Community Example: Village of Trumansburg, New York

Key facts

wide range of deer-human interaction issues reported by community
nuisance control method

Community Size: Small city or village (less than 10,000 people)

Region: Northeast

Plan established in 2014

Trumansburg is an affluent community located on the shore of Cayuga Lake about 12 miles north of Ithaca in Tompkins County, New York. The village comprises mainly residential land, with the exception of Taughannock Falls State Park. The community uses Deer Depredation Permits issued by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, and conducts evening archery hunts at baited stations. Trumansburg estimates a 45% reduction in its deer population since 2014.

Location

Phase 1. Problem Definition

Over many years, deer managers and local government officials have been receiving complaints about deer related problems from residents in the village of Trumansburg. Residents’ complaints included: disease, plant damage, car accidents, and money spent repairing fences.

Phase 2. Decision-making

In response to the complaints and re-occurring issues with deer-human interactions, theTrumansburg Board of Trustees, in conjunction with Cornell’s Integrated Deer Research and Management Program and the Village’s Nuisance Wildlife Committee, developed the Trumansburg Deer Management Program. Twice a year since fall 2014, the Village Board hosts a town meeting to discuss deer management strategies and issues. About 75-100 local people gather for these meetings, a testament to the importance of this local wildlife management issue. Two committees were created to aid in the creation of and implementation of a deer management program: the nuisance wildlife committee and the deer oversight committee.The nuisance committee gathers information and creates program recommendations to the Village Board. The deer oversight committee is in charge of day-to-day program implementation, listening to public comments and ensuring participants are fulfilling their shooting plans.

Phase 3. Implementation

The Village Board recommended the use of New York Department of Environmental Conservation approved Deer Depredation Permits, also known as nuisance permits, to reduce deer population numbers. This approach is not considered regular hunting. The management strategy uses bow hunters at baited locations in the evening (until 11pm). The majority of the venison has been donated to the Food Bank of the Southern Tier, followed by local churches, village landowners, and hunter consumption.

Phase 4. Evaluation and Adaptation Phase

Using the nuisance control method, the village resulted in a 45 percent reduction in deer population from September 2014-January 2015. The village deer management oversight committee reviews activities and success in regular intervals (weekly) and determines if activities should continue or be terminated based on activities and number of deer harvested.

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 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?

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

Phase 2: Decision-Making

Structure of the decision-making process

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

2014

What parties initiated or convened the process?

A deer committee created by formal leaders

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

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 other organizations, Research reports or papers, Deer management plans from other communities

Selecting Management Actions

Phase 3: Implementation

Key characteristics of the management program

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

Yes

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

Faculty experts from local university

Was venison donation a component of the implementation process?

Food Bank of the Southern Tier, Churches, etc.

Phase 4: Evaluation and Adaptation

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

Remote camera studies to estimate deer population or deer density

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

Damage to forest regeneration

Partner with universities to conduct plant damage studies

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:

Allowed for more daytime hunting

Why was the change made?:

Participants had their own wildlife cameras to track deer and it seemed that there were more deer during the daytime, whereas previously we had allowed for evening hunting.