet your community’s goals related to managing deer-related impacts?
    Lethal Actions to manage deer population size

    Managed private lands hunt (e.g., vetted group or individuals matched to willing private landowners)

    Key characteristics of the management program
    Have any actions already been taken with respect to your deer management program?

    Yes, controlled bow hunting has occured since 2000

    Did your community create any new positions to assist in implementing the deer management program?

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

    Challenge: 
    Concerns about humane treatment of deer and safety of community residents
    Community response to challenge: 
    Designed a tightly controlled program that included a hunter screening process, shooting proficiency requirements, assignment of hunter to specific locations, close collaboration with individual homeowners.

    The community's approach to outcome assessment
    What kinds of baseline information did your community collect before implementing the deer management program?
    Deer population or deer density

    Deer pellet count studies, 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

    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

    Deer pellet count studies

    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

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

    Deer Committee

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

    The community views the program as a success. Deer population was reduced greatly. Residents report lower incidence of Lyme disease. Plant regeneration has improved. Complaints from residents have declined.