The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-09-23 Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 03-290 RESOLUTION TO ISSUE DANCING PERMIT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, that a Dancing Permit as provided by law is hereby granted to the following named person and at the .following described locations upon his filing an application, having endorsed thereon the certificates of the proper city officials as to having complied with all regulations and ordinances, and having a valid beer, liquor, or wine license/permit, to wit: Weeks-Van Eck Post #3949 Veterans Of Foreign Wars Of The U.S. 609 Highway 6 East It was moved by Champion and seconded by 0'Donnel 1 that the Resolution as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X __ Champion X __ Kanner X __ Lehman X __ O'Donnell X __ Pfab X Vanderhoef X __ Wilburn Passed and approved this 23rd da,/of September , 20 03 . j~r, oved by CIT~' CLERK City Attorney's Office clerk\res\danceprm.doc Prepared by: Liz Osbome, CD Division, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319)356-5246 RESOLUTION NO. 03-291 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST TO A SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND HILLS BANK AND TRUST, IOWA CITY, IOWA FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23 MONTROSE AVENUE, IOWA CITY, IOWA. WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City is the owner and holder of two Mortgages in the total amount of $13,860, executed by the owner of the property on March 2, 2001, and recorded on March 14, 2001, in Book 3043, Page 277 through Page 281, and on January 17, 2002, recorded on March 11, 2002, in Book 3247, Page 56 through Page 60 in the Johnson County Recorder's Office covering the following described real estate: Lot 19 in West Bel Air Addition to Iowa City, iowa, according to the plat thereof WHEREAS, Hills Bank and Trust is refinancing a mortgage in the amount of $90,300 to the owner of 23 Montrose Avenue and to secure the loan by a mortgage covering the real estate described above; and WHEREAS, it is necessary that the mortgages held by the City be subordinated to the loan of Hills Bank and Trust secured by the proposed mortgage in order to induce Hills Bank and Trust to make such a loan; and WHEREAS, Hills Bank and Trust has requested that the City execute the attached subordination agreement thereby making the City's liens subordinate to the lien of said mortgage with Hills Bank and Trust; and WHEREAS, there is sufficient value in the above-described real estate to secure said lien as a second lien, which is the City's original position. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA that the Mayor is authorized to execute and the City Clerk to attest the subordination agreement between the City of Iowa City and Hills Bank and Trust, iowa C~a. ,,~ ~, . ..~ /,~ MAYOR Approved by CITY'CLERK City Attorney's Office It was moved by Champ~ion and seconded by 0' Donne] ] the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Champion X Kanner X Lehman X O'Donnell X Pfab X Vanderhoef X Wilbum SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Iowa City, herein the City, and Hills Bank and Trust of Iowa City, Iowa herein the Financial Institution. WHEREAS, the City is the owner and holder of certain Mortqaqes which at this time is in the amount of $13,860, and where executed by Judy Gates (herein the Owner), dated March 2, 2002, recorded March 14, 2001, in Book 3043, Page 277 through Page 2812, and dated January 17, 2002, recorded March 11, 2002, in Book 3247, Page 56 through Page 60 Johnson County Recerder's Office, covering the following described real property: Lot 19 in West Bel Air Addition to Iowa City, Iowa, according to the plat thereof WHEREAS, the Financial Institution proposes to loan the sum of $ 9~), 300. O0 on a promissory note to be executed by the Financial Institution and the Owner, securing a mortgage covering the real property described above; and WHEREAS, to induce the Financial Institution to make such loan, it is necessary that the Mortqaqes held by the City be subordinated to the lien of the mortgage proposed to be made by the Financial Institution. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of the parties hereto, the parties agree as follows: 1. Subordination. The City hereby covenants and agrees with the Financial Institution that the above noted Mortqaqes held by the City is and shall continue to be subject and subordinate to the lien of the mortgage about to be made by the Financial Institution. 2. Consideration. The City acknowledges receipt from the Financial Institution of One Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($150.00) and other good and valuable consideration for its act of subordination herein. 3. Senior Mortgage. The mortgage in favor of the Financial Institution is hereby acknowledged as a lien superior to the Mortcla~les of the City. 4. Binding Effect. This agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the respective heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto. Dated this 16thdayof September ,2003 CITY OF IOWA CITY FINANCIAL INSTITUTION .~3. m D. F~ner-Vice Presiden~ At,est: W~ll~am A.' Stewar~-Second VP / Cl' ¥'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENI S1 ATE OF IOWA ) ) SS: JC HNSON COUNTY ) Or this ;~_~ __ day of ~.,.,~,,.~.,-, ,20 Z)~ , before me, the undersigned, a Notary P~blic in and for the State of towa, personally appeared ~,-,.,...2r a3. %-.~krn~ and M; [rian K. Karr, to me personally known, and, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the M~ ¥or and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of iowa City, Iowa; that the seal affixed to the roi ~going instrument is the corporate seal of the corporation, and that the instrument was signed and se ~led on behalf of the corporation, by authority of its City Coundl, as contained in (Drd~n=ncc) (R .~solution) No. o.~ -~ ~/ passed (the Resolution adopted) by the City Council, under Roll Call Nc ,-----.____. of the City Council on the ~ day of ~, 20b~ , and th~ ~t ~-~',n,~.% [~. ~ k,,-~=n_ an'~' ~ K. Kart ackhowledged the execution of the in., trument to be their voluntary act and deed and the voluntary act and deed of the corporation, by it vo untarily executed. I.,'~,1 SONDRAE FORT I ~'~II, ~ Commission Number 159791 ! ~ ~.~L"I My Commission ~ I -- |'l~;]m| ,3- ?-~& .I Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this 16th day of Se~ , A.D. 20 03 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared Tim D. ~in~r and William A_ ~-¢,w~- , to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the vi~,~ pr¢,~i~,~n~- and 2nd Vice President , respectively, of said corporation executing the within and foregoing instrument to which this is attached, that said instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of said corporation by authority q~.,~wJ.t~N._ Board of Directors; and that the said TJa~ Do Finer and William A. ---a~q0ch officers acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said corporation, by it and by them voluntarily executed. -- Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa I~%1 _ma ~ m..~ · K~m M. Dunham ! Prepared by: Liz Osborne, CD Division, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319)356-5246 RESOLUTION NO. 03-292 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST TO THE RELEASE OF LIENS REGARDING FOUR MORTGAGES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1027 EAST MARKET STREET, IOWA CITY, IOWA. WHEREAS, on September 3, 1997, the owners of 1027 East Market Street executed a Mortgage for a total amount of $10,000; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 1998, the owners executed two more Mortgages in the amount of $17,658; and WHEREAS, on June 9, 1999, the owners executed another Mortgage in the amount of $378; and WHEREAS, the loans were paid off; and WHEREAS, it is the City of Iowa City's responsibility to release this lien. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA that the Mayor is authorized to sign and the City Clerk to attest the attached Release of Lien for recordation, whereby the City does release the property located 1027 East Market Street, Iowa City, Iowa from a Mortgage recorded September 12, 1997, Book 2340, Page 272 through Page 276; and from two Mortgages recorded April 28, 1998, Book 2473, Page 59 through Page 63, and Book 2473, Page 64 through Page 68; and from another Mortgage recorded June 24, 1999, Book 2764, Page 105 through Page 109 of the Johnson County Recorder's Office. Passed and approved this 23rd day of~Septembe~ , ,20 03 Approved by CITY-CLERK City Attorney's Office It was moved by Champion and seconded by 0' Donne] ] the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Champion x Kanner X Lehman X O'Donnell X Pfab X Vanderhoef X Wilbum Prepared by: Liz Osbome, CD Division, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319)356-5246 RELEASE OF LIENS The City of Iowa City does hereby release the property at 1027 East Market Street, Iowa City, Iowa, and legally described as follows: The west twenty (20) feet of Lot two (2), and the east twenty feet of Lot three (3), all in Block two (2), J.W. Clark's Addition to Iowa City, Iowa, according to the plat thereof. from an obligation of the owners, Sharon B. and Mark S. Kline, to the City of Iowa City in the total amount of $28,036 represented by a Mortgage recorded September 12, 1997, Book 2340, Page 272 through Page 276; and from two Mortgages recorded April 28, 1998, Book 2473, Page 59 through Page 63, and Book 2473, Page 64 through Page 68; and from another Mortgage recorded June 24, 1999, Book 2764, Page 105 through Page 109 of the Johnson County Recorder's Office. This obligation has been satisfied and the property is hereby released from any liens or clouds upon title to the above property by reason of said prior recorded . Approved by CIT~-CLERK City Attorney's Office STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this o~ day of ~ez>Jz,,,.~[,~,,- , A.D. 20 O3 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said C~)unty, in said State, personally appeared Ernest W. Lehman and Madan K. Karr, to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of said municipal corporation executing the within and foregoing instrument; that the seal affixed thereto is the seal of said corporation, and that the instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of the corporation by authority of its City Council, as contained in Resolution No. o:~ - ,~,1., adopted by the City Council on the ~._~ day c.~kJ0 o~ and that the said Ernest W. Lehman and Madan K. Karr as such officers wledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said corporation, by it and by them voluntarily executed. F SONDRAEFORT I Commission Number 1597911 My Co. remission Expires | ~ ~ ?-oB I Notary Public in and for Johnson County, Iowa pprehab/1027 market.d~c Prepared by: Liz Osborne, PCD, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5246 RESOLUTION NO. 03-293 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST TO A SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND IOWA STATE BANK AND TRUST CO., IOWA CITY, IOWA FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOT 17 LONGFELLOW MANOR, IOWA CITY, IOWA, WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City is the owner and holder of a Mortgage in the total amount of $177,500, executed by the owner of the property on March 14, 2003, and recorded on March 18, 2003, in Book 3502, Page 174 through Page 191 in the Johnson County Recorder's Office covedng the following described real estate: Lot 17, Longfellow Manor, Iowa City, Iowa, according to the plat thereof recorded in Book 35, Page 274, plat records of Johnson County, Iowa WHEREAS, Iowa State Bank and Trust Co. is offering a construction loan in the amount of $200,000 to the owner of Lot 17 Longfellow Manor and to secure the loan by a mortgage covering the real estate described above; and WHEREAS, it is necessary that the mortgage held by the City be subordinated to the loan of Iowa State Bank and Trust Co. secured by the proposed mortgage in order to induce Iowa State Bank and Trust Co. to make such a loan; and WHEREAS, Iowa State Bank and Trust Co. has requested that the City execute the attached subordination agreement thereby making the City's lien subordinate to the lien of said mortgage with Iowa State Bank and Trust Co.; and WHEREAS, there is sufficient value in the above-described real estate to secure said lien as a second lien, which is the City's original position. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA that the Mayor is authorized to execute and the City Clerk to attest the subordination agreement between the City of Iowa City and Iowa State Bank and Trust Co., Iowa City, Iowa. Passed and approved this 23rd day of ,20. 03 Approved by City Attorney's Office ppdrehab/res/subord-171ngflmnr,doc Resolution No. 03-293 Page, 2 It was moved by Champ'ion and seconded by 0'Donnel'l the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call thero were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Champion X Kanner X Lehman X O'Donnell X Pfab X Vanderhoef X . Wilbum SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Iowa City, herein the City, and Iowa State Bank and Trust Co. of Iowa City, Iowa herein the Financial Institution. WHEREAS, the City is the owner and holder of certain Mortgage which at this time is in the amount of $177,500, and where executed by Greater Iowa City Housinq Fellowship (GICHF) (herein the Owner), dated March '14, 2003, recorded March 18, 2003, in Book 3502, Page 174 through Page 191, Johnson County Recorder's Office, covering the following described real property: Lot 17, Longfellow Manor, Iowa City, Iowa, according to the plat thereof recorded in Book 35, Page 274, plat records of Johnson County, Iowa. WHEREAS, the Financial Institution proposes to loan the sum of $~ on a promissory note to be executed by the Financial Institution and the Owner, securing a mortgage covering the real property described above; and WHEREAS, to induce the Financial Institution to make such loan, it is necessary that the Mortqaqe held by the City be subordinated to the lien of the mortgage proposed to be made by the Financial Institution. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of the parties hereto, the parties agree as follows: 1. Subordination. The City hereby covenants and agrees with the Financial Institution that the above noted Mortqaqe held by the City is and shall continue to be subject and subordinate to the lien of the mortgage about to be made by the Financial Institution. 2, Consideration. The City acknowledges receipt from the Financial Institution of One Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($150.00) and other good and valuable consideration for its act of subordination herein, 3. Senior Mortgage. The mortgage in favor of the Financial Institution is hereby acknowledged as a lien superior to the Mort,qa.qe of the City. 4. Binding Effect. This agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the respective heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto. Dated this 23 day of g~,,n~-.mhPr. ,20 03 . CITY OF IOWA CITY FINANCIAL INS/TITUTION ./O .4 Mayor / "' ~ '"'? ~'"'"~ ".% s ~ ~ . ,~.SEAL __,.-~ = Attest: ' ¥:.. ...... CITY'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this =3S day of ~e~,,-,-.,~,..-. ,20 ~b3, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of' Iowa, personally appeared ~Ecn.e.~r /..O.L.~ ¢,w~q/t. and Marian K. Karr, to me personally known, and, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City, Iowa; that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of the corporation, and that the instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of the corporation, by authority of its City Council, as contained in (Resolution) No. O~ -- ,~S passed (the Resolution adopted) by the City Council, under Roll Call No. v -_~__.._~_ of the City Council on the ,~,3~ day of ~,~3~tj~t~~, 20 0:~ , and that ~.~,~.~7- /~. L,~,,,,~. and Marian K. Kan- ackr{owledge-c~ the execution of the instrument to be their voluntary-act and deed and the voluntary act and deed of the corporation, by it voluntarily executed. /'~., I SONDRAE FORT ~ ~lComm ssJon Numbe,- 159791 L' I ~, - ,'/~ o/. ~ -- Notary Public in and for the State of iowa STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss COUNTY OF JOHNSON ) On this 12TH day of September, 2003, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the above county and state, personally appeared KENT L. JEHLE AND JERRY L. VANNI, to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT, respectively, of said corporation executing the within and foregoing instrument; that said instrument was signed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors; and that the said KENT L. JEHLE AND JERRY L. VANNI as such officers acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said corporation by it and by them voluntarily executed. ~lotary Publi~ Iowa Department of Transportation 800 Lincoln Way, Ames, IA 50010 515-239-1289 FAX 515-239-1828 KM3 Subject: Street Finance Report SEP 3 0 2803 Dear City Clerk: We acknowledge receiving the city's Street Finance Report for the period from July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003, as required by the Code of Iowa, Chapter 312, Section 14. This report, when combined with those submitted from other cities in Iowa, will provide the Iowa Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration with a documented record of street receipts and expenditures in Iowa cities. Sincerely, Peggi Knight, Director Office of Transportation Data Planning and Programming Division PK:kmc Prepared by: Sara Sproule, Asst. Co~troller, & Ron K~oche, City Engineer, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240, 319-356-5088/5138 RESOLUTION NO. 03-294 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE OFFICIAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR CITY STREETS AND PARKING FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2003. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, that the official Financial Report for City Streets and Parking report for the pedod beginning July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003, be approved. Passed and approved this 23rd day ofj 2003. MAYOR Approved by CI'F",~LERK Eity Attorney's ~ice It was moved by Champ'ion and seconded by 0'Dnnn~]] the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Champion X Kanner X Lehman X O'Donnell X Pfab X Vanderhoef X Wilbum Form 220003 ~llowa Depai Liiient of Transportation SFR-2 07-03 OFFICIAL FINANCIAL REPORT for CITY STREETS City Iowa City County Johnson From July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003 I, Marian Karr , city clerk for the City of Iowa City, IA (please print) do hereby certify that the city council has by resolution approved this report as its official 2003 Fiscal Year Street Finance Report this o~.~'~ day of September 2003 (Month) (year) (signature) Clerk's City E-mail Address Marian-Karr~iowa-city.or9 Clerk's City Mailing Address 410 East Washin~lton Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 (Zip Code) Clerk's Hours 8:00 AM- 5:00 PM Phone 319-356-5041 (Work) (Home) Preparer's Name Sara Sproule & Ron Knoche Phone 319-356-5088, 319-356-5138 Mayor Ernest Lehman Mayor's City Mailing Address 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 (Zip Code) Members of the Council Connie Champion Irvin Pfab Steven Kanner Dee Vanderhoef Michael O'Donnell Ross Wilbum On or before September 30, 2003, this report shall be filed with the Iowa Department of Transportation, Office of Transportation Data, 800 Lincoln Way, Ames, Iowa, 50010 Attn: Karen Magie-Crouse ~o~ 22ooo~ ~r~ Iowa Department of Transportation SFR-2A 07-03 STREET FINANCE REPORT FROM ALL SOURCES FOR STREET PURPOSES Iowa Cit~ COLUMN I COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 COLUMN 4 City Name 3715 ROAD USE OTHER STREET Cay# TAX FUND ROAD MONIES DEBT TOTALS (ROUND FIGURES TO NEAREST DOLLAR) A. 1. Ending Balance on 2002 SFR (Line O) .... 1,787,808 2,854,803 4,642,611 2. Adjustment (Explain on SFR-2B) ......... 0 3. Actual Balance, July 1,2002 ............. 1,787,808 2,854,803 0 4,642,611 ACTUAL RECEIPTS B. 1. Road Use Tax ....................... 5,144,346 5,144,346 2. Property Taxes ....................... XXXXXXXXXX 397,340 3,763,239 4,160,579 3. Special Assessments ................. XXXXXXXXXX 0 4. Misc. (Itemize on Form SFR-2B) ....... ~XXXXXXXXXX 824,923 0 824,923 5. Proceeds From Bonds Sold, Notes, and Loar0(XXXXXXXXX 3,220,865 1,102,574 4,323,439 6. Interest Earned ....................... XXXXXXXXXX 0 C. Total Receipts (Lines B1 thru B6) .......... 5,144,346 4,443,128 4,865,813 14,453,287 D. TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE (Line A3 + Line C) 6,932,154 7,297,931 4,865,813 19,095,898 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES E. Maintenance 1. Roadway Maintenance ................. 1,649,125 40 1,849,165 2. Snow and Ice Removal ................ 281,515 281,515 3. Storm Sewers ........................ 0 4. Traffic Services ...................... 466,947 89,537 556,484 5. Street Cleaning ...................... 95,216 112,353 207,569 F. Construction or Reconstruction 1. Engineering ......................... 117,852 680,662 798,514 2. Right of Way Purchased ............... 812,287 812,287 3. Roadway Construction ................ 693,400 3,447,172 4,140,572 4. Storm Sewers ....................... 994,935 994,935 5. Traffic Services ...................... 89,412 89,412 6. Sidewalks ........................... 794,019 794,019 G Administration ......................... 334,084 170,294 504,378 H. Street Lighting ......................... 356,187 356,187 I. Trees ................................. 38,266 38,266 J. Equipment (Purchased or Repaired) ........ 2,750 2,750 K. Misc. (Itemize on Form SFR-2B) .......... XXXXXXXXXX 196,632 0 196,632 L. Bonds, Notes and Loans 1. Principal Paid ....................... 3,439,232 3,439,232 2. Interest Paid ........................ 1,426,581 1,426,581 M Non-Street Purposes ................... 2(XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX 0 N. Total Expenditures (Lines E thru M) ........ 4,124,754 7,297,931 4,865,813 16,288,498 O. BALANCE, June 30, 2003 (Line D minus Line N 2,807,400 0 0 2,807,400 P. TOTAL FUNDS ACCOUNTED FOR ......... 6,932,154 7,297,931 4,865,813 19,095,898 (Line N + Line O = Line D) For assistance, call 515-239-1004 Send directly to: Iowa Department of Transportation, Office of Transportation Data, 800 Lincoln Way, Ames, Iowa, 50010 Attn: Karen Magie-Crouse Fo~m ~2000~ ~iowa Department of Transportation 07-o3 ~7 SFR-2B STREET FINANCE REPORT City Iowa City Itemization of Misc. Receipts (Line B4 on Form SFR-2A (See instructions.) COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 State Grants 504,393 Parkin~ Revenue - On Street 186,760 Reimbursement of Expenses & Damages 112,424 Sidewalk Repair 21,346 Line B4 Totals 824,923 0 Itemization of Misc. Expenditures (Line K on Form SFR "on street" parking expenses, street maint, bldg., insuran administrative costs for printing, legal fees, bond fees, et (See instructions) COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 Clear Creek Flood Remediation 8,725 Flood Plain Mappin~l 1,147 On Street Parkin~ Expenses 166,760 Line K Totals 196,632 0 Comments: Send directly to: Iowa Department of Transportation, Office of Transportation Data, 800 Lincoln Way, Ames, Iowa, 50010 At[n: Karen Magie-Crouse & ~lowa Department of Transportation Form 220029 07 03 Page1 STREET DEBT SUPPLEMENT FOR STREET FINANCE REPORT Form SFR-2D 3715 Iowa City 2003 CITY Cf MUNICIPALITY YEAR DEBT STATUS-RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES FOR DEBT DURING YEAR DEBT DEBT ~TATE I£ YEAR AMOUNT YEAR PRIN. AMOUNT PRINCIPAL INTEREST PRIN. AMOUN1 TYPE PURPOSE # )BTAINE OBTAINED ~IATURITY OUTSTANDING PAID ON DEBT PAID ON DEBT OUTSTANDIN* FOR STREET5 7/1 OR NEWER 6~30 ' GENRL OBLIG ST IMP 107 1994 7,370,000 2004 571,000 571,000 13,432 0 ~ GENRL OBLIG ST IMP 110 1998 8,500,000 2013 3,817,968 354,117 174,256 3,463,851 ' GENRL OBLIG ST IMP 199 1995 8,500,000 2007 531,574 531,574 13,357 0 ' GENRL OBLIG CONST 301 1999 9,000,000 2018 4,150,400 259,400 186,636 3,891,000 * GENRL OBLIG CONST 302 2001 8,116,450 2018 7,478,079 226,880 388,020 7,251,199 * GENRL OBLIG CONST 304 1997 5,200,000 2007 1,682,910 343,118 78,587 1,339,792 * GENRL OBLIG CONST 305 2001 5,571,750 2016 5,329,500 331,883 233,580 4,997,617 * GENRL OBLIG CONST 306 2002 7,587,370 2012 7,587,370 638,190 319,745 6,949,180 * GENRL OBLIG ,ST IMP 2003 1,131,5~3 2015 1,131,513 183,070 18,968 948,443 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 32,280,314 3,439,232 1,426,581 28,841,082 RETURN THIS COPY WiTH STREET FINANCE REPORT llllowa Department of Transportation Fo~m 220029 07-03 Page 2 STREET DEBT SUPPLEMENT FOR STREET FINANCE REPORT Form SFR-2D CITY # MUNICIPALITY YEAR DEBT STATUS-RECEiPTS AND EXPENDITURES FOR DEBT DURING YEAR DEBT DEBT 3TATE IE YEAR AMOUNT YEAR PRIN~ AMOUNT PRINCIPAL INTEREST PRIN. AMOUNT TYPE PURPOSE # DBTAINED OBTAINED MATURIT~ OUTSTANDING PAID ON DEBT PAID ON DEBT DUTSTANDING FOR STREETS 7/1 OR NEWER 6/30 C £ C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL O/ 0 0 0 STATEMENT OF FINAL COSTS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) Form 517005 J~' Iowa Depai [iiient of Transportation Form SFR-2F 04-03 Road / Street Equipment Inventory City or County: CITY OF IOWA CITY Fiscal Year: 2003 Local Model Price Equipment Type Used on Class I.D.# Year Description Purchase Lease (5) Rental (6) Project this Status (1) (2) (3) (4) Cost / Unit Cost / Unit FY? (7) (8) 203 2000 STERLING / 37,000 GVWR DUMP TRUCK $62,740.0C $1.22 MILE 204 2000 STERLING / 37,000 GVWR DUMP TRUCK $62,740.06 $1.22 MILE 205 2000 STERLING / 37,000 GVWR DUMP TRUCK $62,740.00 $1.22 MILE 207 1989 JOHN DEERE / MQTOR GRADER 670B $74,500.00 $8.99 HOUR -)08 2000 STERLING / 37,000 GVWR DUMP TRUCK $62,740.00 $1.22 MILE -~10 2000 STERLING / 37,000 GVWR DUMP TRUCK $62,740.00 $1.22 MILE -)11 2000 STERLING / 37,000 GVWR DUMP TRUCK $62,740.00 $1.22 MILE 213 1999 12500 GVWR UTILITY/FORD F-350 $26,600.00 $0.62 MILE 222 2003 CHEVY S-10 EXTENDED CAB $14,619.00 $0.41 MILE NEW 222 1995 DHEVY S-10 $12,594.00 $0.41 MILE TRADED 224 1989 VIBRATORY ROLLER/CASE 252 $20,600.00 $69.61 MONTH 227 1999 12500 GVWR UTILITY/FORD F-350 $30,400.00 $0.63 MILE 229 1998 ENDLOADER/CASE621B $98,000.00 $16.08 HOUR 230 2002 ENDLOADER/CASE721C $120,325.0( $16.08 HOUR NEW 230 1998 ENDLQADER/CASE621B $97,950.0[ $16.08 HOUR TRADED 232 1998 SKIDLOADER / NEW HOLLAND LX565 $17,300.0( $7.68 HOUR 233 1996 CRACK SEALER / CRAFTCO EZ100D $16,400.0( $200.09 MONTF 236 2003 LOADER-BACKHOE / JOHN DEERE 310SG $59,125,06 $17.05 HOUR NEW 237 2002 LOADER-BACKHOE/CASE 580 SUPER M $58.960.00 $17.05 HOUR 239 2001 i-TON FLATBED / DODGE RAM 3500 $27,700.00 $0.63 MILE -~42 1993 AIR COMPRESSOR / INGERSOL PI85CWJD $11,200.00 $21.43 HOUR 243 1993 AIR COMPRESSOR / INGERSOL P185CWJD $11,200.00 $21.4.' HOUR 244 1993 AIR COMPRESSOR/INGERSOL P185CWJD $11,200,00 $21.42 HOUR 245 1997 38000 GVWR DUMPTRUCK/GMC C-8500 $50,100.00 $1.22 MILE 248 1997 10000 GVWR UTILITY / CHEVY C-3500 $26,400,00 $0,63 MILE -~52 1995 38000 GVWR FLATBED / GMC C-70 $50,000.0C $1.02 MILE -~53 1995 38000 GVWR FLATBED / GMC C-70 $50,000~00 $1.02 MILE -~59 2002 STREET SWEEPER / PELICAN P $87,977.00 $1,671.00 MONTF 269 2000 STREET SWEEPER / JOHNSTON 3000 $86,929.00 $1,671.00 MONTF 276 1970 STREET FLUSHER TRUCK / CHEVY C-60 $21,321.00 $345.00 MONTF 280 1992 CONCRETE SAW / TARGET PRO 35 $11,000.00 $73.6~ MONTF 288 1993 36000 GVWR DUMP TRUCK / GMC C-70 $39,900.00 $1.22 MILE 290 1993 36000 GWNR DUMP TRUCK / GMC C-70 $39,90000 $1.22 MILE 291 1993 36000 GVWR DUMP TRUCK / GMC C-70 $40,103,00 $1,22 MILE 292 1993 36000 GVWR DUMP TRUCK / GMC C-70 $40,10300 $1.22 MILE 294 2000 MUD JACK/AIRPLACO H J25 $23,067.0C $124.00 MONTH 301 1998 1/2 TON P/U / CHEVY C-1500 $17,200.0( $0.44 MILE 302 1999 12500 GVWR BASKET TRUCK / FORD F-350 $59,296.0( $0.63 MILE 306 2000 CARGO VAN / FORD E-150 $16,400.0C $0.44 MILE AERIAL PLATFORM / INTERNATIONAL- 312 2001 ELLIOTT $101,129.0¢ $2.29 MILE 319 1992 SKIDLOADER / CASE 1845C $25,700.00 $17.67 HOUR 307 1995 SIGN TRUCK / CHEVY C-3500HD $51,500.00 $0.54 MILE 310 1998 10000 GVWR FLAT BED / CHEVY C-3500 $22,900.00 $0.63 MILE 316 1998 STREETPAINTMACHINE/EZ-LINERAL120EZ $31,800.00 $46.2.c HOUR BREAKER / PAVEMENT ATTACHMENT $6.8~ HOUR (to add more lines, insert rows as needed above last row Prepared by: Linda Kopping, Coordinator, Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center, 28 South Linn St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5225 RESOLUTION NO. 03-295 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH ELDER SERVICES, INC. FOR SPACE AT THE SENIOR CENTER TO OPERATE THE ELDERLY NUTRITION PROGRAM. WHEREAS, the City operates the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center to, among other things, provide a place for senior citizens to meet and participate in programs and activities of interest to those citizens; and WHEREAS, Elder Services, Inc. provides citizens of the Iowa City/Johnson County area with nutritional meals; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it in the public interest to enter into a Lease Agreement with Elder Services, Inc. as a reasonable means of providing ongoing nutritional services for senior citizens in the Iowa City/Johnson County area. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: 1. The attached Lease Agreement is approved, and the City Clerk and Mayor are hereby authorized to execute the Lease Agreement on behalf of the City. 2. The City manager, or designee, is hereby designated and authorized to administer this agreement for its duration. Passed and approved this 23r'd day 2003. City Attorney's Off'ice Resolution No 03-295 Page It was moved by Champion and seconded by 0'Donne11 the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Champion X Kanner X Lehman X . O'Donnell X Pfab X Vanderhoef ~ Wilbum LEASE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of the 2.3_cd~ day of ~nt~,h~, 2003, by and between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter ~the City" or ~Lessor") and Elder Services, Inc. (hereinafter ~Lessee"). WHEREAS, the City operates the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center (hereinafter "Senior Center") to, among other things, provide a place for senior citizens to meet and participate in programs and activities of interest to those citizens; and WHEREAS, Lessee provides citizens of the Iowa City/Johnson County area with nutritional meals (hereinafter ~the Program"); and WHEREAS, it is in the mutual interest of the parties that Lessee provide nutritional meals to senior citizens in the Iowa City/Johnson County area. THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: I. LEASED SPACE AND SERVICES A. Subject to the terms and conditions stated below, Lessor shall provide to Lessee approximately 1,668 square feet of space on the first floor of the Senior Center, consisting of staff bathroom, kitchen, and Nutrition Director's office (hereinafter ~Leased Premises"). Subject to the terms and conditions stated below, Lessor shall further provide to Lessee approximately 2,538 square feet of space on the first floor of the Senior Center, consisting of the assembly room (hereinafter ~Leased Premises"). Attached, marked Exhibit A and incorporated herein is a physical depiction of the Leased Premises. B. The Leased Premises shall be used by Lessee for carrying out the Program, subject to the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement. II. GENERAL TERMS A. The kitchen will only be available to Lessee for use from 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays and from 8:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. Lessee may schedule the kitchen for additional time by complying with the Senior Center scheduling procedures. The staff bathroom will be available to Lessee commensurate with the availability of the kitchen. B. The assembly room will only be available to Lessee for use from 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., seven days a week. Lessee may schedule the assembly room for additional time by complying with the Senior Center scheduling procedures. C. The Nutrition Director's office will be available to Lessee for use on a full-time basis, seven days a week. D. Lessor agrees to provide utilities for the Leased Premises, including gas, electricity and water. E. Lessor agrees to provide janitorial services when the assembly room is used for activities other than the Program, and to return the room to the standard congregate meals setup as determined by the Lessee. F. Attached, marked Exhibit B, and incorporated herein is a list of the furniture and equipment owned by the City and furnished to Lessee for the Program for its operation. Should this Agreement terminate, for any reason, the furniture and equipment then in use in the operation of the Program shall be returned to the City, in reasonable condition, normal wear and tear excepted. If Lessee removes any functional item on Exhibit B from the Senior Center, Lessee agrees to store said item at no cost to the City and to insure said item in an amount equal to its replacement cost. The Senior Center Coordinator shall determine if the item is functional. If Lessee damages the Leased Premises in removing any item on Exhibit B, Lessee agrees to repair said damages promptly at its cost. Lessee acknowledges, that in addition to the items contained in Exhibit B, that the City owns and furnished to it kitchenware, including but not limited to pots, pans, dishes, and flatware. Lessee agrees to replace said kitchenware that is damaged or destroyed, normal wear and tear excepted. Should this Agreement terminate for any reason, said kitchenware then in use in the operation of the Program shall be returned to the City, in reasonable condition, normal wear and tear excepted, but Lessee may retain any item that it purchased which is not a fixture. Lessee further acknowledges that presently there is a dispute among the City, The Heritage Agency, and Johnson County with respect to the ownership of certain items contained in Exhibit B. If Lessee returns the items contained in Exhibit B to the City as provided in this paragraph, the City agrees to hold Lessee, and its officers, agents and employees from all losses, costs liabilities, damages or expenses, directly or indirectly incurred, or arising from, or as a result of, or in connection with claims of either The Heritage Agency or Johnson County arising from said dispute. G. The City agrees to make available the services of a copying machine and the City print services at a nominal per-copy cost. H. The City agrees to allow Lessee to use its central telephone system, and Lessee agrees to pay the charges for its own line. Lessee further agrees to pay any cost of installing new lines or cables for telephones or computers in the Senior Center. I. The City agrees to furnish refuse pickup on a regular basis. J. The City agrees to allow Lessee to have the use of the Senior Center loading dock. K. Lessee agrees to accept the Leased Premises in its present condition without any liability or obligation on the part of the City to make any alterations, improvements or repairs of any kind. Lessee further agrees that it will not make any alterations, improvements or repairs to the Leased Premises without the City's written permission. Lessor agrees to be responsible for the interior maintenance of the Leased Premises. This includes, but is not limited to, keeping the Leased Premises clean and the repair of any food preparation or storage equipment. The City agrees to be responsible for the structural components of the building. III. LESSEE'S OBLIGATIONS A. During the term of this Agreement, Lessee's Program shall provide services and activities in a manner consistent with the purposes and goals of the Senior Center, such Program to include, but not be limited to: 1. On-site Meals: To provide balanced nutritional meals. 2. Home-delivered Meals: To provide to the homebound balanced nutritional meals. 3. Satellite Sites: To provide balanced nutritional meals. B. Lessee agrees that its employees and volunteer workers shall clean the kitchen and assembly room when used for the Program, such as to leave the area in a clean and sanitary condition. A cleaning schedule and a list of cleaning duties will be provided by Lessee for approval by the Senior Center Coordinator on an annual basis. C. Lessee agrees to bag, deposit and remove promptly all garbage and refuse generated by the Program. D. Lessee shall keep the loading dock area clear of all debris and refuse. Lessee shall not use the loading dock as a storage area. Lessee shall keep the loading dock lift in a down position when not in use. E. Lessee's Program Director shall be responsible for the management and supervision of the Leased Premises during the times listed in Paragraphs II(A) and (B) above. F. Lessee shall promptly submit to the Senior Center Coordinator a copy of the "Elder Services, Inc. Annual Report." G. Lessee shall cooperate in data collection. A monthly report shall be filed with the Senior Center Coordinator by the 15~ day of the succeeding month and shall include: 1. Monthly total of service units provided including: a) Total number of meals served in-house; b) Total number of home-delivered meals; and c) Total number of meals served at each satellite congregate meal location. 2. The unduplicated monthly total of all individuals participating in the Program including but not limited to in-house, home delivered, and satellite locations specifying either a Johnson County rural, Johnson County urban, or outside Johnson County place of residence for each. 3. To the extent it may legally do so, Lessor agrees to treat in a confidential manner all participant information that is jointly gathered. H. Lessee shall submit a written notice t o t he Senior C enter Coordinator a t I east 3 0 days before any Program changes that impact Senior Center operations. I. Lessee shall be responsible for opening, closing and supervising the building when one of its activities or services occurs at a time when the Senior Center is not open to the general public. J. Lessee shall promptly reimburse the Lessor for the repair or replacement of any furniture, fixture, appliance, key, proximity card, or other object when such repair or replacement results from a negligent act or omission of the Lessee, its employees, officers, or volunteer workers. K. Lessee shall promptly notify the Senior Center Coordinator when any item contained in Exhibit B that is marked with an "*" is malfunctioning, broken, inoperable, or in need of repair. L. Lessee shall encourage its agents and employees to obtain and maintain in force cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) certification. Lessee shall be familiar with the Senior Center emergency procedures and responsibilities. Lessee shall maintain current Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) on all materials stored or used in the Leased Premises. M. Lessee shall remove the snow and ice from all entrances, ramps, and steps in a timely fashion on all days when the Program is open, but the Senior Center is closed. N. If inclement weather dictates a change in hours in the Program that impacts Senior Center operations for a specific day, Lessee agrees to jointly announce said change with the Senior Center Coordinator or his or her designee in the media and by signage. O. Lessee shall take all reasonable steps to prevent its employees, who have been assigned a key or proximity card to the Senior Center, from transferring, giving, or providing said key or proximity card to any other person. IV. INDEMNIFICATION Lessee agrees, during and after the term of this Lease Agreement, to defend and indemnify Lessor, and its officers, agents and employees, and to hold them harmless from all losses, costs, liabilities, damages or expenses, directly or indirectly incurred, or 4 adsing from, or as a result of, or in connection with, this Lease Agreement, the Leased Premises, or any equipment or services provided by Lessor hereunder. V. NON-DISCRIMINATION Lessee shall not deny or discriminate against any person in employment or public accommodation because of race, religion, color, creed, gender identity, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, madtal status or age. "Employment" shall include but not be limited to hidng, accepting, registering, classifying, upgrading, or referring to employment. "Public accommodation" shall include but not be limited to providing goods, services, facilities, privileges and advantages to the public. VI. INSURANCE. During the term of this Lease Agreement, Lessee shall maintain in effect a comprehensive general liability and casualty insurance policy issued by a company authorized to do business in the State of Iowa. The minimum limits of such policy shall be as follows: $1,000,000 for a single occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate. Lessee shall name the City as an additional insured. Lessee shall furnish Lessor with a certificate of such insurance naming the City as an additional insured. The failure of Lessee to maintain such insurance in force shall constitute grounds for immediate termination of this Agreement, and all rights contained herein. VII. ASSIGNMENT This Lease Agreement may not be assigned by Lessee without prior wdtten consent of the Lessor. VIII. TERM AND TERMINATION This Lease Agreement shall be effective upon execution and shall terminate on June 30, 2004 without further notice. If Lessee remains in possession after June 30, 2004 with the City's consent, the parties agree that Lessee's tenancy shall continue on a month-to- month basis on the same terms and conditions contained in this Lease Agreement and that either party may terminate the month-to-month agreement, without cause, upon ninety (90) days written notice. IX. NO WAIVER BY CONDUCT No waiver by Lessor of any default by Lessee hereunder, or under the terms of any prior agreement related to the Leased Premises, shall be construed as a waiver of any subsequent default by Lessee hereunder. X. COUNTERPARTS This Lease Agreement is executed in two counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. XI. ENTIRE AGREEMENT There are no oral agreements that have not been reduced to wdting in this instrument, and this wdting and this Agreement constitutes the entire arrangement between the parties relating to the Leased Premises. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Lease Agreement to be executed as of the day and date first above written. THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA ELDER SERVICES, INC. Lehman, Mayor [ Mari~n K. Karr, City Clerk 'i'iile CITY ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ~.~ day of ~e~.,w~,,- , A.D. 20 ~ , before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and fo~' the State of Iowa, personally appeared Ernest W. Lehman and Maclan K. Karr, to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor a nd City Clerk, respectively, of said municipal corporation executing the within and foregoing instrument; that the seal affixed thereto is the seal of said municipal corporation; that said instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City Council; and that the said Mayor and City Clerk as such officers acknowledged that the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said corporation, by it and by them voluntarily executed. -I-CSONDRAE FORT I ~ ornrnission Number 1597911 My Commission Ex,res I Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa ELDER SERVICES, INC. ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS; JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ~ day of ~'~ , A.D. 200 72 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared and (~v~ I~- V,)~r~- , to me personally known, who, being by me duly swom, did say that they are the t)1'.~'~,~ and r~-t..c{--ov~ , respectively, of said corporation executing the within and foregoing instrument to which this is attached, that (no seal has been procured by the said) corporation; that said instrument was signed (and sealed) on behalf of (the seal affixed thereto js the seal of said) said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors; and that the said ~]¥c~-c[ut/~ and 3--/LvEt~-{-~/ as such officers acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said corporation, by it and by them voluntarily executed~_.),.~ Notary Public in and for said Co~(~lty/ar~{a~/~ EIdSvcLease7-10-O3,dcc LAVON M. ~$~--,~ ~ IE,~7~ STATE OF IOyt/~~z~ ~ -I t~ S ~ LAVON M. YEGGY NOTARIAL SEAL STATE OF IOWA EXHIBIT A North alley Loading Dock Coordinato~ ~ ~Nutriti;;I Kitchen ,1 '*~tc"e"o,,,, Assembly Room Men's Women's Storage Restroom Restroom Gift Shop o Washington Street FIRST FLOOR REVISED KITCHEN INVENTORY2003 EXHIBIT B DESCRIPTION ACQUISmON DATE VENDOR LOCATION SERIAL NUMBER VALUE BAKE OVENS X2* 1/1/197~ 2330 KITCHEN 7S148 $800.00 MEAT SLICER 1/1/197~ HOBARTF 1612 KITCHEN 5-6-00~720 $200.00 DISHWASHER* co/1/1981 HOCKENBERO HOBARTT AM-12 KITCHEN 12-058-803 $4,500.00 DOUBLE CONVECTION OVEN * 6/1/1981 HOCKENBERG BLODGETT KITCHEN $6,500.00 MIXERW/ATTACH 6/1/1981 HOCKENBERG HOBARTT D300 KITCHEN 11219908 $4,356.00 WALK IN FREEZER* 6/1/1981 HOCKENBERG VOLLRATH 26430-S KITCHEN 67683-FN-1 $10,318.00 WALK IN COOLER * 6/1/1981 VOLLRATH 26530-S KITCHEN 67683-FN-1 $9,000.00 REFRIGERATED SERVING UNIT* 6/1/1981 ~EROHOT 315-25 KITCHEN $300.00 STORAGE BINSX2 12/14/1981 HOCKENBERG FIXTURE KITCHEN $536.00 CAN RACK 12/14/1981 HOCKENBERG FIXTURE KITCHEN $649.00 SILVERWARE/TRAY DISPENSER 12/14/1981 ;ADDY CM-1418-CS KITCHEN ASSEMBLY ROOM $700.00 CLEAN DISH TABLE 12/14/1981 I HOCKENBERG FIXTURE KITCHEN NORTH OF DISWASHER $746.00 DISPOSAL* 12/14/1981 HOCKENBERG ISE SS-150-14 KITCHEN 109281 $939.00 DISPOSAL * 6/1/198g IPLUMBERS SUPPLY ISE SS-7~23 KITCHEN 192356 $759.00 URN STAND (UNIDENTIFIED) 12/14/1981 ~HOCKENBERO FIXTURE KITCHEN $1,237.00 DRAWER UNITS X2 12/14/1981 HOCKENBERG FIXTURE KITCHEN $1,270.00 COOKS TABLE (UNIDENTIFIED) 12/14/1981 HOCKENBERG FIXTURE KITCHEN $1,415.00 GAS RANGE W/4 BURNERS, GRILL, OVEN ' 12/14/1981 HOCKENBERG US RANGE KITCHEN $1,545.00 COUNTER (UNIDENTIFIED) 12/14/1981 HOCKENBERG FIXTURE KITCHEN $1,720.00 WORK TABLE W/END SINK X3 12/14/1981 HOCKENBERG FIXTURE KITCHEN $1,727.00 SOILED DISH TABLE SOUTH OF DISWASH 12/14/1981 HOCKENBERG FIXTURE kITCHEN $3,430.00 SHELVING X8 UNITS 12/14/1981 HOCKENBERG McGRAW/EDDISON IKITCHEN $3,730.00 STEAM TABLE* 12/14/1981 HOCKENBERG DUKE E-5-SR KITCHEN CCKA81 $3,000.00 TILT SKILLET * 6/1/1984 HAWKEYE WHOLESALE GROEN KITCHEN 4272HOF $4,955.00 MICROWAVE OVEN * 2/16/1988 AMANA RC14SE KITCHEN 8801014955 $920.00 BUFFALO CHOPPER 6/27/1997 H & H FORD SERVICE 84145 KITCHEN 561-067-950 $1,500.00 STEAMER * 1/1/1999 H & H FORD SERVICE VULCAN VSX24G KITCHEN 27-1056304 $8,500.00 REACH IN REFRIGERATOR* 6/23/1999 HOCKENBERO TRUE T49 KITCHEN 12118410 $4,000.00 KITCHEN REMODEL 4/15/2001 APEX CONSTRUCTION KITCHEN $9,865.00 STEAM KETTLE * 6/1/2001 H & H FORD GROEN AH/IE-40 KITCHEN 63431 $9,500.00 PORTABLE CARTS X 10 KITCHEN 150 EACH COFFEE CUP STAND KITCHEN LETTUCE CHOPPER KITCHEN FIRE EXTINGUISHERS X2 KITCHEN BOOSTER HEATER * 1/6/1993 BA GRIFFIN CO. KITCHEN C-12 $850.00 PAN RACK 1/14/2002 KITCHEN McCALL FREEZER * 12/1/2002 4045-F KITCHEN M-17080 Prepared by Lisa Mollenhauer, Admin. Asst. to the City Manager, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240, 356-5010 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2003-2004 DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR IOWA CITY Resolution No. 03-296 WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City has conducted a study of deer herd population and management options; and WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City has determined that steps must be taken to develop and implement a deer management plan that is designed to provide needed relief and protection for the environment, property owners, and motor vehicle operators within the corporate limits of Iowa City; and WHEREAS, the Deer Task Force has thoroughly reviewed the deer population problem in Iowa City and made recommendations on the best methods to resolve this problem; and WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City has adopted a long-term deer management plan; and WHEREAS, the attached deer management plan for 2003-2004 is in harmony with the long- term plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, that it is in the public interest to adopt the attached 2003-2004 Deer Management Plan and the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to implement said plan, including, but not limited to, engaging appropriate personnel and declaring certain public areas of the City "no trespassing" to the public. Passed and approved this 23rdday of Septemher ,2003. Approved by _ (~IT'r~3LERK City Attorney's Office It was moved by 0'Donnell and seconded by Champion the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYES: ABSENT: X Champion X Kanner X Lehman X O'Donnell X Pfab X Vanderhoef X Wilburn REPORT OF THE 2003.2004 lowa City Deer Task Force 2003-2004 Plan (found on page 4) approved by the Deer Task Force on September 17, 2003 (6-0, 2 absent and the Iowa City City Council on ~D~2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS DEER TASK FORCE ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 LONG-TERM DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN ..................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2003-2004 DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................................................................................. 3 DETERMINING IF DEER SHOULD BE KILLED IN 2003-2004 ....................................................................................... 4 Population Surveys ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 DNR Projections ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Recommended Number of Deer to Kill. .............................................................................................................................. 8 SUMMARY OF POPULATION MANAGEMENT OPTIONS THE TASK FORCE CONSIDERED ................................ 9 No Lethal Action ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Control of Deer Reproduction via Contraception and Sterilization .................................................................................. 9 Trap (or Dart) and Relocate .............................................................................................................................................. 9 Bow Hunting .................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Trap and Kill .................................................................................................................................................................... ll Sharpshooting .................................................................................................................................................................. 11 TRAFFIC SAFETY ISSUES ................................................................................................................................................ 13 Deer- Vehicle Accident Statistics ...................................................................................................................................... 13 Reflectors ......................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Traffic Speeds ................................................................................................................................................................... 13 EDUCATION AND OTHER NONLETHAL INITIATIVES FOR IMPROVED HUMAN-DEER COEXISTENCE ........ 14 Completed and Current ProJects ...................................................................................................................................... 14 Ideas for Future Consideration ........................................................................................................................................ 15 HISTORY OF DEER MANAGEMENT IN IOWA CITY - 1997-2003 ............................................................................. 15 1997-1998 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 15 1998-1999 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 16 1999-2000 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 16 2000-2001 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 17 2001-2002 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 17 2002-2003 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 18 COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND TASK FORCE ANSWERS .......................................................................... 18 DEER TASK FORCE Members Pat Farrant (Chair) Janet Ashman Linda Dykstra Harold Goff Lezlie Hall Martin Jones Mark Sandier Pete $idwell BiologistJScientist (Vacant) Responsibilities To annually recommend to the City Council a Deer Management Plan that meets the goals of the Long- Term Deer Management Plan. To that end, members should review data (population count, deer- vehicle accidents, reflector effectiveness, previously implemented population control programs, herd health), review current and recommend future educational tools, review and consider all non-lethal and lethal management methods, and recommend appropriate action. The members of the 2003-2004 Iowa City Deer Task Force acknowledge that we are not wildlife specialists, traffic engineers, mathematicians, or politicians, but rather citizens who have come together to address an important matter facing our community. We developed this plan after researching options for deer management, considering documented evidence, gathering information about other communities in comparable situations, receiving advice from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, listening to the opinions and experience of fellow citizens, and exploring our perceptions of the kind of plan likely to be both accepted by and effective for the community. We believe it is unlikely that every component of any deer management plan would be accepted by every member of the Task Force or every resident of Iowa City. This plan is a compromise, the product of our attempt to understand and respect many different voices. City of Iowa City Advisors Department of Natural Resource Advisors Sid Jackson (Police) Tim Thompson Lisa Mollenhauer LONG-TERM DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN 1. The City of Iowa City will develop an educationar program that wilr provide residents with information on deer habits and guiderines for limiting Iocarized deer damage through the use of screening, alternative plantings, and other techniques. The City's comprehensive management plan will be included. Educational materials will be distributed through a variety of methods including public informational meetings, pamphlets, and government television programs. 2. The City of Iowa City will evaluate the need for and, where appropriate, install or petition the State or County to install on roadways under their jurisdiction warning signs and/or reflectors that may reduce the likelihood of vehicle-deer acc[dents. The City will prepare annual reports on effectiveness of deer reflectors. In addition, thoughtful consideration will be given to deer migratory paths as transportation improvement projects are approved by the City Council. 3. In order to prevent irreparable damage to the ecosystems in Iowa City and to prevent significant injury or damage to persons or property, the City Council has set the maximum deer population density to be thirty-five per square mile per City-designated management district. Actual numbers are to be collected via helicopter count. 4. In order to implement its long-term population goal of thirty-five deer per square mile per management district, the City of Iowa City formally requests that the Natural Resource Commission approve a rule establishing a special deer population management area for Iowa City to the following conditions, limitations, and procedures: a. The special deer management area is defined as all public and private land in Iowa City as designated by the City Council of Iowa City. b. The City is allowed to kill as many deer as the City determines necessary to reach its desired goal. Killing may occur between September 1 and February 28. (1) The City is allowed to utilize sharpshooting with centerfire rifles for the killing of deer. Bait may be used to attract deer to the sites. The City shall determine locations, training, and all other conditions for the sharpshooting activities. The City shall also comply with all applicable state laws. (2) The City is allowed to utilize City personnel to use baited traps to capture and kill deer in locations determined by the City Council. (3) All deer killed by sharpshooting and/or trapping operations are to be processed for human consumption and distributed free of charge. Processing lockers participating in the plan will be allowed to keep and utilize the deer hide. (4)No licenses will be required for the City and no fees will be charged. c. The City will initially utilize sharpshooting over bait and trap-and-kill to reduce the number of deer in each management district to the goal of 35 deer per square mile. By the end of the initial reduction plan, it is projected that the deer population will be to a level that requires maintenance rather than aggressive reduction. The City will strongly encourage use of non-lethal methods to maintain deer numbers but recognizes that killing of deer may be necessary to maintain the population goal. 5. The Deer Task Force will convene each spring to review educational material, deer population numbers (current and projected), and management options, and to recommend methods to kill deer. Any or all legal lethal methods available (currently consisting of sharpshooting, trap-and-kill, and bow and arrow hunting) may be utilized after the initial reduction plan if the methods meet the following criteria: 1) public safety, 2) community acceptance, 3) effectiveness in maintaining the desired number of deer. 6. Task Force recommendations must be approved by the City Council following public hearing prior to initiation of City management plans. Annual plans approved by the Council will be forwarded to the Department of Natural Resources and, if necessary, the Natural Resource Commission for authorization to implement. 03/05/98 Approved by Deer Management Committee 06/05/02 Affirmed by Deer Task Fome 03/10/98 Approved by City Council 07/02/02 Affirmed by City Council 06/26/01 Affirmed by Deer Task Force 07/08/03 Affirmed by the Deer Task Force 07/09/01 Affirmed by City Council 07/14/03 Affirmed by the City Council 2 INTRODUCTION The members of the 2003-2004 Iowa City Deer Task Force affirm our concurrence with the goals of the City's Long-Term Deer Management Plan. We agree that deer management within the city limits is a necessary duty of the City to maintain the health of the herd, to prevent irreparable damage to plant and animal life in the ecosystems of the natural areas in the City, to protect citizen safety and welfare, and to prevent major deer damage to public and private property. Because managing deer-human-ecosystem interaction is an ongoing process, each year the City must gather information and evaluate the outcomes of the implementation of the long-term plan. As have previous committees, we value the presence of deer in the city limits and are recommending a number of ways to encourage citizens to become better educated about ways to coexist with deer. We do not recommend total elimination of deer in the city limits. But it is clear that the presence of high numbers of deer in areas in the city limits may endanger human lives because of deer-vehicle accidents, cause destruction of landscaping and yard plantings, and further disrupt already altered ecosystems. Natural habitat for many types of wildlife in the Iowa City area is being continuously reduced as previously rural land is developed for housing and commercial purposes. In a natural setting, the size of a deer population depends on food sources, predators, hunting, and wildlife management practices. Inside the city limits, deer have an abundant supply of food and no natural predators. Starvation and disease will have little effect on the deer population. After reviewing the results of the most recent deer population survey, we concluded that killing of deer is necessary within the Iowa City corporate limits for the winter of 2003-2004. We recommend the killing of no more than 200 deer. We also agreed the City should pursue a number of other nonlethal methods, discussed in subsequent sections of this report. 2003-2004 DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN It is the unanimous recommendation of the 2003-2004 Iowa City Deer Task Force that the City Council of Iowa City resolve that the City Manager is authorized and directed to implement the 2003-2004 Deer Management Plan, including the following elements: 1. The City will continue to assemble resources that provide residents with information on deer and offer guidelines for limiting localized deer damage through the use of repellents, screening, alternative plantings, and other techniques. Educational materials will be available at City Hall and the Public Library, on City Channel 4, and on the City web site (www.icgov.org). A video on deer-traffic issues will be produced. 2. The City will continue to maintain appropriate warning signs and reflectors designed to reduce the likelihood of vehicle-deer accidents. To further minimize deer-vehicle conflict, Council will direct staff to consult with a qualified professional to evaluate feasibility of passageways under roads in planning and designs for transportation improvement projects. The City will also investigate the availability of federal funds for including such passageways in eligible transportation projects. 3. The City will actively work with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to fully understand and support their efforts to control the deer population for which the DNR is responsible and which affects the health, safety, and welfare of Iowa City residents. 4. The City of Iowa City will continue to inquire from qualified scientists the feasibility of a deer contraception pilot project or program in Iowa City. 5. The City will continue to compile data for deer management, including but not limited to information about vehicle-deer accidents, citizen comments, and an annual helicopter deer count. 6. The City will immediately apply for permits from the DNR to implement a plan to kill no more than 200 deer within the Iowa City corporate limits, by sharpshooting, during the winter of 2003-2004. a. To enhance understanding of deer reproductive rates, in cooperation with the DNR, the sharpshooting agency, and meat processors, the City will allow reproductive necropsies to be performed on deer killed. b. The City will fully comply with all state law governing the killing of deer, exercise great caution and observe all possible safety measures during the sharpshoot, assure use of the most humane methods available, and arrange for free distribution of processed deer meat. 7. The Task Force will evaluate the effectiveness of this Deer Management Plan. A report will be filed with the DNR. 8. As the Iowa City Deer Task Force "sunsets" in March of 2004, the Task Force will formulate for the City Council a recommendation on continuance. Approved by the Deer Task Force on Approved by the Iowa City City Council on DETERMINING IF DEER SHOULD BE KILLED IN 2003-2004 For deer management purposes, the most commonly accepted number of deer an urban setting can sustain is 20 to 25 per square mile. Based on recommendations from the DNR and review of management plans from other communities, the 1997 Deer Management Committee established the following guidelines for the City's long-range management plan: 0-24 deer/square mile: Educate residents about living with deer. 25-34 deer/square mile: Review on an area-by-area basis. Educational material may be recommended or killing methods implemented depending on the management area, number of complaints, and/or evidence of types of damage. 35+ deer/square mile: Reduction must be implemented. At this level, deer pose threat to the ecosystem. Since deer populations generally tend to increase by approximately 30% each year, approximately 30% of a given population must die or be killed annually if that population level is to remain stable. 4 Population Surveys To estimate as accurately as possible the number of deer in the city limits, the City has conducted five counts via helicopter. 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 Deer Helicopter Counts Area Description Dtst Acres Sq. 1997 Deer/ t999 Deer/ 2000 Deer/ 2001 Deer/ 2002 Deer/ 2003 Deer/ Mile Deer Sq Mi Deer Sq Mi Killed Deer Sq Mi Killed Deer Sq Mi Killed Deer Sq Mi Deer Sq Mi W of Dubuque Sb'N of 1-60 I 230 0.360 NA NA NA NA 15 NA NA 2 6 t7 27 NA NA NA NA Peninsula 2/3 590 0.922 69 75 154 t67 208 81 88 74 33 30 48 30 33 30 33 Dubuque St to Dodge St 4/5 780 1.219 78 64 90 74 57 99 81 123 39 32 51 36 30 60 49 Dubuque St to Hwy 1 6 560 0.875 37 42 60 69 -- 74 85 -- 64 73 -- 29 33 76 87 Hickor7 Hill/ACT 7 1280 2,000 65 33 127 64 102 140 70 122 38 19 93 25 t3 100 50 SE Iowa Ci~ 10 720 1.125 NA NA NA NA -- 7 6 -- 9 8 -- NA NA 12 11 Iowa River (S) 11/12 720 1.125 11 t0 15 13 -- 48 43 19 42 37 10 15 13 74 66 Willow Creek 17 280 0.438 3 7 0 0 -- 4 9 -- 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0 Manville Heights 20 500 0~781 NA NA NA NA -- 6 8 -- 3 4 -- NA NA 2 3 5660 8.845 263 I 40 446 68 382 459 54 340 234 I 26 229 135 2t 354 I 44 6.579 mi 6.579 mi 8.485 mi 8.845 mi 6.579 mi 8.047 mi. t-31 1-t9 1-24 3-17 2-3 Area Description Dist Acres Sq. 1997 Deer/ t999 Deer/ 2000 Deer/ 2001 Deer/ 2002 Deer/ 2003 Deer/ Mile Deer Sq Mi Deer Sq Mi Killed Deer Sq Mi Killed Deer Sq Mi Killed Deer Sq Mi Deer Sq Mi Finkbine (U of I) 16 370 0.578 6 t0 31 54 -- 48 83 -- 24 42 -- 23 40 42 73 East Clear Creek* 889 1~391 49 35 79 57 -- 193 t39 -- 99 7t 21 43 31 169 121 *lncrudes properties under multiple jurisdictions (Iowa City, Coralville, and The University of Iowa) 6 Deer count conditions were as follows: January 31, 1997 Surveyors: Tim Thompson and Dale Garner (DNR) Navigator: Ron Fort (Iowa City Police Department) Conditions: Temperature 45 degrees F, wind 15 to 30 mph SW, sky clear and sunny, snow cover 5" and melting Technique: Parallel back-and-forth flight pattern by management district, counting only deer actually viewed (no estimations) Results: 269 total deer January 19, 1999 Surveyors: Tim Thompson and Dennis Proctor (DNR) Navigator: Lisa Mollenhauer (City Manager's Office) Conditions: Temperature 28 degrees F, wind 3-7 mph W, sky clear and sunny, snow cover 1-2" new snow on top of 10" old snow Technique: Parallel back-and-forth flight pattern by management district, counting only deer actually viewed (no estimations) Results: 477 total deer January 24, 2000 Surveyors: Tim Thompson and Bruce Freeman (Coralville Police) Navigator: Lisa Mollenhauer (City Manager's Office) Conditions: Temperature -2 warming to 25 degrees F, wind 10 mph S, sky clear and sunny, snow cover 1" new snow on top of 6" old snow Technique: Parallel back-and-forth flight pattern by management district, counting only deer actually viewed (no estimations) Results: 507 total deer March 17, 2001 Surveyors: Tim Thompson and Bruce Freeman (Coralville Police) Navigator: Bill Clarahan (Coralville Police) Conditions: Temperature 20-25 degrees F, wind still, sky clear and sunny, snow cover 8" new snow Technique: Parallel back-and-forth flight pattern by management district, counting only deer actually viewed (no estimations) Results: 258 total deer in Iowa City (with an additional 99 in East Clear Creek) February 3, 2002 Surveyors: Tim Thompson and Bruce Freeman (Coralville Police) Navigator: Bill Clarahan (Coralville Police) Conditions: Temperature around 31 degrees F, wind NW at 17-24 mph, sky clear and sunny, snow cover 6-8" Technique: Parallel back-and-forth flight pattern by management district, counting only deer actually viewed (no estimations) Results: 135 total deer in Iowa City (with an additional 66 in areas under multiple jurisdiction) February 17, 2003 Surveyors: Tim Thompson and Bruce Freeman (Coralville Police) Navigator: Bill Clarahan (Coralville Police) Conditions: Temperature around 30 degrees F, winds calm, sky fog, snow cover 5" Technique: Parallel back-and-forth flight pattern by management district, counting only deer actually viewed (no estimations) Results: 354 total deer in Iowa City (with an additional 211 in areas under multiple jurisdiction) DNR Projections In April, 2003, the Task Force requested that the DNR provide a projection of the number of deer that must be killed in 2003-2004 to maintain the progress being made toward the goal of 35 deer per square mile by area established by the Long-Term Deer Management Plan. In making such projections, the DNR typically assumes 30 deer per square mile to allow some flexibility so areas are not constantly stressed with the maximum number of deer. The recommendations the DNR provided (see Attachment A) indicate a total of 270 does be killed. In Iowa City's management program, it is typical that one antlered deer is killed for every three antlerless deer killed. Anthony DeNicola of White Buffalo, Inc. was also contacted regarding the number of deer to be killed. Dr. DeNicola responded with the recommendations listed in Chart 2. Recommended Number of Deer to Kill Taking into account the helicoter population count, projections, by the Department of Natural Resources and logistical feasibility input by White Buffalo, Inc., the Task Force recommends killing no more than 200 deer during the winter of 2003-2004. The following chart summarizes input: Chart 2. Recommendations Recommended i Recommended on WBI Area Area # Does to Kill i Does to Kill Recommendation W of Dubuque St/N 1-80 I 10 10 17 Peninsula 2 & 3 10 10 17 Dubuque St to Dodge St 4 & 5 30 30 50 Dubuque St to Hwy 1 (N of 1-80) 6 60 Limited to No 0 Access Hickory Hill/ACT 7 50 50 83 Iowa River South 11 & 12 30 No Access i 0 East Clear Creek i ... ~ 60 Multiple Jurisdictions J 33 The East Clear Creek and Dubuque Street to Hwy 1 (District 6) areas include properties under the jurisdictions of Iowa City as well as properties under neighboring jurisdictions (Coralville, The University of Iowa, and Johnson County). The Task Force recommends evaluation of the East Clear Creek district as a potential shooting site. Under this plan, sharpshooting activities will occur only within the Iowa City corporate limits. The Task Force recognizes that attainment and maintenance of population goals in these areas will require cooperation among these jurisdictions. The Task Force affirms its desire and willingness to coordinate our activities with those of other jurisdictions. The Task Force specifically recommends the City Council issue a request to University of Iowa President Skorton to allow consideration of University property as possible shooting locations for future management plans. Reduction of the herd to the level established in the Long-Term Deer Management Plan will be an ongoing activity, and its complexities require constant evaluation. The Council relies on the Task Force for the information needed each year to make decisions regarding management of the herd. But, even with aerial counts, no one can determine exactly how many deer are inside the City limits or how many will survive and reproduce after each year's count. Survival variables include weather, traffic speed and volume, available forage, disease, reproductive rates, the success of killing activity by area, the degree of harassment by activists and others during shoots, development of land, deer movement, and willingness of residents to allow deer to be killed on their property. We recommend that, as it was last year, deer meat be processed and distributed free of charge. If requested, reproductive necropsies should be conducted to increase our knowledge of the deer herd. SUMMARY OF POPULATION MANAGEMENT OPTIONS THE TASK FORCE CONSIDERED No Lethal Action The Task Force considered and rejected this option. Control of Deer Reproduction via Contraception and Sterilization Most studies of the effectiveness of contraceptives with deer have been conducted on populations living in enclosed or confined areas, not with free-ranging deer. Because of drug safety issues, the FDA has not yet approved the use of immunocontraceptives on frae-ranging deer. The Task Fome reaffirms its interest in the progress and results of tests using immunocontraception and recommends the City continue to investigate the feasibility of a pilot project in our area. The Task Force has also agreed to research the possibility of deer population control through sterilization and release programs that are similar to techniques being used to humanely manage colonies of feral cats. Trap (or Dart) and Relocate The Task Force assumed the use of a box trap. Is it humane? A properly-constructed trap is unlikely to injure deer. If the trap is checked with sufficient frequency, the trapped animal is unlikely to suffer significant trauma from its stay in the trap. To minimize trauma in transport, trapped animals must not be held for long prior to transport. Even with prompt transport, experience with trap and relocate methods suggests that a 4% mortality rate is to be expected during transport, 26% delayed mortality due to stress induced by the experience, and between 58% and 85% mortality in the following months. At this time, trap and relocation of deer cannot be considered humane. Is it safe? Properly managed box traps pose very little risk to people. Is it effective? No, considering the high mortality rate of transported deer and the fact that few sites in the Midwest have the combination of adequate habitat, Iow deer population, and willing human stewards this method requires. This method is selective; if only does are to be relocated, bucks caught in a trap may be easily released. Dart and relocate was considered briefly. We find no distinction between trapping and darting when relocation is the goal, since the results of relocation are the same, and conclude trap/dart and relocate is not effective. What does it cost? The cost depends on trap placement and deer population. Frequency of trap monitoring adds uncertainty. In the late 1990s, North Oaks, Minnesota repoded a cost per deer capture of $131. Urban trapping for live release has been reported to cost, per deer, $113 in Wisconsin and $800 in Long Island. Total costs, including transport, have been reported in the $300 to $1,000 range. Highland Park, IL, reported a cost of $3,074 per deer to relocate 20 deer. Eight months after transport, 11 of the 20 were reported dead. Frequent trips with small numbers of deer are more humane but more expensive. The cost of trapping by dart is comparable to the cost of sharpshooting. Is it legal? 9 The Iowa DNR does not recommend trap and relocate for deer, although it is currently used for dealing with waterfowl and small animals. Relocation of wild deer to private ownership is not currently legal in Iowa. Task Force Conclusion The Task Force does not view trap and relocate as an option because of high mortality, the possible high cost, and lack of areas to relocate deer. Bow Hunting Suggested regulations for bow hunting in urban areas assume the hunter shoots from a fixed stand, waiting there until the deer comes to the hunter. Stalking or driving deer is not permitted. While the use of elevated stands is common, it is not required. The Task Force assumed the imposition of strict hunter education and certification standards such as have been adopted in Waterloo/Cedar Falls and Coralville in addition to regulations governing hunter behavior. Such standards address some of the more severe criticisms of the humaneness and effectiveness of bow hunting. Is it humane? Bow hunting rarely leads to instantaneous death. Estimates by hunters indicate that bow hunting cripples more animals than gun hunting. A crippling injury is defined as one which does not kill, and after which the hunter fails to find and kill the injured animal. The Waterloo/Cedar Falls and Dubuque experiences suggest a significant degree of success. Recent studies appear to confirm the belief that crippling rates from bow hunting in relatively cramped settings such as those encountered in urban deer management are indeed lower than the crippling rates reported for bow hunting in general. The only scientific studies the Task Force found to review were conducted by bow-hunting advocacy groups or funded by archery-related industries. Is it safe? Evidence indicates that urban bow hunts pose very little risk to people. No evidence of injury to humans appears in any of the programs reviewed. Is it effective? It can be, assuming that sufficient numbers of hunters are willing to comply with the additional regulations governing hunting within city limits. In a recent year, hunters killed 74 deer inside Dubuque city limits and an additional 98 in the area surrounding the city. However, in areas where killing of large numbers of deer is recommended, bow and arrow hunting alone would be ineffective in reducing the population. BOW hunting is moderately selective. The hunting season is before the bucks shed their antlers, so gender is fairly easy to determine. Hunting traditions place a high value on killing older bucks--the so-called trophy bucks with large, many-branched antlers. This is of little use if population control is the goal. If bow hunting is to be used as an effective component of a population control plan, hunters must be induced to kill does. What does it cost? The costs of a DNR-administered hunt are largely borne by the individual hunters who, through license fees, pay for the cost of regulating the hunt. These costs are partially offset by the value of the meat taken. DNR generally relies on individual hunters to police other hunters. The cost to the City would be minimal. Is it legal? Yes, according to State law. However, the City of Iowa City prohibits bow hunting within the City limits. 10 Task rome Conclusion The Task Force does not recommend bow hunting as an option for killing in the 2003-2004 Iowa City Deer Management Plan. Some members view bow hunting as inhumane. In addition, some members do not regard Iowa City's deer management as a recreational activity or sport for hunters and do not wish to encourage such a concept. The Task Force recognizes, however, that bow hunting is a potential legal option, and some members have voiced interest in a bow hunting component in Iowa City's management plan. Trap and Kill The Task Force assumed the use of a baited box trap or modified clover trap. Trapping is typically done in mid to late winter. Deer are killed by gunshot to the head; deer meat so acquired is suitable for human consumption. Is it humane? If a trap is properly constructed and checked frequently, deer are unlikely to suffer significant trauma while in it. The killing methods assumed are instantaneous and therefore humane. Is it safe? Properly managed box traps pose very little risk to people. Is it effective? Yes, but only to remove small numbers of deer. As with trapping and relocation, this method is selecfive. Deer may be released if they are not of the desired age and sex. Dart and kill was briefly considered. The cost of darting is approximately the same as sharpshooting; meat from darted animals is not considered fit for human consumption. What does it cost? Costs depend on trap placement, deer population, and weather conditions. The sometimes- complicated logistics of regular trap monitoring add complexity to this method. In the late 1990s, North Oaks, MN, reported a cost per deer capture of $131, not including carcass disposal or processing. Minnetonka, MN, reported total costs of $209-$214 per deer, including meat processing. Is it legal? The DNR has authorized use of box traps for the killing of deer in Iowa City. Task Force Conclusion The Task Force does not recommend use of trap and kill. With the high number of deer recommended to be killed, the costs and staff time associated with trap and kill would not justify the number of deer killed. Sharpshooting Sharpshooting has been used in many residential areas and parks to control deer populations and has been the kill method recommended by the Task Force and approved by the City Council over the past several years. High-powered rifles are the weapon of choice for sharpshooting. Sound suppression devices were used by the USDA in 1999 and by White Buffalo, Inc. staff in 2001 but not by White Buffalo, Inc. staff in 2000 because, at the time, it was illegal for a private person to possess a suppressed weapon in the State of Iowa. As of July 1, 2000, suppressors could be used in Iowa by a person shooting a deer pursuant to a state-approved deer management plan, if the person has a valid federal permit for the device. Also effective July 1, 2000, a shooter need only get permission of the owner or tenant to discharge a firearm during a sanctioned sharpshoot if the shooter is within 50 yards of an inhabited structure. The prior law prohibited the discharge of a firearm anywhere within 200 yards without 11 permission. The City requested the legislature make these two changes to the Iowa Code in order to facilitate future sharpshooting in more developed areas. In a professional sharpshoot, shooting sites are selected based on safety and access to deer. An appropriate site includes an orientation relative to the bait station so that shooting occurs from an elevated location (e.g., a tree stand or from the top of a ridge), which directs the bullet in a downward trajectory. Site preparation, consisting of clearing underbrush and pre-baiting, lasts for several weeks. Shooters typically work at night using artificial light. Is it humane? A high-powered rifle can cause instantaneous death; from this point of view, no method of killing is more humane. Of all weapons for killing at a distance, high-powered rifles are the least likely to inflict an inhumane wound, one that cripples, or kills slowly. The likelihood of such injuries is reduced even more by using trained sharpshooters and a bait station to attract and hold deer for the kill. Is it safe? All evidence indicates that urban sharpshooting poses little risk to people. No evidence of injury to people or property was reported in any of the programs we reviewed. Is it effective? Assuming there is appropriate access, yes. Studies have shown, and DNR advisors concurred, that sharpshooting is more effective at reducing larger numbers of deer than bow and arrow hunting. What does it cost? The City contracted with the USDA in 1998, and the USDA killed 22 deer at a cost of $3,850. Ruzicka's Locker charged $35 per deer to field dress and process the meat into 5 lb packages. In 1999, the City contracted with the private firm of White Buffalo, Inc. White Buffalo, Inc. killed 360 deer. Costs incurred were approximately $72,000, including $69,300 to White Buffalo, Inc. for labor and reimbursable expenses, and about $2,500 for supplies and other expenses (e.g. housing, bait). Ruzicka's Locker charged $45 per deer to field dress and process the meat into 1 lb and 5 lb packages. The Salvation Army received Community Development Block Grant funding to help defray processing and storage costs. In 2000, the City contracted with White Buffalo, Inc. White Buffalo, Inc. killed 342 deer. Costs incurred were approximately $109,400, including $96,400 for labor and reimbursable expenses and about $13,000 for supplies and other expenses (e.g. housing, bait). Ruzicka's Locker charged $50 per deer to field dress and process the meat into 1 lb and 5 lb packages. The Salvation Army again served as the main distributor to individuals and agencies. In 2001, the City contracted with White Buffalo, Inc. White Buffalo, Inc. killed 250 deer. Costs incurred were approximately $100,000 including $75,000 to White Buffalo for labor and reimbursable expenses and about $10,000 for supplies and other expenses (e.g. housing, bait). Ruzicka's Locker charged $55 per deer to field dress and process the meat into 1 lb and 5 lb packages. The Salvation Army again served as the main distributor to individuals and agencies. Is it legal? This method involves night shooting over bait, with lights and high-powered rifles. The DNR has approved sharpshooting as a method authorized for the City of Iowa City. The City must petition the Natural Resource Commission each year to be eligible to utilize sharpshooting. To assist deer management programs, the Iowa legislature amended the Code in spring 2000 to allow sharpshooters to use devices to decrease the sound and to permit shooting within 50 yards of an inhabited structure, with the owner's permission. Task Force Conclusion The Task Force recommends sharpshooting as the most effective, efficient, and humane method to continue to make progress toward the population goals established in the Long-Term Deer 12 Management Plan. The Task Force recommends White Buffalo, Inc. be engaged this year to conduct the sharpshoot. All public grounds should be assessed for safe and appropriate shooting sites. Private properties should be allowed as sharpshooting sites with the permission of land owners and occupants and in conformance with all laws, regulations, and safety concerns. The contractor engaged to conduct the sharpshoot must arrange with property owners and occupants for use of their land. TRAFFIC SAFETY ISSUES Deer-Vehicle Accident Statistics The Iowa City Police Department is responsible for collecting deer-vehicle accident information. The Department prepares maps showing locations and dates of accidents reported from 1996 to the present. They are available for review at the City Manager's Office. The deer-vehicle accident reporting process has improved beginning with the 1999 report. Each accident is assigned a reference number and the date, time, location, property damage amount, and miscellaneous comments are included. Accident victims are mailed a questionnaire to return to the City indicating information such as age of driver, weather conditions, speed, etc. to better our understanding of deer- vehicle accidents. Chart 3. Deer-Vehicle Accidents 1996-2002 Number Number in Reflector Reported~ $ Damage Estimate2 Areas3 1996 15 N/A 2 1997 ~ 31 $32,505 7 1998 = 50 $58,870 4 1999 .i 103 $116,273 .i 26 2000 i 80 $110,833 2001 106 $115,531 I 124 2002 ~ 39 $92,909 I 8s ~ Includes deer reported dead along roadways (vehicle left scene of accident). In 2000, drivers officially reported 46 accidents; 2001, 48 accidents; 2002, 32. 2 Damage estimates by police staff, not certified repair personnel. Estimates over $1,000 require claimant and police to file special state report. 3 Time of accident and position and maintenance of reflectors influence effectiveness. '~ 11 of the 12 accidents in reflector zones occurred during darkness. s 4 of the 8 accidents in reflector zones occurred during darkness. Reflectors Reflectors were installed on Dubuque Street (38 posts) in September 1994 and N. Dodge Street (152 posts) in spring 1997. Construction began on N. Dodge Street in summer 1998, temporarily displacing many reflectors. Additional reflectors were added to N. Dodge and Dubuque Streets, and a new system installed on Rochester Avenue in spring 2000. Effectiveness of reflectors is yet to be determined. It is important to keep in mind they are designed to work only when vehicle lights are in use. They also require diligent regular maintenance. Traffic Speeds In a meeting with the Task Force in 2000, Jeff Davidson (City Planning & Community Development Assistant Director and JCCOG Transportation Planner) explained the speed a motorist travels is primarily a function of comfort level, not of the posted speed limit. Eighty-fifth percentile speeds are measured; 85th percentile indicates the general comfort level of drivers and is generally used for determining appropriate speed limits. Speed limits should be set so there is compliance by most motorists; otherwise, they create an enforcement problem for police. Artificially Iow speed limits are not only difficult to enforce, they may also 13 create general disrespect for speed limits, including those in areas where lower limits may be particularly appropriate. On Dubuque Street, the average speed was 39.5 miles per hour in the 35 mph zone; the 85th percentile speeds were 42 mph. On Rochester Avenue, two locations were studied. On the eastern portion, 85th percentile speeds were 33 mph. Further west, 85th percentile speeds were 42 mph. As a result, the City concluded that the current limits are appropriately set at 35 mph. In light of this information, we concluded that reducing limits below 35 mph would not reduce actual driving speeds. It should be noted that we found no studies that relate the incidence of deer-vehicle accidents and vehicle speed (for speeds in the 25 to 45 mph range). Since 1999, the City has mounted a defensive driving campaign during October and November, when deer- vehicle accidents are more frequent. Media releases prompted articles, display ads were run, and a sequencer on City Channel 4 warn drivers to be alert. Recommendations: Because of the high number of deer-vehicle accidents, the Task Force recommends the City: · Continue to assess the effectiveness of reflectors. Since maintenance of the reflectors is essential to their effectiveness, the Task Force continues to request resources be committed to reflector maintenance. · Continue to monitor developments in the area of road signage so Iowa City regularly uses the most up- to-date and innovative signage technologies on the market. · Agree to thoroughly assess, during design and planning phases of new road and road improvement projects, the impact these projects may have on deer migratory paths and, if appropriate, to include passageways under roads for deer in such projects. EDUCATION AND OTHER NONLETHAL INITIATIVES FOR IMPROVED HUMAN-DEER COEXISTENCE Completed and Current Projects The City has undertaken a number of steps toward nonlethal management: · Requested the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to consider Iowa City as a deer contraception test site. · Conducted Deer Issues Listening Sessions at which residents can convey to Task Force members and each other their opinions about and experience with Iowa City's deer. These sessions were taped for broadcast on the City Channel. · Began updating the brochure explaining Iowa City's approach to deer management and emphasizing methods to help residents devise strategies for living with deer. · Utilized the City's website and City Channel 4 for disseminating information. The Task Force recommends continued expansion of both forums. · Participated in classroom discussions, presentations, and radio call-in programs. Installed additional reflectors as well as five warning signs. Upgraded warning signs with the highest quality of reflective material available. The City will continue maintenance of these systems. · Worked with media on defensive driving campaign during high deer-vehicle accident incidence time of year. · Completed a consultant-assessment of impact of N. Dodge Street improvements on deer. An under-passageway is being considered. · Made available for checkout and began broadcast of "Whitetails at the Crossroads," a deer management educational video. · Began production of a video on deer-traffic issues. · Advertised seminar on gardening, landscaping, and wildlife (joint project with lC Landscaping). · Information sharing with comparable communities. 14 Ideas for Future Consideration We have developed a long list of possible initiatives for nonlethal management of the interactions between Iowa City deer and Iowa City people, drawing on our own discussions, resident comments, correspondence, and the listening sessions. Here is a working draft of that list, which will continue to guide our deliberations about nonlethal deer management: · Gather and consider information on experience with deer contraception/sterilization projects across the country. · Produce educational video. Could deal with practical or 'philosophical' issues. Provide copies for checkout at libraries, broadcast on City Channel 4. · Expand information on City web site. More resources. More links. · Adopt-a-reflector system or City staff assignment to assure continuous maintenance. · Presentation by HSUS staff or others on immunocontraceptives or other reproductive control project. · Add a 'deer resistant' garden to the Project GREEN Garden Tours, other gardener activities. · Provide information, etc., at Parade of Homes, Project GREEN and business fairs, Chamber office. · Promote safe driving through campaigns on TV, in newspapers--particularly in May and OctobedNovember. · Provide newspaper/TV/radio features on timely deer-related issues (traffic, plantings, etc.). · Visit deer-resistant gardens. · Host gardening seminars (present live, rebroadcast on public access TV) HISTORY OF DEER MANAGEMENT IN IOWA CITY - 1997-2003 1997-1998 In response to citizen complaints, in 1997 the City Council established a Deer Management Committee to recommend a management plan. Council appointed members representing the following interests: Iowa City staff, iowa City/Coralvirle Animal Shelter, Iowa City Police Department, hunters, Project GREEN, residents of areas heavily populated with deer, residents of areas not heavily populated with deer, animal protect[on, science/nature/biology, Iowa Wildlife Federation, City of Coralville staff, residents of Coralville, and Johnson County Board of Supervisors. The Committee divided the Iowa City/Coralville community into twenty Deer Management Areas, using natural and constructed barriers as lines of division and taking into consideration the ability to implement management techniques in each area. After reviewing the size of the deer population, numbers of deer-vehicle accidents, the deer management plans of other communities, comments from citizens, and advice from the DNR, the Committee recommended and Council approved a multi-component management plan. The plan consisted of initiating an education program, using reflectors and warning signs, consideration of deer when constructing/renovating arterial streets, and the killing of 180 deer by sharpshooting over bait and by trap and kill. To arrive at consensus about killing methods, we considered the costs, legality, risks to humans, and humaneness of each method of killing. For purposes of our discussion, we defined a humane death as one that is instantaneous and painless. For deer management purposes, the most commonly accepted number of deer an urban setting can sustain is 20 to 25 per square mile. Based on recommendations from the DNR and review of management plans from other communities, the 1997 Deer Management Committee established the following guidelines for the City's long-range management plan: 0-24 deer/square mile: Educate residents about living with deer. 25-34 deer/square mile: Review on an area-by-area basis. Educational material may be recommended or killing methods implemented depending on the management area, number of complaints, and/or evidence of types of damage. 15 35+ deer/square mile: Reduction must be implemented. At this level, deer pose threat to the ecosystem. Upon reviewing the 1997-1998 plan, the DNR rejected sharpshooting as an option for urban deer management. But after making a comprehensive assessment of Iowa City's situation, DNR officials concurred that bow and arrow hunting (a kill method that would be permissible) would not be an effective method to reduce the herd according to our guidelines. Staff recommended and, on February 12, 1998, the Natural Resource Commission approved, Iowa City's request to sharpshoot deer. City officials worked with legislators to amend the State of Iowa Code to allow the use of artificial light over bait for the purpose of urban deer management. There was not enough time remaining in the season to initiate a sharpshooting program for 1997-1998; however, a permit was authorized for September 1, 1998, through February 28, 1999. '1998-1999 On October 21, 1998, the Deer Management Committee resubmitted the original plan to the City Council for approval, setting the number of deer to be killed at 240, as a result of increases in the size of the deer herd. Council approved the plan on December 1. The City contracted with the USDA to conduct the sharpshoot. In the south Peninsula area, 19 deer (8 adult does, 6 fawn does, and 5 fawn males) were shot on January 20, and 3 deer (1 adult doe and 2 fawn males) were shot on January 21, 1999. All adult does were pregnant. On January 20, one deer was shot and dropped, but ran off and was not recovered. A group of local animal rights activists backed by national groups filed a request in federal court for an injunction against the USDA, thereby halting shooting activity until a federal judge could review the points of contention. The request for injunctive relief alleged that the USDA had failed to meet federal procedural requirements before the sharpshoot. The window of shooting authorization expired before mediation eventually settled the litigation. 1999-2000 The 1999-2000 Deer Management Committee met from April 21 through August 16, 1999, formulating a plan similar to the first two and increasing the number of deer to be killed to no more than 733. The Committee examined the credentials of three agencies that submitted proposals to conduct the sharpshoot. The Committee recommended and the City agreed that the sharpshooting contract should be awarded to White Buffalo, Inc., of Hamden, Connecticut. The 1999-2000 sharpshoot included a preliminary kill of 11 deer on November 9 to coordinate logistics. Extensive preparation of 29 bait sites took place between December 12 and 31. Between January 1 and January 11, White Buffalo, Inc. killed 349 deer by sharpshooting [215 females (60%) and 145 males (40%)/65 (18%) had visible antlers and 295 deer (82%) were antlerless. Including the 11 killed in November, 360 deer were killed and transported to Ruzicka's Locker in Solon for processing and packaging. Graduate students from Coe College performed reproductive autopsies and collected blood samples to test for evidence of Lyme disease. Blood analyses revealed the incidence of Lyme antibodies in the samples studied was consistent with the statewide average of 5 pement. Deer meat was distributed to local residents by the Salvation Army. Approximately 6,600 pounds were distributed to 1,574 households (4,331 individuals), the Free Lunch Program (Wesley House), the SE Linn Community Food Reservoir (for Johnson County families), churches and community groups, and the Salvation Army Evening Meal Program. Crisis Center distribution is not included in the distribution figures. Qualifications for receiving meat included: Johnson County resident, collect meat only once a month, choose either but not both the Salvation Army or the Crisis Center as preferred pick-up location, and five pounds per family/one pound per individual. Recipes were provided with the meat. The City initiated an educational program, including display ads in local newspapers, the use of City Channel 4 to convey high risk periods for deer-vehicle collisions, a brochure discussing Iowa City deer issues and suggesting ways to coexist with deer, and a deer management video broadcast on City Channel 4 and available for checkout at the public library. Additional Streiter reflectors were added to the N. Dubuque Street and N. Dodge Street systems, and a new system was installed on Rochester Avenue. Deer warning signs manufactured with improved reflective 16 material were placed at the beginning of the reflector systems along each traffic lane. In March, the City's website launched a deer information page including frequently asked questions, a listing of deer resistant plantings, a map indicating deer-vehicle accidents for 1999, and a public comment board. Content of the website will be expanded as the program progresses. After assessing the local situation, White Buffalo staff did not recommend Iowa City as a potential site for a contraceptive study at this time. The City requested a similar analysis and recommendation from HSUS. 2000-2001 The 2000-2001 Deer Management Committee met from June 19 through August 30, formulating a plan similar to the first three and increasing the number of deer to be killed to no more than 500. The Committee reviewed criteria on recommendation of a sharpshooting contractor. White Buffalo, Inc. had established contacts with properly owners and performed the shoot in 1999-2000 as they indicated. Committee members felt comfortable with the manner in which they conducted their operation. Therefore, the Committee recommended and the City Council agreed that the sharpshooting contract should be awarded again to White Buffalo. Extensive preparation of 36 bait sites took place between November 27 and December 11. Sharpshooting took place between December 12 and December 22 and resumed again January 7 through January 18. During those periods, White Buffalo, Inc. killed 340 deer by sharpshooting. When using the "first opportunity" approach, the killing demographics are usually representative of the population as a whole. A total of 204 females (60%) and 136 males (40%) were killed. Seventy-six deer (22%) had visible antlers, whereas 264 deer (78%) were antlerless. Sixty male fawns were included in the antlerless grouping. Students from Coe College performed reproductive autopsies and collected blood samples to test for evidence of Lyme disease. Deer meat was distributed to local residents by the Salvation Army. Approximately 15,000 pounds were distributed to 3,104 households, the Free Lunch Program (Wesley House), the SE Linn Community Food Reservoir (for Johnson County families), churches and community groups, and the Salvation Army Evening Meal Program. Recipes were provided with the meat. The City continued an educational program, including display ads in local newspapers, the use of City Channel 4 to convey high risk periods for deer-vehicle collisions, an area on the City's web site containing deer issues and suggesting ways to coexist with deer, and a deer management video broadcast on City Channel 4 and available for checkout at the public library. The Streiter reflectors were maintained. After assessing the local situation, White Buffalo staff again did not recommend Iowa City as a potential site for a contraceptive study at this time. The City continues to await a response from HSUS. 2001-2002 The 2001-2002 Deer Task Force met from March 20 through September 10, 2001, formulating a plan similar to the first four and setting the number of deer to be killed to no more than 325. The Task Froce reviewed criteria on recommendation of a sharpshooting contractor. White Buffalo, Inc. had established contacts with property owners and performed the shoot in 2000-2001 as they indicated. Task Force members felt comfortable with the manner in which they conducted their operation. Therefore, the Task Force recommended and the City Council agreed that the sharpshooting contract should be awarded to white Buffalo. The Summary Report of White Buffalo's 2001-2002 activities is included as Attachment A. Extensive preparation of 28 bait sites took place between November 20 and November 30. Sharpshooting took place between December 1 and December 20. During that period, 18 days of days of fieldwork were required to achieve the killing of 250 deer. When using the "first opportunity" approach, the killing demographics are usually representative of the population as a whole. A total of 137 females (55%) and 113 males (45%) were killed. Fifty-six deer (22%) had visible antlers, whereas 194 deer (78%) were antlerless. Fifty-seven male fawns were included in the antlerless grouping. 17 Deer meat was distributed to local residents by the Salvation Army. Approximately 8,715 pounds were distributed to 3,548 individuals as well as 852 pounds of meet distributed to nine organizations. Recipes were provided with the meat. The City continued an educational program, including display ads in local newspapers, the use of City Channel 4 to convey high risk periods for deer-vehicle collisions, an area on the City's web site containing deer issues and suggesting ways to coexist with deer, and a deer management video broadcast on City Channel 4 and available for checkout at the public library. The Streiter reflectors were maintained. After assessing the local situation, White Buffalo staff again did not recommend Iowa City as a potential site for a contraceptive study at this time. 2002-2003 After taking into consideration several factors, the Task Force, by a vote of 6-1 (2 members were absent), determined killing of deer would not be necessary during the winter of 2002-2003. The money that was budgeted for deer management in 2002-2003 was carried over for possible use in 2003-2004. COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND TASK FORCE ANSWERS Don't I have the right to enjoy the deer in my neighborhood or the park I visit? Absolutely yes! It has never been the intent of the Task Force to eradicate Iowa City's deer herd. I don't understand the discussion of a deer no-feed policy. If we can have bird feeders, why can't we feed cracked corn to deer in the backyard? Our desire to observe wildlife and to know they are present in our surroundings is understandable. However, the well-being of wild creatures is best maintained by watching from a distance and not by attempting to entice them to our immediate living area. Even bird feeders can have undesirable consequences if placement or poor maintenance alters migration timing, spreads disease, or causes an imbalance in species distribution. Given the large deer population in Iowa City, supplemental feeding is an invitation to negative deer-human interactions that further promote the call for lethal deer removal. Deer movement to and from a supplemental feeding site or salt block frequently involves street crossings and consequent automobile accidents. Concentration of deer at a feeding site causes increased browse damage, soil erosion, and excrement in the feeding area and on neighboring properties. Given their varied diet, it is wrong to assume deer will eat only the corn and ignore vegetation in the area. Routine backyard feedings alter deer behavior patterns such that they no longer fear humans. With repeated invitations to human surroundings, deer that should otherwise be shy and dispersed away from humans spend their time looking for handouts and tasty plantings in more densely developed areas. The desire to feed and view deer up-close should be tempered by the realization that this activity is a primary cause for deer-human conflicts. Deer will ultimately be the loser in these conflicts. A good general reference is Living with Wildlife, California Center for Wildlife (a Sierra Club Book, 1994) available at the Iowa City Public Library. 18 If no population control methods are implemented, what would likely occur to other plant and animal life in the city? The effect of deer on other plant and animal life depends greatly on the number of deer present and the length of time numbers stay at a given level. Although at even Iow levels (10-20 deer/sq, mi.), the effects on species composition of the plant and animal communities are measurable, they are quickly reversed when deer levels are reduced. At high levels (25 or more deer/sq, mi.), the effects over the short term are likely reversible; over the long term, however, many native plant species will be eliminated locally, and they will not likely reestablish even if deer numbers are reduced. In addition, animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate, that depend on those plants will be driven locally extinct. The result is a species-poor community consisting only of a few plants, often non-native, that are avoided by deer because of their thorns or distastefulness. For example, the area behind the Mayflower Apartments contained a full complement of spring flora species 25 years ago, but today nearly all non-woody vegetation between ground level and approximately 6 to 8 feet above ground has been eliminated. Why don't you provide more educational programs and materials? It appears the most cost-effective method of educating the public is to respond to citizen requests for information by providing items such as a brochure. Information from each year's plan will be available on the City's website. The Task Force is committed to regularly recommend and develop new educational materials and resources. We also encourage all those interested in educating the public about ways to live with deer to do so. This effort does not necessarily have to be organized through the City. Can't the peninsula be preserved to provide a refuge for the deer in Iowa City? No. Deer frequently swim across the Iowa River and cross the highways to feed in other areas of town. Creating a safe haven for deer there would require fencing the peninsula and would eventually lead to destruction of all vegetation there. Have you killed deer on the peninsula because of the planned development? The City purchased portions of the peninsula in 1995 for $2,000,000, using general funds ($1.3m) and HUD Supplemental CDBG Flood Relief Funds ($.7m). The lower peninsula, situated in the floodplain, is already designed as both a natural woodland, prairie, and wetland park as well as a well field for the City's water supply. To reimburse the general fund, the 70-acre upper peninsula has been sold to a developer. The peninsula neighborhood is intended to be a well-designed and environmentally sensitive development in the special setting of land overlooking a natural park and the Iowa River. The goals of the project are to provide housing for a variety of types of households and to show how different housing types can be proximate to each other and succeed through careful design, to complete an urban neighborhood in an infill site, and to provide a model of an alternative to conventional subdivisions for the development community in Iowa City. The recommendation to kill deer on the peninsula was made without reference to planned development and, according to City staff, the planned development was made without reference to the deer. The peninsula was one of the most appropriate areas to implement the reduction program because it has the highest number of deer per square mile and it provides several natural sites for sharpshooting. Why aren't you recommending that bow and arrow hunting be included in the plan, particularly since it is cheaper than hiring sharpshooters? A majority of members believe that sharpshooting is the most humane and effective lethal method of reducing Iowa City's large deer herd. Some members view bow hunting as inhumane. In addition, some members do not regard Iowa City's deer management as a recreational activity or sport for hunters and do not wish to encourage such a concept. The Task Force recognizes, however, that bow hunting is a potential legal option, and some members have voiced interest in a bow hunting component in Iowa City's management plan. Efforts will be made during the winter of 2002-2003 to receive feedback from residents on the incorporation of bow hunting into future deer management plans. We recognize that costs are minimal with bow hunting, but believe the community finds sharpshooting a more acceptable method than bowhunting for killing deer for management purposes. 19 How have other communities handled deer management? Programs for deer management vary widely. Communities we contacted in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, and New York have tried a variety of methods: · City officials implementing a plan without citizen input. · City officials appointing a citizens' task force to review options and recommend a plan. · Leaving the issue of killing deer up to the citizens via a non-binding referendum (it is interesting to note the residents voted to kill deer and the Council ultimately decided not to kill deer.) · Use of bow hunting only (both extremely regulated and nearly unregulated restrictions). · Use of sharpshooting only (local law enforcement, federal agents, or private contractors). · Use of a combination of methods to kill deer (bow hunting and sharpshooting). The Task Force did not locate a single community in which deer were not killed and the population stabilized or decreased naturally. One community in Illinois reported that they did not kill deer and no longer had a "deer problem." However, the surrounding communities were actively managing deer using an annual kill. 20 Attachment A Projected Number of Deer to be Removed by Willie Suchy Wildlife Biologist, [DNR The simulations developed here are based upon the number of deer observed during the helicopters surveys conducted since 1997. The simulations assume that about 60% of the initial number counted were does and about 1/3 of the does were fawns. The annual cycle begins with dispersal and reproduction. Then the number of deer present after normal mortality through the end of December are calculated. Removals occur during January and February and are additive to normal mortality. Then the cycle repeats. Multiple simulations are made for each area to find a model that best "fits" the observed aerial counts. Table 1 lists the estimated number of does that need to be removed to reach (or maintain) the objective of less than 30 deer per square mile in 1 year. The simulations "fit" the counts observed on all areas reasonably well if the productivity data from the statewide model is used (See Fig 1). This is the same estimate of productivity that has been used in the past to make the projections. Table 1. The number of female deer that would need to be removed this year to reduce the simulated populations below the goal of 30 deer / square mile. Deer Goal Deer Number of sighted (30 deer killed in does to Purpose of Area District Sq. Miles in 2003 per sq. mile) 2002 remove removals W of Dubuque & 1 0.36 NA 11 27 10 Maintenance North of 180 Peninsula 2&3 0.92 30 28 48 10 Maintenance Dubuque Street to 4&5 1.22 60 37 51 30 Maintenance Dodge Street Dubuque to Hwy 1 6 0.88 76 26 0 60 Reduction North of 1-80 Hickory Hill/ACT 7 2.00 100 60 93 50 Reduction SE Iowa City 10 1.13 12 34 0 0 Iowa River (South) 11&12 1.13 74 34 10 30 Maintenance Willow Creek 17 0.44 0 13 0 0 Manville Heights 20 0.78 2 23 0 0 Finkbine {U of I) 16 0.59 42 17 0 20 Maintenance Clear Creek East 1.39 169 42 21 60 Reduction Total 10.06 563 325 250 270 Because the only aerial counts of District 1 were conducted in 2001 there is no way to determine how well the simulations fit the counts. The estimate of 10 does to be removed should be considered as a "best guess" based on the count in 2001 and the removal of 27 deer in 2002. 21 Figure 1. Results of simulation of deer numbers in districts 2 and 3 (the Peninsula) using productivity from Kent Park model where doe fawns produce 0.95 fawns and adults 1.83 fawns. The simulation indicates the projected population with annual "maintenance" removals. 200 / \ - - - Simulation // \ · Aerial Counts / \ .~ / · \ ......... Goal lO0 \ \ \ \ 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 22 MINUTES PRELIMINARY/DRAFT DEER TASK FORCE MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM - CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Farrant, Pete Sidwell, Harold Goff, Linda Dykstra, Marry Jones Jan Ashman MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Sandier, Lezlie Hall STAFF PRESENT: Lisa Mollenhauer OTHERS: Tim Thompson (DNR) CALL TO ORDER Farrant called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Approve the 2003-2004 Deer Management Plan. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of July 8 approved as presented. 2003-2004 RECOMMENDATION Updated data and edits were reviewed and discussed by Task Force Members. Substantive revisions included recommending Council issue a letter to President Skorton requesting consideration of University property access for sharpshooting activity in future years and evaluation of the East Clear Creek district for shooting. Work will continue on education projects throughout the fall and winter. The Task Fome will reconvene shortly after the first of the year to make a recommendation on Task Fome continuance. The Deer Task Force approved, by a vote of 6-0 (2 absent), the 2003-2004 Deer Management Plan. Mollenhauer will keep members updated on progress of the plan. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:00 P.M. Minutes submitted by Lisa Mo]lenhauer j,~o° Page 1 of 1 Marian Karr From: PhiIBou rjaily@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 'i 1:57 AM To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org Subject: Bowhunting Deer Dear Council members, As you vote tonight on whether to allocate $100,000 for another deer kill, I encourage you to reconsider opening portions of Iowa City to bowhunting. As we have seen this year, deer populations rebound quickly as soon as the sharpshooters leave. Unless the city approves some other means of maintaining deer numbers at the desired levels, paying for sharpshooters will become an annual line in the city's budget. It makes no sense to hire shooters when bowhunters will gladly pay for a license. Phil Bourjaily 9/23/03 From Council Member Pfab Submitted by: Laurie Crawford Stone Attending: Rich H., Rich P., Dave, Harlo, Fritz, Laurie, Larry, lnara, Audrey, Gary~ Absent: Joe Harris Visitors: 5 public, 2 DNR (Tim Thompson, Jim) Guest Speaker: Dr. Thomas Eveland, PhD Biologist, Luzeme College. via video conf,? · IOWA OfT.Y, fnv, Dr. Eveland has been on a number of deer task forces ("DTF') including Long Island, New Yorl~ C~y','n Chicago and Rochester, N.Y. He stated that deer/human conflicts are a political nightmare. The DTF must consider the entire community. Wildlife managers' training creates a certain philosophical approach. He will discuss the deer/human conflict from a biologist's rather than wildlife manager's viewpoint. A quick decision regarding deer herd management creates long range political problems and will damage the community. DTF must disseminate tremendous amounts of information. DTF must educate people. The DTF must work to bring the community together and must provide a multi-level approach. NYC looked at bow-hunting, contraception and at doing nothing for one year. They did nothing for a year and complaints decreased over time. Animal issues raise more ire more quickly than race discrimination and other similar issues. Many people have an "us or them" attitude regarding animal issues. People must be taught to live with deer. Educating people leads to tolerance. DTF will need to set up educational workshops regarding fencing, planting, repellents and other preventive measures. The public must be told the pement of success of various preventive measures. The "d" words (destruction, destroy, etc.) must be avoided. These words sway the public and cause people to look at deer as the enemy. If people are provided with education about animals and with soft techniques to minimize animal contact, there will be reduced complaints. People who are abusive of animals and want them killed are the worst type of neighbors. Eveland is a deer hunter and has been dealing with deer issues for 20 years. He feels we need a balance between areas that should and should not be hunted. Hunting is a success oriented sport. There are only so many deer to go around. In the early '90's people dropped out of hunting because of lack of success because of too many hunters. The DNR addresses this loss of hunters by trying to get children into hunting early and by trying to get more available land. The DNR is trying to get into every square acre of municipal, state and federal land. The DNR wants hunting on land owned by taxpayers. The DNR is even trying to get hunting in Wildlife Refuges and State Parks. Hunting is an experiment. As with any experiment, a control must be maintained. Something must be set aside and not hunted. We don't know the long term effect of hunting on genetics. Hunting of trophy rams has led to a weaker genetic pool. When everything is hunted you don't even know when you're having a problem. When the DNR sets a minimum point limit, hunters kill the better bucks and genetic impact occurs. A good candidate for control is an area like a city that is already set aside. Many refuges haven't had good research. Page 2 of 4 We cannot apply information from hunted land to an area were there hasn't been hunting. Vegetation will be different. Hunted deer are healthy and have more fawns and healthy fawns. Hunted populations don't have the same age balance as non-hunted populations. If you use hunted populations to predict about non-hunted populations, you'll always recommend hunting. The DNR is trained to identify all potential natural predators of deer. Author Leopold studied how to control and reduce natural killers to allow deer populations to grow to supply hunters and revenues. Deer herds fall into balance under certain conditions and not under others. The Deer Ecology and Management Book, to which 40 states contributed, acknowledges many areas where herds have stabilized. Under natural conditions, stabilization means fluctuation. Everything in nature is a wave. It is long range damaging to say we need to maintain the same number of deer from year to year. As an example, gypsy moths have a ten year cycle. Left alone, they mn out of food and die off. If sprayed, some die and the remaining moths reach majority because there is less competition for vegetation. Another example is elephants. Elephants were left alone despite pressure to hunt them. The elephants went through a cycle and fell into balance with the land. The herd fluctuated softly with the biological caring capacity of the land. With hunting you initially lower the number of animals but there is more damage long term and across the board. No one can tell this DTF how to address the issue. Not Eveland and not the DNR. If we don't hunt, the land will go through changes but it won't look like the moon. The DTF needs to look at the long range effect of these programs. If we have different parks, we may want to set some up as experimental. There is a new situation in Pennsylvania. There is a disease caused by deer mice excrement and urine. There is a tight connection between deer and acorns and deer mice. The mouse population explodes with a good supply of acorns. Deer will eat acoms. The presence of deer will reduce the mouse population. Deer presence will greatly reduce mouse and other rodent related diseases such as lyme disease simply by eating food preferred by the mice and rodents. Also, snow shoe hares and whitetails eat the same food. Research has shown that greater numbers of deer results in fewer numbers of snow shoe hares. Conclusion: if deer numbers are reduced, other animal populations such as mice will increase (because of an increase in food supply) leading to an increase in disease and other issues. In Rochester, N.Y., sharpshooting is still in experimental stage. There are no long term results. What method to use? Eveland is not opposed to hunting. Whatever our methods, if they are viewed as positive, we should use them over a long time. If methods are viewed as negative we should have them in place only a short time. Bow-hunting is recreational. It is a limited system of taking animals. Pennsylvania has 300,000 bow-hunters with access to deer for 6 weeks including the rut. 50,000 deer are taken each year. Known kills is 20,000. Conclusion: Pennsylvania is unable to control the deer via bow-hunting even with these hunter advantages. Bow-hunting has a high wounding rate. Wyoming studied Bow-hunting of elk. Th6it~_~ s ac~0% wounding rate. Texas research shows a 50% wound rate for bow-hunted deer. A State Parl~::in I~hois~'~ had a 60 day bow-hunt during which 52 deer were tagged and 48 were found dead in the w.~.~as aC~sull Page 3 of 4 7:20 P.M. At this time Gary suggested we disconnect the call and call Dr. Eveland back as we had been experiencing audio difficulties. We were never able to re-establish contact. ~ GENERAL DISCUSSION: -~. J Tranquilize and relocate: Laurie provided information obtained from Jamie Wash~ TI-a~DTI~_~ decided against this method of management and against viewing the video provided b~bu~. Zones: We were unable to discuss zones as Willy Suchy had not provided the map darkened with areas in excess of 35 deer/square mile. Tim Thompson, DNR, agreed to contact Suchy and request that the information be mailed to Laurie prior to the next meeting. Schedule for May 27th: Meisha Goodman-Herbst of Iowa City Animal Control will discuss safety, including Iowa City's experience with streiter lights. There will be a video about streiter lights. The DTF will discuss zones if Willy Suchy's new map has been provided. Deer Crossing Signs: Rich H. learned that signs that include a smaller second sign designating distance for the deer crossing cost $112 each. The risks and liability of including the distance designation was discussed. Placing signs on Cottage Grove and 34~h Street, at Wenig Road, Glass Road (2 removed during construction) and Edgewood Road between Ellis and the River (1 removed after an accident) was discussed. Commissioner Todd, present during this portion of the discussion, requested that the DTF make a recommendation for the number and placement of signs. Rich H will do N.E. Laurie will do S.E. Number of Deer involved in accidents: Rich H reported that he had talked with Adc Shlotterdike, DNR, and learned that the Animal Control numbers were included in Aric's numbers provided to Inara. Rich H reported that deer killed and not reported would not be included in these numbers. Outline: Topics were outlined (action, options, data) and are on page four. We will have ad hoc committees for the Action (safety and education) categories. Inara, Joe and Laurie will develop a brochure for citizens regarding education and prevention. Rich H. will be involved in safety. It was agreed that the DTF as a whole will discuss the pros and cons of lethal and non-lethal methods. Contraception: Rich P was orally given different information by Pat McElroy, HSUS, than that given to Inara and Laurie by Pat. Laurie provided a new written report from HSUS concluding that an effective one-shot contraceptive is anticipated to be available in two to four years. Bow-hunting: Laurie provided a complete copy of Bow-hunting: Culling or Crippling? City Council directives: Gary N. again mentioned the information he first presented on May 13: he met with 3 City Council members. They planned on the DTF taking 12 meetings. Last week's meeting was number 8. We need to request and will be granted additional time if we need it. The City Council wants a recommendation by July Is~. Laurie read Dr. Eveland's quote from the minutes "a quick decision creates long range political problems and will damage the community". Do Nothing: There was again discussion about doing nothing for a year and that this approach is consistent with Dr. Eveland's and Willy Suchy's recommendations. Page 4 of 4 Land Use Planning: There was discussion about land use planning and preserving green belt areas to retain deer habitat and reduce human/deer conflict. Rich H recommended not developing areas near Mohawk Park. Questions for Dr. Eveland: Questions should be submitted to Laurie by close of business May 22nd OUTLiNE (ACTION, OPTIONS, DATA) ACTION (via ad hoc committees): SAFETY EDUCATION signs (deer crossing, speed limit) fencing/netting accident report plant list incident report brochure reflectors videos (TV, network) driver education land use planning (green belts, wildlife clear brush that hides deer/reduces visibility corridors, avoid deer habitat) physical barriers (fencing, cattle crossings, repellents one way deer gates exclosures new highway design (include underpass and overpass, press releases avoid bisecting deer travel routes) workshop/forum roadway plantings (non-palatable to deer) ordinance(e.g, realtor disclosure) roadway salt (alternatives that don't attract deer?) OPTIONS: LETHAL METHODS NON-LETHAL METHODS netting tranquilize and relocate bow-hunting contraception sharpshooting sterilization trap and kill abortion ordinance- nonfeeding CONTINGENT CONSIDERATIONS: do nothing private vs public land ' education and prevention special management zones DATA: © ~ "~ --f'] DEER POPULATION Current Data: DNR count animal control/DNR accident count above and below 35 deer/square mile map (Willy Suchy to provide) Future data: questionnaires accident/incident reports DNR counts ecological impact DTF 5/20/98 ER _ June 10, 1998 - present' Rich H, L , Inara,i~aurie, TASK FORCE MINUTES sent: Harlo (teaching assignment), Rich P, Dave, Fritz Audrey V sitors: Tim Thompson (DNR) and two citizens Meeting called to order at 6:30 p.m. .~ Gary N provided handouts from Rich P:a recommendation letter from Rich, corresl~o~e ~tems concerning lethal methods. As this night had been set aside for non-lethal discus's~o~<.~'ln~m and Laurie voiced their objection as Gary had asked not allowed them to provide ~n'-le'~ information at lethal meetings. Gary provided the information in spite of the concerns. Larry mentioned that he will be gone the next two meetings and may write up his recommendations, too. Rich H mentioned that he will be in Chicago next Wednesday and that he may submit his recommendations. Someone suggested that we might all want to write up our recommendations. One visitor passed around a check from Heritage bank that had "protect our wildlife" and two deer. He asked us to be mindful of that message. Dr. Thomas Eveland's videotape with answers to DTF questions was shown: Q: Do hunted deer populations have an increase in reproduction in the spring following a fall hunt? Yes. This is called maximum sustained yield. In hunted populations, does go through winter in healthier condition because more food is available and have more fawns in the spring. Q: The DNR tom the deer task force that 98% of the deer alive today will be alive in a year without hunting. Is this true? Don't' hunted populations tend to maintain or increase numbers annually because of the post-fall hunt spring reproduction rates? Q: Th~DNR__ _ ..... told thede, er task forc, e_that__ if we _do nothin , t~g~q_dxer_ o~lation~_ .will ....... double eve. u,, ~-4_,vears. Is this true for a non-hunted urban population? For a non-hunted rural population? The numbers in both questions refer to exponential growth rates. Deer numbers don't increase exponentially. With ideal circumstances a herd will increase and will eventually balance as circumstances change. The herd will fall into waves. A few years the herd will be above the caring capacity of the land and vegetation will disappear and then there will be years that the herd is below the caring capacity of the land and vegetation will re-establish and grow. Long term non- hunted populations still have vegetation and trees. The DNR needs to back both these statements up with scientific data. Herd growth has not continued for more than a decade. Humans are not the only thing to control herds. Nature controls herds by: (1) starvation and thirst, (2) predators, (3) disease and parasite, (4) hot and cold extremes, and (5) accidents. Wildlife managers view deer killed other than by a hunter as a lost resource. A deer killed by a hunter guarantees that hunter will hunt again next year. The Wildlife Management Handbook has 6 pages of names of contributing wildlife managers. Page 248 (he believes) states that deer populations regulate themselves without hunting. Wildlife managers should not force hunting down people's throats where herds have self- regulated. Cedar Rapids may be one of those areas. Q: The DNR told the deer task force that a fawn born last year will have one fawn this year, twins in year 2 and triplets in years 3,4 and 5. Is this true? I'Vhat factors govern litter size? Page 1 of 4 These are exponential growth figures again. Litter size is governed by genetics, nutritional value and availability of food, and age of the doe. A healthy 3 or 4 year old doe should have 2 fawns. Ifa herd has more adults (non-hunted populations) there will be a reduction in fawning rates. In the Pochonos there has been no hunting for 35 years. There have been fluctuations in deer sightings. Two five year old does killed by cars were necropsied. There were no embryos in their uteruses. This is an indication the herd had recently peaked. With mature does, if there is not enough food, they will not go into estrus or will abort or reabsorb their fetuses. You will not see this in a hunted population. In hunted populations you expect at least two fawns per doe each year. In non-hunted there will be some years with few fawns bom. Is Cedar Rapids here? I don't know. You could wait to see if the population has balanced. Each piece of land is different. There is a difference in nutritional value of available food, availability of water, stress factors. You must do an on site study of each parcel of land. Q: The DNR told the deer task force that if we have a deer refuge in the city, the deer population won't control itself. Won't a non-hunted population self- regulate? Non-hunted populations do self-regulate. With a refuge you have a parcel with deer on it surrounded by hunting. During hunting season you will have more deer on the parcel because deer learn it is safe on the parcel. Q: What part does land use planning (including planning for wildlife corridors, green belts and avoiding deer habitat) play in reducing human/deer conflict and increasing tolerance?, lsn't this a key part of effective deer herd management? Green belts and corridors are good. Cities don't have enough. In the inner city you have cockroaches, rats and pigeons. With green areas you have raccoons, skunk and deer. Who would you rather live with? Q: You gave an example of a city that did nothing for one year and complaints about deer decreased. Do you know of other communities that have experienced success in using non-lethal methods? "Success" defined as resulting in greater tolerance by humans because they 'ye learned what to do to reduce browse and deer/vehicle accidents. State departments have created an "us vs. them" situation. This is not a proper ethical or moral view of wildlife/human relations. It is "us". Don?t take a combative attitude. Animals eat vegetation to eat. It is not intentional or criminal. We have been wrongly conditioned by the State departments to pit humans against animals. After awhile you want all the animals dead. Green corridors do control herds and movement. They allow us to condition animals. We can do things with fences. Fences have conditioned deer along Interstate 80 to alter their crossing routes. Deer/vehicle accidents: New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey looked at this. The only way to avoid accidents is to eliminate all the deer. You need to get people to drive defensively. People need to know where deer are crossing. Put deer maps in police stations. Have police officers put a pin where they saw a deer crossing or a dead deer. You will see patterns developing. Ifa deer is hit at a certain location, you know deer arc crossing there. Put up signs - deer crossing and speed limits. Publish township maps in the newspaper to let people know where deer are cro~mg. Gig~ people a way to deal with the issues. You need a multi-level approach - with or without hunting. Cedar Rapids is a refu~ it a green belt. You must determine if citizen complaints about damage are legitimate meenngs to show how to deal w~th animals. Show deterrents: chen~mals, fencing, net~ P~of~ (--~ Have vendors set up booths on a Saturday and let them sell items. These actions will raise community tolerance. People need to feel they have something to take back and try. You need to have no hunting ou some parcels of land for biological reasons We must set some non-hunting areas aside. We're destroying animals genetically by hunting them. There is no example of a major area seriously destroyed by deer. Deer numbers will fluctuate. Remember the DNR are not tree biologists. They are wildlife agriculturalists. They wilt compare humans to wildlife predators. This is not an accurate comparison. Wildlife predators such as a wolves will look for the weak member and kill that one. Humans will look at the same herd and took for the biggest buck. Each has killed an animal but they are qualitatively 180 degrees opposite. The wolf removed the weak member. The human removed the cream of the crop. This is not good genetically. Human hunters do more harm genetically than good. Bowhunting in State parks and refuges. Be careful because it may cost the war. You will anger a great number of people. Bowhunting is a recreational pursuit, not a form of herd control. You may knock down deer for a year or two because deer are tame and not afraid of people. The success rate will drop as deer become afraid of humans. There can be irreparable damage done in the event of an injured deer with children and/or the press. The damage ofbowhunting far outweighs the benefits ofbowhunting in refuges, parks and cities. The State departments need to be very careful where they push hunting programs. A deer with an arrow in it may go 1/4 to V2 miles before it dies. Bowhunting is not an exact sport. In an Illinois state park during a 60 day bowhunt 52 deer were taken out and 48 were found dead inside the park. This is a two to one ratio. You must consider the long term effects of your decision. A wrong decision will polarize your community. The NY task force did nothing for a year other than workshops. This helped calm things down. You don't have to make a decision now. Don't be pressured into a situation. Animals have been here for years. Waiting won't mean exponential population growth. Ask the DNR for proof of their numbers. The group unanimously agreed to view the psychiatrist potion of the Highland Park video. Dr. David Rosenberg: the psychological effects of hunting. There is no literature on the effect of killing deer on adults and children. The important question here is how we convey to youth what we want them and ourselves to be.. How do we problem solve. We often unintentionally convey information. Example of a spider on a playground and one student quite excited and bringing the teacher over to help. The teacher calmly said yes that is the spider's house and left it alone. We can be creative when we aren't angry, aren't in a hurry and aren't too pressured. If we have pressure to kill, the message to kids is the quick fix is better than something more thoughtful. The quick fix won't fix it. The quick fix will polarize the community. People talk about dumb animals and dumb kids. Example of spider that changes its web nightly to imitate the silhouette ora flower that a certain fly likes. Ifa fly is caught and escapes, it won't get caught again. Point: animals learn from each other. We must give the message we want for ourselves and our children: be thoughtful, be careful, be generous and be a community. Review of Eveland's video: 1. Deer don t grow exponentmlly. Herd wall balance. Some years above can~qc.~pac~ of the land and some years below. Site specific considerations are needed. 2. Long term non-hunted populations still have vegetation and trees 3. Drive deer defensively. 4. Post maps in P.D. and have police officers pin deer crossing and dead deer locations. 5. Populations found in a refuge may be skewed because deer may use the refuge to escape hunters. 6. Publish deer maps. Post deer crossing and speed limit signs. 7. Forums and educational sessions will bring peace to the community. 8. Sort out legitimate citizen complaints from invalid complaints. 9. Bowhunting is divisive and ineffective for population control. 10. Need a multi-level approach. 11. Hunting distorts genetics. Hunters take the strong and wildlife predators take the weak. 12. Herds are controlled by nature by: (1) starvation and thirst, (2) predators, (3) disease and parasites, (4) hot and cold extremes, and (5) accidents. 13. You have maximum sustained yield in hunted populations.(Numbers killed through hunting are replaced via reproduction). 14. Eveland is a hunter. 15. 60 day Illinois Park bowhunt: 52 deer brought out by hunters, 48 deer found dead in park 16. We need to consider the long term effects of our actions. Educational Program Discussion - what to educate and how WHAT HOW plantings Driver's education deterrents: repellents, fencing, netting maps exclosure Associations: homebuilders, Realtors, etc high deer density areas Shows: Home & garden show, etc. land use planning (corridors, etc) Brochure (include in water bill?) lyme disease Video safe driving - children/adults Newspaper reporting incidents/accidents Public service announcements control method Groups: youth, etc Workshops: nursery, nature center, etc (Including vendor booths) Radio/tv spots Provide speakers bureau Ordinances (nonfeeding, fence heights, builder/realtor disclosure) Inara recommended use of ad hoc committees for educational programs that include DTF members and citizens. Inara showed a map using DNR zones and deer numbers, comparing 1996 and 1997 populations. Over half of the zones had a decrease in population. Maps will be distributed June 17u'. [nam asked Gary if citizens had rep_o~ed incidents since we gave Dale Todd the II~i(:tgnt ~ a month ago. Gary said he calls Dales office before each meeting and there have be~en.~ rei~lrts.-'Fl Laurie and Rich H will meet with Captain Erceg Friday re streiter lights. Adjourned: 8:40 p.m. Submitted by: Laurie C. Stone ~-~e 4 ~4 CZ) FI! 24 April 1997 Alien T. Rutberg The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L St. N.W., Washington, DC 20037 (301)258-3147(phone) IOZ~/~ OiTY, IOW/~ (301) 258-3080 (fax) RH: A plea for tolerance · Rutberg Lessons from the Urban Deer Battlefront: A Plea for Tolerance Allen T. Rutberg, The Humane Society of the United States, 2100 L Street N.W., Washington, DC 20037 Abstract: As human impacts spread across the landscape, more and more wildlife populations depend for their continued existence on human tolerance. This dependence is especially pronounced in urban and suburban environments, where wildlife species such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) can thrive in close contact with people. Helping wildlife and people live together, by educating the public about the value of wildness and wild animals and by developing and implementing non-lethal techniques for mitigating human-wildlife conflicts, is an important goal of the animal protection community. Because of the importance of human tolerance to preserving wildlife, we ask wildlife professionals to join this mission, even though that means de- emphasizing traditional management methods for controlling wildlife populations. Key words: contraception, deer, hunting, overpopulation, suburbs, tolerance Rutberg Page 2 For considerably over a billion years, populations of living creatures have experienced periods of high and low density, abundance and scarcity, wide and narrow distribution. Each species has to a greater or less extent influenced the biological community in which it lived. But the descriptive data alone tell us nothing about "overpopulation." The concept of overpopulation only acquires meaning when framed in terms of human values; nature doesn't care (Caughley 1981). With respect to white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in North ~America, overpopulation may be invoked for at least two sets of reasons. First, deer may be regarded as overpopulated when they cause direct harm or a perception of harm to human welfare, for example by damaging crops or ornamental plantings, colliding with cars, or (allegedly) spreading Lyme disease. Here the influence of values is relatively transparent, and relates to human self- interest. But overpopulation may also be invoked when'deer numbers cause changes in the biological world that some people consider undesirable, as when "herd productivity" diminishes, a significant fraction of the population becomes diseased or starves, browse lines appear and understorey vegetation disappears, or biodiversity is reduced. In these examples, people may variously diagnose overpopulation because they value deer as a resource to be harvested, value the prevention of animal suffering, value biodiversity, or simply prefer that a forest look a certain way. Although the link to values may be better hidden, the values will still be there (Decker et al. 1991, Rutberg 1997). CD '- Rutberg ~ ~l~ageC~ An animal protection viewpoint of deer overpopulation ~ ~ '~ The Hum~e Society of the U~ted Stmes (HSUS) (thg a~m~ protection or~zation whose ~e~oint I adv~e here), approaches deer ove~opulation bom ~o ~nd~ent~ (~d o~asion~ly comradi~o~) pre~ses. First, diverse and productive biologi~ co~u~ties ~e good, whether in ~ldemess or in our o~ b~ds. S~ond, ~m~s (including ~ldlife) whose lives ~e stron~y ~ected by hum~ actMties should be protected ~om n~dless suffering or d~th at the h~ds ofhum~s. Cons~uently, we believe that deer do belong i~uburb~ nei~borhoods, but we may accept that deer are ove~opulated ifindMdufl ~mals are suffering amtely as a result of~gh densities, or iq bemuse of~gh densities, d~r are seriously reducing the diversity ~d productMty of the namrfl co~u~ties in w~ch they live. However, we do not n~ess~ly co~ider to be s~ptoms of mffefing the redu~d fang rates ~d stuffier body size that may oc~r at ~ densities. T~s hew is more ch~a~efistie ora sust~ned ~eld, crop m~agement approach to herd heflth th~ of ~ mmfl welf~e approach. LikeMse, we do not consider the m~e demonst~tion ofd~r impa~s on native pl~ts to be a s~ptom ofd~r ove~opulmion; d~ ~e ~dl~e, ~d ~g is w~t ~ld~e does. ~e dete~ng favor b~omes the pu~ose of the l~d; d~r denskies ~d d~r impa~s that ~e unacceptable in ~ ~omtum may be mmpletely acceptable in a hea~ly disrobed u~ p~k. B~ause hum~ welfare must also be a conce~ we c~ accept that deer ~e ove~opulated at densities at w~ch th~ seriously t~ten public h~th ~d s~ety. Howler, deer impacts that may be considered mong the nomfl setbacks of eye,day life, such as ha~ng the ~s in one's ~om y~d crop~ by d~, do not l~d us to a dia~osis of ov~op~afion.. Our ultimate gofl Mth resp~ to u~ d~r (~d ~1 urb~ MldlWe) is to encourage Rutberg Page 4 tolerance and enjoymem of urban deer, and to help people accommodate their wild neighbors by helping to develop and implement techniques that reduce the impact of wildlife on people and vice versa. __ ~r ban deer confli .... - I start with a cautionary admission. My involvement in urban deer conflicts ~s oft~ triggered by a phone call from a local animal activist who perceives an impending crisis in his or her community. Often, then serious community polarization has already occurred before I become involved. Communities that resolve deer concerns quietly I hear from infrequently, except in the form of straightforward requests for technical information on non-lethal conflict mitigation methods. Thus, my view of urban deer conflicts is skewed towards the most intense controversies. Nevertheless, my experience has yielded a fairly consistent picture of the evolution of severe urban deer controversies. The most disruptive controversies are triggered not by a general public concern, but by the concerns of influential property owners who are distressed about damage done by deer to ornamental plantings in their yards. These influential citizens complain to civic officials, who respond by delegating to someone -- a park commissioner, a citizen task force, a local wildlife biologist -- the task of doing a "study" of the deer issue. Political pressure from the concerned property owners tends to push the study in a specific direction, i.e., that "something must be done." As the study progresses, additional justifications -- often better justifications -- for "doing something" are developed. The number of deer-vehicle collisions in the community is tabulated, and ensuing damage and injury risks are estimated. Local parks are Rutberg Page 5 examined for "deer damage," and deer impacts on park ecology are postulated. Meanwhile, animal activists grow frustrated, and sometimes bitter. Some of the frustration is specifically value-related: many hold "live and let live" philosophies and, like The HSUS, believe that it is primarily the responsibility of people to accommodate to the wildlife that they have encouraged or forced to live as their neighbors. (The more extreme adherents of this view may hold strong non-interventionist, "let nature take its course," beliefs.) But often, they also sense that all the studies, surveys, and task forces are nothing more than e~xercises designed to rationalize a decision that has already been reached on entirely political grounds -- a decision that inevitably involves killing deer. This suspicion is often reinforced by the weakness, tardiness, or absence of supporting data. For example, in one recent deer controversy, the "expert" assigned to speak at a public meeting about the impact of deer on the ecology ora state park for which a hunt was already planned had first visited the park only four days before. He presented no actual data, and to my knowledge, there were none. It is little wonder that many activists thought that the justi~ficatio~ C) ~'= was a meaningless public relations exercise. ~> ~ r~c~ :=i C-'~ co he deer hat O~ ~ On the extreme e£the other side, there often emerges a group o£people who ! believe ~ accurately described as "deer haters." They are an~'y that deer have disrupted their lives, and call vociferously for the extermination o£deer in the com~unit~ (or at least in their bacl~ards). The passion of the deer haters may be inspired by real harm done to them by deer, but not always, and certairdy many people who have unpleasant encounters with deer do not respond this way. Rutberg Page 6 In my experience, what principally distinguish the deer haters from other advocates of active population management are (1) intolerance for the intrdsion of nature and (2) a habit of controlling their surroundings and getting their way. Possessing a distinctly (but not uniquely) urban mentality, a deer hater habitually confronts problems by lifting the phone and demanding immediate, flawless service -- and letting the person on the other end of the phone know how he or she feels if it is not forthcoming. Thus, not only do they despise the deer, they often resent procedural and political obstacles to killing them, and become as frustrated a~d bitter as their animal activist counterparts as the study phase drags on. Although I've seen individual animal advocates say nastier things to state wildlife officials, the worst collective attack I've ever witnessed was executed by a group of deer haters who were inflamed by an official who was simply trying to describe the state's recommended procedures for establishing a deer task force. In the worst deer controversies, the debate is dominated by the two embittered extremes, the animal advocates and the deer haters. To some extent, this is not surprising. For most people, deer rank low on the priority scale, well below the more immediate concerns of life such as completing a job assignment, fixing the leak in the roof, or keeping the kids away fi-om drugs. Normal folks don't come to deer meetings often, and when they come they don't say much. As a result, public deer meetings can degenerate into shouting matches, name calling, and physical intimidation -- a level of anger, passion, and hatred that I continue to find both astonishing and appalling. ~ ~ Rutberg ~ page:7 The role of sport hunting .~ c~ The HSUS and many other animal protection groups oppose sport hunting. TI~HSU~ believes that recreational killing of animals causes animal suffering and death for frivolous ::~ reasons, and therefore is morally wrong. Regardless of the ethical debate, however, I would argue that sport hunting will rarely if ever be an appropriate long-term solution to urban deer controversies. The debate over sport hunting diverts attention from the search for effective and sustainable solutions to urban deer conflicts, and undermines the effort to teach the urban public about the value of wildlife. Fundamentally, urban deer control is not sport. The philosophical underpinning of sport hunting is the fair chase ethic (Posewitz 1994). However, the objective of urban deer population control by lethal methods is to reduce deer populations as efficiently and humanely as possible. The target is not supposed to have a sporting chance. In practice, "hunting" deer in urban environments consists of killing tame or human-hahituated animals under carefully policed conditions in small parks or woodlots surrounded by houses and shopPing malls and within earshot of commuter traffic. If, as defenders of hunting claim, the essence of sport hunting is the wilderness experience and the thrill of the chase, rather than the simple pleasure of killing animals, urban deer population control does not qualify. hus, hunters who will participate voluntarily in urban deer control actions more than once will probably fall into three groups: those who will participate as a civic duty, those who participate to make a political statement about the value of hunting, and those who simply enjoy killing animals. In my view, neither of the first two groups will provide enough participants year after year to maintain a sustainable population control effort; and no one will want their hackyards -I d neighborhood parks crawling with people fi.om the third grou ~-- In the long run, most urban deer control -- lethal or non-lethal -- will require~e participation ofpro£essionals, and many cases support this assertion (e.g., Hauber 1993, Stradtmann et al. 1995, Ver Steeg et al. 1995). Where public hunting is included as part of a control effort, it almost invariably is done primarily to provide a recreational opportunity, and must be supplemented by a professional effort in order to achieve community goals. The role of contraception Irnmunocontraception, specifically with pZP (porcine zona pellucida) or a recombinant ZP, is a highly promising tool for controlling urban deer populations (Turner et al. 1996; Kh'kpatrick et al. 1997). Conceptually, it is extremely attractive to an urban public wary of guns and receptive to humane ideals. For The HSUS, immunocontraception is appealing both because we believe it will prove more humane than lethal methods and because of the role it can play in helping build public tolerance for and understanding of urban wildlife. Unfortunately, the current state of the technology lags behind the expectations ofthn public and especially of animal activists, who are quick to advocate its immediate use as an alternative to lethal control in many contexts. More unfortunately, the development of the technology and of the understanding of its real limitations have been slowed by exhausting political fights with state agencies, huming groups, and local deer haters. Important and sound research projects have been unreasonably delayed and blocked by refusals of state agencies to grant permits, often under pressure from burners and hunting groups. Deer haters have undermined community support for immunocontraception projects, arguing (often plausibly) that immunocontraception cannot bring populations down fast enough to suit community r~ bu.~. then revealing their deeper motivations by advocating transparently ineffective lethal programs,ca In spite of opposition, contraception research is progressing. Obviously, The HSUS will continue its effort to make immunocontraception highly effective and widely applicable. A plea for tolerance Fewer and fewer wildlife populations live in habitats relatively free of h~.uman influence. More and more of what wildlife remains lives in our backyards (literally and figuratively), farms, and urban and suburban parks. Consequently, the persistence of wild animals in our world depends increasingly on our ability to find ways to live with them. Some of the solutions may be technical (such as immunocontraception), but more important is the cultivation of tolerance for wildlife in the public at large. I strongly believe that everyone who values wildlife for whatever reason should work to educate the public about the value of wildlife, and the importance of creating a friendly environment for wildlife in their own neighborhoods. In a world where people and wild animals frequently come into contact, the deer hater is wildlife's worst enemy. People will make no space for wildlife if they view urban deer as vermin, refuse to change their own behavior to accommodate wildlife, and even take offense if you ask it of them. Deer haters may send money to save elephants or whales, but only because they never see these animals except on their own terms, on television, in zoos or aquaria, or neatly segregated on reservations such as wildlife refuges or national parks. But wildlife so confined and so viewed is doomed. Hence, a warning to all wildlife professionals and sport hunters who value wildlife. In Rutberg Page 10 observing urban wildlife conflicts, I have more than once seen hunting advocates and professional wildlife managers, including state agency representatives, cultivate alliances with deer haters. I can only surmise that these alliances are part of an attempt to expand the constituency for lethal population control and sport hunting; certainly, the deer haters can be counted on to endorse lethal control Regardless of your feelings about the effectiveness and ethics of lethal control and sport hunting, resist the temptation to embrace the deer haters. They are not your friends, Rather, I encourage wildlife advocates of all stripes to join with anim~protectionists and others to help raise the human threshold for what is considered wildlife "overpopulation." Encourage people to tolerate and take pleasure in the wildlife around their homes, and help to develop, study, and implement non-lethai techniques that make it easier for people and wildlife to C..) ~ live together. It is the best way, and the fight way, to save wildlife. ~ rD co L~D-< vo Fr~ ~ Literature cited ~ ~. _~ Caughley, G. 1981. Overpopulation. Pages 7-19 itt P. A. Jewell and S. Holt, eds. i~oblen~n management of locally abundant wild mammals. Academic Press, NY. Decker, D. J., R. E. Shanks, L. A. Nielsen, and G. R. Parsons. 1991. Ethical and scientific judgements in management: Beware of blurred distinctions. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 19:523-527. Hauber, l'. 1993. White-tailed deer management in the Town oflrondequoit and Durand Eastman Park. N.Y.S. Dept. Env. Cons. llpp. + append. Kirkpatrick, J. F., J. W. Turner Jr., I. K. M. Liu, R. Fayrer-Hosken, and A. T. Rutberg. 1997. Case studies in wildlife immunoeontraception: wild and feral equids and white-tailed deer. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 9:105-110. Rutberg Page I1 Posewitz, J. 1994. Beyond fair chase: the ethic and tradition of hunting. Falcon Press, Helena, Mt. 118pp. Rutberg, A. T. 1997. The science of deer management: aa animal welfare perspective. Pages 37-54 m W. J. McShea, H. B. Underwood, and J. H. Rappole, eds. The science of overabundance: deer ecology and population management. Smithsoniaa Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Stradtmann, M. L., J. B. McAninch, E. P. Wiggers, and I. M. Parker. 1995. Police sharpshooting as a methodto reduce urban deer populations. Pages 117-122in J. B. McAninch, ed., Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proc. Of the 1993 Symposium of the North Central Section, The Wildlife Society. 175 pp. Turner, J. W. Jr., J. F. Kirkpatrick, and I. K. M. Liu. Effectiveness, reversibility, and serum , antibody titers associated with immunocontraception in captive white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 60:45-51. Ver Steeg, J. M., J. H. Witham, and T. J. Beissel. 1953. Use ofbowhuming to control deer in a suburban park in Illinois. Pages 110-116 in J. B. McAninch, ed., Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proc. Of the 1993 Symposium of the North Central Section, The Wildlife Society. 175 pp. Virginia Vo~echnic and State 4 The Science °f Deer Management r herd. Game and Fish Conser- An ~imal Welfare Perspective hals. VoL I. Charles Scribner's 'irginia Wildlife 16 {11}: 8-9, ALLE~ T. RUTBERG 1 FisheriesL 1970. Deer ha~est ~ Virginia Game Investigations, 1970. Virginia Game Co~s- rt W40, Richmond. 1 Fisheries)· 1995. 1994 Virginia Same and Inland Fisheries,Wild' Fhc success of the white-tailed deer in colonizing and multiplying in the late-twentieth-century landscape of croplands, woodlots, parks, and sub- urbs has brought the issue of deer overpopulanon before the public in many different contexts. In suburbs, high deer densities raise concerns about traffic safety, damage to ornamental plantings, alteration of so- called natural areas, and other issues. In agricultural communities, deer depredation of crops and orchards is the fundamental issue. In state and nammal forests and parks high deer densities may raise concerns about thc achievement of management objectives, whether they be oriented t,,wards timber production, recreation, historical interpretation, or the prcservation of biodiversity and natural ecosystem dynamics. As nther chapters in this volume instruct us, deer p..9tulation and ,,mmunitv ecology are complex and highly interesting.~nfurtunately, ihi~ pictur'e of deer ecology does not resemble the "science" applied to deer management in the field, especially in the context of suburban deer · ,,ntlicts. The scientific arguments in favor of deer management are com- .nmlv founded more on dOgma than on data and more on intuition than ,,n I.~i~Slide shows substitute for studies. The weakness of these argu- nlcmn is not lost on large segmentS of the public and does much to fuel · ~ mtr~versy and suspicion. In this chapter, I argue that the scientific justification for using specific m.magement actions to reduce deer populations, especially public hunts, .-mmonly is weak, especially in suburban and p~k settings. I further 37 ,(~5 interest of the public hunting advocates, who dominate wildlife manage- be ~ ment agencies, not to correct them. Pure sport hunting is far less accept- qt i able to the public than is management or subsistence hunting, and by su ~ discouraging rigorous scientific inquiry into the management effectiveness and biological impacts of hunting, the agencies blur the line between sport and management hunting and shield the public from awareness of the im- H .}s pacts of hunting. I also discuss how these scientific weaknesses become amplified and distorted in public discussion and outline the course by which I believe deer overpopulation controversies must be resolved. n ! First, I describe the ethical perspective from which I write, n " I AN ANIMAL PROTECTION PERSPECTIVE , ~ I, ~ Like all large social movementS, the animal protection movement incor- ~ porates a broad range of views on hunting and wildlife management. One 1. view, which for simplicity I will label the "animal fights" view, is truly t antimanagement. In this view, animals have a right to exist without hu- a man interference of any kind. Killing, injuring, or othenvise meddling in ~ the lives of wild animals is morally wrong, and killing wildlife for sport is r~ s: especially obnoxious because of the human presumptuousness it implies. ~" fi In a second simplified view, which I will label the "animal welfare" fi view, human interference in the lives of animals is acceptable, but suffer- tt lng must be minimized; deliberate cruelty is immoral. "Suffering" is de. · S g~ fined broadly to include psychological as well as physical pain, such as tr may be caused by close confinement, neglect, lack of appropriate stimu- · provide for normal behavioral responses. In ¥~" as lation, or other failures to tu the animal welfare perspective, wildlife management may be accepted to -'' ~; la -~:~ prevent or end suffering of the animals themselves; to reduce risks to public health or safety; to prevent harm to other wildlife, especially m dangered wildlife, to habitat, or to rare or otherwise desirable wild plantS; .~s and~sometimes--to prevent wildlife from interfering excessively with Al the ability of people to support themselves economically. Lethal manage' Et ment is acceptable only as a last resort, and higher standards of justi- · bein4g considered. Human qs fication are required if lethal management ~s ' hunting is [r~ recreation is no justification for killing; consequently, sport acl considered to be morally wrong. Ck Among practitioners, of course, animal rights and animal welfare . ap perspectives often blend. For example, animal rights supporters will ftc An Animal Welfare perspective 39 it is in the quently endorse euthanasia to end animal suffering and may tolerate fe manage- benign, nonlethal wildlife management; animal welfare supporters rte- less accept- quently endorse "let nature take its course" policies even though animal ng, and by suffering may result. In this chapter, I write as a behavioral ecologist who ~ffectiveness has an animal welfare perspective. tween sport ss of the im- 5ses become HUNTING: MANAGEMENT~ SUSTENANCE~ AND SPORT e course by .Most species currently hunted in the United States do not require manage- ;olved. ment and provide only minimal sustenance. Ducks and geese; pheasants, " mourning doves, and other upland birds; squirrels, rabbits, raccoons, and other small- to medium-sized mammals may be consumed, but very few American hunters effectively feed their families with such small game. As a rule, these species are nor associated with ecological or social prob- ,ement incor- Ictus that xvould justify population management, and where they might ~gement. One be /i.e., where medium-sized mammals are disease vectors), hunting is view, is truly usually not an appropriate management tool. Thus, hunting of most spe- t without hu- des in the United States is primatiiy, if not entirely, recreational. Consequently, the hunting community has focused the hunting debate e meddling in ,m large mammals such as deer, where plausible arguments for subsistence ire for sport is aess it implies. .md management hunting may be presented to the public. A deer in the timal welfare" {reezer makes a significant contribution to a family's annual protein bud- ble, but suffer- get. and charitable programs where hunters donate deer meat to needy ~ffering" is de- tantilies drive home that point. When an estimated one million deer are I pain, such as hit by cars in the United States each year (Conover et al. 1995), it is easy ropriate stimu- m justify sport hunting as a necessary management tool for controlling .1 responses. In deer populations. be accepted to Although these arguments are plausible, they are not necessarily reduce risks to ,upported by data. There are certainly rural areas in the United States :, especially eh- ix'here deer hunting provides an important, even vital, contribution to ble wild plants; thc family food budget. But estimates of cost per pound of venison calcu- lated from total expenditures on deer hunting, number of deer taken, xcessively with .md estimates of dressed weights show that hunting is not, for most Ameri- Lethal manage- ~.ms. a cost-effective way to secure meat. As early as 1975, Willi~mson ndards of justi- :idered. Human .md Doster (1981) estimated that deer hunters spent $1.1 billion on port hunting is tt,,,d, transportation, lodging, licenses, equipment, and supplies to har- xc~t 44.3 million kg of venison. Even excluding the costs of processing and animal welfare ~rcczing, as well as the time costs of hunting, this comes out to porters will fre- %24.85/kg ($11.27/pound)--in 1975 dollars. More recently, the Mary- land Department of Natural Resources {unpublished data} estimated that hunters spent $51 million to harvest 46,317 deer in 1990, or $1,101/deer. 'r{ Assuming a dressed carcass weight of 40.9 kg and that meat makes up '; 48% of dressed weight (McCabe and McCabe 1984; Sauer 1984}, the · ~ average Maryland hunter spends $56.20/kg ($25.49/pound) for venison, not including processing. Clearly, the nourishment provided by deer hunt- ing can be provided much more cheaply from other sources, and deer hunting is motivated by something other than basic food needs. ~_~nmy view, managers currently rely on two fundamental dogmas to · :~ justify most deer management actions. The first fundamental dogma is ~/~<~ that deer management is always necessary to prevent deer overpopula- ~' i5~-G tion. That dogma is implicit in the title of.this volume and is routinely ~: -: >:" encountered in state game agency pronouncements about deer manage- [ ! ->_ ~_5 ment in parks, refuges, and suburbs. The second fundamental dogma is that hunting is essential for deer management. In wildlife management conferences, "hunting" is often '" ~O used synonymously with "management," and "antimanagement" is used as a misleading codeword for "antihunting.' This dogma lies at the heart t of the problem; it is used to justify hunting that is primarily recreational, ~ -: a especially hunting with bows, muzzleloaders, and other exotic weaponry ; -' v that is too ineffectual to provide time- and cost-effective population '" '~ f; Purely recreational hunting is not popular with the public. A nation- - ' '~ '~' fi wide poll of 1,612 adults published by the Los Angeles Times, 25 Decem- ti bet 1993, found that 54% "generally oppose the hunting of animals for ~. g sport." A similar poll conducted for the Associated Press by ICR Survey - . ~.- =, t~ Research Group (Media, Pennsylvania) found that 51% of Ameticanssur- · a~ veved believed that "it's always wrong to hunt an animal for sport." OW ', . v,,.:~ tt position to sport hunting may be even higher in suburban areas, where deer · -'~ la controversies are becoming common. In one Long Island, New York, com- .~-, munity confronting a deer controversy, nearly 70% of residents "strongly .7~'.~ m disagreed" with recreational hunting of deer (Decker and Gavin 1987). '~ In a 1987 survey of California residents, however, 55.5% of respond- ents agreed that hunting was a useful tool for balancing wildlife popula- Et tions with habitat ($chmidt 1989). ' 'P The differences in public perception of hunting as recreation vets"' .~¢ management is explicitly recognized in the management community. In ~..I advising hunters how to debate antihunters ':P em state natural resource agency (Gasson and Kruckenberg ne, readers, "Don't defend hunting as sport. Remember that SEP 23 I1: An Animat Welfare Perspective ~1'[¥ ~)LERt< IOWA CiT .Y, I data) estimated that might think, most of the American public opposes 'sport' hunting. Instead ~990, or $1,101/deer. em~asize the personal... [and] utilitarian values of hunting." that meat makes up LThus, state game agencies, which continue to associate closely with 84; Sauer 1984), the the hunting community, have a strong interest in convincing the public ?/pound) for venison, that hunting is necessary for management. And, consequently, careful rovided by deer hunt- scientific scrutiny of the fundamental dogmas is not encouraged by the ~er sources, and deer traditional wildlife community.-] food needs. adamental dogmas to ~ndamental dogma is HOLES IN THE FUNDAMENTAL DOGMAS · ent deer overpopula- c-'- ;ume and is routinely Lin spite of repeated assertions of the fundamental dogmas and their ~ about deer manage- corollary--sport hunting is necessary to prevent deer overpopulation-- scientific tests are rare enough and counterexamples are common enough g is essential for deer to raise doubts in the minds of both scientists and thoughtful laypersons. s, "hunting" is often The exponential rise in white-tailed deer populations in the United States imanagement' is used during the last two decades makes a strong case that sport hunting has not [ogma lies at the heart controlled deer popu[ations.~ ~rimarily recreational, )ther exotic weaponry t-effective population Rigorous Testing Is Not Applied 'r~.'sts of deer population c~ntrol efforts rarely include even the most basic ~ x the public. A nation- clements of scientific methodology. Controls, or baseline data, against eles Times, 25 Decem- which to evaluate treatment effects are rarely presented. Without a base- tunting of animals for linc for compatison, there is no clear measure of success~One commonly d Press by ICR Survey ,~tcd study IWolgast and Kuser 1993) purports to show that bow hunting 51% of Americans sur- ,tn bitized a deer population in Princeton Township, New Jersey. The study re)mai for sport." Op- presents data from Princeton that (1) deer mortality caused by vehicle ~rban areas, where deer · ~,llisions ( used as an index of deer population) rose from 1972 to 1983 51and, New York, com- .md then stabilized from 1983 to 1992 and (2) deer mortality due to ar- , of residents "strongly ,l~t. ry hunting rose steadily from 1972 to 1986 and then stabilized from :r and Gavin 1987). 1'~.~6 to 1992. The article further describes a progressive liberalization ~er, 55.5% of respond- m archery regulations from 1972 to 1986. No data are presented from ricing wildlife popula- .~r~.a~ experiencing different management over that period, thus preclud- me c~,mpatison. The result is a loose time correlation between archery tg as recreation versus r 't:ulations, archery mortality, and vehicle mortality. ~ement community. In T~vithout baselines for comparison, the hypothesis that hunting con- ~,-' iai periodicalofawest- . tr-~'~ deer populations cannot be rejected. In my experience*with wildlife ~ckenberg 1993} urges m.magers, a hunt that is followed by a reduction in deer population size r yhat, despite what we ",-ns)deter effective; a hunt that is followed by a stabilization in deer~ ~'! ~ooulation size is considered effective; and a hunt that is followed by a rise ' ~' · deer population size is considered effective because, the rationali- " in ~th ~ [ zation continues, without the hunt the popula~on would have grow~ even · ~. Replicate studies, with multiple treatment and control sites, are rare. In practice, success is often claimed when animals are removed from the population without criminal violations, damage to property, or injuries to l~i,-t~ ~,~ ~ hunters or bystanders. One paper, for example, concludes that "deer kills ~ r~. in urban and suburban areas during archery hunting seasons · . · have · ~ contributed significantly to controlling deer at levels tolerated by resi- I.~ ~5 dents" {McAninch 1993). However, the paper presents only data on har- vest numbers in different suburban areas, along with a description of hunt methodology. No direct data on deer pppulations or impacts are offered. : . - "~ The science surrounding deer management may be weak in part be- . . . ~ cause much of it escapes peer review. Most data relevant to day-to-day management are presented in agency reports, compilations of meeting c proceedings, master s these, and other unrefereed formats. Articles re- :.. h produced in Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural :. ~ "· ~' n Resources Conference are routinely cited as if these were refereed, which /:, :' ~;~' a they are not. Hadidian (1993) evaluated 61 reports of studies on white- ~ tailed deer biology in the national parks; only 28% had undergone st journal-quality peer review. A glimpse of this phenomenon may even be . ~,.:; fa seen in.the Journal of Wildlife Management, which itself subjects sub- ~,,-~, f~ missions to a rigorous peer review process. The 1995 volume, for ex- '~ th ample, includes one article on deer population dynamics (McNay and Voller 1995); approximately 40% of the references in this article are gr theses, unpublished reports, proceedings, symposium volumes, and state an agency publications. By contrast, two articles on other aspects of deer bi- tm ology (nutrition, Gray and Servello 1995; molecular biology, Travis and lat Keim 1995) each contain only one reference (of 19 and 39, respectively) to sources other than refereed journals and standard reference works. me Thus, I believe, much of the deer management literature may lack strict a~ scrutiny that would screen out flawed methodology and unwarranted Afl conclusions. spe Data on Unhuntecl Deer Populations Are Scarce ach Several authors in this volume (McCullough, Chapter 6; Palmer et al,, Ch; Chapter 10; Underwood and Porter, Chapter 12) review the handful app long-term studies on deer populations ~h~t were neither hunted nor An^nimalXedfarei'ersl'ective 43 2003 S£P 23 owed by a rise tematically culled. They describe population dynamics that vary in dif- ]OV~/fix the rationali- fcrent environments and at different times: irruption and crash cycles, ye grown even stable high-density populations, stable low-density populations, popula- tions whose dynamics change through time, and populations that show sites, are rare. density dependence and populations that do not. Other volume authors loved from the !Bowers, Chapter 19; Schmitz and Sinclair, Chapter 13; Seagle and Liang, y, or injuries to Chapter 21} note that the impacts of deer populations on plant commu- that "deer kills reties and on the ability of vegetation to recover ftom~eavy browse vary. tsons · . · have with history, latitude, plant type, and other variables.~he unpredictability ierated by resi- of deer population dynamics and community impacts, which is entirely dy data on hat- typical of complex ecological systems, does not prevent most game man- c~iption of hunt ~,crs and public advocates of hunting and culling from repeating the · g ,, ed" --- acts are offered, predictions of catastrophe should deer be left unmanag '~7 ,veak in part be- at to day-to-day Itunting Often Fails to Control Deer Populations :ions of meeting ~1~c mnst visible weakness in the assertion that hunting is necessary to aats. Articles re- Fife and Natural cm~trol deer populations is that it has largely failed to do so over the last : refereed, which tw~ decades. In the absence of better measures, harvest trends are often ;tudies on white- used as a population index (Hayne 1984}.~4An analysis of white-tailed deer had undergone hnrx'est trends in states east of the Rockies {Table 4.1; Anonymous 1995) non may even be ,brays that harvests mote than doubled in the 20 years between 1973 and ~elf subjects sub- ~,ml m 26 of 29 states surveyed; harvests increased by a factor of five volume, for ex- ,,r ,note in 12 of those states. In the 10 years between 1983 and 1993, tics {McNay and harvests more than doubled in 21 of 36 states. The only states among the n this article ate i~, shmving relatively stable harvests were Maine, New Hampshire, Ver- :)lumes, and state remit, and South Dakota. These trends are supported by population esti- ~speCts of deer bi- re.nos lot nine northeastern states (Storm and Palmer 1995). These data ology, Travis and ,uggcst that sport hunting, as it has been administered and practiced over I 39, respectively) irc last two decades, controls white-tailed deer populations either not reference works· .~t all, m~ly in isolated areas, or in habitats near the boundaries of the re may lack strict ,pct it.~' range. and unwarranted I:ailurcs exist at the particular as well as the general level. Since 1974, m.lnilgcrs t>f the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, New Jersey, have !'rcn Imldmg a "management hunt" to control the refuge's white-tailed .!ccr pi ~pulation. Total harvests have risen erratically but consistently since 1~-4. nnd the 1995 harvest was almost exactly twice the 1974 harvest r 6; Palmer et al., t'.s. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished data; Figure 4.1}. Again, to a ew the handful of .kq, t,cal citizen, this does not look like effective population control. er hunted nor syS- ~ I! thc re are enough hunters in the woods, and they are shooting a high TABLE 4.! · .. - White-tailed deer harvest by state ' ~ State 1973 1983 1993 .' ~ Alabama 121,953 192,231 350,500 t Arkansas 33,794 60,248 110,401' · Connecticut -- 3,791 10,360 ? Delaware -- 2,231 7,46.5 : ~ .'; Florida 57,122 77.146 104,178 ~ , ~ Georgia -- 164,000 306,253' /< ln, na s,244 lOl,214 Iowa 14,030 35,619 76,430 ~) ~'~Z'C Kansas 4,112 17,558 30,900' '~- ~ Kentucky -- 18r732 73,278 · ~ Louisiana 74,500 137,000 213,100 i "~ ~ Maine 24,720 23,799 27,402 :r' ~ Maryland -- 18,420 51,2.34 Ma~achusetts -- -- 8,345 '. Michigan 70,990 158,410 330,980 Minnesota 69,035 138'390~ 202,928 ~' :~ Mississippi 976 1~6,147 262,409 .'. - Mis~outi 34,723 64,427 17Z,120 · ,~ ~-~ -- Nebraska 7,955 18,761 26,683 ,~. New Hampshire 5,462 3,280 · '~'~'~ ~ New Jersey 11,318 23,305 49,942 ~..~? :~ New York 75,193 167,106 220,288 : ? ' ~ North Carolina 47,469' 96,236 217,743' ,. ~'- North Dakota 27,780 35,709 62,252 Ohio 7'594 59,812 138,752 · Oklahoma 7,567 21,920 57,831 . .. ~_.~.. { ~ Pennsylvania 126,891 136,293 408,557 · ~2. Rhode Island 102 222 1,462 South Carolina 23,703 57,927 142,795 South Dakota __ 46,727· 48'394 Tennessee 11,411 48,875 138,542 · Texas -- 318,344 452,509 ~ Vermont 9,600 6,630 13,333 ; Virginia 60,789 85,739 201,122 ~ We~t Virginia 25,$63 89,840 169,014 ~.lmana¢, ~ 1995, IG-ame Pub[ican0m,) An Animal Welfare Perspective 45 IOWA C5¥, IOWA 800 - 1993 ~ M~,le 350,500 250 ' -r- Female [ 7,465 200- 6 t04,175 o 3o~3' 6 1~5,49t ~- 150 - 2 101,214 9 ~ 100 ;~ 30'900~ Z 52 73,278 30 213,100 50 99 2,7,402 20 51,234 ~I 0 330,980 1975 1980 1985 1990 199§ ,.90~ 202,928 Year 147 262,409 427 172,120 ~ mUR£ 4-X. Deer harvests at the Great Swamp National Wild[ifc Refuge, New 761 26,683 [cr,cv 1974_ 1995 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished data1- 280 9,889 305 49,942 on.ugh proportion of females, deer populations will be significantly re- .lO6 22.0,288 ,23~ 2I?,743' duced le.~.~, Hesselton et al. 1905; McCullough 1984).~owevet,~. there is .709 62,252 , ,~tcn a large gap between what is possible and what is real, and an honest ,812 138,757- ,, tcnce of wildlife management must methodically examine which strate- ,gzo 408,55757'831 ::~c~ Icad to success an.d 293 ~rc being killed doesnt mean that deer populations are being controlleu.~l 222 1,462 ' ',927 142,795 ,,727~ 48,394 ~,875 138~542 ~)IllER SHORTCOMINGS OF THE. ~,344 452,509 sCIENCE OF DEER MAIqAGEMENT ;,630 13,333 L739 201,122 Ibc Complexities of Ecological Systems Are Not Recognized 1;, ,th data (discussed above) and models [Risenhoover et Chapter 22) 3,476 270,592 - ,,~ ,k, er ecology demonstrate that theS-population dynamics and com- :romth¢ 1996 Deer ~{unter$' :lHlllliV. effects of deer are difficult to predict, as is true of any complex system. In practice, however, game managers rely on a fe~../ .pcc:ous ecological arguments to justify, hunts and othe~ethal reductions_z/ Pr~bably the most widely used of these myths i~ that presertlement pop- · fi.re.ns of deer were controlled by predators, removal of predators ended I 46 A.r. natural control, and, consequently, hunters are needed to control deer populations. Aside from the obvious fact that there are no contemporary data to indicate that predators controlled presetflement deer populations, this argument ignores the modern literature, which so far indicates that c~ uo large ungulate prey populations are controlled by mammalian predators " only under fairly restricted circumstances (Skogland 1991; Boutin 1992). ~ Rather, experimental and circumstantial evidence suggest that mammal- lan herbivore populations are regulated through a complex interaction of ~- food availability, predators, and other variables (Krebs et al. 1995). ~ ~_~lso common is the argument that deer population densities now ex- ' ~ ceed those found in presettlement North America and are therefore too · ~:~ high and must be controlled. Empirical estimates of presettlement deer ~'~ densities do exist (McCabe and McC~abe 1984, Chapter 2). However, the presertlement argument rests on the assumption that modern climates and habitats are comparable to those of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The mosaic of disturbed woodlands, modern farms, and low- - - ~ density suburbs in which deer now thrive differs dramatically from the :. ~ ~ ]' late-Pleistocene woodland complex occupied by deer prior to European ~ settlement. Additionally, the period of E~opean settlement of North · · - ' 135C : . %...~ ; America coincided with the Little Ice Age, which extended from ~ to ! 870. Continental and alpine glaciers expanded in the west and nord ·. ~.~ ~ s and bitterly cold winters, cooler summers, and increased precipitatiol · *: f prevailed in other areas, including those occupied by white-tailed dee ·: '~ ~7~ ' '~ i' deer populations to presertlement levels has littl · ' ~-~. ~.' f {Pielou 1991). Managi~.~ t. b~ological justification.2./ ~ t~ The Biological Effects of Hunting Are Rarely Studied a tt In responding to recent research in wildlife contraception, the wildl la management community has, appropriately, asked a series of tough qu, tions about the potential risks of these technologies to deer and d, m populations. Managers have asked about effects of contraception on d as behavior and social organization, energetics, population health and Al netics, and other issues. F.t Such advocacy of scientific rigor would be admirable were it no~ ,p hypocritical. Almost no one in the wildlife management community frt asked these questions about sport hunting, even though the answerS ac~ ' to rove harsh. In his summary of white-tailed deer research ne hkely p · '*- -c-~-- --,-ssibl~ harmful effects of h CE Halls ( 1984} does not menuon apl lng, except indirectly, when he examines whether a female-skewe~ re needed to ght allow some does to go unfertilized. Rigorous scientific evalua- ~here are no tions of the effects of sport hunting on deer behavior, population struc- tttement deer populations, ture, and population genetics are astonishingly rare, whereas the number vhich so far indicates that of master's theses on the food habits of deer would probably fill a small · by mammalian predators library.. gland 1991; Boutin 1992}. Hunting, as commonly practiced, may have profound effects on the ncc suggest that mammal- age and sex structure of deer populations. Sport hunter preferences for h a complex interaction of shooting bucks skew sex ratios toward females, sometimes dramatically. s {Krebs et al. 1995}. This problem has been widely recognized in the management community, ,pulation densities now ex- though principally as a concern for population productivity and hunter ~rica and are therefore too ,atisfaction, and some state wildlife agencies are acting to reduce the more tares of preset~lement deer extteme biases. However, les* concern is shown about the population, , Chapter 2}. However, the behavioral, and genetic effects of heavy, early adult mortality. :ion that modern climates Data from the Great Swamp National Wildlife R~ge are again in- .eventeenth and eighteenth ,tructive. In the 1995 hunt, 98% of the males and 93% of females killed ;, modern farms, and low- were 2.5 years old or younger (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished {ers dramatically from the datal. The oldest {three} males token were 3.5 years old; the oldest {two} by deer prior to European females taken were 4.5 years old. The implications for deer biology are pean settlement of North potentially staggering. I mention two below. ~hich extended from 1350 First, hunting may select for early reproduction. In most large terres- nded in the west and north trial mammals, including deer, mortality in natural populations ten~ to .nd increased precipitation be concentrated very early and very late in the potential life span {Deevey upied by white-tailed deer 1947; Sinclair 1977; Clutton-Brock 1988}. Females that survive to matu- ,resettlement levels has little rity commonly experience a number o~ years of low mortality before the ,,nsct of senescence (Hayne 1984; Clutton-Brock et al. 1988). Heavy Imnting pressure changes that panem of mortality, imposing heavy mor- ~died t.fliry ~m young adults that would normally show high survivorship and ~vcundity. contraception, the wildlife A well-established body of life history theory suggests that repro- sked a series of tough ques- ,h,ctive strategies are profoundly affected by the relative magnitude of ~nologies to deer and deer ~uv~'nile and adult mortality {Steams 1976; Horn and Rubenstein 1984}. :ts of contraception on deer t'ndcr this theory., heavy adult mortality should select females for early . population health and ge- rqm~duction and reduced body size, as energy for growth is diverted to rcpr-duction. Application of this theory to deer suggests that hcaW hunt- be admirable were it not so ,n~ pressure should select for more frequent reproduction by fawns, pro- ~anagement community has ,tucfion.~ff larger litters by yearlings and young adults, and reduced body ven though the answers are ,,,cm ~emales; these changes should be genetically based. I know of no e-tailed deer research needs, d.mt t~, ~upport or refute this hypothesis. fibly harmful effects of hunt- Second, although mammalian social structure varJ, es widely between aether a female-skewed sex md within species, matrilineal societies are extremely commonplace . o. .... (Greenwood 1980; Wrangham 1~80; Clu~ton-Brock er al. 1952; Armi- rage 1~86). In such societies, close spatial associations between mothers, daughters, and other matrilineal relatives arc maintained into adulthood. presumptively, knowledge about thc location of food, water, cover, and potential dangers arc actvcly or passively transmitted along generations of female relatives. At least some populations of white-tailed deer in which females are not hunted show this social structure (Nelson and Mech 1987; Porter et al. 1991 ). In heavily hunted populations, where adult does rarely live long enough to sec their granddaughters' first winter, it is unlikely that such a social strucuxre can be maintaine~d. With the disintegration of such a structure may come a loss in knowledge of resources, especially resources used during special circumstances, such as severe snow cover or drought. I know of no comparative studies of social structure in hunted and unhunted populations or of the diversity of resource use in hunted and unhunted populations. State Agencies Avoid Spomoring COntroversial Research ' ~ [' ~This critique of the science of deer management is not entirely novel. Wild- life scientists have already discussed many of the concerns raised and amplified here (Romesburg 1981; Wagner 1989). It is not uncommon for applied science to lag behind "pure science"; dogmas entrenched in pro- ~ '" fessional thinking and popular culture persist for decades before the pub- .,"~ ~ lic becomes aware that these ideas have been seriously questioned or even ~ I discarded by scientists. I do not believe, however, that the gap between '"~ '~ i t deer ecology and deer management can be completely explained by a .... ' "delay. Instead, I believe that the state wildlife agen- · :,.' a s~mple mckle-down - ,. f~,~.:.~ t ties will not fund, and the'cooperative research facilities will not~l~onsor, " :..i .. · .~ .** I; studies that may embarrass hunters or damage hunting interests~ a; CONCLUSIONS: THE PUBLIC VIEW OF ,, A DEER MANAGEMENT E~ Keso[vlng deer overpopulation controversies is extraordinarily all,cult. ~'' s~: As discussed above, deer ecology is complex, and these complexities are fr, routinely ignored by game managers who rely instead on fundamental ac CI dogmas and instinct. One problem is that the term ap conceals an unrecognized mix of biology and values~_.n my no ence with deer conflicts, "deer overpopulation" encodes not a co! An Animal Welfare PerspectiVe s between mothers, ~"tnr a rationale for deer population reduction, advocates may mention a ned into adulthood, specific ecological or social problem (e.g., failure of oak regeneration, t, water, cover, and damage to ornamental plantings, or Lyme disease), but when altema- d along generations tire solutions to that specific problem are suggested, other problems are -tailed deer in which raised. Methodical identification of problems associated with high deer ~on and Mech 1987; numbers is rare, and comprehensive, solution-oriented responses are even ere adult does rarely rarer. Commonly, "deer overpopulation" is nothing more than the inmi- vinter, it is unlikely tire. experience-based response of a game manag~ that "there are just the disintegration of too many deer," or, "the system is out of balance..~J resources, especially Inadequate science and confusion over the meaning of deer over- s severe snow cover population is just the beginning of the problem, however. Thee print and social structure in broadcast media have not played a constructive role in resolving deer sity of resource use controversies. Newspaper, radio, and television reporters encourage po- larization by structuring their stories around simple, clearly contrasting ,'icwpoints. More often than not, "reporting" consists of pre&signing a ,tory and then identifying appropriate spokespersons who can fill in the h qtn~tes that the story assigns them. Someone in the hunting community entirely novel. Wild- will be found to call the local animal advocates "BambMovers," and concerns raised and ,,,intone in the local animal advocate community will be found to call ts not uncommon for fi*e hunters "murderers." The story is followed by published exchanges ~s entrenched in pro- ,,f angry letters between members of the identified factions, exchanges that :ades before the pub- ,ometimes degenerate into personal threats. ly questioned or even Science that is already weak and data that are usually inadequate are :hat the gap between lurther simplified and distorted once they reach the public domain. Ad- etely explained by a x,,catcs on both sides grab hold of half-truths and shout them in each he state wildlife agen- ,,~hcrs' faces. I have heard population reduction advocates argue without ities will not sponsor, ~'~ ~&nce that a deer population is sta~ing en masse yet is doubling every lng interests. - years--an assertion that is biologically dubious. I have also heard p,,pulation reduction advocates argue that adeer population of over a th-,sand individuals is both increasing and inbred, although inbreeding ,, m~rc likely a problem for small and shrinking populations (Futuyma I'~x~. On the other hand, animal welfare advocates routinely argue ~h., hunting increases deer populations, a misleading interpretation of rraordinarily difficult. %-data. :hese complexities are It is the responsibility of wildlife managers to discourage the use of ;read on fundamental ;'hunt, lc myths and half-truths by both sides. Unfortunately, wildlife deer overpopulanon" :n.magers are not in a very good position to do this. To be~in with, the es. In my own experi- .ha,let uacv of the science that is often presented to the public by wildlife acodes not a problem :u. Ugers invites criticism from thoughtful laypersons and undermines the ' -' managers' position as arbiters of good science. In my experience, public · ~ skepticism may become so severe that it is difficult for wildlife managers 3~i[~ who are collecting good data to convince critics of the integrity of their '~U efforts. Public skepticism is also aggravated by the identification of .-~ate wildlife managers with hunting interests. Regardless of the integrity and intentions of any specific wildlife manager, the conflict of interest, or at · .~ ~ least the appearance of a conflict of interest, is real and inescapable. As ,- h ~ long as state wildlife commissions and departments are dominated by ~,~L] ~ ~L~ '-~- hunters and other consumptive users, and as long as wildlife deparnnents ~-~' ~ .._) 6--- are principally funded through the sale of hunting and fishing licenses and LLL -' - - nificant public skepticism about the impartiality of state wildlife managers ~... c._3 other income from consumptive uses (Hagood, in press}, there will be sig- ' :. :~,~k'~m's'~.~ in resolving deer controversies. State representatives advocating public ~I'he greatest difficulty in resolving deer overpopulation controversies i~ ~C) hunting to solve urban wildlife problems inst~antly raises suspicions. fundamental values {Decker et al. 1991; Underwood and Porter · ,.-~,~ g I~ In virtually every deer controversy that I've encountered (probably close · s. to 50), concerned citizens on all sides ask officials, "How many deer should there be?" Most officials answer the question with a number or range, for example, "5-15 per square kilometer of deer habitat." These numbers have emerged from a history ~f balancing agricultural and silvi- cultural interests against hunting interests, but in most present-day deer ~ controversies these numbers are both i~televant and indefensible. The best t answer a deer manager can give to'the question of "How many deer t It is, of course, up to wildlife sclc ' '~ public quantitative information on the relationship between deer density t~ and deer impacts. As deer have become the source of important public la olic uestions, data have begun to accumulate on their impacts o.n. ~oCre:sty rqegeneration, wildlife species diversity, vehicle accidents, econotmC m losses and other factors {Alverson et al. 1988; Tilghman 1989; DeCaleSta '~ 1994~Conover et al. 1995; McSbea and Rappole, Chapter 18). These ate A! enormously important studies and must be multiplied. I".t Ultimately, however, it is up to the public to decide what 'P' impacts will be tolerated {see also Decker et al. 1991}. It is up trc to decide whether it is willing to accept I00 deer-vehicle ad year to be able to view deer regularly in an urban park or whether it i ~,.h willing to reduce deer populations to ~\! ,~1 Animal Welfare Perspective 51 T%%% 4~x wild Trillium, or eliminate damage to hybrid azaleas.~Iildlife managers trying to facilitate the resolution of deer controversies must resist the tendency to prescribe arbitrary densities to the public and should instead · of their focus public attention on finding specific solutions to specific problems~. entification of state Unfortunately for the resolution of deer controversies, the public is of the integrity and not a single constituency. Although concern for public safety is relatively lict of interest, or at consistent, people vary widely in the value they place on oak seedlings, and inescapable. As Trillium, azaleas, and the lives of dee?. One constituency {e.g., The Nature rs are dominated by Conservancy) may find itself opposed to policies put forth by another wildlife departments ~e.g.. The Fund for Animals), even if these groups are in substantial agree- d fishing licenses and ment on related issues, such as endangered species protection. Finding ess), there'willbe sig- common ground between bow hunter associations and animal rights :ate wildlife managers groups is even harder. In the end, a solution that satisfies 51% of the *es advocating public public, and doesn't offend most of the rest, may be the bes~t that can be discs suspicions, achieved. Finding that solution is the task of the deer manager and the >ulation controversies land manager; it is up to the wildlife biologist to give the manager and ogy but questions of tl~c public the information needed to make that solution an effective one. ,od and Porter 1991). atered (probably close .x t: K N OW LED G M ENT S ils, "How many deer :ion with a number or Iht- author thanks ]. Grandy, J. Hadidian, S. Hagood, J. Kirkpatrick, and the )f deer habitat." These I h, mane Society of the United States Mid-Atlantic Regional Office for their help ~ agricultural and silvi- ~v,h the manuscript. P. McElroy assisted in final manuscript preparation. most present-day deer fl indefensible. The best a of "How many deer R I FERENCES CITED y do you want?" .nagers to provide to the \lwr,on. W. S., D. M. Waller, and S. 1. Solheim. 1988. Forests too deer: Edge ,.tit-ets in northern Wisconsin. Conservation Biology 2: 348-358. ip between deer density \,,,,x tutus. 1995. Deer Hunters' 1996 Almanac. Krause Publications, lola, WI. rce of important public \rm~l.lgc. K. B. 1986. Marmot polygyny revisited: Determinants of male and fe- te on their impacts on male reproductive strategies. Pages 303-311 in Ecological Aspects of Social icle accidents, economic I x.lurion. (D. I. Rubenstein and R. W. Wrangham, eds.} Princeton Un versify {ghman 1989; DeCalesta l'r,',,. Princeton. NJ. :, Chapter 18). These are I:,,,n,~. s. 1992. Predation and moose population dynamics: A critique. Journal plied. .,t \Vildlife Management $6:116-127. decide what kind of deer ' , t-II,,n-Brock, T. H. 1988. Reproductive Success. University of Chicago Press, 791). It is up tO the public .' deer-vehicle collisions a ' [.:tt,,s-lgrl~ck. T. H.. $. D. Albon, and F. E. Guiness. 1988. Reproductive suc- ~an park or whether it is .,',, m male and female red deer. Pages 32.3-343 in Reproductive Success. l'. I I. Clutton-Brock, ed.} University of Chicago Press Chica~p. ,ak regeneration, preserve Cluttun-Brock, T. H., F. E. Guiness, and S. D. Albon. 1982. Red Deer, Behavior · ~ ~ and Ecology of Two Sexes. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. . oa~, Conover, M. R., W. C. Pitt, K. K. Kessler, T. J. DuBow, and W. A. Sanborn. 1995. · Review of human injuries, illnesses, and economic loses caused by wildlife in ~,~) the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:407-414. ~_~.i ~ I? DeCalesta, D. S. 1994. Effect of white-tailed deer on songhirds within managed ! c~~ ,. ~ forests in Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management 58: 711-718. Decker, D. J., and T. A. Gavin. 1987. Public attitudes toward a suburban deer ~--' ~.~ herd. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15:173-180. co Decker, D. J., R. E. Shanks, L A. Nielsen, and G. R. Parsons. 1991. Ethical and ~ scientific judgements in management: Beware of blurred distinctions. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:523-527. · ? Deevey, E. S., Jr. 1947. Life tables for natural~populations of animals. Quarterly : ~ Review of Biology 22: 283 - 314. Fumyma, D. J. 1986. Evolutionary Biology. 2nd edition. Sinaues Associates, ; Sunderland, MA. Gasson, W., and L. L Krnckenberg. 1993. Hunting, with or without a future? Wyoming Wildlife, September: 36-41. Gray, P. G., and F. A. Servello. 1995. Energy' relationships for white-tailed deer on ' winter browse diets Journal of Wildlife Management 59:147-152 .4~.? _-' Greenwood, P. J. 1980. Mating systems, philopatry and dispersal in birds and ' "~' ~ ' - mammals. Animal Behaviour 28:1140-1162. Hadidian, J. 1993. Science and the management of white-tailed deer in the U.S. · r ..~: national parks. Pages 77-85 in Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Re- - , ~ search and Resource Management in Parks and Public Lands, George Wright ; ..:,..: t Society, Hancock, MI. t Hagood, S. In press. State Wildlife Management: The Pervasive lnfluence of "3~' ~' *s g Hunters, Hunting Culture, and Money. The Humane Society. of the United t: States, Washington. a Halls, L. K. 1984. Research problems and needs. Pages 783-790 in White-Tailed ·: tt Deer: Ecology and Management. (L K. Halls, ed.) Stackpole Bunks, Harris- la burg, PA. " Hayns, D. W. 1984. Population dynamics and analysis. Pages 203-210 in White- In Tailed Deer: Ecology and Management. (L. K. Halls, ed.) Stackpole Books, a.' Harrisburg, PA. A Hesselton, W. T., C. W. Severinghaus, and J. E. Tanck. 1965. Population dyna- E~ mica of deer at the Seneca Army Depot. New York Fish and Game Journal 12:17-30. sp Ir( Horn, H. S., and D. L RuBenstein. 1984. Behavioural adaptations and life hismff. 2nd edition. Pages 279-298 in Behavioutal Ecology. (J. R. Krcbs and N. B- ac Davies, eds.) Sinaues Associates, Sunderland, MA. Krebs, C. S., S. Boutin, IL Boonstra, A. K. E. Sinclair, J. N. M. Smith ap Dale, K. Martin, and R. Turkington. 1995. Impact of food and predation c oe~ the snowshoe hare cycle. Science 2~9:1112 - 1115. ~-x~ ¢~ .~5 ~ AnimalWetfare Pers~five 53 ed D~r. ~E~vior M:Aninch, J. B. l~R3. Bowhumin~ ~ ~ ~b~n d~r popul~on ago. t~l. Pages 33-36 in Pr~eedin~ of ~e W~tem Bowh~ting Conference, A. Sanborn. 1995. Bozeman, MT. ~sed by wildlife in McCabe, R. E., and T. R. Me, be. 1984. Of slM~ and a~ows: ~ historical retros~ction. Pages 19-72 in ~ite-Tail~ D~r: ~olo~ and Management. ts within mnaged ~L. K. Halls, ed.) Stack~le Books, ~bm~ PA. :711-718. McCullough, D. E. 1984. Lessons from the ~o~e Rescue, Michigan. Pages d a suburban d~r 211-242 in White-Tailed D~r: ~olo~ and Ma~gement. {L. K. Halls, ed.} Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 1991. Ethical and XlcNa); R. S., and J. M. Voller. 1995. Momli~ censm and su~ival estimates ~tinctions. ~ldlife fl~r adult ferule Columbian black-tail~ d~r. Jour~l of Wildlife Ma~gement 59: 138-146. ani~ls. Quarterly Nelson, M. E., and L. D. Mech. 1987. Demes ~thN a nonheas~ Minne- sota deer population. Pag~ 27-40 in Mmm~ian Dis~nal Palms. {B. D. ;i~uer Ass~iatm, Chepko-Sade and Z. T. Halpin, e&.} U~niw of Chi~go Press, CN~go. l',cl.u.E.C. 1991. A~er the Ice Age. Uni~i~ of Chi~go Pres~ Chi~go. r without a hmre? I',rtcr. W. R, N. E. Mauhews, H. B. Unde~ R. W. Sage, and D. F. ~h~nd. 199 I. S~ial o~ani~tion in d~r: Impli~fiom for l~tked mnagement. Eh- white-tailed d~r on v*ronmental Management 15: 809-814. ~7-152. R.mcsburg, H. C. 1981. Wildlife ~imce: Gaining reliable knowledge. Journal of persal in b~ds and Wildlife Management 45:293-313. $.u~cr. P. R. 1984. Physi~l charactemfi~. Pages 73-90 in ~te-Tailed Deer: :led d~r in fie U.S. Ecology and Management. {L. K. Hal~ ~.} Sm~pole ~ks, Harrisburg, PA. . Coherence on Re- x, hmidt, R. H. 1989. ~imal welfare and ~ldlife management. Pages 468-475 n~, ~orge Wti~t m Transactions of the 54th No~h ~efim Wildlife and Natural Resources t .-nfcrence, Wildlife Management Imfimte, WasNn~on. ~asive I~uence of s,,,d.*ir.A.R.E. 1977.~eMricanBuffalo. Univeni~ofChi~goPress, Chicago. giew of the United xk,,gl.md. T. 1991. What are the eff~ of predators on large ungulate popula- tums? Oikos 61:401-411. 790 in White-Tailed ~'.~r,s. S. C. 1976. Life histo~ tacfi~: A review of the ideas. Quarterly Review pole B~ks, Ha~s- ,,s lt,flogy 51:3-47. st,,rm. (;. L., and W. L. Palmer. 1995. ~ite-tail~ d~r in the no,beast. Pages s 203-210 in White- 112 - I 15 in Our kiving R~ources. (~ T. ~Roe, G. S. Fares, C. E. Pucke=, L) Smckpole Books, I'. I). l).ran, and M. J. Mac, ~.} U.S. National Biological Se~ice, Washington. i:l<hm.m.N.G. 1989. Impacm of whig-tailed d~r on for~t regeneration in ;5. Population dyna ..... r~hwcst Pennsylvania. Jo~l of Wildlife Management 53:524 -532. x and Game Jou~l i:.~x ,,. s. E.. and P. Keim. 1995. Differentiating individuals and populations of . :"dc deer using DNA. Jou~l of Wildlife Management 59: 824-83 I. fions and life h~to~. ' :.~t,'rw,,,d. H. B., and W. F. Po~er. 1991. Values and science: ~ite-tailed d~r ~ ~ebs and N.B. ; :un.*ecment in eastern national par~. Pages 67-73 in Transactions of the ~ ;,,th N,rth American Wildlife and Natural Re~urc~ Conferee, Wildlife . M. S~th, M. R.T. Xl.m.~gcment lnstitme, Washin~on. ~ and predation on ~ ~<ncr. F. H. 1989. ~efican wildlife m~gement at the crossroads. Wildlife ', ,, wry Bulletin 16: 354- 360. · ~4 A. T. RUTBERG · ~ Wolgast, L. J., and J. E. Kuser. 1993. Bowhunting stabilizes a New Jersey white- ' tailed deer population. Bulletin of the New Jersey Academy of Sciences 38: Wrangham, R. W. 1980. An ecological model of female-bonded primate groups. Williamson, L. L., and G. L. Doster. 1981. Socioeconomic aspects of white-tailed deer disease. Pages 434-439 in Diseases and Parasites of White-TaiLed Deer. : (W. R. Davidson, ed.) Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. ~O I t a fi fl ti g Al ~p New territory for deer management: un} an conflicts on the suburban frontier -J >'" Sandy YanAllen Baker and Johanna A. Fritseh ~ A ml~onty of people who llve in snbm'ban sm'ro~.mdings Ired are aware of and reformed ~tbout the environment, arc l~eing disre§ardcd. CTFs shonld be structured to reflect the ¢Omn~unltie$ they are designed to gerve." Wildfire mznzgcrs face a nc~z challenge in d¢cr nesota, N~J~, ~d Iowa. At management on the subu~ frontie~ co~cts ha~ ~cn ch~leoging ~ercises wi~ ~po~t mong people with oppos~ vi~poM~ or ~- implications for future wildlife management ucs. ~ deer in. de h~man~o~ted ~n~pcs plus. Ove~, we beReve ~s ~ve not q~e~ed fi.e., residential neighborhoods and cont~uou$ dissension but, ~st~ have ~r polled pubRc parks), ~age to pl~t matcriM$, L~e dis- people ~ were desired to unRc. Wc ~so e~e ~d deer-v~cle ac~den~ become common lleve t~t there B a better ~y to manage wide. concc~. Attitudes to~d de~ ~e diverse, mS- r~g op~o~ ~ ~e ~soluRon of deer-related ins from cnthusi~tic to tole~nt to fear~l and problems. We berne a ~cussion of past loathly, proc~ums ~ be hclp~ ~ d~e~ining a ~ec- Sub~ hom~ ~d pa~ dep~ent ~- tion for mo~ cohesive wiMlffe m~agcmcnt p~c. ~d a~e ~at ~me~ ne~ to ~ ~ne. ~ aces on the new suburban frontier, inco~o~tMg ~m to ~tc ~l~c agcnd~ for a~ce, but qu~fien respect for both ~ople and a~als. whether ~di~ona wil~ifc ~ment p~ctic~ (i.e., h~ ~e app~pfiate M h~y ~p~ated ~ ~t ~ ~ immure conch. In ad~fion, ~e ~}m~ Of ~~e~t b~ic c~g~ m s~ a~tud~ to~d$ d~r ~d d~r-re~ted ~io~ ~c ~ f~tc~ prot~o~ conc~ ~d ~- ~st in noncoB~mpti~ app~ch~ to deer m~- T~ or ~sk fo~s a~ a contem~ ma~gc- agement ~elle~ 1~2). Sure ~e ag~cio m~t mcnt t~que. ~ ~e~:~y f~ ~k~- d~ ~ a new b~ of~d~c prophet ~at ~ ~, ~d ~ve. n~ pm~n~ ~ we~ ~u~ted, ~nmcn~ tio~. ~t~e, ~d ~ ~ expc~uo~ of ~ gov~- Ci~en task forces have ~en fo~ ~ n~er- ~cnt agcnci~. ~ ~ tend to ~mr no~etb~ ~- o~ s~tcs ~der the aegis of te~v~, agent. In O~ op~on, they During the I~t decade, attempts to resolve hu- favor of the agen~es and ~e~ b~ to~s hunt- man conflicts over dcer-hm~ pmblems have re- ins. Sub~b~ ~d~ap~ ~re been ~ged suited in the crcation of Citizen Task Forces th~we~ no ~f~ent Rom m~l ~c~ t~tion~y (~F$) in many states. ~cluding New York, M~- m~aged for hunting. In ~ ~tcr ca~ of deer Authors' addcess: MonrOe Co,inly Alliance for Wildlife Pro~-~-tion fMCAwP), P.O. Box goss4, Roche. stet, NY, 14609, USA. Ke3, words: cJtJzen task I'orces, ¢ordlJct management. O~oco/leus vi~in/anus, suburban fcontiee, urban deer, whitc,-tailecl management task forces in places as geographically The suburban frontier includes people with distant as Iowa and New Sersey, the facilitators were vergent attitudes about how wildlife should be experts in wildlife biology, not group dynamics or managed clo~e to their homes. A majority of peo- facilitation. These facilitators were known to sup~ pie who live in suburban surroundings and arc port traditional management activities. We believe aware of and informed about the environment arc that, because of this, the process was seriously being disregarded. Citizen task forces should be flawed. The CTF$ were not successful in represent- ~-~t~_..c _ty~..d.to reflect the~ommunities they arc de- Lng the thinking or desires of the suburban areas signed to serve. There needs to ben'way to served, i~_Kes~e consensus, or in diffusing w~fi~]~h~ community stakeholders are, and a . er over.de~r issues, process in place to ~election isr.a skewed. Meeting ground for 2 sciences ~ ~ People management is a science ver~ different Facilitation or mampulati~). from wildlife biology. Human team-building and con- Openne~ is a ncc~c~/characteristic of Let~cc. flirt resolution also require special skills, tire task force. A ski[lcd prOCeSs facilitator reifit~c~ The succe~ of thc CTF relie~ heavily on the first this principle by making sure that si~nifica~ ~.'~ r- step: finding an objective :md effective facilitator, matinn is not withheld. He or she emco_urage~c- .. He or she must be f~. detacfic~l, tmpamar.to tile out- ipants to express feelings, attitudes, values, ~ be- r~ come, and an expert in group dymamic$. For exam- liefs with others (Hedberg 1990). ple, knowing how to diffuse anger, regardless of the From our perspective, the imbalance in t[~c CTF issue, B a necessity for a good facilitator, system has silenced thc voice of stakeholders con- Thc CTFs should be c_ompriscd o~f people who cerned with hum:me alternatives. Information pre- have a ~rake in the x~solutioll of a~roblem. The real scnted during CTF meetings is not alway~ equi- stakeho[ders~'n the s~ubu~ba~----d-eer dilemma are table. Typically, stakeholders are educated by rep- homeowners and other real estate property owners; re.~entatives of the state wildlife agency, These municipalities that manage public parks and recre- wildlife professionals often rcprcscnt the prohun~- ation areas; the people who usc these properties, lng group. They axe often in uniform, projecting an such as hiker~, skiers, photographers, :md natxlre air of authority. We believe their affiliation with lovez~, thc state wildlife agency does not allow them to be .These stakeholders from suburban areas bring a va- obiective, rletyofpotemlallyconflictingvtewatotheCTF. Rep- Deer-human conflicts may result from an over- resentatives of both the consumptive :md noncon- abundance of deer, or they may result from an intol- sumptive side appreciate anlrn~ls. Philosophical dif- erable presence of :my deer (e.g., causing clam,ge to ferences arise in approaches to a specific issue 0.e., plants), peci~.!pns about appropriate solutions to although both sides may agrec that dec~ population t~esc .conflicts require not only an examhaation of manngesuent is necessa-~y, one favors hunting and the possi~tion but ' inforn~- other prefers fertility controD, tion about alternatives, ~uch as deer-vehicle accident Under thc current system, we bclieve wildlife p~e~a, tion~ Lyme disease, pre.ca~.~tion$~ and plant, pro- agencies ~lect ~takeholders who $upport their pro- tection. Reducing the number of deer does not auto- grams; the nonconsumptive side is not faLdy repre- ~ resolve landscape problems; ff the objective sented. This became a problem in Irnndequoit, New is to prevent vegetation damage, then fencing or the York. The CI'F was weighted in favor of hunting, use of deer-resistant plant materials may be more Not even the local H~mane Society or a newly fective solutions. The controlled atmosphere of the formed group of homeowners who enjoyed deer ~TF$ has not promoted better discussion of we~ given seats, althoogh thc lartcr formally re- and goals relevant to the suburban frontier. Nontra- quested a scat within the allottcd time frame. Ama- ditio~aalmethodsofwildlifcpopulalioncontrol, such jority (53.5% of 407 respondents) of Lrondequoit re~ as immunocontraception, or possible deterrents to identlal propexty ownerS supported contraception as deer~vehlcle collisions, aueh as Swareflcx~ reflector the most-prefer~ed long-term solution; fewer than systems, may be misrepresented, discredited, trivial- 25% supported hunting optinn~ (Stout and Knuth ized, or ignored altogether. Somcstatewildlifeagen- 1995)_ Yet only ! stakeholder (Sandy Baker) rcpr~ cies often miss the mark by assuming a traditional sentcd this majority viewpoint on a CTF comprised deer management option is the only ~olutton (Porter of 11 stakeholders_ 1997). u~ ~sul~ or ~c a ~int- ~ ~ondcquoi~, a ~ to~, a sub~b~ ~n~cr, wh~ ~i~ ~c ~- ~c ~ ~e ~ ~ ~ d~-vchiclc ac~d~t volv~ ~ ~ ongo~ ~m~e to ~t~te ecolo~ figures w~ never co~ected in ~e minutes. ~e and ~i~ r~. ~ ~ople ~ a new br~d ~gher num~ w~e ~ to pubH~e ~d just~ of ~d~c pm~nent ca~g a ~c~ag of ~u~; ~e n~ f~ i~ed~e h~ ~u~on. U~den~ed: most of them favor noOn.al alte~tlvcs to deer shales of s~ ~ ~m e~h~ in ~e ~te m~ent. w~ sh~ at a ~ m~g, th~ ~ptyin~ er- ~ubu~ ~s, ~d ~d ~mm~io~ of com- mit U~t ~ ~. olu~on by ~c prof~io~. A.~k~m~ent com~n~to~ ~, ~ ~po~t component of ~acili~ ~d~e ~pulation d~cs, wax i~ored by ad~ ~e ~lc of ~e management m~ ~ge ~tes of annual herd ~duction. I~ I a~a of the rcspo~e co thc needs and demands of society. D~ ~ ~o~e~uoit, ~c ~co~eo~on ~ for Wild~e p~f~xlon~ ~ ~p~ at m~p~a~g ~c~ed s~ of ~h~g Hc~- Buck p~- ~e ~p~a~ons; hu~n na~ ~ not ~ ~ w~e i~ued. Had th~ bc~ a sincc~ a~emp~ ~. P~ple m~gement is also a n~ fron- to ~oive the probit, mo~ pc~ got ~Ocrl~ ~er. ~c~ ~iu~o~ t0 0eer-~iat~ pmbl~ dccr ~d have ~ ~u~d ~cr th~ buck pc~ ~ co~ ~q~ hon~W, t~ ~, ~. and ~- Wc ~1 ~ave a s~ke in now our H~e ~cr~y, ~e ~pl~en~ R~ ~e not on ta~et tech-~ ~uch ~ ~1~s ~ ~ ~1~ ~ ~5). ld~. a cli~t~ ~ ~t~ ~t ~ help ~ w~n ~t d~ not ~e the ~t~ ~ ~ ~e co~ ~ey ~ek to ~t, not ~ ~i~ ~e ~cr ~~ who ~ ~ady ~ond ~s ~ d_~ - ~cs. ~w~e~vc~eer ag~cics arc ~d by It ~ o~ ~ef that ~mc~ ~ ~flo~ ~ s~t~ to a~ ~ ~e ste~ of our ~n~ent, yet ~ ~s. Across ~e count, ~e ~ ex~pl~ much of th~ fund~g to accomplish thc~ ~ork of d~io~ent ~d i~tion ~ ~e p~e~ ~ it comes ~om ~c ~c of h~ a~d ~ now s~; I w~e p~poneat ~ ~ ~dwest ~- Consequently, their policies oftcra crab.ce the sig~ed; another cxpe~enced f~stration; Baker ~e of their re.nut m~er ~n the g~ter (1~2) ~bmi~ed a M~oHw Re~ whi~ ~s ~- ~on ~ey ~ ob~gatcd to ~e. ~ ~e ~um~r welcomed by ~ o~er Cl¥ me~; h~ rcqu~t to of ~pla p~pa~ ~ ~d ~eflt~ ~ h~t- ~ve it ~clud~ ~ or ~ ~ a~c~t ~o ~c ~ ing diminishes, nonhunter~' tolerance for me~o~ of ~e popala~on ~em~t ~ a~o rcco~tio~ ~n de~- Wc ~ ~t ~- o~ ~e dcc~e~gxhaustive, cx~ive h~t~r re- der ~c ~nt ~stem. co~c~ ~ong ~oplc ~' no~ ~ing ~b~ ~facto~y, ~d ~at ~e opin- c~itment and pubic ~[ations ~p~s ~ not ionsofmany~ub~w~cpro~n~n~e~g change people's v~ucs. ~e tt~c h~omc nppreed, sure ~e agenci~ to f~ off a broader vision ~t ~Rer r~ec~ the ~lucs of ~¢ gr~la- fion_ S~tc ~d fede~By ma~tcd pro~s S!!m< ~n~ced by the legislatures ~poamg them. ~er lmve moved i~to ~e ne~rh~. ~d ~ Hc rclafio~ pro~ should be ~ected to edw pie have built ~ces; ~c~ ~ de~-h~m~ co.Ct, cate cvc~oae a~t ca~ng for the environment. ~e ~rception of ~e phySiCM ~mage d~r ca~ C~cy (1995) ~id. ~UM~ implement effo~ may bc greater th:m It is M reality (C~vcn ct M. centered on p~ple$~ ~~m~'ce~te~d 1992)- N~e~eless, one hom~wner loves deer. ~e a~~ms, or people.* ff~d, next hat~ them; this i$ another co~ict~is time the principle is to reac~ c._ on$c~us ~rou~ dicer. ~n ~ople. sity..~e~ianc~ to p~itics: ~ch~e~t AclL'no~edgment_s. We apprcciat¢ the input of quality management consuimats D. Hedbetg and G, Keck, the good humor and professional eq~n;m~/ of A~ T. Rutberg. the vision of IL J. Warren, and the cooperation of stakeholders L Hatflcld, G. Trifaro, and B, Wersba from other CT1: arras, who helped us ide~ltify the common problems cxperienced nation- Literature cited ~ ~,m~,~ Yanagen 8ater Oe~ is ~ public ml~m Mom'oe ~ ~U~ce f~ ~e ~t~ ~. ~ ~. A ~[la~ ~n~ ~ ~ N.Y. ~ ~ ~ and ~ a ~ ~b c re~ ~l~nt w~l ~, a~ s~ h~ ~n ~ in ~ cl~up and ~ ~d ~to~ ~ ~e ~ m.~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Oir~ ~ ~ ~ ~a~ ~,a T~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ Nat. R~. ~ ~7ff5~5. ~i~ di~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t ~ ~1 ~n's ~ ~ Un~ H~D. 1~. ~~8. M~d~.,~, l~F~(~~l~ia~a~ti~ ~.Y. Ip. ~ ~. ~ an ~s~ ~ali~ f~ ~m ~,8. ~- ~ofd~t. ~11~ ~W.~, 1~. ~e,~~of~ ~n~a. ~n~isa~ng~a~mun~ of~ ~ ~RU ~. ~1, ~ U~., ~ TOTAL P. 05 Many recently published scientific surveys and studies indicate that the average wounding rate for bowhunting is over 50 percent (more than one out of every two deer shot is never retrieved). Wounded deer are caused enormous pain and suffering. Following is a list summarizing studies on archeiy wounding rates and shots per kill: 1. Ahoy, R. W. 1984 "Deer Hunting Retrieval Rates." Michigan Pith,an-Robertson Report Michigan Depamnent of Natural Resources, Lansing, Michigan -- 11 pp 58 percent wounded 2. Anonymous. 1970 "Chincoteague Narrative Report, 1965-1970". Refuge Manager's United States Govemment Memorandum to Regional Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 3 pp. 52 percent wounded 15 shots per kill 3. Boydson, G. A. and Gore, H. G. 1987 "Archery Wounding Loss in Texas." Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas -- 16 pp. 50 percent wounded 2 lshots per kill 4. Cada, J. D. 1988. "Preliminary Archery Survey Report." Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, Montana -- 7 pp. 51 percent wounded 5. Causey,. K.; Kennamer, J. E.; Logan, J. and Chapman, Jr., J.I. 1978 "Bowhunting White-tailed Deer with Succinylholine Chloride-la'eated Arrows" Wildlife Society Bultetin 6(3); 142-145. 50 Percent wounded in Alabama (without succinylcholine chloride) 50 percent wounded in South Carolina (without succinylchloine chloride) Page 2 6. Croft, R. L. 1963. "A Survey of Georgia Bowhunters." Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners 17:155-163. 44 percent wounded 7. Downing R. L. 1971. "Comparison of Crippling Losses of White-tailed Deer Causedby Archery, Buckshot and Shotgun Slugs." Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners 25: 77-82. 50 percent wounded 8. Garland, L. E. 1972. "Bowhunting for Deer in Vermont; Some Characteristics of the Hunters, the Hunt, and the Harvest." Vermont Fish and Game Depa~hnent, Waterbury, Vermont. 19 pp. 63 percent wounded 9. Gladfelter, H. L. and Kienzler, J. M. 1983. "Effects of the Compound Bow on the Success and Crippling Rates in Iowa." Proceedings of the Midwest Bowhunting Conference. Wisconsin Chapter of the Wildlife Society, Edited by Beattie, K. H. and Moss, B. A. -- pp 215-219. 55 percent wounded 10. Gladfelter, H. L., Kienzler, J. M. and Koehler, K, J. 1983. "Effects of Compound Bow Use on Hunter Success and Crippling Rates in Iowa." Wildlife Society Bulletin 11(1 ): 7-12. 49 percent wounded 11. Hansen, L.P. and Olson, G. S. 1989. "Survey of Archery Hunters, 1987." ~ouri Depaxtment of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri -- 17 pp. mm 52 percent wounded ,_< Page 3 12. Sheriff, S.; Haroldson, K.; and Glessman, N. 1983. Study conducted for the Missouri Department of Conservation. 50 percent wounded 13. Harron, J. S. C. 1984. Three year study of Wisconsin's bowhunting wounding rates (three year average - 56%). 56 percent wounded 14. Hofacker, A. 1986. "On the Trail of Wounded Deer: The Philosophy of Waiting." Deer and Deer Hunting 10(2): 65-85, 104. 56 percent wounded 15. Jackson, R.M. and Norton, R. 1982. "Wisconsin Bowhunter Study." University of Wisconsin, LaCrosse, Wisconsin. -- 36 pp. 44 percent wounded 16. Langenau, Jr., E. E. and Aho, R. W. 1983. "Relative Impact of Firearms and Archery Hunting on Deer Populations.: Proceedings of the Midwest Bowhunting Conference. Wisconsin Chapter of the Wildlife Society. Edited by Beattie, K. H. and Moss, B. A. -- pp. 97-121. 55 percent wounded 13 shots per kill 17. Langenau, Jr., E. E. 1986. "Factor Associated with Hunter Retrieval of Deer Hit by Arrows and Shotgun Slugs." Leisure Sciences 8(4): 417-438. 61 percent wounded O '='~ ,/x '-' ~ " Page 4 18. McPhillips, K. B.; Linder, R. L.; and Wentz, W. A. 1985. "Nonreporting, Success, and Wounding by South Dakota Deer Bowhunters -- 1981." Wildlife Society Bulletin 13(4): 395-398. 48 percent wounded 14 shots per kill 19. Moen, A. N. 1989. "Crippling Losses." Deer and Deer Hunting 12 (6): 64-70. 68 percent wounded 20. Stormer, F. A.; Kirkpatrick, C. M.; and Hoekstra, T. W. 1979. "Hunter-Inflicted Wounding of White-tailed Deer." Wildlife Society Bulletin 7(1): 10-16. 58 percent wounded 21. Westcott, G. and Peyton, R. B. 1986. Study conducted of wounding rates for the State of Michigan. 50 percent wounded (Fractions rounded to nearest whole number) 55 percent overall wounding rate from 22 reports (two reports cited by Causey et al) 17 shots per kill, average 1. All the previous studies were conducted by various state DNR's and universities. Funding did not come from special interest groups. In light of the intense public scrutiny to which bowhunting has recently been subject, the high wounding rates reported in these studies has become embarrassing The hunting industry wanted to conduct its own study. The Wendy Krueger study acknowledges funding and support from over 42 bowhuntlngi~dvoc~y groups and trade organizations. ~.o~ ~ ~. . 2. Dr. Allen Rutberg, senior scientist of the HSUS has conducted an analys~s df this study. He finds weaknesses in the methodology used. Among these are: a. Bowhunters outnumbered deer. b. Deer that are hit by one hunter and retrieved by another are excluded from the total of loss rate. An animal could wander injured for as long as a day before being killed by another hunter. Unlike in other studies, hunters were not asked whether and how many "kill shots" were required to finish off deer partially or completely immobilized by previous hits. They were not asked how much time elapsed between initial hit and death of the animal. c. While in other wounding studies hunters did not know the purpose of the questionnaire, in the Wendy Krueger studies, they did. This could make it difficult to extract non-biased answers· d. While 98.9 percent of the successful hunters were interviewed, only 60.8 percent of the unsuccessful hunters were interviewed. In conclusion, Dr. Rutberg states that "the Krueger study does not show that bowhunting is humane, nor does it show that bowhunting is an effective tool for managing deer populations under any circumstances." LIVING WITH DEER AUTHORED BY: Dr. Thomas Eveland Ecology Consultant -- ~ ~ This report is hardly a cure-all for every farmer, tree nursery owner, gardener, part-time landscaper, or orchard operator contending with white-tailed deer. Rather, it's a combination of ideas and recommendations that may help people more comfortably live with deer. Beyond the discussion of means of mitigating deer impacts, this document makes an implicit appeal for humans to exhibit greater tolerance for ~ildlife. Historically, people have routinely killed -- by shooting, trapping, or poisoning -- wildlife as a matter of convenience, us a way of dealing with a conflict. Such prejudice and intolerance for wildlife is, however, less acceptable today. The ethical challenge is to secure our convenience and our livelihoods and,to let wild animals live in peace. It is axiomatic that wild animals more deer may now inhabit the to extinction, with only slightly --in the course of their search for eastern half of the United Stales more than 100 individuals food, shelter, and other daily than at any time in the past 150 surviving; for them, the key Id needs -- will have an impact on years, survival is more habitat and less people. Chipmunks, for instance, Of course, many'people are fond direct killing by poachers and are notorious for unearthing of deer, cherishing an opportunity automobiles. Like Florida's freshly planted bulbs. Squirrels to caleb a glimpse of the graceful diminutive deer subspecies, find their way into partitions and creatures. Others, however, claim columbian deer, which Inhabits attic~. Field mice prefer thelower they are little more than Ihe Pacific Northwest, is also a chambers of a household -- overgrown pests, browsing fcdcrallylistedendangercdspecies. eventually moving into basements, vegetatio~ and crossing roads. But there is often more talk of And skunks and raccoons tip over Such polar views Inspire Ihe the abundance of deer than of garbage cans to gain thc goods, debate over deer management, their scarcity. Thc white-tailed Sometimes wildlife come in Specifically, while some people deer, for instance, which inhabits bigger, and seemingly more claim deer should receive all areas of Ibc Rocky Mountains, dangerous, packages. Yel people, prolcction, others claim they must numbers in excess of 15 million in many instances, havc bc hunted, individuals nationwide (including demonstrated a remarkable ability ' four million in Texas). There may to live With these animals. RANGE AND DIVERSITY be as many as five million mule Alaskans adjust to brown be. ars Deer are the smaller-sized, but deer, which mull around the and moose traveling through their thc wider-ranging rclalives of elk Rockies and other portions of beck'yards at night. In Florida, and moose in the United States. western landscape. people have learned to have While moose inhabit the alligators safely removed from northernmost states of the U.S. A Q U E S T I O N O F swimming pooLs and transplanted (WA. OR, ID, MT, ND, WY, CO, CONTROl'. unharmed back into area swamps MN, WI, MI, NY, VT, NH, ME) One of thc most controversial and rivers. And even in some and elk the western stales (WA, issues within the field of wildlife housing developments In the OR, CA, NV, AZ, NM, CO,iUT. management concerns deer Pocono Mountains of ID. MT, WY. ND, SD, NE, OK. hunting. People often confuse northeastern Pennsylvania, KS). deer inhabit every state issues when discussing deer residents live harmoniously wilh except Hawaii. From sitka deer In hunting in particular. While It is black bears, by doing such things Alaska Io sika deer in Maryland, clear that deer can sustain an as placing their refuse in bear- from black-lailed deer in Oregon annual kill and nol be severely proof garbage cans. tO whilc-lailcd deer in 10sa, and depleted, that is not Ihe same as In between the squirrels and the from mule deer in Arizona to key saying that deer musl be hunted. bears -- in size and abundance -- deer in FlOrida,~. . deer.,.in., .slightly. In fact, It is clear that many land is the white-tailed deer. varying sszea and colo~, arc areas across the United Staten Principally, because of wildlife America's widesl~ ~'anging large varying in size and location -- managemc, nt practices designed to mammal, maintain healthy deer herds, but increase deer numbers and land Some subspecies are, of course, no deer humin~. For A,Bstance, use practices that resull in the less wide:ranging Ihan others, thc NationalPa~Scrvice_'~.~whlch creation of suitable deer habitat, The key deer, for instance, is close --- manages 80 mtt~n~acr~of land thc National Park Service --which factors, death by disease, cxtrcmc silualions, but the surprising thing manages 80 million acres of land heat or cold, parasites, predation, is how many parks containing deer -- generally operates with a no- or starvation. If some of those populations have no problem." hunting credo (except for some factors do not exert a significant Thcrc arc, howcvcr, seleCl large land areas in Alaska). impact in a particular region (c.g. circumstances when deer do have Acadia, Shenandoah, Everglades, absence of prcdatoi'$). Ibc olhcr a visible impact On a forest Big Bend, Voyageurs, Rocky factors exert a proporlionatcly COmmunity. Generally speaking. IVlountain, Yellowstone, Glacicr, grealcr influence. Ibc deer arc not reducing plant Grand Canyon. and Sequoia are Populations do not maintain biodiversity, but reducing plant just a few national parks where equilibrium, however, just by the biomass. Some noted ungulate deer hunting is outlawed, deaths of individuals; Surviving eCOlogists point out Ihal such Also, deer reside on hundreds of deer also decrease Ihcir talc of impacts arc short lerm. Says Dr. smaller-sized areas, such as state reproduction underless thanideal Grabacm Caughlcy, 'I do not and cily parks, where no deer conditions. For instance, rather know of any Syslcm dislocaled hurtling is permitted. Such areas than produce twins or triplets, permanently by a bout of occur in all regions of thc country, does will produce a single fawn or overpopulation. Thc phenomenon from thc Pacific Northwest Io the won'l produce at all. This is temporary and its remission Southeast Io lh¢ henri of Ihe Mid- phenomenon is not cxclusivc to spontaneous. Most Ircalment$ of West. These land areas provide deer. Outside of Yellowstone ovcrpog~.lation arc justified by a ample evidence that there is no Natural Park, where coyotes are dire prediction of what might have absolute biological nccd to have hunted, trapped, and poisoned, happened had Ihe Ireatment been human hunters kill deer. females produce six to eight pups withheld. ^ marc convincing case Not surprisingly, dcerdcnsities_ per litter. Inside Ycllowstonc, would be madc by dcmonslrating as influenced by climate, where Ihey arc protected, coyotcs that Iht effects of untreated vegetation, COmposition, forest produce two to four pups per abundance is irreversible.' maturity, and abundance of litter, it's nature's way of Thus, the question of deer predators -- differ by region. For tightening Ihe reproductive faucet, management is not one of inslance, in Vermont, where the Deer demonstrate some other biological Carrying capacity, but o~' growing season is relatively short noleworthyreproductivestrategies . the cultural carrying capacity -- and winters can be severe, deer to limit lbeir numbers.. 'John how many deer will people densities are rather Iow: 10 deer Ozoga and Louis Vermc of the. toleratein Iheirenvironmcnt? Of IPner square mile on average (1990). Michigan Department of Natural course, this depends not so much the West, especially west of the Resources point out that does will on the behavior of the deer 20-inch rain line, water is more of bear more males than females in population, but on the options of a limiting factor, especially as tt times of stress. 'l'nis alleration of the human population. Two aft'eels thc vegetative community, normal sex ratios decreases thc people, for instance, may view a and deer densities are reproductive potential of thc ricer eating a yew in the backyard cori'espondingly low. in thc mid- population; obviously, males do in an entircly different manner. Atlantic states, however, where not bear young. Thus, the fewer One person may be happy that his winters are not severe, where thc number of females in a or her backyard is providing food human suburbia creates 'edge' pOpulation, the less reproductivcly for a duct. Anolher person may habitat, and where few predators capable the population, bc angered Ihat "his" yew tree is exist, dccr densities can be The point is, nalure ultimately being aesthetically damaged by significant: marc than 30 deer per regulates deer numbers. AS statcd deer browsing. Fundamentally, it square mile. in IfOtite-Tailed Deer Management is a question of atlJlude, not T~ough deer densities may be and Ecology, thc bible of dccr science. Ungulate ccolosist relatively high in certain regions, managementforwildlifemanagers. C-aughleysumsupthucontraatersy: it does not follow that hunting 'IMOSl wildlife biologists and --- 'Is containment ~3 an must be employed to limil deer managers can point to situations (dramatic rise in ~:~'3 nul~¢rs) numbers. Ultimately, natural where deer populations have not necessary.'? That~--"~ regulating'factors will limit deer been hurtled yet do hal fluctuale . question and 1 C~nTerprgto numbers In those regions as well. greatly nor cause damage to evidenceavailable~i:tplyi~,jtha!.-~.. For instance, deer populations are vegetation. Certainly deer reach it is seldom or ne~ ~cesa.~. limited bye variety of decimation overpopulation in some park containment of~ e~.~ptio~../~ desirable? That is not a scienli(ic Io a significant degree. Many varieties of plants that are more question. I can boast no people Comfortably live in regions appealing than a deer's regular qualifications that would make my highly populated by deer. These menu of native species, he or she opinion any more valuable Ihan people maintain beautiful is inviting trouble. those of my two immediate ornamentals and bountiful Palatability studies indicate Ihat neighbors, a garage mechanic on vegelable gardens and safely drive deer prefer certain ornamentals one side and an Air Vice-marshall rural roads. These people have over others..amd, in at lea~t some on thc other.' learned to tolerate deer and to situations, certain ornamemalsare Cope with thc limited way in which not pre/erred by deer at all. DEER DIFFICULTIES they inconvenience our lives. Obviously, it would be a direct .lust like any wild animal, deer benefit for homeowners lo know will behave in ways that UNDERSTANDING THE which ornamentals are preferred occasionallyinconveniencepeople. PROBLErvlS by deer and which are not. A Expensive ornamental plants used .~n underslanding of animal complete listing of these plants is to enhance the value of a home behavior will put you on the path provided later in this report. and to increase the landscaping in resolving your problems. Keep Deer damage is basically aesthetica can be planted one day in mind that deer are seasonal. Oarden damage, only to be severely browsed opportunistic feeders, capable of obvionsly, occurs in lale spring, Overnight by local deer. .~fter utilizing hundreds ofplantspecies summer, and early fall -- the long hours of work to produce a and incapable of recognizing growi~ season. However, the small vegetable crop, gardeners property boundaries. Assuch, any browsing of ornamental plants can have their broccoli, corn, new home that's built in prime around houses is almost solely a beets, carrots, and other deer habitat that also 'has winter problem. As such, vegetables eaten by deer. Still ornamental plants, a garden or homeowners only have tocontend other people plant a few fruit other preferred deer food~ will with troublesome deer and Irees for the fruit as well as a eventually be investigated and °rnamentalbrowsingfrom.lanuat7 hobby. These, too, can be heavily lestcd. If the deer like the through March in most areas of damaged by local deer in a short human-modified environment, the country. time. And, people who move lo they will establish a feeding From April Ihrough June, grass the country may not be pattern, shoots and fresh leaves are accustomed to watching for deer A second reason why a new available for deer. At that time, while driving the roads. As a homeownermayeXperiencesevere deer seem to prefer these fresh result, deer-auto collisions can occur, deer damage to his or her planting ~ foods over most other plants, even relates to the surrounding habitat, ornamental species. However, if These concerns are ineradicable, For example, a mature forest ~ they do happen to wander into as long as we choose to allow not deer habitat. A forest one's garden, they will no doubt wildlife to live in our midst. In consisting of large trees, which sample some of the plants, it is some areas, these problems can shade the forest floor and deprive during this time that gardeners seem severe. In Pennsylvania, for young trees and shrubs of, must take care, because once deer instance, vehicle~ struck an lifegiving sunlight, offers little for identify your garden as a potential estimated 40,000 deer in 1990. deer. Deer are, however, attracted food source, they will return. Deer browsing of ornamentals to forest edges,' where sunlight The. least troublesome time for around New York was estimated reaches the ground and ~hich deer is July through September to Cost homeowners hundreds of provides palatable and available a time when wildlife foods are thousands of dollars per year in plants for deer. Putting a house readily available. The deer are the mid 1980,$. ,,~nd, landowners or homing development in the often broken into groups of only a in certain parts of Rhode Island middle of a large expanse of few individuals, and doe~ with have complained in recent years mature forest will create a lawns move less at this time. that growing simple vegetable favorable environment for deer, by Buck~ also move infr~ecluently, since their fresb~J~sprout~ velvet gardens is almost an impossibility, creating much 'edge' habitat (zee antlers are pai.~n~l~.~del.h:~te and Even though these problems figure 1). appear to be on the increase. ,amother landacaper's concern is damaged easil~;~r~en ~'~umpcd there is no reason to think thai the palalability of plants. When a against tree b~a~cl~es such problems cannot be reduced homeowner unknowingly chooses structures. ~.[~, da~r Ire' dispersed and theirconsumptionis SOLUTIONS materials. These manufacturers not conCentrated, spreading out There are a number of means to will no doubt have other fencing their impact. minimize, or eliminate nuisance designs available and will Certainly By October, the bucks have deer impaeu to your property. It share them withyou upon request. polished the velvet from their now is important to undet~tand, hardened antlers and are however, that the degree of KIWI FENCE SYSTEMS preparing for the autumn breeding success of any preventative (412) 627-5640 sea, on, known a~ the rut. Last measure will depend on a number RD 2 BOX $1 A Spring's fawns are feeding moreon of factors. As such, the WAYNESBURO, PA 1.5370 vegetation instead of their homeowner must bear the mother's milk; this freedom from Ullimatereaponsibility for bringing LIVId-WIRE PRODU~ ' their young allow~ Ihe does to deer or other animal-related (207) 365-4438 begin preparation for the rut. The problems to a reasonable and BOX 307 rutting season, combined with the moral Conclusion. availability of mast (acorns, SHERMAN MILLS, ME 04776 beechnuts, and other wild nuts), A. FENCING TECH FENCE makes the fall period also one of If you wish Io have a vegetable (207) 327-1398 infrequent deer damage to homeowners, garden in deer range, then you ADVANCED FARM SYSTEMS should consider a fence. No other BOX ~64 RFD By early winter, though, thc device or strategy will provide BRADFORD, ME 04410 situation is quite different. Many such vegetation protection. When deer are physically drained from properly installed, a fence can be When deer are being chased or the rut and in search of nearly 100 percent effective in are running scared, they can jump increasingly sparse food supplies, eliminating deer impacts, an eight-fool high barrier. If the mast crop wa~ light, most of providing long and lasting However, fences of shorter height the wild nuts may have already benefits, have proven successful in been eaten by deer. squirrels, A varieryoffences are available preventing deer from entering raccoons, turkeys, grouse, or other on the market. Hardware stores, gardens. Deer will ,,~ually try to wild animals. Deer also gather hardware sections within larger .either Crawl under or squeeze into larger groups during winter, department Stores, and through a wire fence before And. wild plants are dp/ and agriculture/animal feed stores are jumping Over iL leafless and no doubt less palatable, just some of thc plac.~ fencing Conditioning deer from thc Information and catalogs can be beginning ia-much more effective Given these circumstances, it is found. When choosing a fence, then trying to slop deer from little wonder that deer Can consider thc topography of the entering a garden once they have sometimes cause severe damage to site, the animal species you are found it. A first time gardener ornamentals In winter, excluding, and thc overall size of should always incorporate a well- Ornamental species, like holly thc area. Thc following basic designed fence into the initial trees, rhododendrons and yews, fence designs and aCCompanying garden creation. This fence, If not may be the only available green, explanations were taken from Deer electrified, should also include leafy vegetation. And, since these Damage Control in IVew York repellent bags or other deterrents plant~ are. succulent and easily .4g:qculcure, published in 1983 by for the: first year. Once deer learn obtained, they beCome a popular thc Department of Agriculture to avoid this site and not consider food source for deer. and Markets with funding from it a feeding area, you should not Thus, for most homeowners, Ihe Ihe New York State Legislature. have problems in the future. winter months are the worst for These fences have been field However, if you are trying IO deter deer damage. Aa such, repellents, lasted and proven effective, deer from a garden after the fact, fencing, or other damage. However, if they do not fit into so to speak, you will have to go to prevention techniques need to be only temporary. By April, fresh your garden site, then by all greater extremes. Breaking bad native vegetation will be available means do not he~itate to modify habiu is just as difficult fog.deer anyof these designs or crcateyour as it is for humanr~ again, and deer problems should own. The following is a list of dramatically decline at this time. Some of the COmpanies that B. NE'I~riNG produce fences, or fencing Along with fenciff~,~ qherCr,~,e a.'-~-[~ number of companies that Conweb Cot p .... another under certain conditions. produce plastic netting. In some (800) 422-9123' One word of caution: when respects, stiff, plastic netting can Plastic Z 3 AH I I: E 3 reviewing a survey report, make be used effectively as a fence. 2640 Patton Rd. sure Ihe testing was done under Primarily, though, netting material Roseville, MI~I3(.~;L~.~K field, rather than laboratory, can be used as a temporary cover i.~WA CiT~ tO\t~A conditions. for ornamentals during critical Internet . If you own a few fruit trees times. For instance, most plastic (612) 541-9690 and/or small garden and wish to nets are made for small fruil trees, 2730 Nevada Ave. N. try repellents but are afraid of Ihe such as dwarfcberriea, or for berry Minneapolis, MN 55427 chemicals, there are two non- bushes, like blueberries and chemical, non-commercial blackberries. Their purpose is to Wildlife Control Technology repellents that are available. prevent heavy berry or fruit (209) 294-0262 These are human hair and tankage raiding by birds. When draped 2501 N. Sunnyaide Rd. (dried animal fecal and sewage over or attached to poles Fresno, CA 93727 residues available as organic or engulfing the small tree or bush, natural fertilizers). Both of these these neu provide adequate C. REPELLENTS repelleats are odor-based and can protection. Most repellents are designed {o be applied either on the ground or In recent years, there has been an increasing uae of the~e plastic plant or close to it. They are obtal~d at barber shops or local nets for deer control. Many designed to act In one of two beauty salons and should be homeowners drape them over way~; either asa repelling odor or placed in 1/8' or less mesh made large ornamental bush~ during repelling taste. A few chemical from Vexar (Dupont) bags. winter months to deter deer from repellen~ may utilize both (These are COmmonly used in fruit browsing. They are incoaspicuous strategies, and vegetable packaging and often and much more difficult to see It is important for all used around the house as onion or from a distance than fencing, homeowners considering chemical suet bags.) Add a few f'mtfuls of' They are al~o easily placed and repellents lo assess both the hair to a mesh bag and simply removed. However, they do not product and the problem . hang 25 lo 3,5 inches above the prevent browsing, but rather situation. For example, many ground on a fruit tree or on a prevent severe overbrowaing of a chemical repellents are not pole in the garden. Dry tankage particular plant. The degree of reCOmmended for garden use. can be put into a light cloth, or success or failure of plastic netting Also. some repellents may COntain cheesecloth bags (1/2 Io I cup) is subject to a high number of certain chemicals that may 'burn' and hung in a similar way. variables, or in some way damage certain The results of using human hair species of ornamental plants, and tankage are inconsistent. P L A $ T I C N E T T I N G Always read labels thoroughly and Some homeowners have used MANUFACTURERS do not hesitate to contact product them with impressive results and Almae Plastics, Inc. manufacturers for additional some have not been so lucky. (301) 485-9100 information. Their addresses and Such things as rainfall, humidity, 6311 Erdiman phone numbers should be on Ihe wind, how often the bags are Baltimore, MD 21205-3585 repellent container, replaced, and even Ihe deer If you COntact a manufacturer of themselves will play a role in Green Valley Blueberry Farm a chemical repellent, be sure to determining the success of the~e (707) 887-7496 request any and all information Iwo non-chemical repellents. 93,45 Ross Station Rd. regarding the producl. This In 1979, Penn State University Sebastapol, CA 95472 includes any surveys that may have COnducted a deer repellent study been conducted comparing the at their deer r~earch facility. The Orehard Supply Co. of effectiveness of one results from Ihi~ study were Sacramento manufacturer's product against published in the$ournalo]'I~ldliJ'e (916) 446.7821 another. In recent years some Management~Vol. 47(2): 1983, p. P.O. Box 956 testing has been done: by certain 517. The data listed under Sacramento, CA 9.5812 companies that clearly indicates ' D E E R R E P !e L L E N T one repellent may be superior to GUIDELINI=S' on p. 7 of this 5 t'"l/ ,,.... document were taken from that Mexican mock orange f'"/~ /'~'Oreo-sis (Coreopsis spp.) study and may aid you in your Mountain Mahoga~3~"P 200 Daffodils (narcissus spp.) search for an eff¢clive deer Nalalplum ~a~'i~(Hemerocallisspp.) repellent. Oak 0/0)/ CI ~';~ Deer tongue fer~ Oleander /O~/V/~ r~,-.~;'-"~/~nglish Ivy . D. DEER RESISTANT Olive. Russian ~-~ ~//;, /()~cuegrass(Festucaspp.) ORNAMENTALS Pine, Limber Fletabone, Daisy (Erigeron spp.) Few plants are totally deer Pine, Pinon Foxglove (Digitalis spp.) resistant. Like humans, deer are Pi~cher sage Gaillardia/Blankelflower extremely adaptable animals and Pomegranate Golden, Banner can eat a whole variety of foods. Potemilla/Cinquefoil Gumwe~l, Curly-cup HoWever, there are a considerable Red.hot poker Harebell, mountain number of plants thai deer do not Red-leaf or Japanese barberry Houndstongue necessarily prefer and may aclually Redwood Hyacinth, Grape avoid if they have ample wild Rhododendron (Rhododendron Iceland poppy foods availabl~ to Ihem. The spp.) Iris (Iris spp.) following is a list of plants, mostly Sweet gum Lady Fern ornamental species, Ihat will make Shrubby cinquefoil Lavender your property less appealing Io Walnul Lily (L~Hium spp.) local deer herds. Skunk brush Lily, Mariposa Wild lilac Lily of the Nile ~- TRE ,F_.S, SIIRUBS AND VINES Snowberry, Weslern Locoweed, Lamberl.'s Apache plume Spanish lavender Lupine, Silver Australian fuchsia (Correa spp.) Spicebush Manzanita or heathery/ Bottle brush (Callistemona spp.) Spirea, Bluemint ' Marguerite California Bay Rock~ose (Cislus spp.) Marjoram California fuchsia Samolina (Sanlolina spp.) Milk'weed Carolina Jessamine Scotch broom . Miner's Candle Catalina cher~t Spruce, Blue ' Mullein Pink: rose campion Clematis (Clematis spp.) Spruce, Engelmann Myrtle Coralberry Slat jasmine Naked Lady Lily Creeper, Virginia Onion, Nodding Current, Golden ~- FLOWERS, FERNS, IIERBS Oriental poppy Current, Wax AND (~ROUND COVERINg3 Pasque flower Daphne (Daphne spp.) PLANTS Pearly Everlasting Dustr3t Miller Aaron's bear Peppermint Edible fig (Ficus spp.) Ageralum flussflower (Ageralum Rhubarb English lavender spp.) Rock astor Euonymus (Spindle Tree) Algerian Ivy Sage, fringed Euryops (Eu~yops spp.) ,~meomee (A.nomone spp.) Salvia Fir, Douglas Bells of Ireland Santolina Goldenrod (Solidago spp.) Black.eyed Susan Scorpionweed Hackberry Bleeding Heart (Dicentra spp.) Sea pink Hawthorn Bracken (Pteridium spp.) Snowflake (Le0cojum spp.) Hazelnut, beaked Blue Star Creeper Snow-on-the-mountain Holly (flex spp.) Calla Lily (Zantedeschia spp.) Spearmint Holly-Grape. Oregon Camerbury hell SIonecrop, Yellow Honeysuclde bush Carpet bugle Sulphur glower Ivy, English Chain fern (Woodwardla spp.) Sword fern (Nephrolepis spp.) Jasmine ' Chive, ornamental onion ( Allium q"hyxne Jerusalem cheri'~y . spp.) Trailing African daisy Juniper, COmmon (Juniperus spp.) Chry~amhemum (Chrysanthemum Wake-robin (Trillium spp.) Lead plant spp.) Wood fern (Dryop~eri.s spp.) Maple COneflower, Prairie Yarrow Yucca (Yucca spp.) deer/auto collisions. People Zinnia (Zinnia spp.) simply become accustomed to watching for wildlife once they DEER/AUTO COLLISIONS become aware that they share Besides planling undesirable their environment Iogether. ornamentals and fencing your garden, many People must learn to IN CONCLUSION watch for deer while driving. Learning to live with deer, as Deer have a habit of suddenly with most wildlife, docs not appearing in one's headlights and necessarily require a lot of effort then freezing in the middle of the on our part. Knowing what road. Automobiles annually kill ornamentalvarietles of vegetation and injure tens of thousands of to plant, construcling proper deer. fencing around gardens, and Deer/auto accidents can be taking special precautions while reduced In most areas through a driving arc slmplc, logical things three step method coordinated to do. And learning more about with local police. They are: the species we share our world 1. Thc police keep records of all with will inevhably help us to deer seen crossing local highways under~tand these creatures more and those reported struck by fully and sca lhem as companions ~ vehicles. These data can be in the envtronmem. ~C") pinpointed on county or township '~ ~-~. --o -.---- road maps. The end result is a L-') " pattern of regular deer crossing ~ 2. Once step one is completed. '~ ~ ~ ~ ' the area's motorists need Io be ~)~/~ ...-7. made aware of these crossing ~' c,~ spots. This can be done through deer crossing signs. If accidents are still common in any of these sites, then speed reduction wilhin these areas could be imposed. ~ 3. For major crossing routes that present serious problems on high spec. d, high volume roadways. further measures can be taken in form of roadside fencing. Deer travel routes can be somewhat altered by large roadside fencing '"' , operations.wi_.Lh._varyi~l~ degrees of Deer Repellent Guidelines H(-er--success~Swear~'~:h-~:x.~eflectors ne~,.nt % Eff.ca,,~s. ~ h~d~nt roadside rcflect~OTs'"~hat reflect reamer Meal 98.3 ~ c~k~e~ fea~ Meal Meal ,97.3 Tankag~ light and create a barrier Image to Oe~r Aw~y/~OR 97,~ Putra.~:~nt ~ deer -- have proven to discourage Chaperone 89.2 Thc'am C.t~,v-Nut 8?.a 'Thi~am deer crossing. Hincler 67.3 Ammonium Soaps of Hk~her rally Acids People who have spent time Hot Sa~:e 8.5.5 Capsalcln traveling country roads appear to Ouslotsan 42-$ es.3 'n~arn strike fewer deer, and fewer other BZ~O Mea~ 70.0 Bkxm Magic C~rc~e 67.4 ~ T~r Oi animals, ;qso, than visiting or new Human Hak 58.1 Human hair driver~ on thc same roads. This Mom Bal$ 54.8 may be a major factor in reducing , FJ ~re 1 AbOve - A mature forest: provide:,: JiLl. lo focxl for deer ~ ~y ~ collsJcler~ ~gJ~l deer habitat at ~st. ~1~ - Houses ~J.lt within% a n~l[ure forest J~rease avai l~)[e f~ f · su~lJ.es ~ ~ attractors the~elves. "Dee~ [knJt~1~3¢; C~nl. lc)l in New '~'c)lk /~lt ic~llL[n,'," i~lbLJshed Jn 1983 by ~e ~tmerll o~ ~Jric~lllutc at&~i f.~i'~:~l~ ¥,'ilh ~u~dJng fr~ the New York Slate [~l~slnlure. S[.xntE,~ ~-wnl£ FENCE CROP ct,q)) Io an OUlSid~ h,.i,jhl ol q fUt'l. The fence covers w.h a p~.U d~xin addilio~al small mammal coa~lrol is desired, wires may be added between d~e grou.d aa~tt lirs~ wire a~d ~l~rs~ and seco~d wires. A vertical S-foot-high Woven wire fence has been [ecommer~ded for use in excluding deer from agricuhural areas. Budl iii ll)e Iradifional slyle. Ihese [ences are 9 6 joined :vith sfa,~dard hog rings. Additional strands of barbed or smoolh wife have been added fo the Icp of fhe fence fo SELECTED REFERENCES Anderson, Slanley H. 1985. Managing Our Wildlife Resources. Charles E. Merrill PubL Co. Columbus, OH. C~rpenter, M. 1~7. Control of deer damage, Va. WildI. 28 ($): 8-9. Halls, Lowell IC. 1984. Whim-tai{e~l Deer Ecology and Management. A Wildlife Managemen! Institute Book. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. Harris, Mark T., William g Palmer, and John g George. 1983. -- Prelimina~ Scrccning o[ White-tailed Deer Repellents. J. Wildl. Manage. 47 (2): 516-519. McAnich, Jay B., Mark R. Elingwood, and Raymond J. Winchcombe. 1983. Deer Damage Control In New York Agriculture. lnslilul¢ of Ecosystem Studies. The New York BOlanical Gurdcn, C~y Arboctum, Box AB, Milbrook, NY 12545. Povilids, Tony. 1989. Living wilh Deer. Reprint fi.om HSUS News. Fail, Humane Society of the United States, ' Washington, DC. NI:~.~./ I I,~,I~II'.SI tllll] ~]-'~II{E FENCE ~EE~ C~OI) ~,~ H,~mp~h.,: .l.~*r~nce which consisls o{ 20Ul~r ~',r~s .~t I= - 15 ,nches .~ml 36 -q3 inches. The wire ~IDE SIDE ,)~l Ihu c~op ~*l~ is i)lacc, d al :~(~ inches inside the outer wires ~s". ,~ n he:gl, al 25-30 inches. The 2-dimensional aspect al ...... · - - -. JtHlq~ ov~'r ,~r d,ouuh Ih¢ bar[tar. Ihus creating a potential 3~," ' 3°° ;~- ~,tODIFIED DEER AND SMALL I~I^MISIAL FENCE 21' . A modilicado~ o[ Ihe 3-strand lence has been used where control o( racc~ns, w~dchucks and rabbits is a~ needed. ~E~ C~OP This lance co~sisls ol 2 ouler wires as de~ribed above ~IDE SIDE ' wilh an inner S-strand. ~. Io 42-inch h~h lance p~ced :: 36 i~ches inside the ouler wires. The 3 bwe~ wires Ihe S-sl~nnd lance a~e spaced al S- l0 G-inch inle~a~s i~om wi,es a~e placed al. 10-to ~2-i ~ch inle~als above the Ihird s :, wire. This [ence is eileclive in conwolling multiple animal - .~ ~ .. ~ p~obl~ms on small {luil. vegelable or sma~orchard~d vinuymd sites ~jain. where extensive a~ages i~volv[.,I o~ dee~ p~,'ssmes are high. ~ m~r~ des~n wdl be requi~ect.' ~ ~ ,o= r'- V~TICAL 7-WIRE FENCE ~ ~ Ve~lica[ elcc:t~ ~q~ccs h,~ve been eUeclive on small end DEEI{ Ci[Ol~ L-;:~ I~c.~l I.'~m.'~ .~.. ?*~.:~ally s.~ple~ to CO~ISIrUCI and SJ~E 32; SIBE use less h,;~:,)nlal ~l)a(e Ihan Ihe 2.dimensional lances. higher Ihan J0 -~ches above Ihe ground. The remaining ~'~r,~s sl. Juhl h,, spared ;~1 R- lo lO-inch inlemals Io ~v.,Jl,~.d ,.~ ~m.dl pI. qs wlule a h~ghl oJ 7 leal has FILED SEP 23 HII: 5k CIt'Y CL RK IOWA CI-D(, iOWA DEER ARE ONE OF THE MOST EASILY RECOG- stricted mostly to the middle to western Two forms, the ~hite- and black- nized wild animals in North America. and parts of the continent, while white-tailed in many places are the largest type of deer(O, virginianus) are found almost con- tailed deer, range throughout wildlife people encounteL Not long ago,: tinent-wide except lbr the northern tier of deer were hunted so intensively they were Canada and parts of the far West in the most of North .America. almost completely extirpated from many ' United States. parts of this countW. Today, thanks to years Deer are highly variable in size, ranging People encoun'ter deer in park of effort to restore populations, they are from the endangered Key deer of south thriving. In fact, some argue that deer pop* Florida that rarely exceed 60 pounds, to a and open-space areas, and ulations have expanded beyond acceptable closely related subspecies farther north that limits, surpassing human tolerance, ir- reports males averaging more than 400 around their homes, as these ani- reparably damaging natural plant comau- pounds. nities and adversely affecting their own mals become increasingly adapt- numbers as populations burgeon beyond HABITAT the limit that the animals themselves need Mule deerappearraore tolerantofsemiarid ed to suburban and urban envi- to remain healthy, grasslands than the white-tailed deer, but Even among the experts, however, there both species occupy a wide variety ofhabi- ronments. is considerable debate as to what "too many tats. Deer are traditionally thought of as a ~ deer' means. While generations of re- woodland species, but are actually ideally The deer's hair is hollow, mak- searchers strove to understand how to ia- suited to exploiting "edge" habitat. Edges prove deer habitats and increase the size of are created where a natural or human-made lng it a superb insulator that pro- deer herds, lirde attention was focused on habitat break occurs, as in going from the larger issue of deer as members of eco- woods to croplands or pasture, or from ~ tects the animal even when it is logical communities. No one knows yet woods to marshlands. One area (the whether the so-called deer overpopulation woods) provides cover and shelter while brutally cold outside. is a short- or long4~,rm phenomenon. No the other (farmland or marsh) onecansaywhethe~ornotdeerpopulations provides food resources. In will regulate themselves before doing sig- more northerly latitudes deer nificant damage to the environment, nor un- may have "surraner" and "win- der what circumstances regulation might or ter" home range areas that can might not occur. Beyond such concerns it is be as much as 30 miles apart. a simple fact that many Americans are an- Where winter snows are sig- familiar with deer and unaccustomed to nificant, deer "yards" may oc- seeing them, or damage done by them, cur under evergreen cover around their homes. This tack of familiarity where large numbers of ani- itself seems often to have led to intolerance, mals congregate. Everywhere, N AT U RA L H I S ? 0 RY deer are faithful to areas called home ranges. Home ranges are CLASSIFICATION AND RANGE believed to be shared by relat- The term "deer" can apply to several dif- ed females that form matri- ~ ferent kinds of animals in North America, archies and exclude related lincluding such well-known species as males after they have reached ~ moose, elk and reindeen The two smallest sexual maturity. Deer can be active at any Although many Americans love ~and most numerous North American deer time of day or night, but are most common- deer (opposite and above), others ~belang to the genus Odocoileus. Mule and ly seen foraging or moving around sunset resent the damage browsing deer ¢ black-tailed deer (0. hemionus) are re- and sunrise. (This type of activity pattern is can do to landscape planls. HSUS NEWS * Summer 1997 31 denoted by the term crepuscular:) contributing to the spread and prevalence of this public health hazard is currently de- Z[~133 SEP 2 3 ~ I1:5 ~ DIET bated. The tick most commonly associated Deer are primarily herbivores, although they with Lyme disease lives on deer only as an End-ngeredtgy?/~d~y ex- occasionally have been observed sampling adult and has alternate hosts for this life teed slxt~xc~itl~t/,~he¥, such incongvaous foods as dead fish. Their stage, and decreasing densities of deer do llke .11 d4~6/~l~e~d~tM,l't~ &re,~ feeding habits and preferences can vary not affect the production of new ticks. called home ranges, widely from one location to another, but Caribou and elk are knowa carriers of bm- each local population seems to cellosis, but their role in transmitting this · have "preferred" foods that are disease to livestock or humans remains un- chosen first, "marginal" foods clear. that are eaten only afler the pre- PROBLEMS AHD THEIR fen'ed become rare and "starva- SOLUTIONS tion" foods that probably have no nutritional value, but are eat- PROBLEMS en because no other choices areDeer damage is usually not difficult to de- available, termine, as these large herbivores are capa- Deer eat an enormous vail- ble of rapid and widespread impacts, espe- ety of plants and eat differentcially to small gardens or landscaped areas. parts of plants in all seasons.Where deer damage might be confused The succulent leaves of grow- with that inflicted by rabbits or wood- lng plants are eaten in spring chucks, look for a ragged, squared, tom ap- and summer, while fruits and pearaoce at the end of browsed twigs. Deer seeds are consamaed as they be-do not have upper incisors and do not neatly come available. The buds of clip-browse as do other species. Another woody plants comprise a fairly obvious sign that deer are at work oc- mainstay of the diet in winter. Hard mastcurs where browsing is obvious--3 to 5 feet foods, such as hickory nuts and acorns, are from the ground (or even higher where ORPHAN DEER an extremely important component of fall snow accumulates). Woodlands in areas Every year wildlife departments and early winter diets, when deer, like heavily populated with deer may exhibit a and wildlit~ rehabilitators receive many wild animals, need to establish fat re- "browse line" in which the vegetafon v,~ll ca1! ~ .~.~ ? "~?r~haned" fawns that serves. Deer can be quite selective abouthave a neatly trinuned appearance up to the pc icd across in the certain fooda and are known to favorheav- height they can reach. The forest floor is woou~. ~or~, otcy are often faced ily fertilized ornamental and garden plants denuded of vegetation or completely doral- with the prospect of a concerned in- above others that have not been so well fer- nated by plants that deer do not eat, such as dividual appearing at their door tilized, hay-scented fern. An identical appearance with the animal in hand! It is a per- occurs, we should note. where cattle and fectly natural occurrence in the REPRODUCTION other domestic livestock have been pas- spring to come across a deer fawn Breeding occurs from October to January, tared for any length of time. Deer some- by itself in the woods. The fawn is with the time of onset varying slightly times damage small elm trees by stripping actnally nol ;~lone: its mother is across different geographic areas. This pe- their bark for food, but this phenomenon is nearb.~ and certainly will be aware riod is termed the 'hut" and involves dra-relatively rare. More frequently, damage to and attentive. The strategy deer mmic physiological as well as behavioral small trees occurs when males rob their have evolved to deal with their pti- changes in male deer. The necks of males, antlers along thinks, stripping them of bark. maD' predators I which once were for example, swell t~ more than twice their These "buck rubs" occur most frequently in wolf and bear) is to leave their normal diameter during this time, in prepa- the fall, just prior to the start of rut. young hidden except when feeding ration fo.r the quite serious contests of them. The advice to anyone en- strength 'that usually determine mating SOLUTIONS countering a fawn in the woods is rights. Nervous and almost constantly ac- Tolerance One of the best ways to address to leave it alone, with the assurance rive, males during the rut are often oblivi- current problems, as well as to look ahead that a solicitous and anxious moth- ous to vehicles and frequently are so driven to futm'e coexistence with deer, is to eh- er will be nearby and will be taking by events that they wander into residential courage understanding and a tolerance for care of it once you move off. areas and places where they would never these animals and the impacts they some- be seen otherwise. Gestation is about 200 times have on resources that humans seek days, and from one to three fawns are bornto protect. This certainly is not to say that in the spring, the number conceived being all of the damage that deer might cause has in part dependent on the nutritional condi- to be accepted, but only that it is inevitable fion of the doe at the time of mating, that some will occur where deer and people share living space. Farmers and others PUBLIC HEALTH whose livelihood depends on agriculture Deer are important hosts of the ticks thatseem to have long understood this and have carry Lyme disease, although their role inmuch to say about the ethics of tolerance 32 HSUS NEWS · Summer 1997 and acceptance of nature's way to those of i have evolved mechanisms to deter brows- us '.~ho might fuss about occasional incon-~' lng or tolerate its impact. vemences. I ELK AND MOOSE I Habitat Management One key to predict- Elk and moose are the heavyweights Deer and Plants Deer damage can be con-: lng deer problems is simply knov. ing the et'the an?.date division. Elk siderably lessened and in some cases possi- animals are present and taking steps to dc- c/,q~l:~,,~ are t'oand throughout much bly eliminated all together by thoughtful ter them befure they cause damage. The ufthe \\est. The moose t4/c'e~'al- landscape design that gives care to both the tracks le~ by deer are easily recognized and te~ is more no:qh,:rl_,- ia its distriba- selection and placement of plants. Some tell the homeowner that the yard or nearby lion. hut more exenly distributed plants {hollies and barberries are good ex- areas are places used in the search for food throughout a~ailablc habitat than thc amples) will be eaten by deer only when or for travel. Tracks seen in or around the elk. Moose range t?om New Eng- succuIent growth is appearing, if then. Otb- garden can be a distinct warning that any [and. north through ali of Canada ers I such as the popular annual plants ira- young plants set out in the spring are likely and into Alaska. In the West they patiens) are almost irresistible to deer. to be vulnerable. It is as plants,are set out range as far south as Idaho. The A few state cooperative extension ser- and not after damage begins that appropri- moose can stand up to 6 feet tall at vices and others have begun publishing ate steps to protect them should be taken, the shoulders and weigh 1.000 lists of plants that are tolerant of or actually Plant covers and protective netting on t~it pounds or more. while the elk. at resistant to deer browsing. Those we are trees are good ways to provide protection, less than half that weight, still re- familiar with are listed below and should Deer may be especially attracted to gardens mains a formidably large animal. give some readers a place to seek informa- in early spring when the plants there offer The most serious cooflicts tion for their own areas. Beyond this, we choicer and tastier morsels than the slower- ther of these animals are collisions encourage homeowners to contact local growing native vegetation. Thus. damage with ,,ehicles. As dangerons as deer- nursery and landscaping companies for ad- may occur only until the native plant foods vehicle collisions are. the greater vice. One fact we know concerning deer is become available, size of elk and moose make such en- that their feeding habits and preferences counters exen more so. vary enormously even within relatively Fencing Where deer are a serious problem small geographic areas. Plants that are not the most effective and permanent way to touched in one place may be severely dam- protect resources such as crops aged by deer in another. Accordingly, the or landscape plants is to install more local the information on what is be- deer-proof fencing. No other lng eaten and when damage is occumng, method, whether it involves the better. Sometimes the best source of in- lethal or nonlethal means, is as formation can be a next-door neighbor, effective over the long term as Here are some sources of information this. A variety of fence designs on plants susceptible and resistant to deer have been developed, ranging browsing: from high-tensile strand Fargionne, M. J... E D. Curtis, and M. E. wiring that may be angled for Richmond. 1991. "Resistance of Wood. v better effectiveness to standard Ornamental Plants to Deer Damage." Cot- mesh-woven wire, chain-link nell Cooperative Extension Service Publi- designs or various types of cation No. 147HGFS800. O0. electric wiring. The best type Jensen, B. 1991. "Gardening around for any given area will depend Deer." North Dakota Game and Fish De- on the situation, and local ex- partment brochure, tension or wildlife specialists Another factor in deer damage assess- should be consulted for their merit and planning for landscaping is the recommendations before any expense is in- IIee~, =r* ~rlm=ril¥ herblvere,~. current level of damage. When damage is curred. Where deer do have other a~ailable ?hey e~! =~ charm*ns vurln~ slight to moderate a wider varieD' of plants forage, quite simple fences can sometimes ~l=nln =nd *=~' di~eren! can be grown and a simpler and less in- keep them out of yards and gardens. How- I}l=n!$ in ~ll volved set of strategies employed. Under ever, when they are stxessed for food they ,'-o heavy browsing conditions the options are may jump fences up to 10 feet in heiv. ht.~ more limited. Then, our recommendation is to either (1) enclose the areas or plants Protecting Trees Problems with buck _ ._~ completely by using deer-proof fencing or rubs occur frequently where small trees (2 C') (2) limit the plantings to those species that to 6 feet) are planted in yards that may be -~q are the most resistant to deer browsing. To crossed or used frequently by deer. \Vrap- .~< the extent that it is possible, the more nat- ping or corrugated plastic sleeves can be ural the landscaping and the greater the used to prevent damage. Simpler protec- ~.~ number of native plant species that are tion (that would not, however, withstand .77 used. the betten Naturalized plantings are damage from beavers or voles~ can be less likely to attract.special attention from achieved by using 2-inch wooden stakes. deer, and native species are more likely to about 4 to 5 feet high, surrounding the tree HSU~ NEWS · Summer 1997 33 these types of stakes, es of road occur (usually roadways that permit tmval at high speeds through parks "Deer" cnn ~ ~o~[~llf:. 5 h Repellents A variety of products (includ- or wooded areas), high deer mortality and, ferent kinds of animals in Horlh lng some homemade remedies) can be presumably, high risk to drivers can occur. America used to repel deer. Some work directly by Often. little effort is made by authorities to found making the plants unpalatable to deer (taste identify and monitor such "hot spots;' but and contact repellents)· and they usually acquire local reputations. Both others work by broadcasting an highway and wildlife administrations can offensive smell or a disturbing work with such stretches of road to try to sight or sound (area repel- reduce accidents. Potential approaches in- lents)· The key to using any re- elude lowering speed limits, removing veg- pellent is to begin using it ira- etation fi.om road edges so that both driver mediately upon observing the and deer have better visibility, erecting wo- first signs of damage. With yen wire fences to prevent or rerome deer good reason, deer are extreme- crossings or using an "optical" fence as de- ly wary animals who will scribed below. avoid places in which they feel . ~.:~ threatened or insecure. If the Highway Reflectors The SRieter-Lite' gardener immediately launch- highway reflector system consists of a spe- cs a concerted effort to repel cially manufactured plastic prism that is these animals when the first mounted along roadsides on steel fence signs of their presence are posts and at prescribed distances that de- found (usually tracks), then pond on road curvature and topography. best success is likely to be had. The lights from oncoming vehicles at night ·.. Home remedies, such as soap, hair and reflect across the roadway into the area of garlic, may be effective in repelling deer woods or field where deer are. The light E D U :: r,'rl N :2 ? ~'..VE RS from gardens and small omhards, steers deer away from the road when vehi- Students taking driver's education cles are passing. The system has been ex- courses should be educated about Scare Devices Scarecrows and effigies tensively tested and 16oks promising in ap- the potential hazards posed by deen may repel deer under appropriate circum- plications where the reflectors have been In-ser¥ice training, provided to stances, especially if they are moving, maintained in good condition. Installation g~ ~ enforcement Lights set to go on by motion sensors may on public roads, of course, requires plan- oti~,~ :.,ou., .3so be used to pro- help protect gardens, or at least alert the ning and approval through state and local vide information about reducing the homeowner to the presence of something Department of Transportatinn offices. risk of deer-vehicle accidents. Not outside that should be checked. Scare tape many penple know that deer fre- or balloons may also be effective in & LAST WORD quently travel in groups and that one frightening deer. The key to using scaring There are some knotty problems ahead of animal seen crossing a road at night devices is to couple them with other us in our relationship with deer that will can o~en be followed by others, so strategies and to vary them, moving scare- have as much to do with the values and at- that it is a definite signal to slow crows around or changing the place from titudes we hold about these animals as the even if a deer is seen crossing at a which the frightening stimulus comes demonstrable facts about their interactions distance. (when this can be done), with their environment. We must acknowl- edge that these animals will be a continu- DEI:R WHISTLES Deer-Vehicle Accidents Deer are in- lng part of our lives. Let's start by accept- Many people use deer warning volved in a substantial number of accidents lng and appreciating them for what they xx histles that can be mounted on a with vehicles every year, with some recent are before seeing them as a problem-caus- car's hood or bumper, and claim to estimatesCranging as high as a million deer lng crisis that has to be "solved." haxe alerted deer to oncoming traf- deaths nationwide. Certainly, increasing fic by ultrasonic signals. No infor- human populations, congested roadways, ~_D I} ITl O NAL $O U RCI$ marion exists at the time of this writ- driving habits and the abuse of alcohol by Curtis, E D., and M. E. Richmond. "Re- lng to support that claim. It may be some who drive are contributory factors as ducing Deer Damage to Home Gardens true. though, that people prone to well. Many tools can be employed to ad- and Landscaping Plantings." Cornell Ual- use these whistles are likely to be dress this issue, including public educa- versi~., Department of Natural Resources. more sensitized and alen to the pos- tion. Public announcemems and radio Hall. LK(ed.).1984. White-T~dledDeen sibility of deer on roadways and are spots during fall months can be used to Iq?~shington, D.C.: Stackpole Books. · more attentive for that reason, alert drivers to increased deer activity, common with the seasonal onset of rut. Text from Wild Neighbors: The Humane Deer warning signs at least alert the atten- Approach to Living with Wildlife (Golden, rive dryer to look for these animals on Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing, 1997), stretchesofroadwheretheymightnotbe $14.95 to HSUS members. ©1997 The expected. HSUS. Reprinted with permission. 34 HSUS NEWS * Summer 1997 Natural Resource Commission Minutes~ October 2000 Commission authority to establish roles and policy, authorize the taking of animals to prevent damage to private property, establish conditions for taking, and designates the Commission as sole agency to regulate taking conditions. Iowa Code 481A.93 allows the use of artificial lights for taking deer pursuant to an approved plan, House File 2486 mended Iowa Code 724.1(8) to authorize thc use of noise suppressers, and House File 2486 amended Iowa Code 481.123 to allow the discharge of a firearm within fifty yards of an inhabited building in cities with an approve deer management plan. Attached are copies of the City Council resolution approving ' the 2000-2001 deer management plan, the 2000-2001 deer management plan, and the report of the 2000-2001 Iowa City Deer Management Committee. In 1999-2000, 360 deer were removed from Iowa City by sharpshooting. Of the 360 deer, 215(60%) were females and 145(40%) were males. Sixty-five(18%) had visible antlers and 295(82%) were anteriess. The Commi-~ion approve an urban deer management, .unit ill Iowa. City..under~ provisions of 105.4(2)g of department 'nile Chapter 105 Deer Populalion Management Areas and approve the 2000-200! deer management plan for Iowa City. Iowa City is authodz~l to use sharpshoot~s to shoot dee~ in the City of Iowa City fxom October 13, 2000 through March 20, 2001. The City · will designate thc.arees where the shooting will take place. The City can use their own personnel or a private contractor to do the shooting; the ~ assumes all liability for the sharpshooting rifles rosy be used for th~ taking ofyesrling deer only. Shooting may be do~ at night with the aid of bait and fights, using noise suppressors on fig rifles, ami up to fifty yards than an inhabitl~d building in compliance with Iowa law. The City may mire up to 500 deer, the pretmmk~ne~ of which must be does. The City must haw the m~t from fig d~r pmeeSsed for human Cor~,mpfion and distributed' f~ee of charge. The City must comply with.all other applicable roles and laws. Allen Farris brici'ed fig Commission on fig req~.~t from tho City of low8 City asking th~ NRC 16 establish an urban deer managem*at unit in Iowa City and. authorize lhe use of sharpshoot~rs for the tsldng of deer in fig unit. management walt t~. Iowa City and author~.e.tl~ use .of sharp~hooter~ ~or tt~ tarring oI aeer.~ eo~.~ed by Comm~ioner Fra~.d~¢o. Commi_~iom~r Francisco en_mmeataxl that while it may not b~ appropriate for this year, depamne~ nmy !~ ri, glo:ting it~ responsibility to provide ~cr~tlon by not r~quiring tim dty to offe~ a bow hunt as par~ of a long-tmtm de~ m~Int~nano~ program fo~ the ~ity..He sugge~l resolution or 8om~hlng ~imil~r 8sking thlR a bow hunt 1~ iaolud~l in tl~ city's dmr popul~oa main~.rr~e plan for next year. mi ' ' gl' '~.e--s~rin-'~s co'-~demtion to tho estab~'f~ ~w hunt during ~.on of a pol~!~t!on · . _ ..\\¥, . . NOOOct- 1 October 2000 Natural Resource Commission Minutes IM°tion was made by Commissioner Francisco to amend the original motion to ask thel ] ' [department to convey to Iowa City lhat the Commission encourages the establishment ora lo,ng, -[ ]term deer management program which would include recreational bow hunting. Sec'~nded by[ [~.~CommissionerOarreIs. Disenssion. eontinued regarding a bow hunt for maintenance purposes~ith the e. xpeetation .that sharpshooting may be necessary in Iowa City for a couple of years. ~_Comm~toner Francisco added that the Commission is.requi~l by law to provide recreations! opportunity to all people. He said that if the city comes ap with a raalntenmaee program other than archery, that would bt considered also. Mr. Francisco went on to say that it seems that an archery hunt and E,rovifling the recreational opportunity to the people in Iowa is probably the most logical way to go~ Larry '~/ilson stated that the city has been encouraged to prepare a maintenance program and they k~aow that even though it will be controversial, they need to do thaL ~e recommended that All~n Fatris infomaally talk to the city oiIieiais about the Commission's viewpoint regarding -' LCity who may be resistant to using bow hunting as a recreational activity wlthm the city.~ ._ - - Lyle Asell said that.the sense the department would convey is that the Comm|.e~inll i3 ~ in a long-term shategy for IPnintninlnE & b'tabie deer populatioll. He said that as staff' works with the City of Iowa City, this will be included in part of the discussions. [Motion to approve the amendment carried unanimously. Commissioner Christiansen pointed out a typographical con~ction in the second paragraph of the item. He said "...to allow the discharge of a firearm within fifty yards..." should read "...to allow the discharge of a firearm to with. i. fifty yards...'. [Motton to approve the original motion, as amended carried unanimously. LAND ACQUISITION Linda Hanson, ~tlmlni-~'at°r, Adminlstrafive Services Division, presented the following item~ Rice Lske, Winnebago County---D. Albertson Tho Natmal Resource Corn_mission's approval is x~luested to purchase a tract of land locaied in Winnebago County. This 151.7 acre tract is offered by David & Sheryl Albertson for $58,750, which is 25% of the appraised value of $235,000. 75% oftbe appraised value is being paid by Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) for a 30 year Wetland Reserve Program N000~t-20 09-23-03 Prepared by: Daniel Scott, Sr. Engineer, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 356-5144 RESOLUTION NO. 03-297 RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE SCOTT PARK TRUNK SANITARY SEWER PROJECT. WHEREAS, Bockenstedt Excavating, Inc. of Iowa City, Iowa, has submitted the lowest responsible bid of $216,381.60 for the construction of the above-named project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: 1. The contract for the construction of the above-named project is hereby awarded to Bockenstedt Excavating, Inc. of Iowa City, Iowa, subject to the condition that awardee secure adequate performance bond, insurance certificates, and contract compliance program statements. 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign and the City Clerk to attest the contract for the construction of the above-named project, subject to the condition that awardee secure adequate performance bond, insurance certificates, and contract compliance program statements. Passed and approved this 23rd dayof Se tember ,2003. It,~YOR cI'r~LERK C~A"~o ~'ney~ Office It was moved by VanderhnPf and seconded by 0'Donne11 the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Champion X Kanner X Lehman X O'Donnell X Pfab X Vanderhoef X Wilburn pwe ng~res~cott pa~2.doc ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS SCOTT PARK SANITARY TRUNK SEWER PROJECT Sealed proposals will be received by the City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, until 10:30 A.M. on the 16TH day of September, 2003, or at a later date and/or time as determined by the Director of Public Works or designee, with notice of said date and/or time to be published as required by law. Sealed proposals will be opened immediately thereafter by the City Engineer. Bids submitted by fax machine shall not be deemed a "sealed bid" for purposes of this Project. Pro- posals will be acted upon by the City Council at a meeting to be held in the Emma J. Harvat Hall at 7:00 P.M. on the 23rd day of September, 2003, or at such later time and place as may then be scheduled. The Project will involve the following: Approximately 3,300 linear feet of 10 to 18 inch diameter PVC and RCP sanitary sewer and 100 feet of jacked sewer, along with sewer manholes and other associated sewer work. All work is to be done in strict compliance with the plans and specifications prepared by Daniel R. Scott, P.E., of Iowa City, Iowa, which have heretofore been approved by the City Council, and are on file for public examination in the Office of the City Clerk. Each proposal shall be completed on a form furnished by the City and must be accompanied in a sealed envelope, separate from the one containing the proposal, by a bid bond executed by a corporation authorized to contract as a surety in the State of Iowa, in the sum of 10% of the bid. The bid security shall be made payable to the TREASURER OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, and shall be forfeited to the City of Iowa City in the event the successful bidder fails to enter into a contract within ten (10) calendar days and post bond satisfactory to the City insuring the faithful performance of the contract and maintenance of said Project, if required, pursuant to the provisions of this notice and the other contract documents. Bid bonds of the lowest two or more bidders may be retained for a period of not to exceed fifteen (15) calendar days until a contract is awarded, or until rejection is made. Other bid bonds will be returned after the canvass and tabulation of bids is completed and reported to the City Council. The successful bidder will be required to furnish a bond in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price, said bond to be issued by a responsible surety approved by the City Council, and shall guarantee the prompt payment of all materials and labor, and also protect and save harmless the City from all claims and damages of any kind caused directly or indirecfiy by the operation of the contract, and shall also guarantee the maintenance of the improvement for a period of two ( 2 ) year(s) from and after its completion and formal acceptance by the City. The following limitations shall apply to this Project: Working Days: 75 Specified Early Start Date: October 6, 2003 Specified Late Start Date: October 27, 2003 Liquidated Damages: $250 per day The plans, specifications and proposed contract documents may be examined at the office of the City Clerk. Copies of said plans and specifi- cations and form of proposal blanks may be secured at the Office of City Engineer, 410 East Washington St., Iowa City, Iowa 52240, ph. 319/356-5140 by bona fide bidders. A $30 nonrefundable fee is required for each set of plans and specifications provided to bidders or other interested persons. The fee shall be in the form of a check, made payable to City of Iowa City. Prospective bidders are advised that the City of Iowa City desires to employ minority contractors and subcontractors on City projects. Bidders shall list on the Form of Proposal the names of persons, firms, companies or other parties with whom the bidder intends to subcon- tract. This list shall include the type of work and approximate subcontract amount(s). The Contractor awarded the contract shall submit a list on the Form of Agreement of the proposed subcontractors, together with quanti- ties, unit prices and extended dollar amounts. If no minority business enterprises (N1BE) are utilized, the Contractor shall furnish documenta- tion of all reasonable, good faith efforts to recruit MBE's. A listing of minority contractors can be obtained from the Iowa Department of Economic Development at (515) 242-4721. By virtue of statutory authority, preference will be given to products and provisions grown and coal produced within the State of Iowa, and to Iowa domestic labor, to the extent lawfully re- quired under Iowa Statutes. The Iowa Reciprocal Preference Act applies to the contract with re- spect to bidders who are not Iowa residents. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, and also reserves the right to waive technicalities and irregularities. Published upon order of the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Ass't City Attomey, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5030 RESOLUTION NO. 03-298 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CLERK TO ATTEST TO AN AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE A SIX-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING FROM GREATER IOWA CITY HOUSING FELLOWSHIP (GICHF) AND TO ASSIST GICHF IN THE FINANCING OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE PENINSULA. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Iowa City functions as the Iowa City Housing Authority; WHEREAS, GICHF has purchased six (6) lots in the area locally known as the "Peninsula;" WHEREAS, GICHF intends to develop and construct sixteen (16) housing units on said six (6) lots consisting of a nine (9) unit building (hereinafter "apartment building"), two (2) duplexes, and three (3) townhouses (hereinafter the sixteen units and the six (6) lots will be collectively referred to as the "Project"); WHEREAS, the Project will provide additional affordable rental housing in the City; WHEREAS, GICHF is financing the Project, in part, with HOME funds awarded by the State of Iowa and with HOME and CDBG funds already awarded by the City; WHEREAS, in Resolution No. 02-207 the City Council declared its intent to sell General Obligation bonds in the amount of $657,000 in order to lend GICHF said amount to assist with its developement of affordable housing in the Peninsula; WHEREAS, the City and GICHF desire to enter into an agreement for the purchase of the apartment building specifically and for partial financing of the Project generally; and WHEREAS, it is in the City's interest to purchase the apartment building from GICHF upon its completion and to assist GICHF in its development of the Project generally through the provision of financing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: 1. Upon the direction of the City Attomey, the Mayor and the City Clerk are authorized to execute the Agreement, a copy of which is attached, marked Exhibit A, and incorporated herein. 2. The City Attorney is hereby authorized to take all necessary action to complete said transaction, as required by law. All documentation required by law shall be recorded by the City Clerk in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at GICHF's expense. Passed and approved this 23rd dayof September ,20 03 . Resolution No. 03-298 Page 2 MAYOR Approved by CITY 'CLERK City Attorney's Office It was moved by Vanderhnef and seconded by Pfab the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: X Champion X Kanner X Lehman X O'Donnell X Pfab X Vanderhoef Wilbum X AGREEMENT betw___Th, is_A~g..ree.m.ent, e..n.t, ered into.th, is ? c~ ~ day of ~[~:~")_ 2003, by and _ ~.u, ~e.. ~.,l~y. or ~owa g;~ty, a mun~c~pa~ corporation (hereinafter "C ty") and Greater owa Citv t~ous~ng t-e~owsnip (hereinafter "GICHF") in Iowa City, Iowa. ' WHEREAS, GICHF is a Community Housing Development Organization, as that term is defined in 24 C.F.R. 92.2; WHEREAS, the City Council functions as the Iowa City Housing Authority; and WHEREAS, GICHF has purchased 6 lots in the area locally known as the "Peninsula" and legally described in Exhibit A; WHEREAS, GICHF intends to develop and construct sixteen (16) housing units on said six (6) lots consisting of a nine (9) unit building (hereinafter "apartment building"), two (2) duplexes, and three (3) townhouses (hereinafter the sixteen units and the six (6) lots will be collectively referred to as the "Project"); WHEREAS, the Project will provide additional affordable rental housing in the City; WHEREAS, GICHF is financing the Project, in part, with HOME funds awarded by the State of Iowa in the amount of $759,190 which will be under an agreement between GICHF and the State of Iowa and with HOME and CDBG funds already awarded by the City in the amount of $623,467 pursuant to agreements with the City for the use of said funds; WHEREAS, in Resolution No. 02-207 the City Council declared its intent to sell General Obligation bonds in the amount of $657,000 in order to lend GICHF said amount to assist with its development of affordable housing in the Peninsula; WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into an agreement for the purchase of the apartment building specifically and for partial financing of the Project generally; WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the cost to construct the apartment building, including the cost to purchase the lot, will be in the nature of 1.2 million dollars; WHEREAS, the purchase price of the apartment building is $711,503 plus the following consideration: The City's development agreement with the Peninsula developer required land to be designated for Iow-income housing at a reduced price, which allowed GICHF to purchase said six (6) lots at below fair market value; the City's support of the Project made GICHF's application for State and City HOME funds more competitive; the City's overall financial support of the Project likely led to the State giving GICHF a grant of $759,190 in HOME funds; and the City's prevision of a loan to GICHF in the amount of $401,000 financed from general obligation bonds will be at an interest rate lower than GICHF could obtain from a private lender; and WHEREAS, it is in the City's interest to purchase the apartment building from GiCHF upon its completion and to assist GICHF in its development of the Project generally through the provision of financing. THE PARTIES THEREFORE AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Lots. The Project shall be constructed on six (6) lots legally described in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated herein ("Property"). The lot upon which the apartment building will be constructed and the apartment building shall be referred to in this Agreement as "the apartment building" and is legally described as follows: Lot 15 Peninsula Neighborhood First Addition, Iowa City Iowa, according to the plat thereof in Book 43, Page 275, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa. 2. Loan to GICHF. a. Loan Amount Within thirty (30) days of the City's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the apartment building, the City shall loan GICHF $657,000 to be financed by General Obligation debt (hereinafter "loan"). b. Interest Rate. Interest on the loan shall be at the identical rate of interest that the City receives when it sells the General Obligation bonds as authorized in Resolution No. 02- 207. Said interest rate is non-negotiable, and the City is under no obligation to sell said bonds by a certain date or to sell said bonds at or below a certain interest rate. The parties acknowledge that it is likely that the City will sell said bonds at a date other than the date GICHF delivers a deed for the apartment building as provided in Paragraph 5 below, and as such, the parties agree that the intedm interest rate, defined as the time between when the transfer occurs and when said bonds are sold, shall be equal to AAA rated bonds with a 20-year maturity as of the date of transfer. c. Assignment. Upon receipt of said loan, GICHF shall assign $256,000 of the loan principal to the City, and the City shall accept said assignment and assume responsibility for its repayment. d. Repayment. The remaining loan of $401,000 to GICHF shall be amortized over twenty (20) years. GICHF shall make equal monthly payments on said loan beginning on the 15th day of the month immediately succeeding the month in which the loan is received and continuing on the 15th day of each month thereafter for the following 239 months. e. Mortgage. The loan to GICHF of $401,000 shall be secured by a mortgage on the Property, excluding the apartment building. Pdor to execution and recording of the mortgage, GICHF shall provide evidence satisfactory to the City that GICHF has clear title to the Property, subject only to the City's mortgage for CDBG and HOME funds and the deed restrictions as the result of the State of Iowa's grant of HOME funds. 3. Purchase Price of Apartment Building. The City agrees to purchase and GICHF agrees to sell the apartment building after GICHF receives a Certificate of Occupancy as provided in Paragraph 5 below. The purchase price is $711,503, consisting of the following: $171,202 Cash (Housing Authority "Equity") $256,000 Assignment of GO debt to the City (see Par. 2c above.) $284,301 City HOME/CDBG funds (see Par. 4 below.) 2 4. City HOME/CDBG Funds. The parties acknowledge that GICHF, as a CHDO, received $516,400 in City HOME Funds pursuant to the City HOME Agreement and that it additionally was awarded $107,067 in City CDBG funds. GICHF shall assign responsibility for $284,301 of the City HOME and City CDBG Funds to the City at closing on the apartment building, which shall bear interest at the rate of 1% per year. The City shall make monthly interest payments of $ 236.92 to GICHF beginning February 1, 2005 and continuing on the 1st day of the month for the succeeding 239 months, but shall not be obligated to make any payments on the principal amount of $284,301. The City shall pay GICHF a final balloon payment of $284,301, which is due and payable on March 1, 2025. 5. Deed. Within thirty (30) days of the City's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the apartment building, GICHF shall convey the apartment building to the City by warranty deed, free and clear of all liens, restrictions, and encumbrances, except for the deed restrictions imposed by the State of Iowa as a result of its grant of HOME funds to GICHF and GICHF's construction loan for the Project. GICHF shall pay off said construction loan promptly upon receipt of the loan from the City described in Paragraph 2 and shall further provide the City promptly thereafter with a photocopy of the recorded release of said construction loan. Prior to closing, GICHF, at its own expense, shall obtain an abstract of title to the apartment building which shall show merchantable title in GICHF in accordance with Iowa law and Title Standards of the Iowa State Bar Association. 6. Risk of Loss and Insurance. All dsk of loss shall remains with GICHF until possession of the apartment building shall be delivered to the City. 7. Insurance. Beginning the effective date of this Agreement and ending when GICHF has fulfilled its loan obligation as set forth in Paragraph in 2d above, GICHF shall at its own expense procure and maintain general liability and casualty insurance on the Project, except as noted below, in a company or companies authorized to do business in the State of Iowa, in the following amounts: Type of Covera.qe a. Comprehensive General Liability Each Occurrence A(~recate Bodily Injury & Property Damage $1,00,000 $2,000,000 b. Automobile Liability Combined Sin,clle Limit Bodily Injury & Property Damage $1,000,000 c. Excess Liability $1,000,000 $1,000,000 d. Worker's Compensation Insurance as required by Chapter 85, Code of Iowa. GICHF shall name the City as an additional insured on said policy. GICHF's insurance carder shall be A rated or better by A.M. Best. GICHF shall deliver to the City, within thirty (30) days of execution of this agreement, Certificates of Insurance and copies of said policies. The only exception to the above is that GICHF need only to maintain said insurance on the apartment building until it is transferred to the City as provided in Paragraph 5. GICHF shall provide fifteen (15) days' notice to the City before cancellation of said insurance. 3 8. Termination a. Termination of Agreement for Cause. If GICHF fails to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement in a timely and proper manner, or if GICHF violates any of the terms, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, the City shall thereupon have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving wdtten notice to GICHF of such termination, specifying the default or defaults, and stating that this Agreement shall be terminated thirty (30) days after the giving of such notice unless such default or defaults are remedied within such cure pedod. The City shall be obligated to make no payment due hereunder after it gives said notice unless the defaults are remedied within said thirty (30) day period. b. Termination of Agreement for Convenience. This Agreement may be terminated in whole or in part upon the mutual agreement of the parties hereto, in which case the City and GICHF shall agree upon the termination conditions, including the effective date, the disposition of loan and City HOME amounts, and in the case of partial termination, the portion to be terminated. 9. State HOME Funds a. Hold Harmless. GICHF shall hold the City, its officers and employees, harmless from any obligation that the State of Iowa may impose on GICHF for repayment of HOME funds or any liability that may result from GICHF violating the terms of its agreement with the State for use of HOME funds, such as but not limited to, charging rent in excess of the allowed amount or discontinuing its affordable housing. b. Compliance. With respect to the apartment building, the City shall timely provide GICHF the documentation necessary for GICHF to comply with its obligations under the Agreement between the City of Iowa City and the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship for the Use of HOME Investment Partnership Funds and the agreement it intends to execute with the State of Iowa for use of HOME funds, assuming that said compliance requirements are in substantial compliance with the requirements attached, marked, Exhibit B, and incorporated herein. 10. Non-Discrimination. GICHF, its employees, and agents shall not discriminate against any person in employment or public accommodation because of race, religion, color, creed, gender identity, sex, national odgin, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, marital status or age. "Employment" shall include but not be limited to hiring, accepting, registering, classifying, promoting, or referring to employment. "Public accommodation" shall include but not be limited to providing goods, services, facilities, privileges and advantages to the public. 11. Indemnification. To the extent not expressly prohibited by law, GICHF agrees to indemnify, save, protect and hold forever harmless the City from and against all losses, damages, costs, claims and liabilities, including, without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorney's fees and expenses, which the City may become liable or obligated by reason of, resulting from or in connection with any injury to or death of persons and damage to, or theft, misappropriation or loss of property occurring in or about the Project adsing from any breach or default on the part of GICHF in the payment or performance of any covenant, agreement or 4 obligation on the part of GICHF to be paid or performed pursuant to the terms of this Agreement or any other act or omission of GICHF, its agents or employees. 12. Assignments. GICHF may not sell, transfer, or assign this Agreement (either directly or indirectly) or any legal or beneficial interest therein, without the prior wdtten consent of the City, which consent may be withheld at the City's sole discretion. Any assignment made by GICHF without City's consent in violation of this shall be voidable at the City's option and shall constitute an Event of Default under Paragraph 17 above. 13. Notices. Notices, statements and other communications to be given under the terms of the Agreement shall be in writing and sent by certified or registered mail, or by commercial couder, return receipt requested, and addressed as follows: If to the City: Douglas Boothroy Director of Housing and Inspection Services City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 If to GICHF: President Board of Trustees 700 S. 1'~ Ave., Suite 25B Iowa City, IA 52240 or at such other address as from time to time designated by the party receiving the notice. All such notices shall be deemed to have been fully given, made or sent when made by personal service or deposited in the United States Mail, Registered or Certified, postage prepaid. 14. Applicable Law. The laws of the State of Iowa shall govern the validity, performance and enforcement of this Agreement. 15. Partial Invalidity. If any provision of the Agreement shall be invalid or unenforceable it shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provisions of the Agreement. 16. Heading. Headings as to the contents of particular sections herein are inserted only for convenience, and are in no way to be construed as a part of the Agreement or as a limitation on the scope of the particular section to which they refer. 17. Binding Effect. The covenants, conditions and agreements contained in the Agreement shall bind, apply to and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors. 18. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. 19. Entire Agreement; Merger. The Agreement contains all the agreements and conditions made between the parties hereto with respect to the matters contained herein and may not be modified orally or in any other manner than by an Agreement in writing signed by all 5 the parties hereto or their respective successors. All pdor written and oral understandings and agreements shall be deemed to have merged into the Agreement and have no further force and effect. 20. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which shall, when taken together, constitute but one and the same instrument. CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA GREATER IOWA CITY HOUSING FELLOWSHIP Maryann Dennis, Executive Director STATE OF iOWA ) ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ~3 day of --.~F_P'/--EMg~./'L , A.D. 20 o3 , before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared Ernest W. Lehman and Marian K. Karr, to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of said municipal corporation executing the within and foregoing instrument; that the seal aff'LXed thereto is the seal of said municipal corporation; that said instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City Council; and that the said Mayor and City Clerk as such officers acknowledged that the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said corporation, by it and by them voluntarily executed. .I.l.l.l.l.l.l.l.l~o I sO~DR~FOR~ .J F ~L"I "Y co.~.~, r~"s / ~o.~ ~'~ ~ow;- ~ 3.- 'Z- o y · Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa My commission expires: 3 6 STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On thiso~ r~ day of ~.~r,r~-.~.~_ ,2003, before me, the un.dersigned, a Nota~ Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared ~a~,~. ~'h~ s~ , to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say thatr, he is the 8~. ~z~ , executed the within and foregoing instrument to which this is attached, that said instrument was signed on behalf of said ~ ~ ~.~-~'-~ , by authority of its~cx~, ot~-~.~ , and that the said ~.~, ~,--~%,- ,insuch capacity, acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said limited liability company and of said limited partnership, by it and by them voluntarily. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa_) Approved by: City Attomey's Office 7 EXHIBIT A Legal Description and Street Address of CDBG Assisted Property Lots 15, 22, 23, 24 26 and 27 Peninsula Neighborhood Rrst Addition, Iowa City, Iowa according to the plat thereof recorded in Book 43, Page 275, Plat Records of .lohnson County, Iowa. Street Address: Lot 15 - no addresses as of this date Lot 22 - 1241 Hoses Bloom Lo. Lot 23 - 1221 Hoses Bloom Ln. Lot 24 - 1201 Hoses Bloom Ln. Lot 26 - 1287 and 1287 1/2 Hoses Bloom Ln. Lot 27 - 1267 and 1267 1/2 Hoses Bloom Lo.; 14 Document prepared by Al Collet, Iowa Departn~nt of Economic Development, 200 East Grand Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50309 AGREEMENT FOR COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS THIS AGREEMENT FOR COVENANTS AND RESTRICIION$, dated as of the Effective Date of the below-described Funding Agreement, is between the Iowa Department of Economic Development, a public agency of the State of Iowa, (the "IDED"), and Greater Iowa City Homing Fellowship (the "Recipient"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the II)ED is a public agency of the State of Iowa authorized and ;~owered by the provisions of Chapter 15 of the Code of Iowa, as amended (the "Act") to assist in the development and malntanance of decent, safe, and affordable homing; and WHEREAS, the IX)ED has been designated as the Admlnislrative Entity of the HOME Investment Partnership Program (the "Program") by the Governor of the State of Iowa; and WHEREAS, the Recipient has applied for and received approval for funding from the Program. and has entered into Master Contract Number 01-HM-211 and Fundin~ Agreement bh~mber 01-tiM-211-731 by and between the Recipient and the IDED (the "Conlracf'), and WHEREAS. pursuant to the Contract, the IDED will make an award in the amount of $465,907 (the "Award") to the Recipient for the purpose of ~n~ncing a portion oftbe costs of the Project described in Exhibit A to the Funding Agreement (the "Project") to be located on the real estate described in Attachment A hereto; and WHEREAS. the Project will be economically feas~le for the Recipient because of the Award funds received through the Program; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Conh'act, the Recipient is ~:luired to provide certain Housing Benefits for Very-Low, Low-and- Moderate-Income Families as set forth in the Master Contract and Funding Agreement, and is further required to comply throughout the term of Exhibit A of the Funding Agreement with the requirements and covenants set forfl~ in the Master Conuact and Funding Agreem~t; and WHEREAS, as a condition to receipt of Award proceeds, and in urder to help ensure compliance by the Recipient and any future owner of the Project with the requirements and covenants set forth in the Master Contract and Funding Agreement throughout the required period of time as set forth on Ex.'bit A of the Funding Agreement, so as to maintain the housing benefits for which assistance has been provided through the Program and therefore protect the investment of the IDED and the Program in the Project, and in order to give the IDED the ability to full'ti its obligations under the Program to ensure such compliance, certain covenants and restrictions enforceable by the IDED must be placed on the real estate described in Attachment A hereto governing the use of the Project, which covenants and resh'icfions shall nm with the land and be binding on the Recipient and its successors or assigns. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other valuable consideration the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the par~es hereto agree as follows: 1. The Recipient, for itself and for its successors or assigns, makes the following covenants as to the use of the Project: (a) The Project shall constitute an eligible project in compliance with the Program as described in the Contract, and the Recipient shall comply with all of the requirements of the Program and shall own. operate and manage the Project as set forth as an elig~le project for at least 20 years from the date hereof(the "Term of Affordability"); Covenants - HOME Program Funding Agreement Number: 0 I-HM-211-73 I Format Approved: March 13, 2001 Contract Number: 01 -HM-211 I PAGE Document prepared by Al Collet, Iowa DepatUnent of Economic Development, 200 East Grand Avenue. Des Moines, IA 50309 (b) All of the proceeds of thc Award shall be spent on eligible costs of the Project (as defined in the Contract), in accordance with the Project Budget attached as Exhibit A to the Funding Agreement; (c) The Project shall be completed so as to provide the Project Benefits as required by and specified in 24 I21~'R. Part 92 and as referenced in the Contsact; (d) Throughout at least the Term of Affordability, the Recipient will maintain income targeting as specified in Section 92.216 of 24 CFR Part 92; (e) Throughout at least the Term of Affordability, the Recipient will maintain rent limitations as specified ill Section 92.252 of 24 CFR Part 92, the Master Contract and the Funding Agreement; (0 Throughout at least the Term of Affordability, the Recipient shall: conduct inspections of Program-assisted units to ensure compliance with the property standards as specified in sections 92.251 and 92.504 (d) (1) of 24 15t;K Part 92; (g) In order to ensure compliance with the covenants in subparagraphs (d), (e) and (0 above, Recipient shall submit to the Il)ED, as required by the Contract, its certification of compliance with such covenant, together with documentation in form and substance satisfactory to the IDED evidencing compliance with such covenant; Ca) Recipient/Contractor shah comply with all of the covenants set forth in the Contract. 2. All of the covenants herein shall run with tee real estate descrll0ed in Attacttment A hereto and the Project thereon, and be binding upon the Recipient and its successors or assigns, for the Term of Affordability. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, this entire Agreement, or any of the provisions or paragraphs hereof, may be terminated upon written agreement by the Il)ED and the Recipient. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2 above, such covenant5 shall cease to apply to the real estate described in Attachment A and the Project thereon prior to the end of the Term of Affordability, in the event of involuntary noncompliance therewith mused by a fire, seizure, requisition, foreclosure, tmmfer of tire by deed in lien of fo~clnstrm, change in a federal law er action of a federal agency after the date of llmldng of the Award which prevents the IDED or its successors or assigns from enforcing the covenants, or condemnation or similar event, but only if, within a reasonable l~niod, amounts received as a consequence of such event are used to provide a project which meets the requirements of the Program. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 3 above, ffonce the Project has been subject to foreclosure, transfer of title by deed in lieu of foreclosure or similar event, and at any time during the part of the Term of Affordability subsequent to such event, the Recipient or a related person to the Recipient obtains an ownership inte~st in the Project for tax purposes, the covenants herein shall once again nm with the real estate described in Attachment A hereto and the Project thereon and be binding on the Recipient or such related person and their respective successors or assigns for the remainder oftbe Term of Affordability. · 5. This Agreement may be amended only by an amendment in writing executed by the parties hereto. 6. Except for the rental of units in the Project to tenants, the Recipient hereby covenants and agrees not to sell, tmmfer or otherwise dispose of the Project or any interest therein without obtaininoo the prior written consent of the IDED, which shall be conditioned solely upon receipt of evidence satisfactory to the II)ED that the Recipient's purchaser or transferee (t) has assumed in writing and in full the Recipient's duties and obligations under this Agreement and the Master Contract and Funding Agreement; (ii) has the financial capability to carry out such obligations; and (iii) is knowledgeable ia the operation and management of facilities similar to the Project facilities. It Covenants - HOME Program Funding Agreement Number:. 01-HM-211-731 Format.Approved: March 13, 2001 Contract Numbe~. 01-HM-211 Document prepared by Al Collet, Iowa Department of Economic Development, 200 East Grand Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50309 is hereby expressly stipulated and agreed that any sale, mmsfer or other disposition of the Project in violation of this Section may be ineffective to relieve the Recipient of its obligations under this Agreement and the Master Contxact and Funding Agreement. 7. If the Recipient defaults in the performance or observance of any covenant, agreement or obligation of the Recipient set forth in this Agreement, and ff such default remain~ uncllted for a period of thirty (30) days afier notice thereof shall have been given by the IDED to the Recipient (or for a period of sixty (60) days after such notice if such default is curable but requires acts to be done or conditions to be rer~died which, by their nature, cannot be done or i~aedied within such 30-day period, and if the Recipient con-anences same within such 30-day period and thereafter diligently and continuously pursues the same to conI)letion within such 60-day period), then the IDED may declare that the Recipient is in default hereunder and may take any one or mare of the following steps, at its option: (a) by mandamus or other suit, action or proceeding at law or in equity, require the Recipient to perform its obligations and covenants hereunder, or enjoin any acts or things which may be ~mlawfifl or in viohtion of the fights of the IDED hereunder, or obtain damages caused to the IDED by any such default; {'b) have access to and inspect, examine and make copies of all of the books and records of the Recipient pertaining to the Project; (c) declare a default under the Master Contract and Funding Agreement and male no further disbursements of Award proceeds, and demand immediate repayment from Recipient of Award proceeds previously disbursed to Recipient; and (d) take whatever other action at law or in equity may appear necessa~ or desirable to enforce the obligations, covenants and agreements of the Recipient hereunder and under the Master Contract and Funding Agreement, including the recovery of Award pruceeds. No delay in enford~ the provisions hereof as to any breach or violation shall impair, damage or waive the right of the IDED to enforce the same or to obtain relief against or ~cover for the covtim~qon or repetition of such breach or viohtion or any similar breach or viohtion thereof at any later time or times. 8. The Recipient shall cause this Agreement and all amendments and supplements hereto to be recorded and filed in such manner and in such places and the II)ED may reasonably request, and shall pay all fees and charges incurred in connection therewith. 9. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Iowa. 10. Any notice required to be given hereunder shall be given by registered or certified mail at the addresses specified below or at such other addresses as may be specified in writing by the parties hereto: IDED: Iowa Deparbrient of Economic Development Division of Community and Rural Development 200 East Grand Avenue Des Moines, IA 50309 Attention: HOME Program Recipient/Contractor: Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship 1700 S. 1st Ave., Suite 25B Iowa City, IA 52240 Covenants - HOME Program Funding Agreement Number: 01 -HM-211-731 Format Approved: March 13,2001 ContractNumber:01-HM-211 DRAFT AGREEMENT This Agreement, entered into this day of 2003, by and between the City of Iowa City, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") and Greater Iowa Ci Housing Fellowsl' (hereinafter"GICHF") in Iowa City, Iowa. GICHF is a Community Housing Development Organization, as is defined in WHEREAS , Council functions as the Iowa City Housing Auth( and WHEREAS, purchased 6 lots in the area locally knc as the "Peninsula" and legally described i WHEREAS, GICHF intent develop and units on said six (6) lots consisting of a nine building (I building"), two (2) duplexes, and three (3) townhouses ~ ;reinafter the six (6) lots will be collectively referred to as the "Prc WHEREAS, the Project will I dditional affor rental housing in the City; WHEREAS, GICHF is financing the 3 HOME funds awarded by the State of Iowa in the amount of $759,190 which agreement between GICHF and the State of Iowa and with HOME and CDBG fun( Iready awarded by the City in the amount of $623,467 pursuant to agreements with the Cit use of said funds; WHEREAS, in Resolution Nc ~uncil declared its intent to sell General Obligation bonds in the amount of $657,0£ order to GICHF said amount to assist with its development of affordable housing in WHEREAS, the I into an a purchase of the apartment building specifically and financing of the generally; WHEREAS. that the cost to construct th, g, including the cost to purchase the lot, v be in the nature of 1.2 million WHEREAS, the price of the apartment building is ~11,503 plus the following consideration: The City pment agreement with the Peninsula'~eveloper required land to be designated' )r Iow/if housing at a reduced price, which allow0td GICHF to purc.h, ase said six (6) lots at b~o~ market value; the City's support of the Projl~ct made GICHF s application for l te~ an City HOME funds more competitive; the City's ~verall financial support of the Project Ii ely led to the State giving GICHF a grant of $759,190 in I~OME funds; and the City's provisi¢ ~f a loan to GICHF in the amount of $401,000 financed fro~ general obligation bonds an interest rate lower than GICHF could obtain from a priv~e lender; and it is in the City s interest to purchase the apartment building from GICHF upon and to assist GICHF in its development of the Project genially through the of financing. THE PARTIES THEREFORE AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Lots. The Project shall be constructed on six (6) lots legall) in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated herein ("Property"). The lot upon which building will be and the apartment building shall be referred to this Agreement as "the apart and is legally described as follows: Lot 15 Penir Neighborhood First Addition, Iowa Ci according to the plat thereof in Book 43 275, Plat Records of Johnson County, 2. Loan to GICF a. days issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the apadment Iding, the City shall loan $657,000 to be financed by General Obligation debt '). b. Interest Rate. on the loan shall at the identical rate of interest that the City receives when it sells Obligation bo~ as authorized in Resolution No. 02- 207. Said interest rate ' and the C r is under no obligation to sell said bonds by a certain date or to sell said or below certain interest rate. The parties acknowledge that it is bonds at a date other than the date GICHF delivers a deed for the apartment buildin iraph 5 below, and as such, the parties agree that the interim interest rate, as the time between when the transfer occurs and when said bonds are sold, shall equal to AAA rated bonds with a 20-year maturity as of the date of transfer. c. Assiqnment. Upon rece~ ~n, GICHF shall assign $256,000 of the loan principal to the City, and the Cit, signment and assume responsibility for its repayment. d. Repayment. I loan of $401 GICHF shall be amortized over twenty (20) years. GICHF shall ~ equal monthly nts on said loan beginning on the 15th day of the month immedi~ ~ succeeding the month which the loan is received and continuing on the 15th da lowing 239 months. e. Mortgage. ' loan to GICHF of $401 secured by a mortgage on the Properly, excluding the; ,g. of the mortgage, GICHF shall provide satisfactory to the City that GICHF clear title to the Property, subject only CDBG and HOME deed restrictions as the result of the State of 'ant of HOME funds. 3. of Apartment Building. The City agrees to ~ase and GICHF agrees to sell building after GICHF receives a Certificate ~ as provided in P; 5 below. The purchase price is $711,503, consistir :he following: $171,202 Cash (Housing Authority "Equity") $256,000 Assignment of GO debt to the City (see Par. 2c ~ $284,301 City HOME/CDBG funds (see Par. 4 below.) ~, 2 4. City HOME/CDBG Funds. The parties acknowledge that GICHF, as a CHDO, received $516,400 in City HOME Funds pursuant to the City HOME Agreement and that it additionally was awarded $107,067 in City CDBG funds. GICHF shall assign responsibility for $284,301 of the City HOME and City CDBG Funds to the City at closing on the apartment building, which shall bear interest at the rate of 1% per year. The City shall make monthly interest s of $ 236.92 to GICHF beginning February 1, 2005 and continuing on the 1st day of the for the succeeding 239 months, but shall not be obligated to ~y payments on the amount of $284,301. The City shall pay GICHF a payment of $284 )1, which is due and payable on March 1, 2025. 5. Deed. fin thirty (30) days of the City's issuance of a Cer of Occupancy for the apartment GICHF shall convey the apartment building r warranty deed, free and clear of all restrictions, and encumbrances, except deed restrictions imposed by the State result of its grant of HOME fur to GICHF and GICHF's construction loan for the ect. GICHF shall pay off said con~ loan promptly upon receipt of ' described in Paragraph 2 an further provide the City promptly thereafter with a of the recorded relea., ~f said construction loan. Prior to closing, GICHF, e, shall obtain apartment building which shall show merchantable in GICHF in accord~ Iowa law and Title Standards of the Iowa State Bar Association. 6. Risk of Loss and remains with GICHF until possession of the apartment buildin to the City. 7. Insurance. Beginning the effecti~ ~te of this Agreement and ending when GICHF has fulfilled its loan obligation as set forth in ragraph in 2d above, GICHF shall at its own expense procure and maintain general lial casualty insurance on the Project, except as noted below, in acom business in the State of Iowa, in the following amounts: Type of Coverage a. Comprehensive Each Occurrence Aq,qre,qate Bodily Injury & Damage 300 $2,000,000 b. Automobile C ~bined Sin,qle Limit Bodily Ir & Property Damage 000 c. $1,000,000 d. Insurance as required b~ 85, Code of Iowa. GICHF shall me the City as an additional insured on said policy, insurance carrier shall be A by A.M. Best. GICHF shall deliver to the City, thirty (30) days of execution ~ reement, Certificates of Insurance and copies of said les. The only exceptio ~ the above is that GICHF need only to maintain said buildir it is transferred to the City as provided in Paragraph 5. GICHF )rovide fifteen (151 notice to the City before cancellation of said insurance. 3 8. Termination a. Termination of Agreement for Cause. If Gl(:: this Agreement in a timely and proper manner, or if GICHF violates or stipulations of this Agreement, the City shall thereupon have the ri Agreement by giving written notice to GICHF of such termination the default or defaults, and stat that this Agreement shall be te ; after the giving of such such default or defaults period. The City shall be obligated to no payment due hereunder after it notice unless the defaults are remedied hirty (30) day period. b_. of Agreement for Convenie This Agreement may be terminated in whole or in part iai agreement of the in which case the City and GICHF shall agree upon the the effective date, the disposition of loan and City HOME amounts, :t in the case of the portion to be terminated. 9. State HOME Funds a. Hold City, its officers and employees, harmless from any obligation that the State of Jay impose on GICHF for repayment of HOME funds or any liability that may result from GIC )lating the terms of its agreement with the State for use of HOME funds, such as but not charging rent in excess of the allowed amount or discontinuing its affordable housing. b. Compliance. With r, the s ~g, the City shall timely provide GICHF the documentation for GICHF to with its obligations under the Agreement between the City of City and er Iowa City Housing Fellowship for the Use of HOME Investment Part and the ~ it intends to execute with the State of Iowa for use of HOMI assuming 3mpliance requirements are in substantial compliance with uirements attached, Exhibit B, and incorporated herein. 10. Non-Discrimi its employees, and shall not discriminate against any person in employr )mmodation because religion, color, creed, gender identity, sex, origin, sexual orientation, mental sical disability, marital status or age. "Emi include but not be limited to hirin registering, classifying, prom¢ or referring to employment. "Public acco ~n" shall include but not be limited to oods, services, facilities, privileges ~ public. 11. ~nification. To the extent not expressly prohibited by :HF agrees to indemnify, s~ protect and hold forever harmless the City from and : losses, damages, claims and liabilities, including, without limitation, court costs attorney'.~ and expenses, which the City may become liable or obligated resultin~l,Crom or in connection with any injury to or death of persons or theft, misap/ICropriation or loss of property occurring in or about the Project arising breach or def~dlt on the part of GICHF in the payment or performance of any ~t or 4 obligation on the part of GICHF to be paid or performed pursuant to the terms of this Agreement or any other act or omission of GICHF, its agents or employees. 12. Assignments. GICHF may not sell, transfer, or assign this Agreement (either directly or indirectly) or any legal or beneficial interest therein, without the prior writter City, which consent may be withheld at the City's sole discretion. An, GICHF without City's consent in violation of this shall be voidable at the City',, shall constitute an Event of Default under Paragraph 17 above. 3. Notices. Notices, statements and other communications to ven under the terms of shall be in writing and sent by certified or registere or by commercial courier Jrn receipt requested, and addressed as follows: Dou Director -lousing and Inspection Services City 410 St. Iowa City, 52240 If to GICHF: President Board of Trustees 700 S. 1 st Ave., Iowa City, IA 52240 or at such other address as 9 designated by the party receiving the notice. All such notices shall be deemed Ily given, made or sent when made by personal service or deposited in istered or Certified, postage prepaid. 14. Applicable Law. laws of Iowa shall govern the validity, performance and enforcement of this Ag~ 15. Partial InvaliC If any provision invalid or unenforceable it shall not affect the vali,, or enforceability of any other p~,visions of the Agreement. 16. Headin, ~ Jings as to the contents of particula'~ections herein are inserted only for convenience,? ~d a in no way to be construed as a part of~t,he Agreement or as a limitation on the scope of/th~, pal ular section to which they refer.~ / 17. ~ Effect. The covenants, conditions and agreement~,contained in the Agreemen/t/shall b ~d-"'~ply to and inure to the benefit of the parties h~-~to and their respective success/~rs. /18. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in this Agreement~, / \ 19. Entire Agreement; Merger. The Agreement contains a II the agreem~ts and itions made between the parties hereto with respect tothe matters containe~herein and not be modified orally or in any other manner than by an Agreement in writin~signed by all ! 5 the parties hereto or their respective successors. All prior written and oral understandings and agreements shall be deemed to have merged into the Agreement and have no further force and effect. 20. ~unterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemedlto be an original and all of which shall, when taken together, constitute but on~.and the same irl~strument. / ;ITY, IOWA GREATER IOWA CITY HOI FELLOWSHIP By: By: Stephen J. Atkins, Manager Maryann Executive Director ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this day of A.D. 20 , before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and fol of Iowa, personally appeared Ernest W. Lehman and Marian K. Karr, to me being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, of said inicipal corporation executing the within and foregoing instrument; that the thereto seal of said municipal corporation; that said instrument was signed behalf of municipal corporation by authority of its City Council; and that the Mayor and City such officers acknowledged that the execution of said instrum, to be the voluntary act of said corporation, by it and by them voluntarily Notary Public in and e State of Iowa My commission expires: STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this day of ,2003, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared , to me nally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that he is the , executed the within and foregoing that said instrument was signed on behalf said by authority of its -- . and that the said ~ / , in such capacity, ~n of said instrument to be the volu~ntary act and deed of said limited liabilit' npany and of said limited partnership, by it and by.~em voluntarily. / / Notary Public in ~,'~or the State of Iowa Approved by: ,/ City Attorney's Office 7 EXHIBIT A ~ Legal Description and Street Address Lots 15 24 26 and 27 Peninsula Neighborhood First Addition, Iowa Ci~, ~owa according to the Book 43, Page 275, Plat Records of Johns?r{ County, Iowa. Street Address: / Lot 15 - no addresses date Lot 22 - 1241 Lot 23 - 1221 Lot 24 - 1201 Moses Bloom Lot 26 - 1287 and Bloom Ln. Lot 27 - 1267 and Ln.; Document prepared by Al Coil Iowa Department of Economic Development, 200 East Grand Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50309 · AGREEMENT FOR COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS / THIS AGREEMENT FOR AND RESTRICTIONS, dated as of the Effective Date of~the/e below-described Funding Agreement, f Economic Development, a public agency of the State o~wa, (the"" "'IDED ), and Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship (the WITNESSETH: fCha t 15 fth Cod f WHEREAS, the fi)ED is a e State of Iowa authorized and empowere MY e provisions o p er o e e o Iowa, as amended (the "Act") to assist in the s~fe, and affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the fi)ED has been designated as t , of the HQME Investment Parmership Program (the "Program") by the Governor of the State of Iowa; and WHEREAS, the Recipient has applied fo I approval for fund~ag fi.om the Program, and has entered into Master Contract Number 01-HM-211 and Fundin by/and between the Recipient and the fi)ED (the "ConUact"), and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Contract, the IDED $465,907 (the "Award") to the Recipient for the purpose of £mancing a portion of the Funding Agreement (the "Project") to be located on the real estate described m Attachment A hereto; and WHEREAS, the Project will be economicall3 the Award funds received through the Program; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Contract, the Recip~nt is requ~d to provide certain Housing Benefits for Very-Low, Low-and- Moderate-Income Families as set forth in the Master C/6ntract and Fun~ng Agreement, and is further required to comply throughout the term of Exhibit A of the Funding Agreement with the/r~quirements and co~xenants set forth in the Master Conlxact and Funding Ag~ement; and ar p~roc er to hel~l ens WHEREAS, as a condition to receipt of Aw eeds, and in ord ure compliance by the Recipient and any future owner of the Project with the requirements and cove~tflnts set forth in the Master Contral~ and Funding Agreement throughout the required period oft/me as set forth on Exln'bit A of the FungUmg Agreement, so as to maintain the h~nsing benefits for which assistance has been provided through the Program and therefore protec/ffthe investment of the fi)ED and the Pro,am in the Project, and in order to give the fi)ED the ability to fulfill its obligations under th~/Program to ensure such compliance, certain~venants and restrictions enforceable by the fi)ED must be placed on the real estate descj:ibed in Attachment A hereto governing the use ore Project, which covenants and restxictions shall run with the land and be binding op/the Recipient and its successors or assigns. NOW, THEREFORE, in cons!c'/eration of the premises and for other valuable consideration~eceipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as f~ltows: / 1. The Recipient/for itself and for its successors or assigns, makes the following covenants as to the use of the Project: / (a) The Projectfihall constitute an eligible project in compliance with the Program as described in the Contract, and the Recipient shall comply wi~ll all of the requirements of the Program and shall own, operate and manage the Project as set forth as an eligible project for at tectst 20 years fi.om the date hereof(the "Term of Affordability"); / Cov~ants - HOME Program Funding Agreement Number: 01-HM-211-731 Format Approved: March 13,2001 ContractNumber:01-HM-211 rEXHIBIT ~ Document t Al Collet, Iowa Department of Economic Development, 200 East Grand Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50309 / (b) oftha Award shall be spent on eligible costs of the Project (as defined,in the Contract), in accordance with Funding Agreement; , (c) The Proj completed so as to provide the Project Benefits as required by and specified in 24 CFR Part 92 and as referenced (d) gection 92.216 of 24 CFR Part 92; (e) Throughout at least the Term 'Affordability, the Recipient will maintain rent limitations as specified in Section 92.252 of 24 CFR Part 92, (f) ~, the Recipient shall: conduct inspections of Program-assisted units to ensure compliance with the property standards as , ~1 and 92.504 (d) (1) of 24 CFR Part 92; / (g) ~ above, Recipient shall submit to the Il)ED, as required by the Contract, its substance satisfactory to the (h) Recipient/Contractor shall comply with all of the 2. All of the covenants herein shall nm ~ and the Project thereon, and be binding upon the Recipient and its successors or assigns, Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, this entire Agreement, or any of the provisions or ~ may be terminated upon written agreement by the IDED and the Recipient. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of above, such to apply to the real estate described in Attachment A and the Project thereon prior end ia the event of involuntary noncompliance therewith caused by a fire, transfer of title by ~ foreclusure, change in a federal law or aetiun ora federal agency after the date of making of the which prevents the IDED or the covenants, or condemnation or similar event with.in a reasonable period, ,f such event are used to provide a proj 4. ~ subject to foreclosure, transfer of title by deed in lieu of foreclosure or similar time durln ~ subsequent to such event, the Recipient or a related perso ~ interest in the Project for tax covenants herein shall once again run with the real estate the Recipient or such related person and remainder of the Term of Affordability. 5. be amended only by an amendment in writing executed b' hereto. 6. f units in the Project to tenants, the Recipient hereby covenants and agrees not to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of the ect or any interest therein without obtaining the prior written consent of the IDED, which shall be conditioned solely ~ to the IDED that the Recipient's purchaser or transferee (i) has assumed in writing and in full the and Funding Agreement; (ii) has the financial capability to cart3 iiii) is knowledgeable in the operation and management of facilities similar to the Project facilities. It Covenants - HOME Program Funding Agreement Number: 01-HM-211-731 Format Approved: March 13, 2001 Contract Number: 01 -HM-211 ~[ Collet, Iowa Department of Economic Development, 200 East Grand Avenue, Des Moines, ~A 50309 is stipulated and agreed that any sale, ~ansfer or other disposition of the Project in violati'on of this Section may be obligations under this Agreement and the Master Contract and Funding Agreement. 7. in the performance or observance of any covenant, agreement or obligation of the Recipient set forth in this A default remains uncured for a period of thirty (30) days at, er notice thereof shall have been given by the IDED to (or for a period of sixty (60) days at, er such notice if such default iS curable but requires acts to be done or ~vhich, by their nature, cannot be done or remedied within such;30~day period, and if the Recipient commences :1 and thereafter diligently and continuously pursues the sa~e to corr~letion within such 60-day period), then the II)ED may dec '. Recipient is in default hereunder and may take any o~ or more of the following steps, at its option: (a) by suit, action or proceeding at law or in equi~, require the Recipient to perform its obligations and acts or things which may be unlawful~o~ in violation of the rights of the IDED hereunder, or obtain ~ such default; (b) have and make copies of all/oi'the books and records of the Recipient pertaining to the Project; (c) proceeds, and previously disbursed to Recipient; and (d) take whatever other action at law or necessary or desirable to enforce the obligations, covenants and agreements of the Recipient hereunder and :Agreement, including the recovery of Award proceeds. No delay in enfomin ~ or violation shall impair, damage or waive the right of the IDED to enforce the same or to obtain relief ~ ,r repetition of such breach or violation or any similar breach or violation thereof at any later time or times. 8. The Recipient shall cause this and supplements hereto to be recorded and filed in such manner and in such places and the IDED may . and shall fees and charges incurred in connection therewith. 9. This Agreement shall be ~' the laws of the State 10. Any notice required ~pecified below or at such other addresses as may IDED: Iowa Department of Economic Development Division of Community and Rural Development 200 East Grand Avenue Des Moines, IA 50309 Attention: HOME Program ient/Contractor: Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship 1700 S. 1st Ave., Suite 25B Iowa City, IA 52240 Covenants - HOME Program Funding Agreement Number: 01-HM-211-731 Format Appreved: March 13, 2001 Contract Number: 01 -HM-211 Prepared by: Dale Helling, Ass't City Manager, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5013 RESOLUTION NO. 03-299 RESOLUTION AMENDING THE BUDGETED POSITIONS IN THE SENIOR CENTER BY ADDING ONE HALF-TIME CLERICAL ASSISTANT-SENIOR CENTER POSITION. WHEREAS, Resolution 03-82, adopted by the City Coundl on March 11, 2003, authorized permanent positions in the Senior Center for FY04; and WHEREAS, provisions of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement significantly restrict the number of hours a temporary employee can work before becoming a permanent employee; and WHEREAS, the Senior Center wishes to ensure consistent staff coverage in the main lobby to help avoid errors due to frequent staff changes and limited experience; and WHEREAS, this change will provide the most effective coverage for the Senior Center while allowing for full compliance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: The budgeted positions in the Senior Center be amended by the addition of one half-time Clerical Assistant-Senior Center position, with a wage rate of $10.50 per hour. Passed and approved this 23rd dayof September ,20 03 (~I'r~LERK City Attorney's Office It was moved by Champion and seconded by 0'Donnell the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Champion X Kanner × Lehman X O'Donnell X Pfab X Vanderhoef X Wilbum mgr/asst/res/srcb clerical.doc Senior Center Memorandum To: City Council From: Linda Kopping, Senior Center Coordinator Cc: Steve Atkins, City Manager, Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager; Sylvia Mejia, Personnel Administrator Date: 17 September 2003 Re: Reallocation of Currently Allocated Part-Time Temporary Funding for the Senior Center The FY04 Senior Center operational budget includes $28,392 for part-time temporary staff positions. This amount is based upon estimated salaries for a total of 35 hours a week of reception coverage in the main lobby and approximately 16 hours a week of support for Senior Center Television. In order to comply with the new AFSME contract, I would like to modify the current budget allocation for part-time temporary salaries. Specifically I am requesting that twenty hours per week of my temporary staff be made a permanent Clerical Assistant. The balance of the current temporary staff budget would be used to provide part-time temporary staff for Senior Center Television. Making this position permanent half-time will result in a reduction in staff coverage for the main lobby of the Center. Nonetheless, it will allow me to provide consistent staff coverage in the main lobby and help avoid errors due to frequent staff changes and limited experience with the Center's data base, phone system and referral services. In addition, a permanent half-time position will be more attractive to a wider pool of candidates and individuals interested in long-term employment. Maintaining the current level of part-time temporary support for Senior Center Television will provide for the ongoing work and training of the Senior Center Television volunteers. The estimated cost for the remainder of FY04 for the Clerical Assistant position is $15,247. A job description is attached to this memorandum. Thank you for considering this request. Job Description September 2003 Identification Position Title: Clerical Assistant Department: Senior Center Supervisor: Senior Center Coordinator Job Summary: Under direct supervision, assists staff in the Senior Center. Greets the public, responds to questions, offers appropriate assistance and performs other clerical duties. Essential Job Duties and Responsibilities 1. Greets the public and provides routine information and assistance. 2. Answers the phone, takes and delivers messages. 3. Assists with program registration, collects participant fees and nominal donations, and issues receipts. 4. Assists the public with the copying machine and does copying for staff. 5. Helps collect information related to participation and building use. 6. Prepares routine correspondence and mailings, receives, sorts and delivers mail. 7. Helps track and maintain inventories of day-to-day operational supplies. 8. Performs all other related duties as assigned. Education and Experience Minimum of six months of experience working with the public required. Familiarity with computer systems preferred. Physical and Environmental Conditions Able to sit, stand, and transport oneself throughout the Senior Center and between the Senior Center and the City Hail throughout the year. Ability to lift and carry bundles of up to 10 pounds. Employee will need to be able to check supplies stored at various levels in closets and bins. Knowledqe, Skills, and Abilities Knowledge of basic office equipment, filing and sorting techniques. Ability to communicate effectively with the public and staff.