Community Example: Shaker Heights, Ohio

Key facts

Citizens raised concerns about deer-related damage to property and landscaping as well as an increase in Lyme disease
Shaker Heights has an online deer damage form for citizen reporting
Deer management actions are pending and will be completed in cooperation with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources

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

Region: Midwest

Plan established in 2015

Link(s): Report of the Deer Task Force(link is external), Shaker Heights Deer Population and Property Damage(link is external)

Initiated in 2015, Shaker Heights' deer management process is relatively new. The city employed a community survey(link is external) to help define the problem. They also have a live "deer damage" form(link is external) on their website. Shaker Heights' Deer Management Task Force published its report(link is external) in December, 2015 recommending deer management actions including public information and education, continued data collection, and a deer reduction strategy (culling) in cooperation with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.

Location

Leaflet(link is external) | Tiles © Esri(link is external)

Phase 1. Problem Definition

In July 2013, Mayor Earl Leiken got together with other East side suburban mayors to form the Eastside Wildlife Management Partnership(link is external), which hired Davis Aviation in December 2014 to perform an aerial survey of the deer problem in the cities - revealing a density of 10 deer per square mile in Shaker Heights. The Mayor appointed Shaker's Deer Task Force in May 2015, who then created a resident survey to collect information about deer sightings, damage, Lyme disease, etc.

Phase 2. Decision-making

Shaker's Deer Task Force began by hearing presentations from Mr. Rick Tyler, Cleveland Metroparks Retired Natural Resources Manager; and Nick Mikash, City of Mentor Natural Resource Specialist, both of whom have experience managing deer culling programs. The Task Force also put out a resident survey that included a section on the resident's preferred/suggested course of action for the City. We did not use an outside facilitator as a guide. Alternatives explored by the Task Force include habitat modification, unpalatable landscape plantings, repellents, reproductive agents, relocation, trap and euthanasia, and sharpshooting. The Task Force decided that the best course of action was a sharpshooting strategy with simultaneous efforts to continue data collection and publicize all available information.

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-related vehicle accidents; Concern about Lyme or other tick-borne disease; Other

If you chose Other, please list the other main drivers.:

aggression towards pets and humans, especially children

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?

2015

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?

Majority rule within an appointed deer committee

Briefly summarize the decision-making process.

The Deer Task Force gathered data, listened to experts, and decided on a strategy, which they will present to City Council in Winter 2017 for final decision.

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 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 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, 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:

Was not used

Community opinion presented by stakeholder groups:

Was not used

Research reports or papers:

Was not used

Deer management plans from other communities:

To determine feasibility, To determine acceptability of action alternatives

Other source (identified above):

Was not used

Program Goals

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

No specific or numerical goal was identified for long-term deer reduction strategy

Selecting Management Actions

Special Challenges

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

Challenge:

Many citizens did not want the City to shoot the dear for varying reasons

Community response to challenge:

Residents will make their peace with the fact that this is the best possible option

Phase 3: Implementation

Key characteristics of the management program

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

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

Deer-vehicle collisions

Collecting police reports on number of deer-related vehicle accidents in community

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

Resident surveys to assess residents’ perceived level of problems with deer and how tolerable those problems are