Community Example: Upper Dublin Township, Pennsylvania

Key facts

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

Region: Northeast

Plan established in 2009

Link(s): Upper Dublin Township Deer Management Program, Deer Management Program in Upper Dublin May be Altered

Upper Dublin Township (population of approximately 26,000) is densely populated with deer resulting in property and environmental damage and injury to the public. Since 2009, the community has implemented an all-volunteer archery (i.e. compound bow or crossbow) hunting program, and in 2016 is working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on a comprehensive assessment of its deer population and integrated deer management options—possibly including sharpshooting.

Location

Phase 1. Problem Definition

Prior to beginning its deer management program, during a five-year period, the Upper Dublin Township Police Department responded to approximately 500 calls for service regarding deer-related incidents. The Township’s Board of Commissioners tasked members of the police department, overseen by a police supervisor with a bachelor’s of science degree in wildlife and fisheries science from the Pennsylvania State University, with defining the problem. The police department reviewed available data and reports. One of the difficulties encountered at this stage was that although it appeared as if there was substantial number of deer within Upper Dublin Township, an accurate population size could not be ascertained; in addition, this same problem was encountered when an attempt was made to ascertain the deer population in surrounding municipalities. It was also a challenge to ensure that all residents understood the scope and severity of the problem, which made public education an essential part of both defining, and communicating, the deer problem.

Phase 2. Decision-making

Decision-making in Upper Dublin Township began in 2009, when the Board of Commissioners voted to implement a pilot program. The police department consulted numerous resources during this time and established a long-term goal prior to discussion about action alternatives. The goal was to limit deer/human interaction in an effort to reduce the number deer-car collisions, damage to private property, and local cases of Lyme disease. Although the police department considered a number of options for reducing the deer herd, determining which of these alternatives was realistic for Upper Dublin Township’s specific circumstance was a challenge. In particular, the community placed priority on assessing the safety of the possible hunting options. Upper Dublin Township initially selected archery hunting as the best alternative to control its deer herd. In retrospect, managers of Upper Dublin’s deer management program think that having a member of the Pennsylvania Game Commission or other expert(s) within the area of deer management present at community meetings during decision-making would have been helpful.

Phase 3. Implementation

The township designated six properties (i.e. township-owned open space properties) as open to hunting between late September and late January. Licensed archery hunters registered with the township and enrolled in a township-sponsored training program. Participants are required to hunt from tree stands in all six areas within the hunting program. They are also required to harvest at least one doe prior to taking bucks. Hunters are encouraged, but not required, to donate venison to a local foodbank via Pennsylvania’s Hunters Sharing the Harvest program.

Phase 4. Evaluation and Adaptation Phase

Initially, Upper Dublin Township did not develop a formal assessment plan for measuring progress toward its deer management goals; however, the community was of the opinion that every culled deer is a “success” since it results in one less deer within the population. Prior to implementing its program, a number of baseline indicators of the deer population were used, such as informal spotlight counts for an index of deer abundance, reports of residential damage and police reports of deer-vehicle collisions. Since the deer management program was established, its implementation has been adjusted to restrict hunting times. This step was taken to help community members feel safer in the open spaces where hunting takes place.

The archery hunting program is administered by the police department and is a volunteer-operated program that results in a minimal cost to the community (approximately $500 per year or less). Dozens of hunters have participated, and in 2015-2016, 27 deer were harvested, 22 of them doe. Despite this success, there is a perception among residents and township officials that the deer population is still too large and to an extent archery hunting may be considered unsafe. As a result, Upper Dublin recently elected to engage the U.S. Department of Agriculture to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the deer population and make further adjustments to its deer management plan based on those results. The cost of the assessment is approximately $8,000. Depending on the findings, Upper Dublin’s deer management program may expand to include sharpshooting, at an approximate a cost of $200 to $300 per deer culled.

Determining success of the Upper Dublin Township deer management program will take years, and the program is still relatively new. In addition, township officials recognize that the effectiveness of the program hinges on the willingness of surrounding municipalities to cooperate in managing the deer population on nearby public lands, so that deer on those lands are not “exported” to Upper Dublin Township.

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?

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; 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; 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?

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:

Deer Population in Upper Dublin Township

Community Response:

Review of Available Data and Visual Survey

Challenge:

Deer Population in Surrounding Municipalities

Community Response:

Unable to Ascertain

Challenge:

Ensure People Understand the Scope of the Problem

Community Response:

Public Education

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

Attempted to Garner Support of Surrounding Municipalities

Phase 2: Decision-Making

Structure of the decision-making process

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

2009

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.

Township Board of Commissioners

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

Township Board of Commissioners Meetings and Public Safety Meetings

Did your community use a facilitator to help make decisions about deer management goals and actions?

Discussions about deer management goals and alternatives were facilitated by the chair or leader of the local deer committee

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 cost, To determine feasibility

Content experts from other organizations:

To determine cost, To determine feasibility, To determine acceptability of action alternatives

Community opinion presented by stakeholder groups:

Was not used

Research reports or papers:

To determine cost, To determine feasibility, To determine acceptability of action alternatives

Deer management plans from other communities:

To determine cost, To determine feasibility, To determine acceptability of action alternatives

Other source (identified above):

To determine cost, To determine feasibility, To determine acceptability of action alternatives

Program Goals

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

Limit deer/human interaction

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

Prior to discussion about action alternatives

Selecting Management Actions

Special Challenges

Describe the two or three most important challenges the community faced during the decision-making phase.

Challenge:

Realistic Options to Reduce the Herd of Deer

Community response to challenge:

Education

Challenge:

Safety of Hunting

Community response to challenge:

Education

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

Have a member of the Pennsylvania Game Commission present at community meetings

Phase 3: Implementation

Key characteristics of the management program

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

500.00

Was venison donation a component of the implementation process?

Hunters Share the Harvest - At the Discretion of the Hunters

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

Spotlight counts for an index to deer abundance

Damage to gardens and landscape plantings

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

Deer-vehicle collisions

Monitor deer-related vehicle accidents in areas where reflectors are installed on roadside, Ask municipal agencies to monitor and report road kills in the community

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

Damage to gardens and landscape plantings

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

Deer-vehicle collisions

Monitor deer-related vehicle accidents in areas where reflectors are installed on roadside, Ask municipal agencies to monitor and report road kills in the community

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

Municipal agencies

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:

Time Restrictions

Why was the change made?:

Allow Community Members to "Feel More Safe" with the Parks and Open Space where the Hunting was Taking Place

Special challenges at this phase

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

Challenge:

Difficult to Ascertain a "Moving" Deer Population

Assessment of program success overall

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

Success will take years to determine, in addition, without surrounding municipalities taking responsibility for the deer population on public lands, the deer will continue to thrive in those areas and move to additional food sources