Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-21 ResolutionRESOLUTION NO. 97-357 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: Maxie's - 1920 Keokuk Street The Que Bar - 211 Iowa Avenue It was moved by Lehman and seconded by as read be adopted, and upon roll callthere were: Thornberry that the Resolution AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Passed and approved this 21st day of October Baker Kubby Lehman Norton Novick Thornberry Vanderhoef ,1997. ATTEST: ~~ CITY~CLERK a\danceprm,res MAYOR L L/ Approved by City Attorney's Office Prepared by: Denny Gannon, Asst. City Engineer, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5142 RESOLUTION NO. 97-358 RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WOOLF AVENUE BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT (PROJECT NO. BRM-3715(4.)--8N-52), DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF SAID HEARING, AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PLACE SAID PLANS ON FILE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: A public hearing on the plans, specifications, form of contract, and estimate of cost for the construction of the above-mentioned project is to be held on the 1 lth day of November, 1 997, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish notice of the public hearing for the above-named proposal in a newspaper published at least once weekly and having a general circulation in the City, not less than four (4) nor more than twenty (20) days before said hearing. A copy of the plans, specifications, form of contract, and estimate of cost of the construction of the above-named project is hereby ordered placed on file by the City Engineer in the office of the City Clerk for public inspection. Passed and approved this 2:[st day of October' , 1 997. ATTEST: ClT~C,I' ERK Approved by City Attorney's Office pweng\res\woolfav,doc Resolution No. 97-358 Page 2 It was moved by Lehman and seconded by adopted, and upon roll call there were: Thornberry the Resolution be AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X X X X Y X X Baker Kubby Lehman Norton Novick Thornberry Vanderhoef Prepared by: Don Yucuis, Finance Director, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5052 RESOLUTION NO. 97-359 RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOVEMBER 11, 1997 ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3 ENTITLED "CITY FINANCES, TAXATION & FEES," CHAPTER 4 ENTITLED "SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES AND PENALTIES" OF THE CITY CODE TO INCREASE THE RATES FOR FEES AND CHARGES FOR POTABLE WATER USE AND SERVICE AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS USER CHARGES. WHEREAS, water and wastewater fees, which were last increased in 1997 are proposed to be increased to generate adequate revenues to pay the costs of operation, maintenance, necessary expansion and debt service for the City's wastewater treatment facilities as well as its potable water supply and treatment facilities; and WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City is required to comply with federal safe drinking water standards, and is planning to construct a new water supply and treatment facility; and WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City is required to comply with federal wastewater treatment standards, and is planning to make improvements to double the treatment capacity of the existing South Wastewater Treatment Plant, and to construct a sanitary sewer line to connect the two wastewater treatment plants; and WHEREAS, water and wastewater rates for fees and charges will fund these projects over time; and WHEREAS, the City Code requires that notice and public hearing on proposed changes in rates for fees and charges for City utilities be provided to the public, prior to enactment of said rates for fees and charges. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, that: A public hearing is hereby set for 7:00 p.m. on November 11, 1997, to be held in the Civic Center Council Chambers, to permit public input on the proposed rate increases or changes for fees and charges for potable water use and service and fees and charges for wastewater treatment facilities and services. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish notice of said hearing in accordance with State law. Passed and approved this 21st day of October , 1997. ATTEST: 7~~ CITY-CLERK It was moved by Lehman adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: finadm\res\water.doc MAYOR and seconded by Approved by City Attorney's Office Thornberry the Resolution be NAYS: ABSENT: Baker Kubby Lehman Norton Novick Thornberry Vanderhoef Prepared by: Kim Johnson, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5139 RESOLUTION NO. 97-360 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK FOR THE GROUNDWATER STORAGE RESERVOIR PUMP SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT WHEREAS, the Engineering Division has recommended that the work for construction of the Groundwater Storage Reservoir Pump System Improvements Project, as included in a contract between the City of Iowa City and Wendler Engineering of South Amana, Iowa, dated January 16, 1996 be accepted, and WHEREAS, the performance and payment bond has been filed in the City Clerk's office. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, that said improvements are hereby accepted by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa. Passed and approved this 21st day of October ,1997. CI'T~CLERK City Attorney's Office MAYOR It was moved by Lehman adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: X X X X NAYS: pweng/res/groundwa.doc and seconded by THornberry the Resolution be ABSENT: Baker Kubby Lehman Norton Novick Thornberry Vanderhoef PROJECT CONTRACTOR ADDRESS FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE Iowa City Water Division, GSR and System Improvements Project Wendler Engineering and Construction P.O. Box 170, 1648 T Avenue, South Amana, IA 52334 I hereby declare that this project has been inspected, tested, and completed in substantial compliance with the plans, specifications, contract documents, and change orders governing this project and' recommend that the work completed by accepted by the Owner. The undersigned accepts the work constructed under the conditions and guarantee of the contract. The two year guarantee and maintenance requirement of the contract, secured by the Performance and Payment Bonds, ,shall booome .e.ff..e~t. jve as ef thc 18th day ur September The final contract amount adjusted to actual completed quantities and change orders, is Six hundred eighty seven thousand, six hundred seventy eight dollars and thirty seven cents ($687,678.37) .- Dated this 18th day of September, 1997. Recommended by Engineer Howard R. Green Company. Chris Catlin, P.E., Project Engineer Accepted by O_._wr~er Iowa City ~t~.'Division ~ Chuck Schmac~ke~', I~i~ctor of Public Works Agreed to by Contractor Wendler Engineering and Construction Randy'R'e'ihmann, P.E., President O:\PROJ\513016\0003\FINAL\FINAL.INS Prepared by: Dennis Gannon, Asst. City Engineer, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5142 RESOLUTION NO. 97-361 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE WORK FOR THE STORM SEWER AND WATER MAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR AUDITOR'S PARCEL 95081 (CONTAINING BUILDINGS ADDRESSED 749, 751, 751¼ AND 753 W. BENTON STREET). WHEREAS, the Engineering Division has certified that the following improvements have been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications of the City of Iowa City, Storm sewer and water main improvements for Auditor's Parcel 95081 (containing buildings addressed 749, 751, 751 ~ and 753 W. Benton Street), as constructed by Maxwell Construction, Inc. of Iowa City, Iowa. WHEREAS, maintenance bonds have been filed in the City Engineer's office; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: Said public improvements are hereby accepted by the City of Iowa City, Iowa, and that all dedications and public improvements are hereby formally accepted. Passed and approved this 2~[st day of OCtober , 1 997. It was moved by Lehman adopted, and upon roll call there were: Approved by ,,~ / and seconded be AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X X pweng\res~vbenton.doc ~ Baker Kubby Lehman Norton Novick Thornberry Vanderhoef Prepared by: Rob Winstead, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5145 RESOLUTION NO. 97-362 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING. THE WORK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIRST AVENUE PAVING AND STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, BRADFORD TO MUSCATINE. WHEREAS, the Engineering Division has recommended that the work for construction of the First Avenue Paving and Storm Sewer Project, Bradford to Muscatine, as included in a contract between the City of Iowa City and Streb Construction Co., Inc. of Iowa City, Iowa, dated June 10, 1997 be accepted; and WHEREAS, the performance and payment bond has been filed in the City Clerk's office. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT said improvements are hereby accepted by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa. Passed and approved this 21st day of October' ,1997. ATTEST:/~~ CITY'CLERK MAYOR It was moved by Lehman and seconded by adopted, and upon roll call there were: Thornberry the Resolution be AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Baker X Kubby X Lehman X Norton X Novick X Thornberry X Vanderhoef pweng\res~bradmusc.doc ENGINEER'S REPORT CITY OF I0 WA CITY October 21, 1997 Honorable Mayor and City Council Iowa City, Iowa RE: First Avenue Paving and Storm Sewer Improvements Project, Bradford to Muscatine Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilpersons: I hereby certify that the construction of the First Avenue Paving and Storm Sewer Improvements Project, Bradford to Muscatine has been completed in substantial accordance with the plans and specifications of the Engineering Division of the City of Iowa City. The final contract price is $1,180,600.94. I recommend that the above-referenced improvements be accepted by the City of Iowa City. Sincerely, Richard A. Fosse, P.E. City Engineer 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1826 · (319) 356-5000 · FAX (319) 356-5009 Prepared by: Sarah E. Holecek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319)356-5030 RESOLUTION NO. 97-363 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST STORM SEWER, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND WATERMAIN EASEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 749 THROUGH 753 WEST BENTON STREET, IOWA CITY, IOWA WHEREAS, pursuant to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, Tom Lepic submitted a development plan for the area known as Forestridge located at 749 through 753 West Benton Street, Iowa City, Iowa; and WHEREAS, under said plat and plan, additional infrastructure was installed to service the added development within the subdivision, and certain easement rights must be acquired to ensure the continued operation of the public infrastructure; and WHEREAS, City staff has approved the location of the proposed Storm Sewer, Stormwater Management and Watermain, as well as the associated easement agreements required for infrastructure in this development; and WHEREAS, the easement agreements require City Council approval; and WHEREAS, the execution of said easement agreements is in the public interest and advances the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Iowa City, Iowa. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign and the City Clerk to attest the Storm Sewer, Stormwater Management and Watermain Easement Agreements for Forestridge, located at 749 to 753 West Benton Street, Iowa City, Iowa. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this Resolution and to record the same with the above-referenced Easement Agreements in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the expense of Thomas D. Lepic. Passed and approved this 21st day of MAYOR ATTEST: October , 1997. CORPORATE SEAL 2:3,5 Resolution No. 97-363 Page 2 It was moved by Lehman and seconded by adopted, and upon roll calltherewere: Thornberry the Resolution be AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X X X x X Baker Kubb¥ Lehman Norton Novick Thornberry Vanderhoef WATERMAIN EASEMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement is made by and between Thomas D. Lepic and Vera L. Lepic, husband and wife, (hereinafter "Owner") and the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "the City"). WHEREAS, Owner is the legal title holder of the property de- scribed herein and has agreed to permit the extension of a water- main line across a portion of Owner's property to the westerly boundary thereof; and WHEREAS, Owner has also agreed to grant the City this Water- main Easement for the installation and continued maintenance of said watermain. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: For the sum of One Dollar and other valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Owner hereby grants and conveys to the City, an easement for purposes of excavating for and the installation, replacement, maintenance and use of such watermain line, pipes, mains and conduits as the City shall from time to time elect for conveying water together with all neces- sary appliances and fittings for use in connection with said lines and adequate protection thereof and also a right-of-way with right of ingress and egress thereto, over and across the premises designated "10 Foot Wide Watermain Easement" (hereinafter "easement area") on the plat attached hereto as Ex- hibit "A". Owner further grants to the City the following rights in connection with the easement: 1. The right to grade said easement area for the full width thereof, and the right to extend the cuts and fills for such grading into and on said land along and outside of said easement area, to such extent as the City may find reasonable necessary. 2. The right from time to time to trim, cut down and clear away all trees and brush on said easement area and on either side of said easement area which now or hereafter in the opinion of the City may be a hazard to said areas, or may interfere with the exercise of the City's rights hereunder in any manner. The City shall indemnify the Owner against any loss and dam- age which shall be caused by the negligent exercise of any said ingress or egress, construction, use or maintenance by the City or its agents or employees in the course of their employment. The Owner reserves a right to use said easement area for purposes which will not interfere with the City's full enjoyment 237 -2- of its rights hereby granted; provided that the Owner shall not erect or construct any building, fence or other structures; plant any trees, drill or operate any well; construct any reservoirs or other obstructions on said easement area; or diminish or substan- tially add to the ground cover of said easement area. The Owner hereby covenants with the city that they are law- fully seized and possessed of the real estate described above, and that they have good and lawful right to convey it or any part thereof. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to impose a re- quirement on the city to install the original public improvements at issue in this easement. Nor shall the Owner be deemed acting as the city's agent during the original construction and instal- lation of said improvements. The parties agree that the obliga- tion to install the public improvements herein shall be in accor- dance with City specifications, and the obligation shall remain on the Owner until completion, and until acceptance by the City, as provided by law. This easement shall inure to the benefit of and bind the successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto. All covenants shall be deemed to apply to and run with the title to the lando Signed this / ~ day of /~.c~_J~ , 1996. Thomas D. Lepic ~. CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA BY: NaOmi ~N~vick, Mayor Karr, City Clerk CORPORATE SEAL -3- STATE OF IOWA ) ) es: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ~ day of i~b~5~'~ , 1996, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Thomas D. Lepic and Vera L. Lepic, husband and wife, to me known to be the identical persons named in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and ac- knowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act an~ deed. ,~ ~, ' NotaryVPublic in and for the State of Iowa. ,o.. NOTAR':4[ SEAL ) SS: .... ~o~so~ oo.~ ~ On ~ ~ ~ o~ %~o~ . ~}, ~e~or~ .e, ~he undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County, in said State, personally appeared Naomi J. Novick 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 munici- pal corporation; 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 Board of Directors; and that the said Naomi J. Novick and Marian K. Kerr as such officers, acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said munici- pal corporation by it and by them voluntarily executed. blic ~n and-for the State of Iowa. Q: \j c\j c5\ r21b5951 PAGE LEGEN : ~ - 0 - D AND NOTES CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, FOUND CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, REESTABLISHEO CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, RECORDED LOCAl]ON PROPERTY CORNER(S), FOUND PROPERTY CORNERS SET (5/8' Iron Pin w/ LS Cop) PROPER'I'Y &/or BOUNDARY LINES CONGRESSIONAL SECTION LINES RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES CENTER LINES LOT LINES, INTERNAL LOT LINES, PLAlqED OR BY DEED EASEMENT LINES, WIDTH & PURPOSE NOTED - EXISTING EASEMENT LINES, PURPOSE NOTED /blR1 - RECORDED DIMENSIONS - MEASURED DIMENSIONS C22-1 - CURVE SEGMENT NUMBER UNLESS NO1EO OIliERWISE, ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND HUNDRE1HS ERROR OF CLOSURE IS LESS I'HAN 1 FOOT IN 20,000 FEET PROPRIETOR : TOM LEPIC BENTON STREET S 89'39'25" E 177.01' 10.00' WIDE WATERMAIN EASEMENT COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL "A" AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 31, AT PAGE 264, OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL "A", AND THE EAST LINE ON BENTON MANOR, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 22, AT PAGE 22, OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, 12,69 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE CONTINUINO NOO'48'O8"W ALONG SAID LINE 10.01 FEET; THENCE S88'33'37"E, 15.91 FEET; THENCE N34'OO'56"E, 5.00 FEET; THENCE S55'59'04."E, 10.00 FEET; THENCE S34'00'56"W, 10.48 FEET; THENCE N88'33'37"W, 21.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID TRACT OF LAND CONTAINS 262 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS, AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESl'RICTIONS OF RECORD. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT, MAP, SURVEY OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME, OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION, AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF TIlE STATE OF z WATERMAIN EASEMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement is made by and between Benton Manor I Owners Association, an Iowa not for profit corporation, (hereinafter "Owner") and the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (herginafter "the City"). WHEREAS, Owner is the legal title holder of the property de- scribed herein and has agreed to permit the extension of a water- main line across a portion of Owner's property to the easterly boundary thereof; and WHEREAS, Owner has also agreed to grant the city this Water- main Easement for the installation and continued maintenance of said watermain. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: For the sum of One Dollar and other valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Owner hereby grants and conveys to the City, an easement for purposes of excavating for and the installation, replacement, maintenance and use of such watermain line, pipes, mains and conduits as the City shall from time to time elect for conveying water together with all neces- sary appliances and fittings for use in connection with said lines and adequate protection thereof and also a right-of-way with right of ingress and egress thereto, over and across the premises designated "10 Foot Wide Watermain Easement" (hereinafter "easement area") on the plat attached hereto as Ex- hibit "A". Owner further grants to the City the following rights in connection with the easement: 1. The right to grade said easement area for the full width thereof, and the right to extend the cuts and fills for such grading into and on said land along and outside of said easement area, to such extent as the City may find reasonable necessary° 2. The right from time to time to trim, cut down and clear away all trees and brush on said easement area and on either side of said easement area which now or hereafter in the opinion of the City may be a hazard to said areas, or may interfere with the exercise of the City's rights hereunder in any manner. The City shall indemnify the Owner against any loss and dam- age which shall be caused by the negligent exercise of any said ingress or egress, construction, use or maintenance by the City or its agents or employees in the course of their employment. The Owner reserves a right to use said easement area for purposes which will not interfere with the City's full enjoyment -2- of its rights hereby granted; provided that the Owner shall not erect or construct any building, fence or other structures; plant any trees, drill or operate any well; construct any reservoirs or other obstructions on said easement area; or diminish or substan- tially add to the ground cover of said easement area. The Owner hereby covenants with the City that they are law- fully seized and possessed of the real estate described above, and that they have good and lawful right to convey it or any part thereof. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to impose a re- quirement on the City to install the original public improvements at issue in this easement. Nor shall the Owner be deemed acting as the City's agent during the original construction and instal- lation of said improvements. The parties agree that the obliga- tion to install the public improvements herein shall be in accor- dance with City specifications, and the obligation shall remain on the Owner until completion, and until acceptance ~by the City, as provided by law. This easement shall inure to the benefit of and bind the successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto. All covenants shall be deemed to apply to and run with the title to the land. Signed this /3 day of ~D~~ 1996. BENTON MANOR I OWNERS ASSOCIATION Dennis K~'i, ~resident Craig Fobian, Secretary/ Treasurer CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA N~vick, Mayor BY: M ar~~n' K. ~. ~~ Karr, City Clerk CORPORATE $ AL -3- STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: ~[~ COUNTY ) On this ~© day of ~3~~ , 1996, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County, in said State, personally appeared Dennis Kral, to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that he is the President of said corporation; that no seal has been procured by the said cor- poration; that said instrument was signed on behalf of said cor- poration by authority of its Board of Directors; and that the said Dennis Kral as such officer, acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said corpora- tion by it and by him voluntarily executed. ~- , NOTARY PUBLIC ST~'~ c: :A .~.~ '~0-, MYCOMMISSION£;?'.':$ Notar~-~ublic in and for the ~? ---- State of Iowa. MYCOMMIS$ION :~-~XF;?.~3 i Apr;,I 7, 1999 . .-~'t STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ~ day of ~~i0~ , 1996, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County, in said State, personally appeared Craig Fobian, to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that he is the Secre- tary/Treasurer of said corporation; that no seal has been procured by the said corporation; that said instrument was signed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors; and that the said Craig Fobian as such officer, acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said corporation by it and by him voluntarily executed. Notary P in and ~br the State of Iowa. -4- STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ~f~ day of O~~ , 19~, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County, in said State, personally appeared Naomi J. Novick 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 munici- pal corporation; 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 Board of Directors; and that the said Naomi J. Novick and Marian K. Karr as such officers, acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said munici- pal corporation by it and by them voluntarily executed. Notary Public or the State of Iowa. Q: \J c\j c5\r21b5949 SEAL NOTAR,, ,f EXHIBIT PAGE LEGEN - D AND NOTES CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, RECORDED LOCATION PROPERTY CORNER(S), FOUND PROPERTY CORNERS SET (5/8" Iron Pin w/ LS Cop) - PROPERTY &/or BOUNDARY LINES - CONGRESSIONAL SECTION ENES - RIGHT-OF-WAY lINES - CENTER LINES - LOT LINES, INTERNAL -LOT lINES, PLAl-[ED OR BY DEED EASEMENT LINES, WIDIH & PURPOSE NOTED - EXISTING EASEMENT LINES, PURPOSE NOTED /ME/ - RECORDED DIMENSIO.S, - MEASURED DIMENSIONS C22-1 - CURVE SEGMENT NUMBER UNLESS NOTED O1BERV,I~ ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND HUNDRETHS ERROR OF CLOSURE IS LESS THAN 1 FOOT IN 20,ooo FEET BENTON STREET S 89'39'25" E 177.01' 10.00' WIDE WATERMAIN EASEMENT COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL "A" AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK .31, AT PAGE 264, OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE NOO'48'O8*'W, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID PARCEL "A" AND THE EAST LINE OF BENTON MANOR, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 22, AT PAGE 22, OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, 12.69 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE N88'53'57"W, 46.91 FEET; THENCE NO4'29'29"E, 10.01 FEET; THENCE S88'3.Y57"E, 45.98 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL "A" AND THE EAST LINE OF BENTON MANOR; THENCE S00'48'08"E 10.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID TRACT OF LAND CONTAINS 464 SQUARE FEET. MORE OR LESS, AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT, MAP, SURVEY OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME, OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION, AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF IOWA. Glen D. Meisner L.S. & P.E. Reg. No. 8165 MY REGISTRATION EXPIRES, DECEMBER 51, SIGNED BEFORE ME :[HIS__~ DAY OF/V/)/' NOTARY PUBLIC, IN ,19¢Y DATE 19 ??. AND FOR THE STATE OF IOWA / 464.SQUARE FEET [~ ~,I KRIST~NE L WALTER I ,~ S ~'33'57" E ~C~MIBS~PIRE81 ~m 45,98' __~ ~ S 00'48'08" E / POINT OF ~ z N 88'33'37" W }~ S 89ql 52 W ~ ~V / 12.69' - ~Y' Sourest - / _ ~'~ cO~.E. ~ / ~h ,, ~ M P ~ *UDm~OR'S / I )X ~ [ ~V ~',V PARCEL "A" - -. ~, '~, · ' ~ . ~ :;.,..~.~, ~- "' .t5 ,:' ,,/ ,." MMS Co~sunT~S, INC. Pro~ct ~tle: BENTON MANOR IOWA CITY, IOWA 8-31-95 PER IC REVIEW '<.. STORMWATER DETENTION FACILITY EASEMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement is made by and between Thomas D. Lepic and Vera L. Lepic, husband and wife, (hereinafter "Owner ") and the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "the City"). IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: For the sum of One Dollar and other valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Owner hereby grants and conveys to the City, easements for purposes of installing, operating and maintaining stormwater control structures and stor- age areas otherwise known as a Stormwater Detention Facility and also a right-of-way with right of ingress and egress thereto, over and across the areas designated as Stormwater Detention Fa- cility Easement (hereinafter "easements area") as shown on the Stormwater Detention Facility Easement, attached hereto. The Owner further grants to the City the following rights in connection with the easement: 1. The right to grade said easement areas for the full width thereof and the right to extend the cuts and fills for such grading into and on said land along and outside of said easement areas, to such extent as the City may find reasonably necessary. 2. The right from time to time to trim, cut down and clear away all trees and brush on said easement areas and on either side of said easement areas which now or hereafter in the opinion of the City may be a hazard to said facilities, or may interfere with the exercise of the City's rights hereunder in any manner. The City shall indemnify the Owner against any loss and dam- age which shall be caused by the negligent exercise of any said ingress or egress, construction, use or maintenance by the city or its agents or employees in the course of their employment° The Owner reserves a right to use said easement areas for purposes which will not interfere with the City's full enjoyment of its rights hereby granted; provided that the Owner shall not erect or construct any building, fence or other structures; plant any trees, drill or operate any well; construct any obstructions on said easement areas; or substantially add to the ground cover of said easement areas. Owner shall maintain the easement area free from weeds and debris; shall in no event fill or permit the Stormwater Control -2- Facilities to be filled in; and Owner also agrees to maintain its land so as to minimize erosion in and around said easement areas° The Owner hereby covenants with the City that it is lawfully seized and possessed of the real estate described above, and that it has good and lawful right to convey it or any part thereof° The Owner and its successors and assigns shall maintain the facilities and easement areas. The maintenance shall include maintaining and mowing the groundcover over the basin area and keeping it free of debris. The City shall have no obligation for maintenance of the Facilities or the easement areas. This obli- gation for maintenance may be transferred to or otherwise become the obligation of a homeowners association. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind the successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto, and all covenants shall apply to and run with the land and with the title to the land. DATED this /~ day of November, 1996. CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA Nao~ J. NQ~6v~ck, Mayor ATTEST: ian K. Karr, City Clerk -3- STATE OF IOWA ) ) eS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ~ day of November, 1996, before me, the under- signed, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, person- ally appeared Thomas D. Lepic and Vera L. Lepic, husband and wife, to me known to be the identical persons named in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they executed the same a~r ~oluntary a~a~deed. Not-kr~ Public in and for the State of Iowao STATE OF IOWA ) ) es: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ~$~ NOTAR: A-L SEAL day of Novcmbcr, 199~, before me, the under- signed, a Notary Public in and for said County, in said State, personally appeared Naomi J. Novick and Marian K. Kerr, 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 municipal corpora- tion; that said instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of City Council of said municipal corporation; and that the said Naomi J. Novick and Marian K. Karr acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said municipal corporation by it and by them voluntarily executed. Not~lic ~ '~n a~d for the State of Iowa. Q: \j c\j c5\R2165926 LEGEN - - D AN D NOTES GONGRESSIONALCORNER,FOUND CONGRESSIONALCORNER,REESTABLISHED CONGRESSIONALCORNER,RECORDED LOCATION PROPERTY CORNER(S), FOUND PROPERTY CORNERS SET (5/8" Iron Pin w/ LS Cop) PROPERTY k/or BOUNDARY LINES CONGRESSIONAL SECTION LINES RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES CENTER LINES LOT LINES, INTERNAL LOT LINES, PLATTED OR BY DEED EASEMENT LINES, WIDTH &: PURPOSE NO'fED - EXISTING EASEMENT LINES,PURPOSE NOTED tME/ - RECORDED DIMENS, ONS - MEASURED DIMENSIONS C22-1 - CURVE SEGMENT NUMBER UNLESS NO1ED OTHERWISE, ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND HUNDRETHS ERROR OF CLOSURE IS LESS THAN 1 FOOT IN 20,000 FEET PROPRIETOR : TOM LEPIC STORMWATER DETENTION FACILITY EASEMENT BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL "B", AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK .31, AT PAGE 264-, OF THE RECORD'S OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. THENCE N89'52'58'W, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL "B", 60.4-0 FEET; THENCE N4-2"O1'48"W, 155.05 FEET; THENCE NO`3'.32'17"W, 69.53 FEET; THENCE N69'OS'4-2"W, 11.92 FEET, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID PARCEL "B"; THENCE NOO"4`8'OS"W, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 21.5.3 FEET; THENCE S69'05'42"E, 190.48 FEET, TO iTS INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF PARCEL "B"; THENCE S00'48'08"E, ALONG SAID EAST LINE 142.51 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID TRACT OF LAND CONTAINS, 0.52 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT, MAP, SURVEY OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME, OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION, AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF IOWA. S 89'11'52" w 176,97' Glen D. Meisner LS. & P.E. Reg. No. 8165 DATE MY REGISTRATION EXPIRES, DECEMBER 31, 19Z~_ . SIGNED BEFORE ME THIS I% DAY OF [~OV- ,19C~ NOTARY P~LIC, IN AND FOR THE STATE OF IOWA 6g 0~ ~.~ STORMWA~R G ~ ~ FACILITY ~ % EASEMEN~ ' % 0.52 ACRES ~ .. 'o~.N .-~~ GRAPIUC SC~ · ~ 1"=50' ~.x~.~ 60.40' N 8g'52'58" W 175.99' $tormwa~er Detention FaoiHLy Easement I 11 -,*-.*~ ~ , -.,~ ~' PER IC REVIEW , Iowo C~[y Iowe 519) 551 8282 z Project T'tle: ~ ' ( -- o ~ ..... ~ ~ ~ · · ' AUDITORS PARCEL B IOWA CITY, IOWA ~,~ STOI~ SEWBR E~SE~ENT ~REEI~ENT This Agreement is made by and between Thomas D. Lepic and Vera Lo Lepic, husband and wife, (hereinafter "Owner") and the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "the City"). WHEREAS, Owner is the legal title holder of the property de- scribed herein and has agreed to permit the extension of a storm sewer line across a portion of Owner's property from the easterly boundary to the westerly boundary thereof; and WHEREAS, Owner has also agreed to grant the City this Storm Sewer Easement for the installation and continued maintenance of said storm sewer° NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: For the sum of One Dollar and other valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Owner hereby grants and conveys to the city, an easement for purposes of excavating for and the installation, replacement, maintenance and use of such storm sewer line, pipes, mains and conduits as the city shall from time to time elect for conveying storm water together with all necessary appliances and fittings for use in connection with said lines and adequate protection thereof and also a right-of- way with right of ingress and egress thereto, over and across the premises designated "Storm Sewer Easement" (hereinafter "easement area") on the plat attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Owner further grants to the City the following rights in connection with the easement: 1. The right to grade said easement area for the full width thereof, and the right to extend the cuts and fills for such grading into and on said land along and outside of said easement area, to such extent as the City may find reasonable necessary. 2. The right from time to time to trim, cut down and clear away all trees and brush on said easement area and on either side of said easement area which now or hereafter in the opinion of the City may be a hazard to said areas, or may interfere with the exercise of the City's rights hereunder in any manner. The City shall indemnify the Owner against any loss and dam- age which shall be caused by the negligent exercise of any said ingress or egress, construction, use or maintenance by the City or its agents or employees in the course of their employment. The Owner reserves a right to use said easement area for purposes which will not interfere with the City's full enjoyment -2- of its rights hereby granted; provided that the Owner shall not erect or construct any building, fence or other structures; plant any trees, drill or operate any well; construct any reservoirs or other obstructions on said easement area; or diminish or substan- tially add to the ground cover of said easement area. The Owner hereby covenants with the City that they are law- fully seized and possessed of the real estate described above, and that they have good and lawful right to convey it or any part thereof. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to impose a re- quirement on the City to install the original public improvements at issue in this easement. Nor shall the Owner be deemed acting as the City's agent during the original construction and instal- lation of said improvements. The parties agree that the obliga- tion to install the public improvements herein shall be in accor- dance with city specifications, and the obligation shall remain on the Owner until completion, and until acceptance by the City, as provided by law. This easement shall inure to the benefit of and bind the successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto. All covenants shall be deemed to apply to and run with the title to the land. Signed this ~O~day of 0~, 1997. Vera L. Leplc ~ CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA NAomi ~. NQvick, Mayor BY: M a%~~K. '~. ~ Karr, city Clerk CORPORATE S£A.L -3- STATE OF IOWA ) )es: On this ~ day of ~~t~ , 1997, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Thomas D. Lepic and Vera L. Lepic, husband and wife, to me ~own to be the identical persons named in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and ac- knowledged that they execut/ie~~~e as their voluntary act and N6t~ ~ublic in and f~ t~e State of Iowa. JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ~\d~ day of ~c~%~ , 1997, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County, in said State, personally appeared Naomi J. Novick and Marian K. Kerr, to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of said munici- pal corporation; 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 Board of Directors; and that the said Naomi J. Novick and Marian K. Kerr as such officers, acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said munici- pal corporation by it and by them voluntarily executed. ublic in and ~or the State of Iowa. j c8\r21b6885 NOTAR:i :: SEAL EXHIBIT "A" UEGEND AND NOTES - COHGR~SS;ONAL C0RN~R. ~ - CONGR[S~AL C~N[R. R~ESTA~EO - C~[S~AL C~N[R. RECKED L~ATION - PROPERTY C~N~R~ SET - PR~RTY ~/~ B~NOARY U~ ......... C~S~AL S~CTi~ UNES ...... RIGHT-~-WAY LINES ' -- - CEN~R LINES - LOT LIN~S, iNTERNAL ERR~ 0F CLOSURE IS LESS THAN I F~T 1N 20.~0 FEET PROPRIETOR : TOM LEPIC STORM SEWER EASEMENT COUUENCING AT IHE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AUOtloR'S P~CEL 95081, IN ACCORDANCE ',',lfH THE PLAT RECOROED IN PLAT BOUK ,)7, AT PAGE 55, OF file RECORDS OF )'HE JONNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE: 'i}IENCE N~Q'48'08'K ALONG I~E EAST LINE O~ SAiD AUDITOR'S PARCEL 95081, 13.37 FEET, TO THE PO(N! OF BEGINNING: THENCE N§0'50'4J'W, 108,63 FEET: THENCE N291g'41",'/, 110.94 FEET; THENCE N69'05'42'W, 43.83 FEET, TO A P(~NT ~ file WEST LiNE OF ~ID AUO(TOR'$ P~CEL g5081; ~ENCE N00'48'08"~, ALONG SAID ~SF LINE 10.76 FEET: ~ENCE sBg'05'42'E, .51.4.l FEET: THENCE S291g'41'E, 7L78 FEET: THENCE 550'50'43'E. 123.83 FEET, TO A POINT ON lHE EAST LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL g508~; IHENCE SOO'48'08'E, 32.61 FEET, fO IH[ P(~NT OF BEGINNING. SAIO TRACT OF LANO CONIAINS 4.296 SQUARE FEET, AND IS SUB~CT TO EASE)/ENTS AND RESIRICTI(~S OF REC0~O. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT, MAP, SURVEY OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME, OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION, AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF IOWA. ,19__ Glen D. Meisner LS. & P.E. Reg. No. 8165 DATE MY REGISTRATION EXPIRES, DECEMBER 51, 19__ . SIGNED BEFORE ME THIS__ DAY OF ,19__. NOTARY PUBLIC, IN AND FOR o~ o THE STATE OF IOWA Sheet TiUe: $Lorm Sewer Ea~emen~ Project AUDITOR'S PARCEL 95081 I0~A CITY, ~ dO1~t~LT~/fr~, INd. Iowa City, Iowo (,319) 3.51-8282 CMS dom CMS 4 Prepared by: Bob Miklo, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-52z~0 RESOLUTION NO. 97-364 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF VILLAGE GREEN, PART XV, IOWA CITY, IOWA. WHEREAS, the owner, Village Partners, filed with the City Clerk of Iowa City, Iowa, an application for approval of the preliminary plat of Village Green, Part XV; and WHEREAS, the Department of Planning and Community Development and the Public Works Department examined the preliminary plat and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission examined the preliminary plat and, after due deliberation, recommended acceptance and approval of the plat; and WHEREAS, the preliminary plat conforms with all of the requirements of the City Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA THAT: 1. The preliminary plat of Village Green, Part XV, Iowa City, Iowa, is hereby approved. 2. The Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, Iowa are hereby authorized and directed to certify this resolution, which shall be affixed to the plat after passage and approval by law. Passed and approved this 21st. day of 0cl:ober , 1997. A TTEST:cI~ ~' ~ ~Cit~rneyC~~f~Y) ppdad min\res\vilgrnpr.wp 5 Resolution No. 97-364 Page 2 It was moved by Norton and seconded by adopted, and upon roll call there were: Thernberr~v the Resolution be AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X X X X X X Baker Kubby Lehman Norton Novick Thornberry Vanderhoef Prepared by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5240 RESOLUTION NO. 97-365 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF VILLAGE GREEN, PART XV, IOWA CITY, IOWA. WHEREAS, the owner, Village Partners, filed with the City Clerk the final plat of Village Green, Part XV, Iowa City, Iowa, Johnson County, Iowa; and WHEREAS, said subdivision is located on the following-described real estate in Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, to wit: Outlot "A" and Outlot "C" of Village Green, Part XIV, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 37 at Page 41, of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office. Said Outlot contains 36.75 Acres, more or less, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. WHEREAS, the Department of Planning and Community Development and the Public Works Department examined the proposed final plat and subdivision, and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission examined the final plat and subdivision and recommended that said final plat and subdivision be accepted and approved; and WHEREAS, a dedication has been made to the public, and the subdivision has been made with the free consent and in accordance with the desires of the owners and proprietors; and WHEREAS, said final plat and subdivision are found to conform with Chapter 354, Code of Iowa (1 997) and all other state and local requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: The said final plat and subdivision located on the above-described real estate be and the same are hereby approved. The City accepts the dedication of the streets and easements as provided by law and specifically sets aside portions of the dedicated land, namely streets, as not being open for public access at the time of recording for public safety reasons. The Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, are hereby authorized and directed, upon approval by the City Attorney, to execute all legal documents relating to said subdivision, and to certify a copy of this resolution, which shall be affixed to the final plat after passage and approval by law. The City Clerk shall record the legal documents and the plat at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa at the expense of the owner/subdivider. Resolution No. 97-365 Page 2 Passed and approved this 215t day of October , 1 997. MAYOR It was moved by Vanderhoef and seconded by adopted, and upon roll call there were: Baker the Resolution be AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X X X X X X X Baker Kubby Lehman Norton Novick Thornberry Vanderhoef ppdadmin\res\vilgrnXV,wp5 STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: SUB97-0022. Village Green, Part XV GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Requested action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing land use and zoning: Surrounding land use and zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File date: 45-day limitation period: 60-day limitation period: SPECIAL INFORMATION: Public utilities: Public services: Transportation: Prepared by: Robert Miklo Date: September 9, 1997 Village Partners c/o Frantz Construction Co. 325 Third St Iowa City, IA 52245 Phone: 338-7923 Final plat approval. To allow the development of sixteen residential units South of Wellington Drive and east of Somerset Lane. 36.75 Undeveloped, RS-5 (pending OPDH-5 rezoning). North: East: South: West: Residential, RS-5; Vacant, RS-5; Residential, OPDH-5 and RS-5 Residential, OPDH-5. Residential, 2-8 dwelling units per acre August 28, 1997 October 13, 1997 October 28, 1997 City water and sewer will be provided Municipal police and fire services will be provided. Private refuse service will be necessary. Transit service is available at the inter- section of Wayne Avenue and Village Road via the Towncrest route. Physical characteristics: Sensitive Areas Ordinance: 2 This property is generally flat. A stream corridor is shown on the Sensitive Areas Inventory Map along the east line of Lot 43, and hydric soils on the south side of Outlot A. A stormwater detention basin is proposed in the stream corridor. The stream corridor was altered as part of the construction of a storm water basin to the west. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On August 7th the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed a proposed rezoning from RS-5, Low Density, Single-Family to OPDH-5 for Lot 43 of Village Green Part XV and the preliminary plat for Village Green Part XV. The Commission recommended approval of the OPDH rezoning and preliminary plat. The City Council will conduct a public hearing on the rezoning at its meeting of September 23. It is anticipated that the City Council will give final reading on the rezoning of this property from RS-5 to OPDH-5 and also approve the preliminary plat on October 21, 1997. The final plat can then be approved. ANALYSIS: The final plat is consistent with the pending preliminary plat and complies with the subdivision regulations, Legal papers and construction drawings have been submitted and are being reviewed by the City Attorney's office and the Public Works Department. These documents and plans must be approved prior to City Council consideration of the final plat. At the time Village Green Part XIV was subdivided, .35 acres of neighborhood open space was designated to be dedicated to the City. The legal papers for Part XlV specified that when Outlots A and C are subdivided the remaining neighborhood open space requirement should be satisfied by fees in lieu of neighborhood open space dedication. The remaining open space requirement for Village Green equals .57 acres (24,877 square feet). An appraisal is necessary to establish the amount of fee equivalent to .57 acres. This fee will be due upon issuance of building permits. The legal papers should provide for the payment of this fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the final plat for Village Green, Part XV, a 36.75 acre, 1-lot residential subdivision with 3 outlots be approved subject to legal papers and construction drawings being approved prior to City Council consideration of the final plat. 3 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map. 2. Final Plat ppdadmin\st frep~sub97-22.doc Approved by: Karijh Franklin, Director DelCaKment of Planning and Community Development VILLAGE ~ CONBULTAllT8 1917 SOUTH IOW& CITY, IOWlh LEGEND AND NOTES Final Plat GREEN - PART IOWA CITY, IOWA Olll~ltlllti~IVID~q DW~ A'l**i'O Rli~l* VILI,,~E P~NE~ PH~LUP L ~ ~WA ~, IOWA ~ 1%1oo' XV z7I 2~ 12 25 62 LOT 48 "-~' OUTLOT 'A' by ~ City of Iowa City MMS CONSULTANTS, I~C. ~ /"~ 4 /- SITE LOCATION' Village Green, Part XV SUB97-0022 Prepared by: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5030 RESOLUTION NO. 97-366 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND THE BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER OF ELKS OF THE U.S.A. CORP., LODGE NO. 590 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, ESTABLISHES THE ALIGNMENT OF FOSTER ROAD EXTENDED THROUGH THE GOLF COURSE IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT OF THE PENINSULA AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE IOWA CITY WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS AND PROVIDES FOR THE GRANTING OF A PERMANENT EASEMENT TO THE ELKS ON CITY-OWNED PROPERTY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO GOLF HOLES TO REPLACE THOSE WHICH WILL BE LOST AS A RESULT OF THE FOSTER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. WHEREAS, to facilitate development of the property commonly known as the Peninsula and the construction of the new Iowa City Water Supply and Treatment Facility Improvements the City must have access to the Peninsula by way of Foster Road extended and must establish its right- of-way for Foster Road extended; and WHEREAS, Foster Road and improvements to the road planned by the City will interfere with the Elks Club golf course and require the Elks Club to construct two additional golf holes to replace those which will be lost by the improvements to Foster Road extended planned by the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City and the Elks Club have negotiated an agreement which will facilitate the City's development of the property known as the Peninsula and the construction of the Iowa City Water Supply and Treatment Facility Improvements and allow the Elks Club to continue to operate a golf course; and WHEREAS, said agreement provides for the City to grant the Elks Club a permanent easement on City-owned property on the Peninsula for use as two golf holes as part of a nine-hole or more golf course; and WHEREAS, said agreement fixes the right-of-way alignment of Foster Road extended through the Elks Club property and requires the City to abandon any dghts in the existing unimproved roadway; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Iowa City to enter into said agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Resolution No. 97-366 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: 1. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign and the City Clerk to attest said agreement between the City of Iowa City and the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the U.S.A. Corp., Lodge No. 590. 2. The Public Works Director or designee is hereby authorized to review and approve, or disapprove, the Elks Club's survey of the Easement Area for the two golf holes and the Elks Club's golf hole construction plans pursuant to paragraph 10 of said agreement, and to prepare and submit for approval to the Elks Club the Foster Road right-of-way survey. 3. The City Attorney is hereby directed and authorized to take all action necessary by the City to effectuate the conveyances of real estate required by said agreement, including the permanent easement for the golf holes, the abandonment of the existing unimproved road, the temporary construction easements and the permanent water line easement. At the direction of the City Attorney the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign and the City Clerk to attest any document of conveyance required by said agreement. Passed and approved this 21st day of October ,1997. ATTEST: ~"~~ CITY'CLERK MAYOR Approved by City Attorney's Office It was moved by Lehman and seconded by adopted, and upon roll call there were: Thornberry the Resolution be AYES: NAYS: X ABSENT: Baker Kubby Lehman Norton Novick Thornberry Vanderhoef eleanor~elksres2.doc AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF IOWA CITY AND THE BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER OF ELKS OF THE U.S.A. CORP., LODGE NO. 590 THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the City of Iowa City, Iowa ("City") and the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the U.S.A. Corp., Lodge No. 590 ("Elks Club"). WHEREAS, to facilitate development of the property commonly known as the Peninsula and the construction of the new Iowa City Water Supply and Treatment Facility Improvements the City must have access to the Peninsula by way of Foster Road Extended and must establish its right-of-way for Foster Road Extended; WHEREAS, Foster Road Extended and improvements to the road planned by the City will interfere with the Elks Club's golf course and require the Elks Club to construct two additional golf course holes to replace those which will be lost by the improvements to Foster Road Extended planned by the City; and, WHEREAS, the parties have reached an agreement which will facilitate the City's development of, the property known as the Peninsula and the construction of the Iowa City Water Supply and Treatment Facility Improvements, and allow the Elks Club to continue to operate a golf course. NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL PROMISES HEREIN THE PARTIES DO HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR GOLF COURSE USE. The City will grant, sell and convey to the Elks Club an exclusive easement covering the area generally shown on the attached Exhibit "A" with the exact legal description to be determined by survey to be provided at the sole cost of the Elks Club (hereinafter the "Easement Area"). The easement will grant to the Elks Club the right to develop a minimum of two golf holes on the "Easement Area" which development may include tee complexes, putting greens, sand traps, ponds, cart paths, irrigation systems and bridges, and will be in accordance with the construction plans approved by the City pursuant to Section 10(A) of this Agreement. The easement will be subject to an easement reserved to the City for the construction, reconstruction, operation, maintenance and repair of City water lines. The easement shall be effective from its date of recording and shall continue so long as the Easement Area -2- is used for golf course purposes. In the event the Elks Club or its successors in interest discontinue the use of the Easement Area as part of 9 hole or more golf course then the easement shall terminate and the use and possession of the Easement Area shall revert to the City. In the event all or any part of the easement area is taken by condemnation, the easement shall not automatically terminate and the Elks Club shall be entitled to pursue all of its legal remedies against the condemning authority. 2. FOSTER ROAD RIGHT OF WAY CONVEYANCE. The Elks Club will execute and deliver to the City a Quit Claim Deed conveying to the City a seventy foot (70') right of way to accommodate the re-alignment of Foster Road generally along the route shown on the attached Exhibit "B" with the exact legal description to be determined by survey to be provided at the sole cost of the City. 3. FOSTER ROAD CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT. The Elks Club will execute and deliver to the City temporary construction easements necessary to accommodate the reconstruction of Foster Road in the right of way to be conveyed to the City as provided in paragraph 2 above. Said construction easements are generally shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and slopes are generally four (4) feet horizontal to one foot vertical. The exact legal description to be used in the temporary construction easement shall be determined by .survey to be provided at the sole cost of the City. 4. WATER LINE EASEMENT. The Elks Club shall grant to the City a sixty foot (60') wide permanent utility easement between the north line of the real.ignment of Foster Road and the Elks Club north property line at the approximate location shown on the attached Exhibit "B". The exact legal description of said Water Line Easement and Permanent Utility Easement shall be determined by survey to be provided at the sole cost of the City. 5. ELKS CLUB CHEMICAL USE COVENANT. The parties hereto understand and agree that in order to establish and maintain two viable golf course holes on the Easement Area referred to in paragraph 1 above it will be necessary that some -3- chemicals be applied to the Easement Area for pest, fungus and weed control. In order to minimize the potential impact of the application of chemicals on the Easement Area, the Elks Club agrees that it will limit its use of chemicals to those chemicals identified on the attached schedule and that the frequency of application of said chemicals will also be in accolrdance with the attached schedule. The parties agree that tlte Schedule of Permitted Chemicals may be amended from time~ to time to add chemicals, to delete chemicals and to modify the frequency of application of chemicals. Amendments to the schedule may be requested by the City or the Elks Club, but shall only be adopted with the approval of both the City and the Elks Club, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. CITY CHEMICAL USE COVENANT. The City agrees that in the event the area lying north and west of the Easement Area is sold by the City for private development, then the City will place restrictions on said area as a covenant running with the title to the area sold, which restrictions will limit the use of chemicals on said area and which restrictions will be no less restrictive than the chemical use restrictions applicable to the Easement Area. In the event that said area lying north and west of the Easement Area is developed by the City for public use, said chemical use restrictions shall also be applicable to the City's use of chemicals on said area. PERMITTED AND REQUIRED MONITORING. a. The Elks Club agrees that the City shall have the right to monitor and inspect application of chemicals to the Easement Area but that the 'City shall have no obligation to monitor or inspect. The Elks Club acknowledges that it shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the Elks Club to see that; (i) only approved chemicals are applied to the Easement Area; (ii) ohemical applications are accomplished in accordance with manufacturers directions; and (iii) that all chemical applications to the Easement Area are accomplished in accordance with any applicable state or federal requirements. The Elks Club further agrees that the City shall have access to all Elks Club records relating to chemical applications of any kind within a reasonable time after the City's written request for such access. The City shall also have the right to install and maintain monitoring wells along the South and East boundaries of the Easement Area for the purpose of monitoring the presence of chemicals in the ground water flowing from the -4- o 10. Easement Area onto and under the City's property located south and east of the Easement Area. b. The City agrees that if it sells the area north of the Easement Area for private development that it will install monitoring wells along the north line of the Easement Area to monitor chemicals in the ground water flowing from said Area onto and under the Easement Area and that it will make the test results of the water samples collected from said wells available to the Elks Club within a reasonable time after receiving a written request for said test results from the Elks Club. If the City discontinues its monitoring along the South and East boundaries of the easement area, it may also discontinue its monitoring activities along the North line of the Easement Area. SUSPENSION' OF CHEMICAL USE BY THE ELKS CLUB. The City shall have the right to order the Elks Club to suspend the application of chemicals on the Easement Area if the City determines in good faith and based upon reasonable evidence collected as a result of its monitoring activities that the continued application of certain chemicals on the Easement Area presents an imminent danger to the public health and safety. INDEMNIFICATION. The Elks Club agrees to indemnify the City and to hold the City harmless from any and all damages arising out of the construction operation and maintenance of the golf holes on the Easement Area including but not limited to any damages or liability resulting from the Elks Club's handling or application of chemicals on the Easement Area. The City agrees to indemnify and to hold the Elks Club harmless from any damage or liability arising out of the City's construction, reconstruction, operation and maintenance of water lines across the Easement Area including but not limited to damage to the surface and the underground irrigation system to be installed by the Elks Club in the Easement Area. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT. A. Golf Hole Construction Plan Approval This Agreement is subject to and contingent upon the City's approval of construction plans for the two golf holes to be constructed by the Elks Club in the Easement Area. It shall be the -5- obligation of the Elks Club to prepare construction plans and to submit such plans to the City for approval within 30 days after the execution of this Agreement. The Elks Club acknowledges that it will be required to comply with the City's sensitive areas ordinance in connection with its construction, to the extent said ordinance is applicable to its construction. The Elks Club also acknowledges that a portion of the Easement Area currently contains designated wetlands under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Elks Club to obtain any required permits from all state and federal regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over designated wetlands. It shall also be the sole responsibility of the Elks Club to provide compensating 'wetlands if required in connection with its construction on said designated wetlands. If the City fails to approve the Elks Club construction plans or if the Elks Club has not received any required permits from the regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over the designated wetlands within 45 days of the execution of this Agreement, then either the Elks Club or the City shall have the right to declare this Agreement to be null and void. B. Easement Area Survey Approval. This Agreement is subject to and contingent upon the City's approval of the survey of the Easement Area. It shall be the obligation of tloe Elks Club at its sole cost, to cause a survey of the Easement Area to be prepared and survey pins set. Said survey shall be submitted to the City for its approval within 30 days of the execution of this Agreement. If the City has failed to approve said survey of the Easement Area within 45 days of the execution of the agreement, then either the City or the Elks Club shall have the option to declare this Agreement to be null and void. C. Foster Road R.O.W. Survey Approval. This Agreement is subject to and contingent upon the Elks Club's approval of the survey of the Foster Road realignment right of way and construction easements necessary in connection with the relocation of Foster Road in its new alignment. It shall be the obligation of the City at its sole cost, to cause a survey to be prepared describing the right of way for the realignment of Foster Road and all necessary construction easements. Said surveys shall be submitted to the Elks Club for approval within 30 days of the execution of this Agreement. In the event the Elks Club has not approved said survey within 45 days of the execution of this -6- 11. 12. Agreement, then either the Elks Club or the City shall have the right to declare this Agreement null and void. D. Water Line and Utility Easement Survey Approval. This Agreement is subject to and contingent upon the Elks Club's approval of the surveys for the water line easement and utility easement to be granted to the City. It shall be the obligation of the City at its sole cost, to cause surveys of said easements to be prepared and submitted to the Elks Club for approval within 30 days of the execution of this Agreement. In the event the Elks Club has not approved said surveys within 45 days within the execution of this Agreement, then either the Elks Club or the City shall have the right to declare this Agreement null and void. Notwithstanding the above, the parties agree that the City's responsibility to provide an exact survey description of the sixty (60) foot wide water line easement located between the North R.O.W. line of the Foster Road realignment and the Elks Club North line may be delayed by the City until it has completed its negotiations with the owners of the property lying North of the Elks Club North property line. Provided, however, that the sixty (60) foot wide water line easement will be within the corridor shown on the attached Exhibit ABANDONMENT OF PRESENT FOSTER ROAD R.O.W. Upon satisfaction of all of the conditions precedent set forth above the City shall legally abandon that portion of the present Foster Road right of way lying outside of the realignment of Foster Road which abandoned right of way will be conveyed to the Elks Club. The City shall also remove the gravel and regrade said abandoned right of way'during its grading of the realigned Foster Road right of way, and will leave the abandoned right of way area in a manner suitable for seeding. The Elks Club understands that the City shall not be obligated to provide a survey of the abandoned Foster Road right-of-way. MISCELLANEOUS. A. The City agrees that the paving of Foster Road, and the installation of sewer and water service in the Foster Road right of way adjacent to the Elks Club property will not be assessed to the Elks Club, nor will fees be collected from the Elks Club unless the Elks Club develops or sells for development a portion of the property served by Foster Road extended and the water lines and -7- sewer lines located in the Foster Road extended right of way. In the event the Elks Club develops any of its property along the Foster Road realignment or sells said property for development, then the City shall have the right to assess such property or collect fees for the installation of said improvements on the same basis that other property along said realignment is assessed. B. The Elks Club agrees that it shall make no claims to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for damages suffered, or claimed to have been suffered by reason of flooding in any portion of the Easement Area upon which the two golf holes are constructed. C. The Elks Club agrees that any excess dirt resulting from the construction of the two golf holes on the Easement Area shall be stored on adjacent City property upland from the newly constructed golf holes for use by the City in the construction of the Foster Road right of way in its new alignment or the water facility improvements. D. The City and the Elks Club agree to cooperate fully in developing a construction time table for the construction of the new golf holes, the relocation of the Foster Road right of way and the construction of the City's water facility improvements. In this regard, the City agrees that no construction in connection with the realigned Foster Road will be commenced by the City until the Elks Club golf hole construction has been completed and said holes are ready for play as a part of the Elks Club reconfigured 9 hole golf course or November 30, 1999, whichever shall sooner occur. However, the Elks Club shall make every possible effort to complete the golf hole construction by November 30, 1998. E. The EIk's Club agrees to connect its domestic non-irrigation) water supply to the City water utility system and to the City sewer system at such time as City lines are available to the Elks Club in the Foster Road right of way north of the Elks Club Clubhouse. Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph, the Elks Club may continue its use of a sand point well along the Iowa River to provide water to the house presently occupied by the Elks Club's golf course superintendent and its Silurian well to fill its swimming pool. The Elks shall also have the right to draw water from the Iowa River to supply its golf course irrigation system. The Elks Club agrees that it will make no claim against the City for interference with the Elks Club Silurian well. -8- F. Regardless of whether or not this Agreement is canceled for failure to satisfy the conditions precedent, the City will pay to the Elks Club the sum of $800.00 for both the permanent and temporary sanitary sewer easements at the corner of No-name and Foster Road, the easement agreements for which were previously executed by the Elks Club and delivered to the City. G. In connection with the construction of the golf holes on the Easement Area, the Elks Club agrees that it will be responsible for the protection of the archaeological site known as 13JH708. The Elks Club also agrees to install tracer wire on all underground utilities crossing the easement area. H. The City shall be responsible for the preparation of the easement agreements required by this Agreement which easement agreements will be subject to approval as to form by counsel for the Elks Club, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. I. The City shall be responsible for the cost of recording (i) the permanent and temporary construction easements; (ii) the Quit Claim Deed covering the right of way for the Foster Road realignment; and (iii) the proceedings necessary to convey the old abandoned Foster Road right of way. The Elks Club shall be responsible for recording the permanent easement for the golf holes and the conveyance of the abandoned Foster Road right of way. J. The City agrees that upon satisfaction of all conditions precedent, the Elks Club shall have access to the permanent Easement Area where the new golf holes are to be constructed over and across the City's property lying north and west of said permanent "Easement Area for the purpose of commencing construction of the two new golf holes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on this ;~ ~-~1'- day of ~CC ~-"c,~._-%,~'-?-_. ,1997. -9- CITY OF IOWA CITY Naomi J. ,~4bvicK Mayor ATTEST: .~ "/r~, ~ Marian K. Karr City Clerk City Attorney's Office BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER OF ELKS OF THE U.S.A. CORP., LODGE NO. 590 B y.~-~,.,--~.,/__ ' ' STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS: COUNTY OF JOHNSON ) On this ~./~.k day of Oo-,~b ~- , 1997, before me, %o,-,,J,-,,:~ ~,.4- , a Notary F~ublic in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared Naomi J. Novick 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. ¥7-.:,,~/.. passed (the Resolution adopted) by the City Council, on the ~ ~ day of /)~-/-o&,,,- , 1997, and that Naomi J. Novick and Marian K. Karr acknowledged 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. Notary Public in and for said State -10- STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS: COUNTY OF JOHNSON ) On this ~ (&'t-- day of ~ ~--o'-~.~. , 1997, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the state of Iowa, personally appeared Rex E. Brandstatter and Mark Phillips, to me personally known who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the chairmen of the Board of Trustees and a Trustee, respectively, of Lodge 590 of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the U.S.A. Corp, that the foregoing instrument was signed on behalf of Lodge 590 by authority of its members; that the said Rex E. Brandstatter and Mark Phillips acknowledged this execution of the instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of Lodge 590, by it and by the.mmvoluntarily executed. Se~r~,~ Notary Public in and lopid State rNO. 2-1/4' ~ PII~ AUDITOR'S 2~.48 Acree (s~'oo'oa'D 2556.&7" s~croo'oa'E (~ssuue~...__ ..... (~o') ' - - J - PARCEL 9~O80. said ......i~o 1~ ~ South..$t ¢~'ner ~ the ' ..,~v't Lur J4 S45'57'40'W SOUTH I/4 CORNER ~t. SEC. 4-T79N-R6W ,00.~O' (C) LEC,~ND LAN0 ~ rOL, NO (AS NOt[D) 5/8' IRON PiN W/ CAP 18165 rOUNO 5/8' II:~N PIN SET W/ CAP OENOTES UC~URL~ENT OF RECORD 0ENOTES C~LCUL~TED ~UR~UENT PROPERI~ ~OUNOARY UNE GO~[RNMF. NT LOT UNE $ECT1CIN UNE SCALE~ 1" =100' HOR 1= --10' V~ 7.~5 7.~-0 ~ 710 705 7~ I 7: 'IBIT 74.5 72~ 72O 710 7O5 g Attachment to Agreement between the City of Iowa City (City) and BP©E 590 (Elks Club) SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED CHEMICALS I. Preemer.qence Herbicides Application 1) Pendimethalin - for use on areas other than bentgrass green areas Spring - between March 1st and May 1st 2) Betason - for use on .bentgrass green areas Spring - between March 1st and May 1st II. Postemer.qence Herbicides 1) Confront (triclopyr and clopyralid combination) Spot treatment only no broadcast application III. Insecticides 1 ) Dursban Treatment of active infestations only no preventative applications 2 to 3 times per year IV. Fun.qicides 1 ) Alliette Preventative applications on greens 3 to 4 times per year-June 15th-Aug 15th 2) Terr~neb Used only to treat active outbreaks of disease 3) Daconil Used only to treat active outbreaks of disease 4) Chipco Used only to treat active outbreaks of disease 5) Dithane used only to treat active outbreaks of disease 6) Bayleton used only to treat active outbreaks of disease by: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa Ci IA 52240 (319) 356-5030 RESOLUTION NO. TO THE CORP. THE COURSE IN PENINSULA SUPPLY AND TR THE GRANTING OWNED PROPERTY REPLACE THOSE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO 'EST AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE !VOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDE! ,GE NO. 590 WHICH, AMONG OF FOSTER ROAD TO FACILITATE THE THE OF FMENT FACILITY PERMANEN1 THE AND THE CITY CLERK OF IOWA CITY AND ELKS OF THE U.S.A. THINGS, ESTABLISHES THROUGH THE GOLF DEVELOPMENT OF THE THE IOWA CITY WATER AND PROVIDES FOR TO THE ELKS ON CITY- OF TWO GOLF HOLES TO LOST AS A RESULT OF THE FOSTER WHEREAS, to facilitate development construction of the new Iowa City must have access to the Penin of-way for Foster Road extended WHEREAS, Foster Road the road planned by the to construct two additional Foster Road extended pl property commonly known as the Peninsula and the pply and Treatment Facility Improvements the City way :oster Road extended and must establish its right- runs through the~lks Club Golf Course and improvements to interfere with the ElkskC~lub golf course and require the Elks Club olf holes to replace those v~h,~h will be lost by the improvements to by the City; and \, WHEREAS, the City Iowa City and the Elks Club have n~gotiated an agreement which will facilitate the City's ~ment of the property known as the Pe,,ninsula and the construction of the Iowa City r Supply and Treatment Facility Improvements and allow the Elks Club to continue to o a golf course; and WHEREAS, agreement provides for the City to grant the Elks Club~a permanent easement on City-own, property on the Peninsula for use as two golf holes as part't~f, a nine-hole or more Wt- said agreement fixes the right-of-way alignment of Foster Road exte'hd~ed through the Elks ~b property and requires the City to abandon any rights in the existirfg unimproved and \ W it is in the best interest of the City of Iowa City to enter into said agreeme is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Resolution No. /// Page 2 ~/,, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCI~//~F THE CITY OF IO '%CITY, IOWA, THAT: 1. Th~l~lb. yor is hereby authorized to sign and the City Clerk to attest ~i~//dd agreement between the C~y of Iowa City and the Benevolent and Protective Order okEIks of the U.S.A. Corp., Lodge ~ 590. / t 2. The PublibkWorks Director or designee is hereby authorizy'd to review and approve, or disapprove, t~e, Elks Club s survey of the Easement Area for'the two golf holes and the Elks Club's golf hole~ construction plans pursuant to paragraj~ 10 of said agreement, and to prepare and su~,,,~for approval to the Elks Club the Fos~;~r Road right-of-way survey. 3. The City Attorney is ~,ereby directed and authorized tg, t~ake all action necessary by the City to effectuate the conve'ykances of real estate requ/j.~'ed by said agreement, including the permanent easement fo~,the golf holes, the abandonment of the existing unimproved road, the temporary construction ea'~9.ments and the perm¢~ent water line easement. At the direction of the City Attorney the Mayo~i,s hereby authorized to sign and the City Clerk to attest any document of conveyance requii'.e~y said agreement. Passed and approved this d%of,// ,1997. App_roved by ATTEST: ,.. CITY CLERK '13'tl~torney's Office It was moved by and seconded by the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call .there were: AYES: ?.' NAYS: ABSENT: ,....' Baker~. /,'" Kubby ~ Lehman Norton Novick Thornberry Vanderhoef / e//ss2.doc Prepared by: Lisa Handsaker, Admin. Asst., 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356~5010 RESOLUTION NO. 97-367 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF IOWA CITY'S WINTER '!997/98 DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN. 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 for 1997/1998 that will be designed to provide needed relief and protection of property owners and motor vehicle operators within the corporate limits of Iowa City, and; WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council are prepared to take this action after considering the history of this issue, the effectiveness of alternative methods made available, and the City's inherent obligation to protect the health, safety, and welfare of all Iowa City citizens. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to implement for the Winter of 1997/1998, the Deer Management Plan that shall include the following elements: The City of Iowa City will develop a comprehensive educational program that will provide Iowa City residents with information on deer seasonal habits and guidelines for limiting localized deer damage through the use of repellents, screening, alternative plantings, and other techniques. Educational materials will be distributed with each new residents' packet and information broadcast regularly on Government Cable Channel 4. The City of Iowa City will organize public information meetings regarding the methods of deer management listed herein. The City of Iowa City will evaluate and, where appropriate, install or petition the State of Iowa or Johnson County to install on roadways under their jurisdiction, warning signs and/or reflectors that may reduce the likelihood of vehicle/deer accidents. In addition, to minimize deer/vehicle conflict, thoughtful consideration will be given to deer migratory paths as transportation improvement projects are approved by the City Council. The City of Iowa City will actively work with the State of Iowa Department of Natural Resources to fully understand their efforts to control the deer population for which that agency is responsible and which affects the health, safety, and welfare of Iowa City residents. The City of Iowa City will immediately apply for permits from the State of Iowa Department of Natural Resources to implement the plan to kill 109 does within the Iowa City corporate limits utilizing sharpshooting and trap and kill during the winter of 1997/1998. The specific areas for reduction are to be Management Districts 2, 3, 4, Resolution No. 97-367 Page 2 The City of Iowa City will fully comply with all rules and regulations promulgated by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources governing killing of deer, will exercise great caution and safety in implementing the program, will utilize the most humane methods available, and will ensure the deer meat is processed for distribution to agencies involved in feeding the hungry and the homeless. A program of public education about the management plan will be implemented to ensure that the public is aware of this activity and of safety measures. The City of Iowa City will appropriate the sum of $15,000 to implement the Deer Management Plan outlined in this Resolution for the period through February 28, 1998. 7. The City of Iowa City will pursue a study in cooperation with the Humane Society of the United States of the feasibility of deer immunocontraception within its corporate limits. The City of Iowa City will compile data on deer management including but not limited to vehicle/deer accident information, citizen complaints, and an annual helicopter count. In addition, the City Council will convene a meeting of the Iowa City/Coralville Deer Management Committee in the Spring of 1998 to review and recommend options for the period of October 1, 1998, through March 1, 1999. The City of Iowa City will conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of this Deer Management Plan at the City Council Formal Meeting no later than April 30, 1998. A report will be filed with the State of Iowa Department of Natural Resources. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is to proceed immediately to ensure implementation of this Deer Management Plan for the Winter of 1997/1998 and to keep the Mayor and City Council fully apprised of the status of this plan throughout its development and implementation. Passed and approved this 21st day of October ,1997. ATTEST: CI' I~CLERK MAYOR Ap. ov.~, by City Attorney's Office mgr~res\deerres,wp5 DEER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS i-"---': ::. '..' ', .-'. / 7 F Prepared by: Lisa Handsaker, Admin. Asst., 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5010 RESOLUTION NO. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF IOWA WINTER 1997/98 DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN. the City of Iowa City has conducted a study of deer )ticns, and; population and WHEREAS, the implement a Deer and protection of City, and; of Iowa City has determined that steps agement Plan for 1997/1998 that will be owners and motor vehicle o be taken to develop and to provide needed relief the corporate limits of Iowa WHEREAS, the Mayor and history of this issue, the effel inherent obligation to protect y Council are prep~ of altern ealth, to take this action after considering the methods made available, and the City's welfare of all Iowa City citizens. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT hereby authorized and directed to imp Plan that shall include the following Mayor and City Council that the City Manager is for the Winter of 1997/1998, the Deer Management The City of Iowa City will a ,mprehensive educational program that will provide Iowa City residents deer seasonal habits and guidelines for limiting localized deer dama h the use repellents, screening, alternative plantings, and other techniques. materials with each new residents' packet and information adcast regularly on ~rnment Cable Channel 4. The City of Iowa City will organi2 )ublic information meetin( the methods of deer management listed herein. The City City will evaluate and, where a ropriate, install or petition the State of Iowa or. County to install on roadways . their jurisdiction, warning signs and/or/( that may reduce the likelihood of v~hicle/deer accidents. In addition, to min}~diz~ deer/vehicle conflict, thoughtful considerat~n will be given to deer migratory p~s as transportation improvement projects are app'r~ved by the City Council. 'The City of Iowa City will actively work with the State,of Iowa Department of Natural Resources to fully understand and strongly support their efforts to control the deer population for which that agency is responsible and which'~ffects the health, safety, and welfare of Iowa City residents. ~, The City of Iowa City will immediately apply for permits from thG~State of Iowa Department of Natural Resources to implement the plan to kill 109 does witht~ the Iowa City corporate limits utilizing sharpshooting and trap and kill during the winter of 1,,997/1998. The specific areas for reduction are to be Management Districts 2, 3, 4, 5, t~, 7, and 15. A map defining the Management Districts is attached. ~ WINTER t 997, 1998 DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION WINTER 1997/1998 DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Des Moines Register: Urban Dwellers - Too many deer in Iowa's herds The Riverfront Times: Track Stars Iowa State University Extension: Managing Iowa Wildlife - White-tailed Deer Vern Fish, Hartman Reserve Center: Interpreting Deer Management Whitetails Unlimited: An Evaluation of Deer Management Bud Louis Photographs of Deer Damage Minnesota DNR: Facing Legal Realities in Urban Deer Management Iowa Administrative Code: Deer Population Management Areas Pat Farrant (iowa City/Coralville Deer Management Committee Member): Living With Deer - Strategies for Sharing Our Environment Thomas Eveland: Living with Deer Minnesota Horticulturist: Oh, Deer! Deer Damage Control Benner's Gardens: Is Deer Damage a Problem...? Minnesota Department of Natural Resources: Guidelines for Monitoring Vegetation and Deer in Parks Fish and Wildlife Today: Vehicle vs. Venison Star/Tribune: Deer-Car Collisions Growing USA Weekend: 3 New Tick-Borne Diseases Lurk Outdoors Grounds Maintenance: Landscape Design and Lyme Disease Minnesota DNR: Evaluation of a Live Trap and Kill Program as Urban Deer Population Control Method City of Edina, Minnesota: Proposed Deer Population Management Plan Jay McAn[rich: Sharpshooting Guidelines Minnetonka, Minnesota Deer Management Program: Program Report 1995-1996 Village of Glenco°, Illinois: Deer Management Plan The Wildlife Society: Urban Deer - A Manageable Resource Wildlife Tracks: Humane Wildlife Population Control: Immunocontraception. Eden Prairie Deer Study Group: Summary of Status of Imrnunocontraception Research In Deer Zoological Research Service: Comments on DNR Fact Sheet Related to "Contraception in White-Tailed Deer: Status of Current Activities Willy Suchy (Iowa DNR): Simulations of Deer Contraception at Kent Park (11) Journal of Reproduction and Fertility: Applications of Zona Pellucida Immunocontraception to Wildlife Fertility Control The Humane Society of the United States: Informational Letter to Goodman-Herbst - Characteristics of an Ideal Site for Deer Immunocontraception 56th Annual N.A. Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference: McAninch: Bow Hunting as an Urban Deer Population Management Tool Friends of Animals and their Environment: Viewpoint Deer and Deer Hunting: The Facts on Bow Wounding Metro Bowhunters Resource Base: Development and Implementation of a Metro Bowhunter Resource Base Minnesota DNR: Lebanon Hills Regional Park 1995 Bowhunt Cedar Rapids Bowhunting Guidelines Cedar Rapids/Linn County Deer Task Force: Summary of Findings and Recommendations Cedar Falls/Waterloo, Special Deer Management Zone Rules, Procedures, and Ethics Black Hawk County Deer Task Force: Special Deer Management Zone 1'993 Cedar Falls/Waterloo, Iowa Progress Report Black Hawk County Deer Task Force: Special Deer Management Zone 1995 Cedar Falls/Waterloo, Iowa Progress Report II Black Hawk County Deer Task Force: Special Deer Management Zone 1996 Cedar Falls/Waterloo, Iowa Progress Report III Black Hawk County Deer Task Force: Special Deer Management Zone 1996-1997 Cedar Falls/Waterloo, Iowa Progress Report IV DEER MANAGEMENT UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM TTERS ' I This doe browsed among coneflowers in Clayton county. ' KEGIST~R PILOT I/-rban dwellers Too many deer in Iowa's herds Early settlers found the white- tailed deer to be the most abundaqt big-gmne animal in Iowa. By 1900, it was hunted to near extmc~ion for both meat and hides. Until 1987, Iowa worked to increase its deer herd. Now with a herd of 300,000, Iowa is experiencing prob- lems of overpopulation. Nationwide and worldwide, deer populations are expanding due to urban, suburban and rural develop- ment that provides the edge habitat that deer prefer. Natural predators and starvation are not threats to our Iowa corn-fed deer. Often a deer population becomes enclosed by urban development. Safe from hunt- ing it over-browses city parks and spreads to back yards, feeding on expensive lawn plantings and bird see,d. County and state parks become havens for large deer herds that ~:ontinue. to expand far beyond the optimal five to 20 deer per square mile. Helicopter surveys in February 1996 revealed 100 deer, or 44 per square mile, in Des Moines' Water Works Park. The February 1997 sur- vey counted 159 deer in the park. Without hunting, a .',d~r. population can double every two~ears. E nvir onmentalists .i~'e concerned because a deer popriSon of 20 or more per square mile' ~sttlts in the consumption of mo/e 'il~ant material than is produced '~e'~a~.';year. Seed- lings are reduced,,:p~evalence of species is changed,. ands. wildflowers dwindle in numbers ~nd diversity. Birds that nest in: the/ntermediate canopy (1~ feet to 25i feet) disap- pear, including ..East'/~rn pewee, indigo bunting, i,e~d. fiycatcher, yellow-billed cuck,~., '11~Pd cerulean warbler. At 38 ,d~ 'pe~'/gluare mile, American ro'b'~'i~n~/ Easter.n_ _ ~ G4~ I,~ '"t' "-- ~ .... phoebes no longer raise young. Te: acre deer enclosures in Virgin- showed that with no deer, rat migratory ba'ds are able to nest, ar as many as 90 percent more srn~ mammals survive, including rels, flying squirrels and cRipmunk: Sugar maples. hemlocks and whir cedars are able to produce a aex generation. The Polk County Deer Task Forc has begun to study our deer popula tion, using aerial surveys, radio co, lars and deer enclosures. The hope to educate residents to the need o controlling, and sometimes red,uc ing, the numbers of our beautif~ white-tails so tha~ biodiversity ca~ flourish. Deer Task Force. 5'30 N.E. Fourth ,qt..awl · ., N/S, , g~t i! a .~hevy~i' Com~ ~ go to~ a ride. $135 TKACK 5iAK3 In the wilds of Town & Country, No. 49 browses on striplings, rests or even nurses a fawn. Though her activity is not readily known, her whereabouts are no mystery: The white-tailed doe wears a transmitter that allows wildlife biologists to track her movements via radio telemetry. Kristi Wise and Matt McCloud, wildlife biologists with the Missouri Depart- mcnt of Conservation (MDC), are familiar with No. 49. She was trapped in January of this year on the grounds of the Principia, a Christian Science academy at Mason Road and Interstate 64, and unlike other deer, which have dispersed far and wide, she has kept to her territory, a ~'act that may have significance doxvn the road. Biologists Wise and McCloud are radio trackers with the Urban Deer Research Pro- ject, now in its preliminary stages. When completed. the study hopes m offer guide- lines on the management of the highly adaptable and ofttimes pesky deer in the outer reaches of St. Louis County. Driving trucks packed with radio and electronic · White-tailed deer equip,nent, tile trackers keep tabs on some 116 deer by tuning into a radio frequency that is coqtlnuously broadcast from collars on the deer. By knowing tile sizeof the pop- ubtion, its reproductive and mortality rates, the MDCs can take a proactive stance in addressing the urban-deer situation before it turns ugly. As populations grow unchecked, deer pose a problem in the outlying suburbs. Their wont of crnssing highways is perilous for them and For drivers; two people were killed last month on 1-64 in a car/truck acci- dent involving a struck deer. They also dam- age property, coming like brigands in the night, trampling flower betIs, helping them- selves to the garden, browsing on fruit trees and shrubs. The MDC understands that not all homeowners disdain the large ruminants. Some folks want nothing mote than to look out their window and see Batnbi gatzing on the lawn, even though tile next-door neigh- bor may be apoplectic over his prize apple tree having been stripped of its bark. Jeff' Beringer, a,~ MDC st=ff wildlife biologist based in Columbia, designed the stvdy, which called Ibr the capture ufdeer in an area that is nortit of' Big Bend in South County, west nf 1-270, east of l'Iighway 141 and extends to Creve Coenr l.~ke. "The area has quite n bit of green space but also lots of honsing," says Beringer, "and we kn6w it has a good-sized deer populatio,~ from all the complaints we've received." The wildlife biologists began collaring the deer in December. A box trap consisting of an aluminum pipe frame with netting on · the sides and top is baited with corn and other deer goodies. The deer (or squirrel, for that matter) walks in, trips a string, and the netting falls. At that, the intrepid biologists besiege the animal, wrestling it {o the ground. "It's exciting," says Wise, a ~eteran deer grappler of four months, "though they can kick and head-butt." They tranquilize the deer, weigh it, mea- sure it and sex it. Then they give it a $400 collar, a lifelong radio transmitter with an 8- inch antenna that is capable ofsendlng a slg- hal two to three miles by ground and up to 10 miles by air. Another injection revives the deer, and it is released. The deer are probably distressed at first, sa);s Beringer, "But after a week they likely aren't even aware of the device. I don't think it affects its behavior or its move- meats." It will allow the biologists to clear- ly understand the deer's habitat preferences ~ to know, for example, exactly how much time they spend in people's back- yards as opposed to, say, Queeny Park ~ data that will someday help a coun- cilman vote on his district's wildlife- management policy. Some deer, the biologists found, are dispersing far away from their 6riginal territory. "One went as far as Wentzville, and to do that it had to cross a river and several intersrates," ~ys Beringer. (However, in straying from nonhunting St. Louis County to St. Charles County the adventur- ous creature became fair game in the state's "firearms harvest," with an annual toll of 212,000 deer iti 1996.) "The furthest toward the city these deer have gone is east of 270, into Powder Valley Nature Center," contin- ues Beringer. "Some are able to negotiate traffic on the interstate, but that's where they end up dying, too." By the end of March, the wildlife biolo- gists trapped 140 deer on the properties of various cooperating homeowners. Of those, 13 have since died in car accidents. McCloud and Wise have the task of retrieving them. "Deer move at least every four hours," Wise explains. "If the animal doesn't move within that time, a switch in the collar goes into 'mortality mode,' and the signal picks up. We get to it as soo,~ as possible before it's scavenged by coyotes or other animals." Some people have a taste for venison, and they don't mind roadkill if it's fresh. One of these days the wildlife biologists are going to track their collar to somebody's house. As for No. 49 and the r~t, they will be factored into something the MI)C calls "cultural clmtring capacity," a loose formula used to determine how- much Wild Kingdom a locale can susta n. We hope to stake a balance," says Matt McCIoud, "between a natural setting and what tile tomre'unity wants. In titis case, what is the right number of deer? Not so many titat they're causing car accidents, but enough dtat people who do want tile spectacle of a graceful faw,~ on their property may have it." [] JUNE 11 -17,1997 THE RIVERFRONT TIMES 11 The flash of the whitetail of a deer bounding across the road is a common sight in Iowa. Many people in the state value ~vhke-tafied deer simply because o£ their presence. Most Iowans enjoy the aesthetic value of seeing these graceful animals along roadsides and in woodlands, parks, and farm fields. In addition, deer o fief numerous recreational opportunities including nature watching, photograph~,; and hunting. Deer hunting recreation annually makes $30.6 mfilion for Iowa. However, deer also can cause problems in the state, especially in areas where high herd densities exist. Deer can consume crops, destroy ornamental trees and shrubs. damage forests through browsing and antler rubbing. and collide with motor vehicles. This bulletin presents the histoD; biology and reproduc- .:ion. habitat. and habits of whke-tailed deer tn Iowa and explores deer-human interactions. The information characterizes the types of damage that occur. describes how co identify deer damage, and explains alternatives available to manage these problems. History Deer were very abundant in Iowa at the time of Euro- pean settlement. but uncontrolled hunting and habitat destruction quickly reduced their numbers. Though it seems hard to believe today; by 1898 deer were virtually gone in all parts of the state. and the hunting season was legall5' closed. New populations of deer moved into Iowa from surrounding states. These immigrant deer repopu- lated the state with the help of deer that escaped or were released from captive herds and deer purchased from other states. As herd densities increased. some deer were trapped and moved to different areas of the state to aid the restoration effort. Populations were becoming highly concentrated in some areas by the earIx' 1050s and began to damage agricul- tural crops. This led to the first mociern hunting season in December l°53 in '.vhtch 4.000 deer were harvested. iowa Department of Natural Resources: DNR' officials estimate the current population to be about 300.000 after the hunting season. with over [00.OO0 harvested in t~96. (See figure IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY University Extension Ames, Iowa Pm-1302g May 1997 100 30 -~0 2O 53 58 63 68 73 78 83 8'8 '~93 96 Year h',,'~,ure I. ,rumbet o/'deer harve.¥ted ttnnuallv in Iowa. Biology and Reproduction The white-tailed deer (Odocoileus vi~ginicmas) is iowa's [argest existing native mammal. The white underside of the tail. for which this deer is named, is its most distinctive characteristic. White-tailed deer stand 35 to 38 inches tall. although thev mav appear taller because of their long legs and slender bodies. Deer have ~n excellent sense of smell. and their hearing is well- developed. Their eyesight ts fair. and they have poor color vision. However. they can easily detect movement. D'..:rtng the winter. deer have a heavy gray-brown coat .'.hat changes to a lighter-weight. red-brown c~at in summer. Adult males (bucks~ reach weights of 240 to "_.65 pounds after about 4~/: years while females (does) will average 140 to 160 pounds. Fa~vns usually are born q. y'e~ttlt~ff [ilWII. .) in May and · They weigh betweeK · 4and 8 pounds - when born an,d ha~e. ,. a reddish-brown .with white spots. ':~' · They lose these spots after three or ' : four months when they no longer rely solely on camouflage for protection. Buck during breeding season. Iowa white-tailed deer have higher reproductive rates than those found in some other areas because of the high quality habitat. Does in Iowa typically have their first fawns when they are about one year old (yearlings). Most yearling does have single fawns and most adult does have twins. Because of the highly pro- ductive habitat. about 8 to 12 percent of adult Iowa does have triplets. in the ~vfid, some adult does maintain this high reproductive rate for up to 10 years. Like their relatives the elk and moose, only male deer have antlers. Antler size is determined by the genetic background and availability of high quality food, though it also is somewhat influenced by the deer's age. Antlers begin to grow in .March or April and continue through August or September. At the peak of development, antlers may' grow as much as one-half inch per day. While they develop. the antlers are covered with a soft skin called "velvet." As this soft skin dries in the fall, the bucks rub their antlers against trees and shrubs to remove the velvet. Bucks shed their antlers after the breeding season ends in late January. Each successive "rack" of antlers will grow larger than the previous set. provided nutrition ts adequate. Large antlers are an important factor tn courtship competition between adult bucks: however. a large. health?' body also is required to establish a buck's dominance. Habitat Deer normally are associated with wooded areas, but they will use other areas. such as fence lines, marshes, and even grass)' areas like those in Consev,'ation Reserve Program bnd. The key fe,a.~ure seems to be availability of adequate cbver. Deer habitat alsb must provide an adequate supply of good quality food, espe- cially in the fall and winter, to keep the deer in good Deer prefer woodlands and woodland edges. physical and reproductive condition. Cornfields often are used by Iowa deer during the growing season be- cause they provide cover and easy, protected travel, in addition to food. Diet White-tailed deer are ruminants like cattle. This means they can digest foods, such as woody plants, that hu- mans cannot. Deer ~vill eat grasses, sedges, fruits, nuts, forbs. and mushrooms in addition to their "basic" diet of trees and shrubs. A majority of the deerg diet consists of a single food item, but deer sample many plants while feeding. In Iowa, row crops, especially corn and soy- beans, can make up 78 percent of their diet. When food is scarce, deer will eat almost any plant, even those they avoid ~vhen food is plentiful. For example, browsing effects sometimes are evident on eastern red cedar, which is not a preferred food. Movements %'hire-tailed deer are very mobile animals. Studies with radio-collared deer found they move about one mile per clay in their daily' activities. Most daily movements occur within the deer's home range. However, the location and size of this home range may change seasonally in response to availability of adequate food and shelter. It aiso may change permanently because of social pressure from dominant animals. morning and evening feedings. At night they bed down in areas more open than their daytime resting spots. Often, the two bedding areas are on opposite ends of the home range. Home Range A home range is the area used in the normal activities of food gathering, mating, and caring for young. The size and location of the white-tail~ home range varies with the season, and most deer occupy the same home range year after year. Does and their young usually stay in the same general area throughout the year, while adult bucks are more territorial and typically have larger home ranges. Unusual movements of one female that had been fitted with a radio-collar showed she traveled between two areas separated by a major city and 15 miles. She made this journey several times over the course of a summer. Seasonal Movements Deer often have winter and summer breeding ranges that differ in location and size. In Iowa, secure cover, a reliable water supply, and hunting pressure are all important factors in establishing a home range. Habitat changes may influence seasonal movements of deer by altering the availability of food and cover. However, food is not a dominant factor influencing home range because there usually is a plentiful supply year-round. In the spring and summer, the home range is small because does must care for their newborn fawns. It increases in the fall when breeding activities demand greater movement and food becomes less abundant. ~Vinter ranges are smaller since the deer restrict move- ments to conserve energy. During this time, deer usually live off the fat reserve they built up in the fall and rely on reduced winter food supplies. In addition to these seasonal movement changes, deer movements can be altered more permanently by converting agricultural land to natural habitats. This provides secure cover where none existed previously. The reverse also is true: converting natural habitats to agricultural or residential uses reduces the availability of secure cover and alters deer movements. Daily Movements White-tailed deer are crepuscular animals. meaning they are most active at dawn and dusk. However. they are very adaptable and will be active at other times if they must share their habitat with humans. Typically, deer wi[[ bed down during the day in a protected wooded area. Rather than sleep during this time, the deer rumi- nate (digest their food) and groom themselves. moving around about every two hours. In the summer, they may eat midday because of the long time between their Dispersal Patterns Social pressure from larger, mature bucks forces young bucks out of their original home range when they are about 18 months old. During this dispersal, young bucks may travel several miles in search of a suitable area to establish a territory. For example, in a northeast Iowa study, a young male was found over 40 miles away from where he was originally marked, 3 Communication l'ht't.'l' c',.~lllllILllllC:.IIC ;v~th u'ada ,~lhcr roe,lily ,is well as ;hrott~h ,~cctlt dlld 4~<ht. dJthott<h -cc't~t Is the most ;in[')t,rl;.lllt Ct~11~tllktlltC:.ll itm t't~c[ hocl. k,'t,c:lJtz:ttiorts allow dccr to ,.:t~t'nrm. tnt¢,ttc t'ncs.s;.t~c> ot' hun:4er. l'right, and ,.langer. in addition t¢~ idcntit'? tng individuals by va~ing ;he tone. pitch. and intenstt:' ,>t' chctr calls. The four !nasic reasons for commttnicatk~n among deer are locat- ing individuab. marking territories, displaying domi- france, and alerting others of danger. When they are in estrus. does emit a scent that bucks t'o[low to locate the does for breeding. Bucks looking for does during this time make 1o;,~: grunting sounds that are thought to attract the females' attention. Bucks and does also may call to one another, but most vocaliza- irons occur between a doe and her fawn. Bucks mark their territories in two basic ways: urine marking and scrapes. The far-reaching odor of urine may intimidate other bucks from entering the territory of an established male and probably attracts does to the site. Buck scrapes usually consist of a broken twig or branch l. to 2 meters off the ground with a depression directly beneath the damaged branch scraped in the soil by their hooves. Scrapes function as signposts, identify- ing the presence of a particular buck in the area. Territories and scrapes are marked by a scent, called a pheromone, that is produced by glands in the deer's leg. Deer display their dominance toward subordinate animals through aggressive behavior. For example, a dominant buck may make a scrape in front of a smaller buck. [f dominance is tested, two bucks will engage in a sparring match, using their antlers as weapons. Three Btwk evMence. Bttck rub tlefi;. and scrape in soil (right). Buck in velvet. vocalizations~grunts, snorts, and wheezes~are associ- ated with aggressive behaviors and are made by both males and females. These vocalizations often are accom- panied by posturing threats. The white underside of the tail serves as a signal to alert other deer of trouble. Other behaviors, including snort- ing and hoof stamping, also may be displayed when danger is detected. If they are pursued. deer can run 35 miles per hour and jump over 8-foot fences. More often, they will freeze in place and wait for the danger to pass or try to slip away undetected. Deer-Human Interactions Deer populations increased dramatically across eastern North America during the 1980s and 1990s. At the same time, their natural habitat was greatly reduced as a result of the continuing expansion of urban areas and conver- sion of native landscapes to agriculture. The remaining deer habitat became stressed by the high population densities. Protected areas, such as state preserves, forests, and county and state parks, began showing stress. More problems related to the high deer numbers became evident as agricultural crops suffered damage from deer traveling from the safety of the preserves to the fields to eat. The most recent development has been problems associated with deer in expanding urban environments. ©rnamenta[ trees and shrubs in residential and cornmer- cia[ areas suffer damage as deer seek alternative food sources. In addition to damaging landscape plantings. the increased deer activity can cause property' damage in vehicle-deer collisions. The possibility of deer transmit- ting diseases to humans and other animals also is a concern. Compounding these problems is the contro- versy surrounding hunting as a means of managing deer populations. 4 Deer crossing signs warn of likely areas for vehicle-deer collisions. Deer-Vehicle Collisions Deer-vehicle collisions often are difficult to avoid. A deer unexpectedly jumps out onto the road, and the driver must either swerve or hit the deer. Many times the deer is hit regardless of the driver's decision. In 1995, Iowa reported 11,167 collisions caused by animals on the road, approximately 9 percent of all traffic collisions in the state. Nearly all of these animal-vehicle collisions were caused by deer. Deer whisdes, devices purported to alert deer of a vehicle, do not work. Several studies have shown that deer do not pay any attention to the sound made by the whisdes. However, if installing a deer whistle on your car makes you more alert and aware of deer, it could possibly helpyou avoid an accident. Disease Modern sanitary practices have virtually eliminated the threat of deer transmitting diseases to humans and other animals. Deer theoretically could transmit brucellosis and tuberculosis to other animals, such as pigs and cattle. However, this is very, rare and not generally chought to be a serious threat to domestic livestock. The dangers associated with humans contracting E. coli, salmonella, and giardia from deer are similar to the risks invoNed with handling any animal These diseases should not pose a problem to people handling deer as long as careful attention is given to keeping conditions sanilar,,,: However, deer are a [actor [n the spread of Lvme disease. Lyme disease is caused by a corkscrew- shaped bacterium transmitted to humans and other animals by the tiny deer tick, Lxodes scapularis. !his tick has a complicated two-year life cycle. during which it feeds on several hosts. White-tailed deer play an impor- tant role in this life cycle by acting as a host to adult deer ticks in the fall, winter, and early spring. Since deer ticks rclv on specific hosts for each ,,rage of their life cycle (including mice in one stagel, removing one host will interrupt the life cycle, thereby possibly eliminating the ticks and Lvme disease from an .'trca. 'Some people have suggested eliminating deer to extino guish Lyme disease. Whdc this may be possible in some areas, such as small islands, it is not practical, nor desirable, in most cases. Taking precautions when one might be exposed 'to deer ticks is a much more practical alternative. For more information on Lyme disease, see Iowa State Universit>' Extension publication Pm-1407, Lynne Disease: Infot~nation for Iowa Residents. Deer Hunting Deer hunting is an important management tool as well as a recreational activity in Iowa. Since deer have few remaining natural predators (coyotes may prey upon fawns in Iowa), hunting serves as the major source of mortality: Some people fieel hunting is inhumane; however, Iowa's deer herd could grow at an annual rate of 20 to 40 percent if it was not regulated by hunting. This would result in a doubling of the population every three years. Increased herd densities resulting from such a population explosion would result in huge economic losses for landowners. Iowa's remaining natural landscapes also would be changed due to exces- sive browsing before natural processes began to regulate deer populations. In 1996, more than 175.500 Iowa hunters pursued Iowa deer during the shotgun. archery,, and muzzleloader seasons. These hunters spent an average of $200 each for food, firearms and bows, clothing, travel, and other items associated with deer hunting, contributing more than $30 million to Iowa's economy. This added income, combined with the damage prevented by reducing deer numbers, makes deer hunting very important in Iowa. Hunting is tt~t important part of deer management. Good hunter/landowner relations must be ctdtivated and maintained. 5 .4 high densiO' ~g'deer can cause damage to crops and yards. Damage Identification Two major types of deer damage result from deer eating vegetation and bucks rubbing their antlers on trees. Deer tear plant material when feeding because they have no upper front teeth. This results in a jagged edge rather than a clean cut on the damaged vegetation. Deer prefer t ~ eat the growing portions of plants. For example. the,,.' pull the tops and leaves off corn p{ants to reach the tender parts of the plant and discarc[ the less desirable [caves. The',' eat the terminal bucls of trees and shrubs in 2ddition to the succulent leaves and stems of woody and '.~crbaceous species. ~ ",,? i-ing deer damage ts the first step in determining :he best management alternative for the situation. [n :,clditton to the signs described previous[5: fresh drop- p~ngs. tracks. and observations of deer provide evidence :hat deer are causing the damage. Many times damage ~aused by rabbits. raccoons. birds, and squirrels is credited to deer. Figure 2 provides identification tips for damage caused bv wildlife that may be mistaken [or deer damage. The following section describes common types of damage caused bv deer. 6 ( on,,umpllou of \~l'icullttral t ropn ,iTc .;.~i. [~t :.~,: 1~, i~ct',ctll ,I '.,',~.t :.~i':l~c;- ~rt a lie[d- throuqht,ut the ~car. butt ,~ctlx ttx peak, at specific damage to rot~ crops often is the xxorqt at ['ic[c[ edges lie:it' protective woody cover. Figure 2. Rabbit &mut.oe t /e?%: deer dwmt,.,e , ri,.,ht~. Corn Deer first move into cornfields when the plants are emerging. They eat the new shoots as the corn reaches three to four inches call. The most activity takes place somewhat later in the growing season. when the corn has grown to about 2/: feet tail At this staee. deer eat the apical meristem of the plants. pulling off the tops c,f the plants while the leaves remain in ptace Activity peaks again when corn reaches the silking stage. Dam- a§e at this point can prevent the ear from forming. As the ear develops, deer nip kernels off the emerging cob. Ears damaged in this way may develop with short, smutty husks. The final peak of activity begins when the corn is mature. Deer bite off the end of an ear, sometimes 'leaving the husk intact. They will continue to feed in'cornfields after harvest, eating the waste grain left behind by the combine or picker. Soybeans Soybeans also suffer from deer damage even though this crop does not have the added benefits to the deer of cover and protected travel that corn has. Stunted soy- bean plants are a sign that deer damage may be taking place. Deer eat the tender terminal buds of the plants, resulting in the plants appearing "bushy." Peaks in activity occur when the plants are first coming up, when the beans begin to bloom, and right before the beans mature. Not much activity is seen in fields once the soybeans mature unless left over winter. However, most feeding in soybean fields occurs outside the growing season, when deer move back into the fields after harvest and eat waste grain. Consumption of Landscape and Garden Plants In the spring, deer often nip off emerging shoots and blooming flowers in gardens and flower beds, Deer also may consume fruits and berries produced by plants in addition to eating the leaves. While rabbits may damage these plantings in a similar way, it is very simple to determine which animal is causing the problem. Deer also may consume wild perennials. Woodlands with high deer densities often have few blooming spr~ng wildflo~vers. Browsing of Trees and Shrubs While deer generally are considered browsers that consume woody plants, other green plants, fruits, and berries also constitute much of their diet. As a result, deer damage trees and shrubs, eating the past yearg growth and dormant buds, especially in fall and ~vinter months when these other food sources are not available. When food is scarce, the deer will browse on older twigs and branches and consume species that they normally avoid. In extreme cases where the food supply is low and the population is high, you can see a "browse line" on trees and shrubs. In this situation the deer consume all edible branches on woody plants as high as they can reach. This results in a visible line between the damaged and undamaged parts of the trees. The deer may even stand next to the tree with their front hooves on the trunk to reach food higher off the ground. Antler Rubbing Damage Ir,~tn antl~'r :'~tl~i,~ can hc ,c~cr'c sn Ihc la{[. Bucks ruh Ihcir anlJcr~ ,,it ll'cc~ ~g, rcnl~wc the dI'ICL[ vCJveL J'l'Oll~ LhCli' dillJt'l'~ && IIIJc lhl~ hchavlor i~ ilOl ds sv[dcsprC;ld .t~ hl'~;~MIl~, 11 k',lll [I~IVC harsh O)II~CLJLICnces ['Or JndJvidLlaJ lrccn. [3Llllla~c llsuaJJ~ ts limitca to all area on thc trunk between l /_ .tud 3'/: fcct clbovc LhC ground. The actio~q max strip bark from ?OUtlg trees, residling in dead or deformed trees. Bucks rub their antlers on trees in rhe)bll. Management Alternatives Several akernatives are available to manage deer damage. Each akernative has certain benefits. but not all options can be used in every situation. Options for managing deer damage can be divided into two major categories: population control and clamage management. Population Control Regulating the size of Iowa's deer herds is the best way to reduce darnage because lower deer densities trans!ate into less damage to the habitat. Possible ways to cop, wol population size include hunting. trapping. and ach'ntnis- tering contraception to deer. Hunting is the most c,,~ct~ e way of to,.,.'erin~ population levels because deer are removed from the ecosystem with relatively tow investments of time and tax mone~: Annual surveys of the deer population are made by the Iowa DNR to determine the ideal harvest to maintain a healthy, tolerable population. Information from these surve?'s is used to determine the number and types of licenses that 7 will be issued. In 1996, more than 175,000 hunters purchased licenses permitting them to hunt deer in Iowa. thereby helping to manage the population and t'und wildlife' programs while enjoying a recreational activity However, public hunting is not a perfect solution because it is not acceptable in all areas where problems exist. Some areas have a high cultural carrying capacity ['or deer. In other words, people in the area have a high tolerance of deer and the related damage and would prefer deer were not hunted. Also, hunting is not feasible in cities and some wildlife areas because of the potential for property damage and injuries to people or other animals. In some metro areas in other parts of the country, sharpshooting is used in places where hunting is not feasible. Another related option for population control is the special controlled hunt in which skilled hunters harvest problem deer within a specific area by a specific means, such as bow hunting. In areas where hunting is not feasible, live trapping deer with nets or box traps may be useful in controlling deer populations. When the trap and release management alternative is used, the question of where to relocate problem deer must be considered. Trapped deer must be released in vacant habitat or in a controlled area, such as a ~vildlife reserve or a deer farm. They cannot be simply transported from the overpopulated area to another nearby habitat. Studies on relocated deer have found that a vast majority of the animals die from the stress related to being trapped, moved, and released in a strange environment. Those that survive often return to the area where they were trapped. A variation of the trap and release method of management is to kill the deer once it is trapped. Some people feel this alternative is more humane than hunting. While these alternatives can be used in some areas where hunting is not permitted, both trapping methods are much more labor intensive and expensive than hunting. Contraception is another management alternative that has been examined in the past decade. Steroid contra- cept~ves have been developed for captive deer that work on the same principle as human birth control pills. However, this management tool is not likely to be a viable option for controlling deer populations on a large scale in the near future. Presently there is no legal form of use for steroid contraceptives in deer except in limited experimental studies. One of many problems is controlling the dosage given to variable-sized deer. Some forms of contraception also have been shown to affect 8 nontargeted species. In test studies, widespread usi~ of deer contraceptives caused declines in small mamma~ ~ populations, affecting the balance of the ecosystem'. Also, repeated use of contraceptives may cause perma- nent sterility in the deer population. In addition to the difficulty of administering the drug to deer, concerns about human food safety and the expense of this method also must be addressed before contraception can be recommended as a management tool. At this point, contraception for deer is still in a highly experimental phase of research. Damage Management While population control is important in managing deer damage on a large scale, damage management is effec- tive in managing problems on a smaller scale. The key to preventing deer damage is to anticipate problems. Individuals experiencing deer damage can use manage- ment methodsmincl.uding repellents, scare devices, and fences--to help alleviate, or eliminate, the problem. Before choosing one of these damage control alterna- tives, have a goal in mind of what you are trying to accomplish and an understanding of the management alternatives available. Repellents Repellents discourage deer from feeding on plants by making them smell or taste undesirable or making them difficult to eat. In addition to commercial repellents applied to plants, some plant species have natural defenses against deer. Commercial repellents provide temporary relief but do not solve the problem of deer damage. If they are hungry enough, deer will eat plants even though they are treated with repellents. The high cost and limited effectiveness of repellents make them impractical for use on row crops and other large areas, but they are well suited for orchards, gardens, and ornamental plants. The effective- ness of repellents depends on many factors, including the weather. For example, some repellents require reapplication after rainfall. Contact repellents are applied directly to plants, repel- ling the deer by their taste. Because they affect the taste of plants, contact repellents should not be used on plant parts intended for human consumption. These repel- lents are most effective on dormant trees and shrubs. Young trees should be treated completely With older trees, it is more economical to treat only the new growth within reach of deer (about 6 feet above maximum snow depth). New growth appearing after treatment is not protected from deer damage. Thiram, an effective contact repellent, is included in most commercial An assortment of repellents that va .ry in effectiveness. repellents. Some of these include ChaperoneTM, Guftafon 42-S8TM, Nott Chew NotTM, Scram 42-STM, and Bonide Rabbit & Deer Repellenff.~. Hot pepper sauce is another taste repellent reported to reduce deer browsing on plants. Deer detect area repellents by their odor. Area repel- lents can be used to treat the perimeter of a large area creating an undesirable border that may discourage deer from browsing on the interior. As a result, these repel- lents can protect larger areas at lower costs than contact repellents. Some area repellents can be used on plants grown for human consumption because they are not applied directly to the plants. Fermented egg solids are used in many odor repellents including BGR Big Game RepellentTM and Deer AwayTM. HinderTM and Magic CircleTM also are effective area repellents. In addition, bags of human hair, moth balls, blood meal, and bar soap hung in trees are reported to repel deer. Natural defenses possessed by some plant species are structures, such as thorns, that make the plant difficult to eat and undesirable tastes and smells. Deer rarely damage barberrs; birches, dogwoods, and spruces. Akhough they usually avoid many pine species, deer damage white pines. In general, thorny and aromatic species are avoided. but even these plants may suffer from deer damage if food is in short suppl,v. Deer prefer to eat species with soft leaves and fruits. Some species that are often severely damaged include t'ru[t trees. arbor vitae. rhododendrons, yews, hostas. viburnums, maples, and oaks. These species are rich in nutrients that deer require and do not possess defenses against browsing. Avoid these species in areas where deer densities are high since damage is very, probable. Scare Devices Noise-making devices may help tcmp0rarily reduce damage by scaring deer away from the plants you are trying to protect. Scare devices have had inconsistent results in controlling deer damage, but the possibility of success is greater if action is taken when the problem is first noticed. Once deer establish a pattern of behavior, it is very hard to break, and scare devices are less effec- tive. Gas exploders, guard dogs, gunfire, and fireworks are scare devices that may help reduce the possibility of deer damage. Gas exploders set to go off at regular intervals are the most common scare devices. They are most successful when moved every few days so the deer do not become accustomed to the firing pattern. Exploders are effective for only one to two weeks and should be regarded as a temporary control measure. Exploders with more randomized firings may be effective longer. The presence of a guard dog in an area suffering deer damage also may be effective as a scare device. Dogs will chase the deer, preventing them from browsing on plants in the area. If the dog is tied, deer may move in closer when they'learn the boundaries marking the limit of the dog's movement. Gunfire and fireworks can provide quick, temporary relief from deer damage as the noise scares the deer away. This technique is not recommended as a means of controlling damage for an entire growing season. Fences Fences intended to exclude deer are the most effective way of reducing deer damage. Because of the high installation cost, fences usually are limited to small areas such as orchards, gardens, Christmas tree farms, and other very high-value crops, or areas where deer are particularly abundant. Several different fence designs are available that can meet the needs of specific situations. These fences fall into two general categories: passive and active exclusion. Passive exclusion fences generally are woven-wire fences that are too tall for deer to jump. These fences must be at least 8 feet high since deer can jump over fences less than 8 feet. The standard design consists of ].2-foot posts placed at 40-foot intervals and set to a depth of about 4 feet, with woven wire attached to the posts. The bottom of the fence should be at ground level so deer cannot crawl under it. Two 4-foot widths of hog wire fencing joined one on top of the other and attached to the posts can be used to effectively keep deer out of the area. If a taller fence is desired, a strand of high 9 tensile electrical wire can be strung above the woven wire. A fence that slants away from the area to be pro- tected is another design that successfully excludes deer from an area. While passive exclusion fences are expensive, they are permanent structures that can protect an area year-round and should last about 20 years. In addition, little upkeep is needed to maintain this type of fence. These factors make passive exclusion fences a very effective manage- ment alternative for preventing deer damage. This ap- proach is recommended for areas that have recurring problems with deer damaging valuable crops and orna- mental plants. Active exclusion fences use electricity to keep deer out of an area. The deer are attracted to these fences by their appearance or smell. When they touch the fence with their noses, deer receive an electrical shock that condi- tions them to avoid the fenced area. While active exclu- sion fences are less expensive to build than passive exclusion ones, they may be somewhat less effective, since hungry deer may learn to jump over them. These fences also may require more maintenance than passive exclusion fences. Many different designs of active exclusion fences are available to keep deer out of an area. For example, the Visible Grazing Systems fence attracts deer to the electric fence by its yellow color. The Minnesota DNR fencing system includes peanut butter placed on foil flags that are attached to a traditional electric fence with the wire 2V: feet off the ground. Several other designs for high- tensile and multi-wire electric fences also are effective in excluding deer from a designated area. The list of refer- ences at the end of this bulletin includes several sources that provide more information about both passive and active exclusion fences. In addition to excluding deer from an area, fence-like structures can be used to limit damage to individual trees, To protect trees from deer damage, position plastic mesh tubes around small saplings, and place cylinders of welded wire mesh at least 6 feet tall around larger trees. To protect trees from antler rubbing, drive three wooden stakes or fence posts around the tree about 18 inches apart. This design hinders the buck's access to the tree, thus protecting it from damage. Education Understanding the biology and ecology of white-tailed deer in Iowa is an important step in reducing the effects of deer damage throughout the state. Once people under- ~q,llld ~hc rcaffoB, s Ih,u dccr damage' ',,, ;.tgl'iC Lilt U ra[ crops, lancbcapc and garden plants, trees. and shrubs, they can take appropriate mea- SLlres to reduce the clamage. Learrang about the ecological relation- ships between deer ~ and their environ- ~ ment makes it ~ easier to under- ~ stand the effective- ,4. electric excludtm t?nce. hess of alternatives available to manage deer damage problems. Plant species that provide high ctuatit57 palatable food for deer are the most likeix' to be damaged. Non-preferred species are less susceptibte to damage but w:[[ suffer when food is scarce or deer population densities are extremelx' high. Crops and landscape plantings near prime deer habitat may be severely damaged simply because they are positioned 10 adja.cent to deer habitat. Even non-preferred species are more likely to suffer when located close to deer. These relationships between white-tailed deer and their environment have very important implications for the alternatives that will most successfully manage deer damage problems in Iowa. On the large scale, hunting is the most effective management tool. On a smaller scale where limited areas need pr6tection and hunting is not a viable option, exclusion fences are recommended. Although the initial cost of installing a fence may seem prohibitive, a permanent fence can effectively eliminate deer damage and the economic losses associated with this damage, often paying for the fence. Understanding the ecological links between deer and the rest of the natural environment also may increase appreciation for these animals, resulting in an increased tolerance of slight deer damage and a better relationship bet~veen the people and deer of Iowa. References on Managing Deer Damage Controlling Deer Damage in Wisconsin by Scott Craven and Scott Hygnstrom. 1986, University of Wisconsin- Extension. Controlling Deer Damage by William E Andelt, Keith Sexton, and E Robert Henderson. 1986, Kansas State University, Cooperative Extension Service. Resistance of Woody Ornamental Plants 'to Deer Damage by M.J. Fargion, P. D. Curtis, and M. E. Richmond. [991, Cornell Cooperative Extension. Who to Contact for More Help · Willie Suchy, Iowa DNR deer biologist, (515) 774-2958 · Local DNR office/field headquarters, district DNR biologist, or conservation officer · Jim Pease. ISU Extension wildlife specialist. (515) 294-7429 · County' ISU Extension education director Special thanks to Willie Suchy and DeWaine Jackson, wildlife biologists with the Iowa Department~ of Natural Resources; James Pease, Iowa State University Extension wildlife specialist; William Clark, ISU Department of Animal Ecology; and Wayne RowIcy, Department of Entomology, for technical information and critical review of this text. Also than'ks to Loren Will, associate professor, College of Veterinary Medicine, for technical information, and Jane Peterson, Department of Journal- ism and Mass Communications, for editorial review. Prepared as an honors project by Lynne Fischer, Iowa State University Department of Animal Ecology; James Pease, ISU Extension wildlife specialist; and William Clark, Department of Animal Ecology. Edited by Elaine H. Edwards and Laura Sternweis, Extension communications specialists. Logo designed by Rex Heer .and design and layout by Tom Hiett, Media Graphics. Inclusion of a trade name does not imply endorsement, nor does exclusion imply non-approvaL File: Wildlife 6 ~-~snd justice for all The Iowa Cooperative Extension Servlce's orogram$ and 13olicies are consistent ,,wth pertinent fecteral and state laws and regulations on discrimination. Many materials can ~e made available in alternative formats for ADA chents. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30. 1914..n cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Stanley R. Johnson, director. Cooperst;re ~xtens~on Serwce. Iowa State University of Science and Technology. Ames, Iowa 11 INTERPRETING DEER MANAGEMENT by Vern Fish, Hartman Reserve Nature Center Deer research display, Hartman Reserve Nature Center. Photo by Randy R. Fratzke. w n 1989-1990, the staff of Hartman Reserve Nature ~ Center got "happy" deer calls. Neighbors would call about the buck in their backyard or the doe with three fawns in their driveway. In 1991 we started getting "angry" deer calls-"The deer have destroyed $1,500 worth of my landscapingl What are you going to do?' These complaints were relayed to the mayors of the two cities that surround the nature center. These public officials immediately called the Black Hawk County Conservation Board, the parent agency of the nature center, and requested a solution to this problem. The staff researched deer management and found that in urban areas this was a highly charged, emotional issue. Resource management agencies that did not involve the public in the research and policy-making steps were doomed to controversy and sometimes were unable to accom- plish their management goals. The approach we recommended addressed the challenge by inviting public participation (Gericke and Wellman, 1990). We. created a broad-based task force to study the urban deer and make recommen- dations (Minnesota DNR, 1990). In September 1991 we invited representatives from almost 20 different local environmental organizations, neighborhood groups, the Iowa Depa.rtment of Natural Resources, and the two cities to form the Black Hawk County Deer Task Force. The task force-approved position statement agreed to reach group consensus on all recommendations, started three baseline research projects, and issued a press statement. Educating the task force and the public on basic deer biology and ecology was considered a high priority. Two of the research projects were conducted within the nature center. We built a 75' x 75' deer exclosure. This eight-foot fence keeps deer out of the exclosure, while still allowing other herb- ivores such as woodchucks and rabbits to enter. We also trapped and radio-collared deer just outside the Hartman Interpretive Center. We placed interpretive signs on both the deer exclosure and the box trap used to radig-collar deer. These two sites became optional stops on interpretive walks for school groups or the public. The third research project was a population survey. Our study area was a 2.5-square-mile corridor along the Cedar River,. which in- cluded Hartman Reserve Nature Center, George Wyth State Park, and other private natural areas within the Cedar River valley. This core natural area is surrounded by 100,000 people in the twin-cities of Cedar Fails and Waterloo, Iowa. Helicopters, with trained obser- vers, flew the corridor on cold, clear days when we had at least three inches of snow cover and counted the deer. We have sur- veyed the deer herd three times since this research project began. The task force adopted a media policy, which restricted who could speak for the task force. The media was approached in a proactive matter (Girard, 1993). We went to the reporters with our story and invited them to participate in each step of the research and policy process. The staff of the nature center built a strong relationship with both the print and electronic media. This relationship had helped to reduce negative coverage. The staff of l-{artman Reserve Nature Center started the educational process by creating a display on deer ecology, writing articles on deer behavior for our newsletter,' and inviting outside experts to speak on deer ecology and how to live with deer. We incorporated deer ecology activities, such as "Oh Deer!" (Project Wild, 1992), into our school programming, put a computer in our exhibit wing and loaded it with a deer management simulation game called "Oh Deer!" (Hoelscher, 1983), and made presentations to every community group we could reach. To study deer migration patterns, the task force decided to radio-collar deer. To raise the funds to pay for these collars we created the Adopt-A-Deer program. We wrote a brochure and invited organization and the public to give money. Each adopter was provided with quarterly reports on the movements of their deer. We also invited the public to call the Deer Hotline and report the movements of the marked deer. During the first year and a half of the study, more than 500 people called the hotline to report a collared deer. To explain the result of this mi- gration study we created a 14' x 19' living map (Bremen, 1992) (Fulcher & Riley, 1993) of Hartman Reserve Nature Center. On this map the visitor or a school group actually plots the move- ments of the deer with strings. While plotting deer movement, we discuss deer biology and ecology. This map was used during both public programs and school field trips. To document the progress of the task force over the first two years, we wrote a progress report and made a 16-minute video called Urban Deer: A Delight and a Dilemma. This video has been shown on local cable and to'as many public groups as possible. The task force has also used the video to explain our policy proposals to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources and the city councils of Cedar Falls and Waterloo. .Summary We are addressing a very con- troversial issue through public participation by creating a task force and reaching group. con- sensus. This diverse group has Unlocking the full potential of interpretive projects. Mendenhall Glacier Recreation Area V',~itor Center Renovation Dimity of Lij~ Evolution of the ~&ll~ Landscape The Portico Group 106 Lenora Street Seattle, Washington 98121 206 · 448-6506 FAX 441-1547 Architects, Landscap,e Architects, Exhibit Planners and Designers reached its conclusions based on education and research. These con- clusions have been conveyed to the public through public participa- tion, the media, and interpretive programs, materials, and displays. We have avoided negativepress by being proactive with the media and the public. References Cited Bremen, Gary. 1991. The Living Map. Legacy, The Journal of the National Association for Inter- pretation · 3(4), 16.14. Fulcher, Sandy,.and Linette Riley. 1993. Living Map. Hartman Reserve Nature Center Cur- riculum, Cedar Falls, Iowa. Gericke, K., J. Sullivan, and J. D. Wellman. 1990. Public Partici- pation in National Forest Planning: Perspectives, Procedures, and Costs. Journal of Forestry 90 (2), 35-38. Girard, Tanner. 1993. Managing Conflicts with Animal Activists: White-tailed Deer and Illinois Nature Preserves. Natural Areas Journal 13 (1), 16.16. Hoelscher, Karen. 1983. Oh Deer! Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium, St. Paul, Minnesota. Minnesota. DNR. 1990. Min- nesota River Valley Deer Management Task Force, Final Report and Recommendation. Minnesota DNR (Nancy Albecht, Minnesota DNR, 612.297-1158). Western Regional Environmen- tal Education Council. 1992. Oh Deerl Project Wild, Boulder, Colorado. For more information, contact: Vern Fish Nature Center Director Hartman I~eserve Nature Center 6'57 Reserve Drive Cedar Falls, Iowa 319-277-2187 AN EVALUATION OF Deer iVlanage t ent ))}OPTIONS ~{{ The white-tailed deer (Odocoi!eusvirginianus) is the most abundant and best-known large'herbivore in the United States. Whitetails are valued and appreciated by large seg- ments of society. State and provincial wildlife agencies are respons~le for the management of this invaluable resource. Considerable confusion and controversy exists concern- ing white-tailed deer management. The objective of this booklet is to explain the rationale behind deer management and to discuss the utility of various management options. During colonial times, the Northeast was dominated by exo tenslye iraels of mature forest. Early records suggest that white-tailed deer were present in moderate numbers at the time. Deer populations were small and scattered by the turn of the 20th century, primarily as a result of habitat loss due to extensive forest clearing and unregulated market hunting. In the early 1900s, deer were so scarce in much of the U.S. that sightings were often reported in local newspapersl Passage of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (better known as the Pittman-Robertson Program) in 1937 marked the beginning of modern-day wildlife management in the United States. This act earmarked income from an already existing excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition for use in wildlife development, research and land acquisition. Early deer management efforts featured protection from unregulated exploitation. Today, efforts are directed toward the maintenance of deer populations at levels intended to: (1) ensure the present and future well.being of the species and its habitat~ (2) provide a sustained yield of deer for use by licensed hunters, and (3) allow for compatibilil~ between deer populations and human !and.use practices, as well as with other plant and animal communities, white-tailed deer require adequate food, water, cover, and living space in a suitable arrangement in order to ensure their healthy survival. Deer eat a wide variety of herbaceous and woody plants, in accordance with their nutritional value and their local and seasonal availability. Water requirements are met through the drinking of water and from the consump- tion of succulent vegetation. Good habitat provides shelter from extreme temperatures and precipitation, as well as pro- tection and concealment from predators. The importance of compatibility between land.use practices and deer populations in urban areas of the U.S. justifies consideration of another aspect of car. rying capacity. "Cultural Carrying Capacity" (CCC) can be defined as the maximum number of deer that can coexist compatibly with local human populations (10). Cultural carrying capacity is a function of the sensitivity of local human populations to the pres- ence of deer. II This sensitivity is dependent on local land-use practices, local deer density and the attitudes and priorities of local human populations. Excessive deer/vehicle collisions, agricul- tural damage and home/gardener complaints all suggest that CCC has been exceeded. It is important to note that even low deer densities can exceed CCC; a single deer residing in an airport landing zone is too many deer. As development continues in many areas of the U.S., the importance of CCC as a management consideration will increase. As previously indicated, deer populations have the ability to grow beyond BCC. When BCC is exceeded, competi- tion for limited fOod resources results in overbrowsing (6,7). Severe overbrowsing alters plant species composition, distri. button, and abundance, and reduces understory structural Deer populations have the potential for rapid growth. Under normal circumstances, does two years old or older produce twins annually, while yearling does typically produce single fawns. On excellent range, adult does can produce trip- lets,yearlings can produce twins and fawns can be bred and give birth during their first year of life. In the absence of predation or hunting, this kind of reproduction can result in a deer herd doubling its size in one year. This fact was illustrated on the 1,146-acre George Reserve in southern Michigan when the deer herd grew from six to 162 individuals in six years (1928- 1933) (23). More recently, the George Reserve herd grew from 10 deer in 1975 to 212 deer in 1980 (24). There are natural limits to the number of deer that a given parcel of habitat can support. These limits are a function of tbe quantity and quality of deer forage and/or the availability of good winter habitat. The number of deer that a given parcel can support in good physical condition over an extended period of time is referred to as "Biological Carrying Capacity" (BCC). Deer productivity causes populations to exceed BCC, unless productivity is balanced by mortality. When BCC is ex- ceeded, habitat quality decreases and herd physical condition declines. Biologists use herd health indices and population density indices to assess the status of a herd relative to BCC. diversiV/(due to the inability of seedlings to establish them- selw~). These changes may have a deleterious impact on local · -.nimal communities, which depend on healthy vegetative sys- tenas for food and cover. In time, overbrowsing results in reduced habitat quality and a long-term reduction in BCC. Coincident with overbrowsing is a decline in herd health. This decline is manifest in decreased body weights, lowered repro- ductive rates, lowered winter survival, increased parasitism, and increased disease prevalence (11). In the absence of a marked herd reduction, neither herd health nor habitat quality will improve, as each constrains the other. Such circumstances enhance the likelihood of die-offs due to disease and starva- tion. Deer overabundance often leads to a high frequency of deer/vehicle collisions, as well as excessive damage to commercial forests, agricultural crops, nursery stock and landscape plantings (17,21). In addition, preliminary studies suggest that a correlation exists between high deer densities and the incidence of Lyme disease, an arthritic disease that can be con- tracted by humans (1). The potential for deer populations to exceed carrying ca- pacity, to impinge on the well-being of other plant and animal species, and to conflict with land-use practices as well as human safety and health necessitates effective herd manage- ment. Financial and logistical constraints require that deer management be practical and riscally responsible." DEER MANAGEMENT OPTIONS Regulated hunting has been proven to be an effective deer population management tool (13,23). In addition, it has been shown to be the most efficient and least expensive tech- nique for removing deer (28). U.S. wildlife management agen- cies recognize deer hunting as the only effective, practical and flexible method available for regional deer population man- agement, and therefore rely on it as their primary management tool. Through the use of regulated hunting, biologists strive to maintain deer populations at desirable levels or to adjust them in accordance with local biological and/or social needs. They do this by manipulating the size and sex composition of the harvest, season type, season timing, season length, number of permits and land-access policies. Values associated with white-tailed deer management are' diverse and extensive (16). Ecological benefits derived from regulated hunting include protection of our environment from overbrowsing (2,4), protection of flora and fauna that may be negatively impacted by deer overpopulation and the mainte- nance of healthy, viable deer populations (13,23) for our benefit and that of future generations. Social benefits which result from regulated hunting include: increased land-use compatibility stemming from fewer land-use/deer conflicts, human safety benefits resulting from reduced deer/vehicle incidents, d/verse educational and recreational opportunities, and emotional benefits associated with a continued presence of healthy deer herds. Regulated hunting provides economic benefits in the form of hunting-related expenditures. Re- searchers estimated nationwide deer hunter expenditures during 1975 at $1.01 billion. Estimated values received by hunters and nonhunters was $1.8 bill/on and $5.4 billion, respectively. The total annual flow of values from the white.tailed deer in the United States was estimated to be $8.2 billion (34). An economic evaluation of regulated deer hunting should also in- clude costs thatwould be Incurred in the absence of population management. As an example, the cost of agricultural com- modities, forest products, and automobile insurance would likely increase if deer populations were left unchecked. III In the absence of regulated hunting, deer herds would grow until they reached the upper limit at which they could be sustained by local habitat. Herds at this "upper density limit" consist of deer in relatively poor health (7). High density herds such as these are prone to cyclic population fluctuations and catastrophic losses (23). In the U.S., such herds would be in- compatible with local human interests and land-use practices. Diseaseand starvation problems in the (3rea t Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, New Jersey (31); damage to ornamentals on Block Island, Rhode Island; vegetation destruction at Crane Beach, Massachusetts; roadkill problems in Princeton, New Jersey;, and forest regeneration difficulties on Connecticut's Yale Forest, are but a few examples of the deleterious impacts of a "hands off" deer management policy. Allowing nature to take its course co!aid result in a significant negative impact on other plant and animal species as well as local deer herds. In extreme cases, the balance achieved by "hands off" manage- ment may be local herd extinction (32). It is important to note that humans have had a dramatic impact on the ecology of the U.S. Among other things, they have altered landscapes, changed and manipulated plant com- munities, displaced large predators, eliminated a variety of native species, and introduced numerous exotic~. Natural system and regulatory processes have changed as a result of these impacts. Adopting a "hands off" policy will not restore U.S. ecosystems to a pristine state. Deer seem to have evolved under intense predation and hunting pressure. In precolonial times many Native American tribes hunted deer year.round and depended on them as their primary food source (22). Mountain lions, wolves, bobcats, and bears all utilized the procolonial deer resource. The high reproductive capability of present*day herds likely reflects intense predation and hunting in the past. ,As a consequence, it would seem inaccurate to describe a deer herd in today's environment, with few if any predators and no hunters, as "natural." In fact, active management in the form of regulated hunting seems to be a more natural option than the"hands off*' approach. Active deer population management offers distinct ecological, social, and economic benefits to society. Few such claims can be made for thc"hands off" option. In fact, there are significant costs associated with the "hands off" approach to deer management. h~ optionwould include the ~c oft~pping, ncttingand/ or immobil~tion for the pu~se of~ptu~ng and ~ting d~r. T~p-and-tra~fcr effo~ have proven to ~ lair intensive and prohibitively ~ive. R~rch ~ndu~ ~th an urban d~r herd in W~in (14) r~ult~ ~ ~pture ~s~ ~nging ~om ~ ~ 1~ to $570 ~r d~r (~12 ~r d~r for all ~pturc metho~ ~mbin~). S~ilarwork ~ndu~ on ~ng Island, n~ ~ampshirc, and ~gcl ~land, ~lifo~a (26) r~ult~ in cos~ of $~ and $4~Z ~r d~r, r~p~ivcly. ~idc from problems or,st and !og~ti~, large s~lc trap- and-t~fcr prog~ms would r~uirc relic sit~ ~pable of absorbing large numbe~ of rclo~t~ d~r. Such ar~ are iac~ngin tbe U.S. ~e ~tentlal negative impact that translo- ~tcd d~r ~uld have on 1~1 BCC and/or CCC ~ an addi- tional ~nce~. ~nd-usc ~nfiic~ ~ by tra~lo~t~ d~r ~uld l~d to qu~tio~ of liability. ~r arc s~ptible to traumatic in]u~ du~ng handling. Trauma lo~ average appro~matcly four ~r~nt du~ng tr3p.and.transfer cffo~. ~pturc myopathy, a str~-rclat~ d~casc that r~ul~ in delay~ mor~li~ of ~ptur~ d~r, thought to be an impo~nt (and often overl~k~) mo~li~ factor. ~clayed mo~lity as high as 26 ~r~nt has ~n reported (29). Su~l rat~ o~rcl~t~ d~r are fr~uently low. and-transfer cffor~ in ~lifo~ia, New Me~ an~ ~o~da r~ulted in 1o~ ofS~, 5~, and ~S perone, r~pectively, from [our to 1~ months follo~ng relation. (26). The poor physical condition of deer from an over- populated range, and the behavior of some deer from overpopulated urban settings, predispose them to starvation, accidents and dog predation following relocation into new surroundings. An additional concern associated with relocation of deer, especially from an overpopulated ronge, is the potential for spreading disease. The presence of Lyme disease in some areas of the United States makes this a timely consideration. In conclusion, trap-and.transfer options have proven to be impractical and prohibitively expensive. As a consequence, they have no value in the management of free-ranging herds. They may have limited value in the control of small, insular herds where deer are tame and/or hunting is not applicable. T o the extent that fencing and repellents are practicable, wildlife agencies regularly recommend them to address site-specific problems. Application of repellents and/or fenc- ing can only be justified economically when the financial gain yielded by protection is equal to or greater than the cost of implementation. Research conducted in New York's Hudson Valley revealed that it costs approximately $70 per/acre/year to implement an orchard repellent spray program (/~). Similar work conducted in Connecticut nurseries indicated that repel- lent costs (equipment and labor excluded) ranged from $10 to $396 per acre for a single application (5). In New York, it was determined that it cost approximately $18 per/acre/year (when pro-rated over a 10-year period) to protect a 25-acre parcel with a moderately priced, high-tensile electric fence. Under the same circumstances, it would cost $60 per/acre/year to use an eight-foot woven-wire fence (9). Economic, personal, and aesthetic considerations typically restrict the use of these techniques to cost effective applications. There are constraints that limit the applicability of various damage abatement techniques. High-tensile electric fencing requires regular maintenance and is best suited to areas of good soil depth and moderate terrain. Electric fences suffer from seasonal problems associated with poor grounding due to heavy snows and dry soil conditions. In addition, electric fences are inappropriate for use in areas where frequent human contact is likely. Effective repellent programs require fre- quent applications because rapidly growing shoots quickly outgrow protection and repellents weather rapidly. Spray repellents can only be applied effectively during mild weather, so their value during winter months is restricted. Additional limits on repellent use stem from plant damage concerns, labeling restrictions, equipment problems (heavy binding agents and repellent slurties clog equipment), and difficulties result- ing from noxious and/or unaesthetic product residues. Repellent performance is highly variable and seems to be negatively correlated with deer density. Work conducted in New York and Connecticut indicates that repellent perform- ance is highly variable. This seems to result from the fact that repellents are behavior modifiers; they perform well under moderate pressure but may be ignored when alternative deer foods are scarce. Electric fence performance is variable as well, apparently due to differences in deer pressure and fence qual- ity. There are distinct limitations on the applicability of fenc- ing and repellent options. As an example, neither technique has value in addressin§ concerns relating to wide.scale deer impacts on plant and animal congnunities. These techniques were designed w supplement, not replace, deer population management. As a consequence, they are best employed within the contest of a compzehensivc 6c~r management program. In the absence of population regulation, deer damage will increase in severity and the efficacy of abatement techniques will decline. ertilitycontrol agents (synthetic progestins and estrogens) F It ave been evaluated for use in deer population control. Research conducted on a captive deer herd in Ohio indicates that oral and intramnscular doses of diethylstilbestrol (DES) significantly reduces deer productivity. However, the reduc- tionwas insufficient to contain local herd growth (12). In Ken- tucky, oral doses of microencapsulated DES successfully inter* rupted deer pregnancies, but high dose requirements, aversion to treated bait, and post treatment breeding, precluded effec- tive herd control (18). Additional research revealed that oral doses of melengestrol acetate (MGA) effectively inhibited deer reproduction, but daily treatment requirements made the technique impractical for use on free-ranging deer herds (30). Concerns pertaining to oral contraception in deer in- clude: cost and logistics of bait distribution, dosage control, and ingestion of bait by non-target wildlife. Based .on these concerns, and past research, oral contraception programs seem to be impractical and ill*advised. Several studies have shown inlramoscular treatments and implants of fertility control agents to be effective in preventing deer pregnancies (19, 20). Nonetheo less, the limited life expectancy of implants, the ex- pense involved in extensive capture and recapture efforts (20), and the difficulty of treating an adequate portion of the herd, suggest that large-scale implant programs would be impractical and ineffective. Unresolved questions relating to the use of implants in- clude the effect of long-term steroid exposure on deer and the impact of steroid treated carcasses on consumers in the food chain (33). Recent advances in wildlife contraception have facilitated "remote delivery" of antifertility agents to feral horses via dart guns (33). Remote delivery, and recent progress on antifertil* ity vaccines, improve the prospect for limited applications of wildlife contraception in the future. In conclusion, fertility control in deer is largely untested and requires additional research (15). Fertility control may have value for use on small insular deer populations under carefully regulated conditions, but will not provide an alterna. tire to hunting for the control of free-ranging herds (15). While effective fertility control agents have been identified their use on tree-ranging herds wotdd be impractical. Implementation of a supplemental feeding program would be counterproductive to control efforts directed at free- ranging herds because it would encourage additional popula- tion growth (6). In addition, supplemental feeding on a regionwide basis would be logistically and economically im- practical. Work conducted in Michigan and Colorado indi- cates that it costs from $3? to $53 per deer to run an ad libitum winter feeding program (3, 27). In Colorado, supplemental feeding of mule deer cost $183 per animal saved. While the program did reducewinter deer mortality, it failed to eliminate substantial losses. Colorado researchers concluded that sup- piemental feeding can be justified for use during emergency circumstances (e.g., exceptionally severe winter weather) but not as a routine method for boosting local BCC. In addition, the researchers be. lieved that such a program was only practical when deer were densely concentrated on readily accessible range. Researchers in Michigan concluded that "nutritional supplementation" had potential value as a management tool, but that it would only work within the context of "strict herd control" (27). In many areas of the United States, supplemen- tal feeding would lead to conflicts with CCC. In addition, it would enhance the likelihood of disease transmission between deer and predation of deer by dogs. Supplemental feeding fails to address the cause of overpopulation. In fact, it actually compounds future deer population problems. As a result, it would seem reasonable to reject supplemental feeding as an alter- native to active deer population management. V The use ofsharpshooterswould concede the need for popu- lation regulation. Such a task would likely require shoot- ing throughout the year, in order to control regional popula- tion growth. Even on a small scale, this option would be expensive relativ6 to hunting. According to the results of an urban deer removal program conducted in Wisconsin (14) the cost averaged $74 per animal shot over bait. This cost included 13.5 hours of hbor for each deer removed, at a cost of $3.65 per hour. An evaluation of techniques employed to control an enclosed deer herd in Ohio revealed that sharpshooting was a less efficient method of deer removal than controlled hunting (28). If a sharpshooter program was instituted, local econo- mies would experience a loss of income from hunters (34) paying to control deer numbers (Connecticut deer hunters injected approximately $600 per harvested deer into the state economy, excluding permit expenditures). Finally, the use of sharpshooters would be exceedingly controversial in tho~ situations where regulated hunting could be conducted, be- cause it would deny citizens access to a renewable public resource. In moderately fluctuating environments, a complement of effective predators can maintain stability in a deer herd (24). However, in general terms, predator/preyinteractions are highly variab~ (25), and tend to stabilize populationsat relatively high densities (23). Wolves and mountain lions are examples of efficient deer predatorswhich have been eliminated from much of the U.S. Both species are frequently suggested as candidates for reintroduction to control deer herds. Restoration of wolves and mountain lions is unfea. sible in much of the U.S. because it is too densely populated by humans to provide suitable habitat for these species. In addition, it is unlikely that rural residents of the U.S. would tolerate large predators at levels dense enough to limit deer populations because such predators also readily consume iivestoci~, Pre. dation of non.target species. including native wildlife ~ind pets, as well as concerns for human safety, are but a few examples of the conflicts that would arise as a result of predator reintroductions. Predatoroprey relationships are complex and the impact of predators on herbivore populations is variable. Although many auswcrs are lacking, several points can be made concern- ing deer and their predators in the U.S. Coyotes, bobcats, and bears are potential deer predators that currently reside in the U.S. These species appear to be opportunists that capitalize on specific periods of deer vuinerability. None of these preda- tots has demonstrated a consistent ability to control deer populations. Where coyotes, bobcats, and bears are common, (leer herds often exceed BCC and/or CCC. Coyote populations have increased and their range has expanded in the U.S. during the past 20 years. In many areas, both deer and coyote popu- lations have increased simultaneously. In northern New England, some biologists do suspect coyotes are partly responsible for clcclining deer numbers. Yet in other areas, changes in deer populations appear unrelated to coyote density. In many circumstances, coyotes and bears represent serious agricul- tural pests. As a consequence, they are frequently less wel- come in the U.S. than white-tailed deer. Even in the presence of predator-induced stable deer herds, a population reduction may be desirable from an eco- logical or social perspective. The fact that a deer herd has sta- bilized is no guarantee that such a herd is in balance with CCC or BCC. Heavy predation coupled with year-round hunting by Na- tive Americans was the norm for precoloniai deer herds. It has been estimated that approximately 2.3 million Indians occu- pied the precolonial range of the white.tail and that .they harvested 4.6 to 6.4 million whitetails annually (22). The human species clearly constitutes an effident and natural deer predator. Ecological and social constraints preclude the rein- troduction of large predators in much of the U.S. CONCLUSION Fifty years of research and management expe- rience have shown regu- lated hunting to be an ecologically sound, so- daily beneficial, and riscally responsible method of managing deer populations. Op- tions routinely sug- gested as alternatives to regulated hunting are typically limited in ap- plicability, prohibitively expensive, logistically impractical, or technically infeasible. As a consequence, wildlife profession- als have come to recognize regulated hunting as the fundamen- tal basis of successful deer nlanagement. AN EVALUATION OF DEER MANAGEMENT OFFIONS was coauthoved by Mark 17. Fm ~wood, a Dccr Biologist for the Connecticut DcparUncnt of Environneural Protection, Wddlife Bureau and member of the New England Ompter oftheW'ddlife Socieiy and the Northeast DeerTechnical Commhtee;and $,*~ I. C~tm~mo, Public Awareness Biologist for the Ctmneaicut Depart- ment ofEnvitomneatni Ptoteaion, W'ddlife Bureauand former Omitman of the New England Ompter of'lhc W'ddlife Socicp/s Education Committee. ACKNOWI.EI~EMENTS This publicatiow~ts collectively developed by the New En81and Chapter orate W'ddlifc Society and the Northeast Deer Tectmical Committe~ ~ae Northeast W'ddlife ,a~lministmtors ,~mociation (composed of the Northeastern United S~ates and Canadian Provin~ wildlife asency heads) enaau'ased, examined and ata~ved this ~-. ~ ,q~!)~ate (W'~llfe Dept.. Ru~-ts Univ); O~. ,~aoM ~er (New Bnmswi~ Fmh and W'dcll~¢ Braad~); Dn Robert Exper. Stain); ,l~ Can~a (Ma~ Fish aad W'ddlif¢ Dep~); Debli~er~Ttustees ofResen~aions); C~,or~el(e Healy (Fast A~sist. ;oJoun W'~L ManaBe. Editor); Dr. Watima ~ (U.S F(xest Sexy. N.E. Exper. S~ati(~); PU~I Hetig (Co~n, Dept. Envb'. l~'o~ct. V)rddlife Bu~au); lieadam (FexL Aid, U.S. F'tsh and W'ddlif¢ Sen,.); Jay Me.~mb~ (Institute for Ecos~l¢m Smdk:s); Roeaid Regaa (~¢nnom Fish and W'ddlife Dept.); Lorl Supreek (Rhock:Island Div. of Fish and W~]dlif¢}; D~.StevenW'd]iam~ (Mass. F~sh and W'~dl~fe Dept.); and Sen ~nam~a (New Hampshb'e Fish and Gan~ Preduaion of the lust l~intin8 of~m Evaluation Of Deer Management Options Prou~ion, Wlidllf¢ Bureau. TI~ s~ond !~mtin8 was paid £or by the U.&F~sh and wiglift bioio~ts from C~mcai~t. Mass~ht~tm, lsla~ a~l Vermont ~-.voted to stewardship a~i ~nii~t~ wildlife and its environn~nts. The Northeast Deer Technical Commitlee, a group comprised of professional deer biologists from the northeastern United States and eastern Canadian Provinces, is committed to the study and wise management of our de~r resouro~s. Col~fright 1988 Publk:ation No. DR-11 1. Anderson, .1.F., R.C..1ohnson, L.A. Magnarelli, F.W. Hyde, and .I.E. Myers. 1987. Prevalence of Borrelia bu~dorfeti and B.abesia microti in mice on islands inhabited by white-tailed deer. ':I. Applied and Environ. Mictobiol. 53(4):892-894. 2. Arnold, D.A. and LJ. Vetme. 1963. Ten years' observation of an enclosed deer herd in northern Michigan. Trans. North Am. Wildl. and Nat. Resour. Conf. 28:422-430. 3. Baker, D.L., and N.T. Hobbs. 1985. Emergency feeding of mule deer during winter:. Test* of a supplemental ration. J. Wildl. Manage. 49(4):934-942. 4. Behrend, D.F., G.F. Matfield, W.N. Tierson and F.E. Wiley, IlL 1976. Deer density control for comprehensive forest management..I. For. 68:695.700. 5. Conover, M.R. 1984. Effectiveness of repellents in reducing deer damage in nurseries. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 12(4):3~9-404. 6. Dasmann, W. 1971. If deer are to aurvive. A Wildlife Managenient Institute book. Stackpole Books, l-latrisburg, Pa. 128 pp. ?. Dnsmann, W. 1981. Wildlife biology. 2nd ed..1ohn Wileyand Sons, Inc. New York, N.Y. 203 pp. 8. Ellingwond, M.R.,.1.B. McAninch, and RJ. Winchcombe. 1983. Evaluating the cmts and effectiveness of r~"pellent applications in protecting fruit or- chards. Page 69 in Proc. of The First Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference, Ithaca, N.Y. 9. Eilingwood, M.R. and .1.B. McAninch. 1984. Update on the Institute of Ecosystem Studies deer damage control project. Trans. Northeast DeerTech- nical Commitlee. 20:6-7. 10. E!!ingwood, M.R. and $.V. Spignesi. 1986. Managemen! of an urban deer herd and the concept of cultural carrying capacity. Trans. Northeast Deer Technical Committee. 22:42-45. 11. Eve, .1.H. 1981. Management implications of disease. Pages 413-433 in W.R. Davidson, ed. Diseases and parasites of white-tailed deer. Souihenstern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, Univ. Georgia, Athens. 12. Harder, .I.D. and T.J. Peterie. 1974. Effect of DES on reproductive per- formance of white-tailed deer..1. Wildl. Manage. 138(2):183-196. 13. Hesselton, W.T., C.W. Severinghans and .I.E. Tanck. 1965. Population dynamics of deer at the Seneca Army Depot. N.Y. Fish and Game .1.12:17-30. 14. Ishmael, W.E. and O..1. Rongstad. 1984. Economics of an urban deer removal program. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 12(4):394-398. 15. Kirkpatrick,.1.F., and.1.W. Turner,.1r. (1988). Contraception as an alterna- tive to traditional deer management techniques. I__~n S. Lieberman, ed. Deer management in an urbanizing region. The Humane Society of the United States, Washington, D.C. (in press). 16. Langenau, E.E..1r., S.R. Keilert, and .I.E. Applegate. 1984. Values in man- agement. Pages 699.720 in L. IC Halls, Ed. While-tailed deerecology and man- agement. A Wildlife Management Institute book Stackpole Books, Harris- burg, Pa. 17. Marquis, D.A., and R. Brenneman. 1981. The impact of deer on forest vegetation in Pennsylvania. USDA Forest Service General Tech. Rep. NE-6$, Northeast For. Exp. Sin. ?pp. PHOTO CREDITS Page lh Page Ilk Cover:. Steve Maslowskl, Scott Hanrahan Page IV: 18. Matschke, G.H. 1977. Microencapsulated diethylstilbestrol asan oral con- traceptive in white-tailed deer. 3. Wildl. Manage. 41(1):87-91. 19. Mam:hke, G.H. 1977. Fertility control in white.tailed deer by steroid im. plan~ J.Wildl. Manage. 41(4):731-735. 20. Matschke, G.H. 1980. Efficacy ofsteroid implants in preventing pregnancy in white-tailed deer..1. WildL Manage. 44(3):756-758. 21. Matschke, G.H., D.S. deCsiesta, and3.D. Harder. 1984. Crop damage and control. Pages 647-654in LK. Halls, ed. White-tailed deer ecology and man. agemerit. A Wildlife Management Institute book. Stackpole Books, Harris- burg. Pa. 22. McCabe, R.E. and T.R. McCabe. 1984. Of slings and arrows: An historical retrospection. Pages 19-72 in L.K. Halls, ed. White-tailed deer ecology and management. A Wildlife Management Institute book. Stackpole Books, Har- risburg, Pa. 23. McCulloush, D.R. 1979. The George Reserve deer herd: population ecol- ogy of a K-selected species. Ann Arbor. Univ. Michigan Press. 271 pp. 24. McCullough, D.R. 1984. Lessons from the George Reserve, Michigan. Pages 211-242in L. ICHaIls, ed. White-tailed deer ecology and management. A Wildlife Management Institute book. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pa. 25. Mech, LD. 1984. Predaiors and predation. Page~ 189-200 in L. IC Halls, ed. White-tailed deerecologyand management. AWildlife Management Institute book. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pa. 26. O'Bryan, M.IC and D.R. McCullough. 1985. Survival of black-tailed deer following relocation in California. J. Wildl. Manage. 49(1 ): 115 - 119. 27. Ozoga, J..l., and L..I. Verme. 1982. Physical and reproductive characteris- tics of a supplementally fed white-tailed deer herd..I. Wildl. Manage. n~(2):28~-~01. 28. Palmer, D.T., D.A. Andrews, R.O. Winters, and .J.W. Francis. 1980. Removal techniques to control an enclosed deer herd. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 29. Rongstad, O..1., and R.A. McCabe. 1984. Capture techniques. Pages 655- 686in L. IC Halls, Ed. White-tailed deer ecology and management. A Wildlife Management Institute book. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg. Pa. 30. Roughton, R.D. 1979. Effects. of oral MOA on reproduction in captive white-tailed deer..1.Wildl. Manage. 43(2):428-436. 31. Rue, L.L III. 1979. The Deer of North America. An Outdoor Life book. Crown Publishers, Inc. New York. 463 pp. 3:2. Smith, R.P. 198~. The beaver basin story. Deer and Deer Hunting. 9(5)::2:2- 28. 33. Turner, 3,W..1r. and .1.E Kirkpatrick, (1988). New methods for selective contraception in wild animals. In U.S. Seal, ed. Contraception in wildlife (in press). 34. Williamson, L.L.. and G.L. Dc~tcr. 1981. Socio-economic aspects of white- tailed deer diseases. Pages 434-439 in W.R. Davidson, ed. Diseases and para- sites of White-tailed deer. Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, Univ. Georgia, Athens. Scott Hanmhan Page V: Tom Feld Whitetails Unlimited, Inc. Page Vh William S. Lea Tim Lewis Page VII: William S. Lea VII nd management experience have shown regulated hunting to be an e¢olo ica/lV sound, social/V benef'w/o.l, and fiscally responsible method of routinely suggested as olternat/ves to regulated hunt/rig are t~pically limited/n appl/cab/I/ty, prohibitively expe~ve, Ioglst/ca//y impractical, or technically infeasible. As a consequence, w//dl/fe professionals have come to recogn/ze regu/ated hunting as thefundamenta/ basis of successful deer management, Titis booklet was reformatted, printed in color and text revised with permission of the authors, as a contribution from Whitetails Unlimited, Inc. National Headquarters P.O. Box 422, Sturgeon Bay, W15423543422 (414) 743-6777 FACING LEGAL REALITIES IN URBAN DEER MANAGEMENT JAY McANINCH and MICHELLE STRADTMANN Minnesota Department of Natural Resources A CKNO WLEDGEMENTS Jon Parker - Urban Wildlife Manager Dave Iverson - Assistant Attorney General Urban deer management activities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area of Minnesota have been increasing for the past 10 years. In 1994-95, at least 10 cities received a special permit from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to conduct deer control programs outside of the regular hunting season. These programs included special hunts (both archery and firearms), various forms of sharpshooting, and live trap and kill. These control efforts have been implemented as part of a deer population management program adopted by each city that, in addition to controlling deer numbers, is designed to provide technical assistance in reducing deer impacts on health, human safety and property and to increase citizen tolerance of deer through education and outreach. An in~tegral element of these management programs has been the monitoring of deer populations to produce trends and goals in deer density per square mile as well as to track changes in deer damage, vehicle collisions and other impacts related to deer activity in urban areas. In February 1994, the city of'St. Louis Park and the DNR (Case 1) and in December 1994, the city of Minnetonka and DNR (Case 2) were challenged in court by local animal rights groups opposed to lethal methods of deer control. Case 1 involved.a sharpshooting program and Case 2, a live trap and kill program. In each case, plaintiffs alleged violations of the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA) and the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) as basis for their action. Under MERA, plaintiffs had to prove that the conduct of the defendants was likely to cause "pollution, impairment, or destruction of natural resources located within the State" and, that such actions would impinge on the rights of the plaintiffs. Under MEPA, plaintiffs had to show that "there may be potential .for significant environmental effects" of the planned management programs on the resource, namely deer. Plaintiffs in each situation did not prevail in getting beyond the hearing stage of court review. In the f~rst case, after a temporary restraining order was granted, the court dismissed the request for a temporary injunction and, thus rescinded the temporary restraining order. Ultimately the plaintiffs withdrew their case assuming that they would not prevail. In the second case a request for a temporary restraining order was denied by the court and,.after some continuances were granted, the court issued a summary judgement on behalf of the city and the DNR. In both cases, the courts clearly seemed to understand the need for deer to be managed for the public good and the concept of cultural carrying capacity was reinforced. The reality of these cases was that the elements of our management programs that we had considered most vulnerable were not factors in the case. The statistical reliability of our estimates of deer numbers, productivity, and mortality were never an issue with the court. The important and deciding factors were the quality of the public process we used to develop and implement the program, the completeness of our understanding of all the issues impacted by the deer population management program, and the appropriateness of the methods being used to management deer. The implications of these cases for the development, implementation and evaluation of management programs will be discussed. IA /- / Natural esource Commission[5 Ij . p. DEER POPULATION MANAGEMENT AREAS 571--105.1(481A) Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish special deer popula- 571 105 2(481A) Definitions "~r~a': means recreation areas as designated in 571--61.2(461A). '1oD_epartment" means department of natural resources. 'Special deer management unit" means defined units of public and private land. 571--105.3(481A) Designated areas. 105.3(1) 105.3(2) 105.3(3) 105.3(4) 105.3(5) 105.3(6) 105.3(7) Lake Darling Recreation Area. Cedar Falls/Waterloo Deer Management Unit, Iowa Army Ammunition Plant Deer Management Unit. Springbrook Recreation Area. F.W. Kent Park Deer Management Unit--Johnson County. Cedar Rapids-Marion Deer Management Unit. Viking Lake State Recreation Area. 571--105.4(481A) Conditions. The hunting of deer only shall be permitted subject to the following conditions, limitations and procedures. 105.4(1) Lake Darling Recreation Area. a. Deer hunting on the area may occur only when approved by the natural resource com- mission and on dates established by the commission. b. Every hunter must have in possession a paid deer gun hunting special antlerless-deer- only license valid only for Lake Darling Recreation Area. c. If the commission approves a hunting season, the commission shall establish the number of special antlerless-deer-only licenses valid only for Lake Darling Recreation Area which shall be issued for each deer gun season and shall be valid only for the season specified. d. The special licenses issued for each season will be issued on a first-come, first-served basis at the Lake Darling district office on dates announced by the commission. e. The special antlerless-deer-only licenses for Lake Darling Recreation Area shall cost $25. shall be limited to one per person, and shall be issued to Iowa residents only. f. Hunters holding a valid any-sex regular paid gun deer license for the second gun season may convert that license to an antlerless-only license valid only for the Lake Darling Recreation Area if the special licenses have not been issued by November 30. Such conver- sion must be made by department personnel at the Lake Darling district office. g. Only 10-, 12-, 16- or 20-gauge shotguns, shooting single slugs only, and flintlock and percussion cap lock muzzleloaded rifles or muskets of not less than .44 caliber nor larger than .775 caliber, shooting single projectiles only, will be permitted. h. All licensees shall attend a special meeting prior to hunting in Lake Darling Recreation Area to become familiar with boundaries, location of private lands, safety areas around build- ings, access points, objectives of the hunt and other aspects of hunting on a special deer popu- lation management area. i. All licensees who are successful during the hunt must check their deer at the designated headquarters prior to leaving the area. 105.4(2) Cedar Fails/Waterloo Deer Management Unit. a. Defined as public and private land within' the area beginning at the intersection of U.S. Highway 63 and Dunkerton Road; west on Dunkerton Road to Wavefly Road; north on said road to West Cedar Wapsie Road; west on said road to Union Road; south on said road to U.S. Highway 20; east on said road to Iowa Highway 58; south on said road to Shaulis Road; Ch IllS, p.2 Natural Resource Commission[57 lI IAC 6/5/96 east on said road to U.S. Highway 63; north on said road to U.S. Highway 20; east on said road to the Cedar River; north and west along the Cedar River to U.S. Highway 63; north on said road to Dunkerton Road. b. A maximum of 100 antlerless-archery licenses to be issued by the conservation officer and Cedar Falls and Waterloo city police departments on a first-come, first-served basis. c. Every hunter must have in possession a current paid special antlerless-archery-only deer license for the Cedar Falls/Waterloo Deer Management Unit only. d. Special antlerless-archery-only deer license for Cedar Falls/Waterloo shall cost $25 and shall be issued to Iowa residents only. e. All state archery regulations as provided in 571msubrules 106.2(1), 106.3(1) and 106.7(I) shall apply, except deer hunting season in George Wyth Recreation Area shall be November I through January 10. f. All bow hunters must demonstrate archery proficiency, complete a bow hunter safety education course, and be approved by the appropriate police department and conservation officer. g. Hunting in George Wyth State Park shall be limited to areas south of the main park road to the west end of Fisher Lake and all areas west of the main park road west of Fisher Lake but not within 25 yards of any roads, parking lots, trailways, campground, rental lodge or as otherwise posted by the department. 105.4(3) Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (IAAP) Deer Management Unit. a. Defined as all federal land administered by the IAAP. b. A maximum of 500 antlerless licenses to be issued by the IAAP on a first-come, first- served basis. c. Every hunter must have in possession a current paid special antlerless deer license for the IAAP only. d. Special antlerless deer licenses will be valid for the IAAP only and must comply with all applicable regulations provided in 571--Chapter 106. e. Special antlerless-only deer licenses for the IAAP deer management unit shall cost $25, shall be limited to one person and shall be issued to Iowa residents only. f All hunters must comply with IAAP requirements. 105.4(4) Springbrook Rec.reation Area: a. Deer hunting on the area may occur only when approved by the natural resource com- mission on dates established by the commission. b. Every hunter must have in possession a paid special antlerless deer license valid only for Springbrook Recreation Area. c. If the commission approv. es a hunting season, the commission shall establish the number of special antlerless-deer-only licenses, valid only for Springbrook Recreation Area, which shall be issued for each deer gun season and shall be valid only for the season specified. d. Special licenses issued for each season will be issued on a first-come, first-served basis at the Springbrook Conservation Education Center office beginning at 8 a.m. on the third Saturday in October. e. The special antlerless-deer-only licenses for Springbrook Recreation Area shall cost $25, shall be limited to one per person, and shall be issued to Iowa residents only. .t2 Hunters holding a valid any-sex regular paid gun deer license for the second gun season may convert that license to an antlerless-only license valid only for the Springbrook Recre- ation Area if the special licenses have not been issued by November 30. Such conversion must be made by department personnel at the Springbrook Conservation Education Center office. g. Only 10-, 12-, 16- or 20-gauge shotguns, shooting single slugs only, and flintlock and percussion cap lock muzzleloaded rifles or muskets of not less than .44 caliber nor larger than .775 caliber, shooting single projectiles only, will be permitted. h. All licensees shall attend a special meeting prior to hunting in Springbrook Recreation Area to become familiar with boundaries, location of private [ands, safety areas around build- ings, access points, objectives of the hunt and other aspects of hunting on a special deer popu- lation management area. IAC 8/28/96 Natural Resource Commission[571] Ch 105, p.3 i. All licensees who are successful during the hunt must check their deer at the designated headquarters prior to leaving the area. 105.4(5) F.W. Kent Park Deer Management Unitre Johnson County. a. Deer hunting in the unit may occur only when approved by the natural resource com- mission according to number of antlerless-deer-only licenses and dates established by the commission. b. Every hunter must have in possession a paid special antlerless deer license valid only for F.W. Kent Park, Johnson County. c. Special antlerless-deer-only licenses valid only for F.W. Kent Park shall be issued for each deer gun season and shall be valid only for the specified dates. d. The special licenses issued for each season will be issued on a first-come, first-served basis at the Johnson County Operations Center at F.W. Kent Park beginning at 8 a.m. on the fourth Saturday in September. e. The special antlerless-deer-only licenses for F.W. Kent Park Deer Management Area shall cost $25 and shall be issued to Iowa residents only. f. Only 10-, 12-, 16- or 20-gauge shotguns, shooting single slugs only, and flintlock and per- cussion cap lock muzzleloaded rifles or muskets of not less than .44 caliber nor larger than .775 caliber, shooting single projectiles only, will be permitted. g. All licensees shall pass a shooting proficiency test and attend a special meeting prior to hunting in F.W. Kent Park to become familiar with boundaries, location of private lands, safe- ty areas around buildings, access points, objectives of the hunt and other aspects of hunting on a special deer population management area. h. All licensees who are successful during the hunt must check their deer at the designated headquarters prior to leaving the area. 105.4(6) Cedar Rapids-Marion Deer Management Unit. a. Defined as public and private land within the area beginning at the intersection of U.S. Highway 30 and Iowa Highway 13; north on Iowa Highway 13 to Linn County Road E34; west and then south on said road to Linn County Road E36; west on said road to the Linn-Benton county line road; south on said road to U.S. Highway 30; and east on said highway to Iowa Highway 13, excluding land within the city limits of Robins, Hiawatha, Marion and Cedar Rapids. b. A maximum of 300 antlerless-only deer permits will be issued by the Linn County Conservation Board, Linn County Recorder's Office, or the conservation officer on a first- come, first-served basis. c. Every hunter must have in possession a current paid special antlerless-only deer license for the Cedar Rapids-Marion Deer Management Unit only. d. The special antlerless-only deer licenses will be valid for the Cedar Rapids-Marion Deer Management Unit only and hunters must comply with all applicable regulations pro- vided in 57IraChapter 106. e. The special antlerless-only license for the Cedar Rapids-Marion Deer Management Unit shall cost $25, shall be limited to one per person, and shall be issued to Iowa residents only. 105.4(7) Viking Lake Recreation Area. a. Deer hunting on the area may occur only when approved by the natural resource com- mission and on dates established by the commission. b. Every. hunter must have in possession a paid deer gun hunting special antlerless-only license valid only for the Viking Lake Recreation Area. c. [f the commission approves a hunting season, the commission shall establish the number of special antlerless-only licenses valid only for the Viking Lake Recreation Area which shall be issued for each deer gun season and shall be valid only for the season specified. d. The special licenses issued for each season will be issued on a first-come, first-served basis at a place and on dates announced by the commission. e. The special antlerless-only license for the Viking Lake Recreation Area shall cost $25, shall be limited to one per person. and shall be issued to Iowa residents only. Ch 105, p.4. Natural Resource Commission[571] IAC 10/9/96 f Hunters holding a valid any-sex regular paid gun deer license for the second gun season may convert that license to an antlerless-only license valid only for the Viking Lake Recreation Area if the special licenses have not been issued by November 30. Such conversion must be made by department personnel at the Viking Lake office or other DNR office announced by the department. g. Only 10-, 12-, 16-, or 20-gauge shotguns, shooting single slugs only, and flintlock and per- cussion cap lock muzzleloaded rifles or muskets of not less than .44 caliber nor larger than .775 caliber, shooting single projectiles only, will be permitted. . h. All licensees shall attend a special meeting prior to hunting in Viking Lake Recreation Area to become familiar with boundaries, location of private land, safety areas around build- ings, access points, objectives of the hunt and other aspects of hunting on a special deer pop- ulation management area. i. All licensees who are successful during the hunt must check their deer at the designated headquarters prior to leaving the area. 105.4(8) Scott County Park. a. Deer hunting on the area may occur only when approved by the natural resource com- mission and on dates established by the commission. b. Every hunter must have in possession a paid deer gun hunting special antlerless-only license valid only for Scott County Park. c. If the commission approves a hunting season, the commission shall establish the number of special antlerless-only licenses valid only for Scott County Park which shall be issued for each deer gun season and shall be valid only for the season specified. d. The special licenses issued for each season will be issued on a first-come, first-served basis at a place and on dates announced by the commission. e. The special antlerless-only license for Scott County Park shall cost $25, and shall be issued to Iowa residents only. f. Hunters holding a valid any-sex regular paid gun deer license for the second gun season may convert that license to an antlerless-only license valid only for Scott County Park if the special licenses have not been issued by November 30. Such conversion must be made by department personnel at Scott County Park or other DNR office announced by the depart- ment. g. Only 10-, 12-, 16-, or 20-gauge shotguns, shooting single slugs only, and flintlock and per- cussion cap lock muzzleloaded rifles or muskets of not less than .44 caliber nor larger than .775 caliber, shooting single projectiles only, will be permitted. h. All licensees shall attend a special meeting prior to hunting in Scott County Park to become familiar with boundaries, location of private land, safety areas around buildings, access points, objectives of the hunt and other aspects of hunting on a special deer population management area. i. All licensees who are successful during the hunt must check their deer at the designated headquarters prior to leaving the area. 105.4(9) Cedar Rapids/Marion City Deer Management Unit. a. Defined as public and private land within the city limits of Cedar Rapids and Marion as designated by the respective city councils. b. A maximum of 350 antlerless-archery licenses to be issued by the City of Marion (50) and City of Cedar Rapids (300) on a first-come, first-served basis. c. Every hunter must have in possession a current paid special antlerless-archery-only deer license for the Cedar Rapids/Marion Deer Management Unit only. d. Special antlerless-archery-only deer licenses for Cedar Rapids or Marion shall cost $25 and shall be issued to Iowa residents only. e. All state archery regulations as provided in subrules 106.2(1), 106.3(1) and 106.7(1) shall apply and. the deer hunting season shall be October 1 through January 10 of the following year, consistent with city council actions. f. All bow hunters must demonstrate archery proficiency, complete a bow hunter safety education course, and be approved by the appropriate city department as specified by city council. IAC 10/9/96 Natural Resource Commission[571] Ch 105, p.5 105.4(10) Squaw Creek County Park Deer Management Unit, Linn County. a. Deer hunting in the unit may occur only when approved by the natural resource commission according to number of antlerless-deer-only licenses and dates established by the commission. b. Every hunter must have in possession a valid paid special antlerless deer license valid only for the Squaw Creek County Park Deer Management. Unit, Linn County. c. The 50 special antlerless-deer-only archery licenses are valid only for Squaw Creek County Park and shall be valid only for dates specified by the Linn County Conservation Board between October 1 and January 10 of the following year. d. The 50 special licenses will be issued by the Linn County Conservation Board at their office, 1890 County Home Road, Marion, Iowa. e. The special antlerless-deer-only licenses for Squaw Creek County Park Deer Management Unit shall cost $25 and shall be issued to Iowa residents only. These rules are intended to implement Iowa Code sections 461A.3,481A.5,481A.6, 481A.7, 481A.38, 481A.39, and 481A.48. [Filed emergency 10/4/91 after Notice 8/7/9Irapublished 10/30/91, effective 10/4/91] [Filed emergency 10/2/92 after Notice 7/22/92--published 10/28/92, effective 10/2/92] [Filed emergency 9/9/94 after Notice 7/6/94--published 9/28/94, effective 9/9/94] [Filed emergency 10/27/94--published 11/23/94, effective 10/27/94] [Filed 5/15/95, Notice 3/l/95mpublished 6/7/95, effective 7/17/95] [Filed 8/11/95, Notice 3/29/95republished 8/30/95, effective 10/4/9'5] [Filed 8/11/95, Notice 6/7/95--published 8/30/95, effective 10/4/95] [Filed 5/15/96, Notice 2/28/96~published 6/5/96, effective 7/10/96] [Filed emergency 6/14/96---published 7/3/96, effective 6/14/96] [Filed 8/9/96, Notice 6/5/96---published 8/28/96, effective 10/2/96] [Filed emergency 9/20/96--published 10/9/96, effective 9/20/96] LIV!'NG W~TH DEER LEARNING TO CO-EXIST IS AN EDUCATION UNTO ITSELF! Living With Deer Strategies for Sharing Our Environment In the often emotional discussions of how to "deal with" the challenges presented by increases in the number of deer in areas subject to continuous development, it seems easy to overlook the many ways it is possible to share our environment with them. To authentically address this complex issue, we must examine ways to live With deer (and other wildlife) that go beyond merely eliminating them, selectively or completely. Responsible management programs, if they are to appeal to the largest possible number of our citizens, must include implementation of methods for coexistence, not simply for slaughter, however humanely it is carried out. According to ecologist Thomas Eveland, "The question of deer management is not one of the biological carrying capacity, but of the cultural carrying capacity--how many deer will people tolerate in their environment? 'Of course, this depends not so much on the behavior of the deer, but on the. options of the human population. Two people, for instance, may view a deer eating a yew in the backyard in an entirely different manner. One person may be happy that his or her backyard is providing food for a deer. Another person may be angered that his yew tree is being aesthetically damaged by deer browsing. Fundamentally, it is a question of attitude, not science." One of the responsibilities of this committee is to identify information to help Iowa Citians understand all their options, as individuals and as a community, for addressing issues raised by the simple fact that, as humans, we exist in an environment shared with nonhuman life. This compiliation of resources coyers the following topics: Issues associated with sharing the environment Landscaping and planting techniques · Fencing · Repellents Startle devices Defensive driving and road safety · Contraceptive techniques · Land development practices Issues associated with sharing the environment The article, "Living With Deer," previously distributed to the committee, offers a good summary of these issues. Landscaping and planting techniques One of the most common citizen objections to the presence of deer in urban and suburban areas is that the deer eat garden vegetables and flowers and browse shrubs and young trees, destroying or damaging gardens and landscaping. Many plants, shrubs, and trees are unattractive to deer and it is possible to develop home landscapes and gardens that don't invite them to browse. There are dozens of resources with exhaustive lists of deer-unfriendly plants and design strategies for every area of the country. Following are just a few examples of the many resources available to help the home gardener develop deer resistent plantings. ,~owa City Landscape TEL:319-337-6374 Mar 14,95 14: 15 No .004 P .03 WILDLIFE DAMAGE MANAGEd 'E.N I Deor-reslstanl Ornamentals Fact Shoot Page: 800.00 Date: 10.1991 HOMI;-GROUHDS-GARDEN CORNELL COOPEEA~'IVE EXTENSION Resistance of Woody Ornamental Plants to Deer Damage M.J. Fargloria, P.D. Curtis, and M.E. Richmond Wildlife Damage Management Program. Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University Damage to ornamental plants by while-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) has increased during the past decade. This has been associated with: (1)increasing deer abundance. (2) human population shifts tc rural and suburban homesites, (3) the matur- ing ol abandoned agricultural lands Into clear habitat, (4) land- owner decisions tc prevent deer hunting, and (5) restrictions on ,arms use in suburban regions, in the short run, this situation is largely irreversible. Damage pro01ems, particularly in suburban areas having good quality deer habitat, ate likely to intensify in the future. Clearly, elimina- [ion of hunting, due to firearms restrictions, safety concerns, and changed landowner values, will only increase damage in these areas. Deer Feeding Habits Oeer are selective feeders: they forage on plants or plant parts with considerable discrimination. Their obvious preference for and apparent avoidance of certain plants can be turned to our advantage. Costly browsing damage may be reduced or elimi- nated by planling less.preferred species or by establishing susceptible plants only in areas protected from deer, Under most circumstances, landscaping based on a knowledge of deer feeding preferences can provide an alternative to the use of expensive chemical repellents and unsightly physical barriers. Whether or not a particular plant species or varietywill be eaten depends on the doer's previous experience, nutritional needs, plant patatabilfi, y, seasonal factors, weather conditions, end the availability of alternative foods, Deer are creatures of habit. and prior movement patterns or foraging experience can foretell where damage will occur. Deer also are known to feed selectively on fertilized plantings and managed croplands. New plantings added to an existing landscape already severely damaged by deer will likely suffer extreme browsing pressure. In general, the most damage takes place when winter snow .er has reduced food availability. Ramer than face starvation, zr will browse even the most resistant plants during p. eriods of Iood shortage. Under such conditions. other damage control ,,m~,,,asures should be c,ombined with car.eful plant .~electi. en, Ull~maWly. a mduCl~ ~ d~et herd ,~l:e I~ 1110 mest 0tie,live s(51tJtion to the damage problem, Inletmarion on repellents, available from Cornell Cooperative Extension agenis, New York Slate Department of Environmenial Consolation (DEC) regional biologists, and from the tollowing Cornell publications: Pest Management Racommenclations for Control of Vertebrates end Control of Wildlife Damage in Homes and Gardens. Plant-damage Comparisons The following tables provide a guide to the relative likelihood of deer damage to many ornamental woody plants used by New York landscape contractors and proporb/owners, This informa- tion can be useful both fo~ selecting plants t~at are unlikely to be · damaged by dear, as well as tor identifying those ornamen[als that frequently require protection. The four categories identified below are based on the combined experiences and numerical rankings of nursery operators, landscape contractors. Cornell Cooperalive Extension personnel, research staff, and other professional horticulturists from the northeastern states. The intermarion was derived from personal communications, pub- lished articles. and unpublished reports, The user is cautioned that the deer-browsing resistance ot any plant species may change due to fluctuations In deer populations, alternative food availability, and environmental factors mentioned 13reviously. No plant species will be avoided by deer under all conditions. Plants listed in !he 'Rarely Damaged' category are infre- quently fed upon by deer. and are the best candidates for landscapes prone ~o deer damage. Dear sometimes feed on ornamentals listed as "Seldom Severely Damaged.' but damage is usually minor and has limited effect on the shape or attractive- ness ,o..f the plant, The category 'Occasionally Severely Dam- aged includes ptanmwhich may be severel~ damaged bY deer. Finally. ornamental plants in the category '~-requenlly Severely Damaged' appear t.o be preferred by deer, and usually require pl~ysical or chemical pro~eCtion whenever deer are present. Check before p antirig any of the species listed below to ensure tlial they are ada13ted for your local climatic and soil cond dons. esi n r or eer esis ancc Combining Flora with Fauna ~ by Jeffrey R. Chorb~ In our ongoing quest to expand our living range, we have altered some of nature's balances, for example the ratio of forest land to open land. Because of these alterations, wildlife living within the perimeter of the expansion have become "urbanized," seeking food and shelter in the midst of confined city parks, residential developments, and industrial parks. These animals are forced to adapt to people, noise, and pollution. Many animals are struck by cars, chased by dogs, and some- times starve to death. Even in rural areas the density of the deer population has been rising. Smaller animals such as squirrels, rabbits and chipmunks, for the most part, interact in these environments without much infringement upon people. Deer, however, are not as discreet in their manner of living. They destroy countless garden plants throughout our neighborhoods, caus- ing much grief to home gardeners and commercial businesses. Through my years of designing and planting landscapes in northeastern Penn- sylvania, I have observed which plants tend to be deer resistant through all seasons. By resistant plants I mean those that are, for the most part, not bothered by deer under most conditions. In my opinion, there are no deer-proof plants. I have seen plants that have been proven to be toxic to most animals, including deer, eaten by deer during harsh winters. With this in mind, I think we should set goals to design and plant landscapes knowing there will always be some loss of plants. Factors that make a plant resistible A plant's deer resistance can be deter- the green scene / march 1995 mined by how often and how severely plants are eaten during moderately harsh winters when the deer's food supply de- creases. Usually plants soft to the touch and high in water content are the first to succumb to damage. From my experience, deer usually like to eat the tender flower buds of plants first. Roses and rhododen- drons, if available, are the first to be eaten. As these food sources diminish, deer resort to less palatable plants: forsythias (Forsythia x intermedia) and chokeberries (Aronia arbuttfolia). For the most part plants with thorns or spiny projections turn deer away: Colorado spruce (Picea pungens), barberry (Berberis), and holly (Ilex) are all perfect repellents. Flavor is another factor that can control deer browsing. Plants with a pungent taste will almost always survive a deer's visit. Marigolds appear to prove this. Boxwoods (Buxus sempervireos), although marginally hardy in northeastern Pennsylvania, have been proven deer resistsilt because of their strong flavor. A plant's architecture may offer a barrier to feeding, e.g. a crabapple (Malus) tree. Although the foliage is enjoyable, if the deer can't reach the leaves because the canopy is too high, the plant will go untouched. Design techniques may divert deer traffic away from precious pla;ntings. If you are fortunate enough to have substantial changes in grade on your property, you can create sunken or raised plantings by using boulders to retain the earth. Deer do not like to climb even small cliffs if they don't have to. On a large property mass plantings of naturalized shrubs along. the perimeter illustration by Julie Baxendell Design for Deer Resistance will help keep deer fed without inviting nibbling on prized plantings closer to the house. Trees and shrubs Planting deer-resistant trees and shrubs is the best way to avoid deer problems. From a design standpoint, adhering to a selected few plants can make landscape designing even more challenging. Unfor- tunately, out or'the many meritorious plan.rs on industry [is'rs only a handful are deer resistant. In some ways this limitation can make pai'ts of the design process easier because it focuses your choices dramatical- ly. This streamlining does not make up for tile loss in variety, texture, and bloom that can be critical to some clients. With extra planning, the use of structural features can help to fill this void. I find stone to be a good textural and economical element available in many forms, especially in northeastern Pennsylvania. Most any type o[ornamental tree, except the .~reett sce~e / march 1995 Design for Deer Resistance will help keep deer ted without inviting nibbling on prized plantings closer to the house. Trees and shrubs Planting deer-resistant trees and shrubs is the best way to avoid deer problems, From a design standpoint. adhering to a selected few plants can make landscape designing even more challenging. Unfor- tunately, out of the many meritorious plan.rs on industry. lists only a handful are deer resistant. In some ways this limitation can make paixs o~ the design process easier because it focuses your choices dramatical- ly. This streamlining does not make up for the !oss in variety, texture, and bloom that can be critical to some clients. With extra planning, the use of'structural features can help to fill this void. I find stone to be a good textural and economical element available in many forms. especially in northeastern Pennsylvania. Most any type of ornamental tree, except the green scene / march 1995 low-branched ~rees. can bc used without concern for deer damage. Low branches re easily reached and can detract, frtml the overall appearance if they tire damaged. In the spring. deer can damage the bark of a young tree by rubbing their tintiers up and down the trunk. To prevent them from damaging the tree, use tree wrap. Install it in the fall and leave on until around June. It's a good idea to remove it for the growing season to allow the trunk to expand and to prevent insect or fungus damage. [ rely on some deer-resistant shrubs to make a statenlent in the landscape through color, texture. and habit. Red Japanese barberr). (Berberis thunbe~ii 'Attoput- puree') is a great low-growing plant that can be used in a border or to add a splash of color in a rock ga{den. {nkberry (11er g/abra) is one of the toughest. most versatile plants I use in the landscape. 1 prefer to use the cutliver 'Shamrock.' which stays short cropped and keeps its foliar density even with age unlike the naturally occurring species. It is a broadleaf evergreen with rich. dark-green foliage, insect- and disease-free year-round. If you need a handsome. evergreen specimen. a Swiss stone pine (Pinus cembra) is the perfect addition to your landscape. Swiss stone ~ines grow about 8" a year and maintain a tight. pyramidal growth habit. [ cannot think of another pine that has such a deep- green color and is as resistant to pests as this plant. Mountain picris (t%Hs./h.~buml~2~. some- times called "mountain andromeda." is an excellent messing plant that has creamy- white flowers in the spring. This broadleaf evergreen. difficult to grow under some conditions. does best in a slightly acid soil in a northwestern exposure. [t dislikes alkaline soil and full sun. 1 find mountain pieris works best in naturalistic plantings ~hat have a good loamy. woodland soil. Spireas can offer a pleasant touch of color in that hot. dry location of the garden. [ like to use Vanhoutte spirea (Spitace x vanhouttei), one of the tallest spireas you can plant. for large masses to screen un- wanted views and brighten up a dull corner of the garden. Vanhoutte spirea' displays white flowers in early summer for about two weeks. Anthony Waterer spirea (S. japonica 'Anthony Waterer') is a fine plant that has lavender-colored flowers that bloom for at least three weeks. it tends to bloom in mid- to late summer non-stop till frost. There are too many other species of spirea with great merit to list here. For the most part, all spireas are deer resistant and reliable plants. Herbaceous plants After I have designed the main concept of the landscape with woody ornamentals. I like to incorporate small herbaceous plants that add a delicate richness in the garden: e.g. rn;m.x species of ferns. bolh native and exotic. are dccr resistant. Most ferns grow best in at least ;t half shady k~cation in a good loamy soil. Unlbrtunately I~rns lack winter interest. so it's a good idea to plant a woody plant nearby to take over during the winter months. Ornamental grasses offer a special tex- tural element that perseveres through four seasons. They are also one of the most economical plants I use. 3tisc~nthu~ and CalamagrosHs are two common and reliable grasses available at many nurseries. In most cases. grasses prefer to grow in sunny locations where the soil is well drained: they actually grow well in poor soil con- ditions. Through proper planning. plant selec- tions and management. deer damage to our valuable plants can be lessened, We should learn to tolerate a certain amount of damage to plants in areas of high deer population. Having low-cost plants in strategic areas can satis$' the deers' appetites before they sta~ nosing around prized plants. Choosing deer-resistant plants is the best way to avoid problems. Experiment with a variety of plants in your area to see if they are bothered: deers' plant selections differ from one area to another. Because of the broad palette of plants we design with. it's always possible to create an interesting landscape with four seasons of interest. con~d Large Deciduous Trees: Acer rubrum -- red maple Fagt,~ grandifolia -- American beech Py'rus ca~ry. ana 'Bradford' -- Bradford pear Quercgs .a/be -- white oak Querc~ palustri~ -- pin oak Qv, erc~ coccinee -- scarlet oak Satix eleganrissima -- weeping willow Small Deciduous Trees & Large Shrubs: Amelanchier canadensi$ ~ shadblow, serviceberry $etula papyrif era -- white birch Crataegvz phaenopyrum -- Washington hawthorn Evergreen Tree~: duniperu~ v/rg/n/ana -- Eastern red cedar Picea abies -- Norway spruce Picea glauca -- white spruce Picea omorika ~ Serbian spruce Picea orientalix ~ Oriental spruce Picea pungens ~ Colorado spruce Pinus ce. mbra -- Swiss stone pine · ?seudotsuga memiesii ~ Douglas fir DEER-RESISTANT PLANTS Landscape Value: Shade, street tree. Red to yellow fall color. Silver bark. Stately specimen tree with golden-yellow fall color, silver bark. Tough ornamental tree with white flowers and purple fruit Large specimen tree. Brandy-real fall color. Exfoliating bark. Pyramidal specimen tree. Bronze fall color. Rounded. upright tree. Red fall color. Graceful weeping tree. Tolerant of wet areas. Delicate understory tree with white flowers and red fruit. Specimen tree with white bark and yellow fall color. Small ornamental tree with white flowers and orange fruit. Columnar, upright tree. Good for screenings, borders. Graceful tree with pendulous branches. Good for screening. Upright, pyramidal tree with light-green needles. Narrow pyramidal tree with dark-green needles. Slow.growing, stately tree with dark-green needles. Upright, pyramidal tree with blue to green needles, Good specimen. Handsome, slow-growing tree. Good for accenting and backgrounds Excellent tree for use as specimen or for groupings, continued . 19 the green scene / march 1995 Design for Deer Resistance Evergreen. Shrubs: Berberis julianne -- Wintergreen'barberry Ilex crenata -- Japanese holly Ilex glabra -- Inkberry Juniperus procurebens 'Nana' -- Japanese garden juniper Leucothoe axillaris -- drooping leucothoe Picea abies 'Nidiformis' -- birds nest spruce Picea pungens 'Montgomery' Pieris fiohbunda -- mountain andromeda Pieris japonica -- Japanese andromeda Pinus rnugo 'Mugo' -- rouge pine Deer-Resistant Plants continued Low.growing shrub with yellow flowers and purple fruit. Compact.growing shrub with fine texture and rounded habit. Good plant for massinc and naturalizing. Forms dark.green background. Great for edging, rock gardens, and groundcover. Shade-loving, massinc shrub. Good for woodland settings. Compact, slow-growing shrub with consistent habit. Dwarf, strikingly blue shrub with compact habit. Low, rounded shrub with white flowers and attractive fruits. Works good as a backdrop for other shrubs. White flowers and shiny green leaves. CompaCt, dense-growing shrub. Superb rock garden plant. D~iduous Shrubs: Berberis thunbergii 'Atropurpurea' -- Japanese ~arberry Compronia peregrina -- sweet fern Coloneaster apiculatus -- cranberry. cotoneaster Cotoneaster horizontails ~ rockspray COloneaster Coloneaster damtoefl -- bearberry coterieaster Euo~.rnus alatus 'Compactus' -- burning bush Lindera benzoin -- spicebush Myrica pen~. lvanica -- bayberry, Picea glauca 'Conics' -- Alberta spruce Poten~la fruticosa -- bush cinquefoil Spiraea ~ bumalda 'Anthony Waterer' -- Anthony Waterer spires Spiraea x vanhounei -- Vanhoutte spires Compact-growing shrub with reddish foliage and thorny twigs. Great plan for waste areas. Can take poor conditions. All COloneasters in general are fairly deer resistant and can form a dense groundcover or can be used in a rock garden. Compact-growing shrub with brilliant red to orange fall color. Naturalizing plant with yellow flowers and yellow fall color. Small shrub for massinc in poor areas. Dwarf, slow-growing shrub with pronounced conical form. Low-growing plant with yellow to orange flowers. Very durable plant. Low, rounded shrub with persistent purple flowers. Large massinc shrub with white flowers and deep-red fall color. Groundcovers, Vines: Arctostaphytos uva- ur~i ~ bearberry Taperes -- marigold (Annual) Fexmca ovbla glance -- blue rescue Phalaris arundinacea picts ~ ribbon grass Low, groundcover with white flowers and red fruit. Annual bedding plant with yellow, orange or mahogany flowers. Low-growing ornamental grass with blue color. Variegated ornamental grass that spreads with rhizomes. Perennials: Iris sibirica -- Siberian iris Stachys .~yzantina ~ lambs ear Grasslike perennial/blue-purple. Size is l-3' with s'nordlike blades. Low-growing perennial with silver foliage. Ornamental Grasses: Calarnagro.~ris .~ acutifiora 'Karl Foerster' -- feather reed grass Miscanthus sinensis -- miscanthus Permiseturn alopecuroides -- fountain grass Upright-growing with plumes of flowers in August. There are many cuttivars of Miscanthus. All have their own traits. Fine-textured grass with narrow blades. Very. reliable plant, )'~;~. - ;'..:..'i'~:-'.Jeffrey C~orba is a landscape designer from designing deer-resistant,'residential and com- . ...:. -. · " "":'~'~7. '~: ~ ~'/' ":~ ::' Beach Lake,. Pennsylvania, and has completed . inertial. landscapes in' northeastern Pennsyl- . . '. _'.~i::)~,:f'_?.:' :..'?-.:;~5,~';: ' ~he Landscape Design certification at the Morris.' vania. Jeff also manages a computer service that '.: .:' :-, .~;a.~~- :.%~.;:~%,;, ..'L'Arbor~tumoftheUntvers:tyofPennsylvan,a;he - :-'provides landscape and horticultural informs- . ' .. ~:~;~5~:~'~.~,~;.¢:.."~7.~i'~.'is 'currently attending the Ornamental plant ' lion to liihdscape professionals and the general "..' the green scene / march 1995 Fencing Like repellents and landscaping and planting, the options for fencing as a method for peaceful coexistence with deer are many. Fences offer relatively inexpensive means to exclude deer from vulnerable areas. At one extreme, electric fencing, in conjunction with peanut butter as an attractant, has been effective with small truck gardens, orchards, and even field crops (up to 40 acres) subject to moderate deer pressure. The deer, attracted by the peanut scent, make nose contact with the fencing, receive a shock~ and learn to avoid fenced areas. Many other electric fencing options have been developed. Plans and supplies are also available for nonelectric fences to address a variety of needs appropriate to specific areas and situations. P.O. IOX I.~83, Bile. i,, IdN. S~481 Fencing Fencing Is the most effective solution to protect gardens, shrubs~ crops, and ornamental vegetotlon, ~ere deer b~owse damage is the heaviest, 1here are a variety of fence designs developed and available to meet specific needs, When choosing a style of a fence, It is Important to co~slder the overall ~e of the area and the topography of the site. In addItlort, it may be wise to consult with an expert to find the best fence for yotx neecb. The Initial cost of fencing may be expensive, however, It is an Investment that will poy off In long-term prevention of economic loss. Deer still may try to get Into a wire fenced area to feed, They will fly eIther by c~awllng under or by squeezing through a wire fence before Jumping over it. Therefore, it Is Important to get the deer condItioned to the fence so they will learn to avoid It. If the fence is not electrified, repellent bogs or other deterrents should be used the first year. Once deer learn to avoid a fenced area they will no longer consider It a feeding location. Below are some styles of fences: Slanted Seven-Wire Fence The 7-wire slanted high-tensile electric fence has been effective In controlling deer damage under moderate to high deer pressure. This IS a two-dimensional barrier built in a slanted outrigger design. All wires are spaced along the slanted rail at 12-inch Intervals from the ground on the crop side to a 4-foot height on the deer ,fide. The slanted rails are supported near thek t~Ds on driven posts. 1he fence covers approximately 6 feet of horizontal space and presents a deer wIth a peq~lexing barrier as well as an electric shock upan Impact. For additional sinai animal control, wires can be added belween the ground and the first and second wires. Vedlcai Fence Vertical high-tensile electdc fences of 6 cx rnare wires appear to be effective In controlling deer In most sltuotlons. Vedical fence wire spaces should be no greater than 8-Inches from the ground for the first wke and no mare than 10-inches between remaining wires. Modillcatlons of vertical fences to include additlanal lower wires at 5, 10, and 15 inches above the ground will effectively control raccoons, woodchucks, and rabbits. Fences as law as 4 feet In height have worked on · ~'¥all pkT, s while a height of 7 feet has worked well on larger acreages. o~ 30' 60' MAX..._. Repellents There are numerous commercial and homegrown products and potions for keeping deer away from selected areas. Repellents appear to be most effective in small places, such as gardens, yards, and parks. They work because they produce odors and tastes that deer find noxious or unpalatable. There are two types of repellents: contact and area. Contact repellents work by reducing palatability. Generally, contact repellents are not used on plants intended for human consumption, although some newer contact products can be used with edible materials. Area repellents repel by odor and may work even if applied only to the borders of areas to be protected. Some odor repellents can be used with edible vegitation. The active ingredients in repellents of both types are very diverse, including mothballs, human' hair, blood meal,' cat feces, creosote, tankage (a slaughterhouse byproduct), fermented egg solids, feather meal, bone tar meal, a variety of bad tasting chemical mixtures, and even Irish Spring and Dial soaps. The following resources offer information about a representative selection of repellents and repellent recipes now in use across the country. IP.O..BOX TIM. lIH. S.. If#. LS40! Repellents A common complaint about deer is lhat they feed on gardens, shn~, crops, and on"x:~nental vegetation. For those who experience light to moderate damage, repellents can be highly effective to prevent de~ from browsing and to defend against antler rubbing. Repellenls are designed to ellher be applied direcity onto the plant or clase by It. lhe Intent is to repel deer in one of two ways: by,~nell or by taste. It Is Important to start applications early, usually ~hen plon~s first go dOnT~nt In the fall or at the first ~lgn of damage. ~ will divert deer from ~ fleated area before they es.tablish feeding patterns. Repellents do require frequent app~atlons to be effective. 1he foRowing are the two most effective and recommended commercial chemical repelent~ Hinder (Ammonium soaps) Hinder repels deer by ~netl. It can be used on e~ble vegetation such as vegetab~ gardans, frdt trees, fiek~ crops, and ornamental plants. Hinder is a liquid and is easy to apply by spray~ wllh conventional equipment o~ by painting. Use Hinder in the fall after plants go dormant. Hinder should be used again In early spdng before any ng greens up. ~T~en apply about every two weeks after ~ bloom. Caution: When used on flower gardens, I~nder will stain flower petals that come in contact with the spray. DEER AWAY (pulrescent or Inedlble egg solids) Deer Away is excellent for ~nter protection. It repels deer by smell. Deer Away IS available In two fom~s: a two-part liquid kit for spraying or a dry pawer for dusting. 11~ repellent is good to use on a variety of evergreens, Chrlsfi'nas trees, and ornamental plants such as. Rhododendron and Azalea. For fruit flees only use ~ to flowedrig. Do not use Deer Away on edible vegelaiton. (Below are the spraying tips and application directions used by the University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum.) ~eneral Spraying Tips .. apply prio~ to period of anlicipated dan~ge foliage should be dry before spraying · sunny day wilh !emperalures (should be) greater than 45° F, for 4 hr, at and after spraying to allow adequate drying time · mlx repellent with hot wat~ · spray large area including adjacent plants around threatened plants Labor ~ (Biggest concern at ~ time is antler rubbing) Use Hinder to spray woody plant matedal Of not much lower foliage) to dripping with 1:1 (Hinder.water) DO NOT SPRAY LEAVES1 Do not sp~ay on succulent bark at more than 1:5 Young trees should be sprayed wilh 1:10 1:10 (i-Ilnder.~ater) Azaleas - and young ITees - Ii~t spray should be Just after leaf fall. Early to mid October Use Deer Away (Deer Away 1:1 water) on most delectable landscape plants (e.g,, .,~:otch pine, arbon4tae, yews) Caution; ~ product has a strong odod Spray on plants after firsf killing frost. Repea~ spray before Decembe~ 1. Late October to Mid-November Use Hinder 1:5 on plants with le~ deer pre,~ure Of high pressure, use Deer Away). Late November Remember to repeat Deer Away (1:1) application on most delectable landscape plants. .~ ~ Hinder to protect blossoms 1:20 (Hinder.'water) tulip and hostas 1'20 he~oacecus Do Not Use Deer Away In Sprlngl When planting new trees or shrt/os dlo seec!lings or whips h 1:10 I~nder Apply on 10-14 day schedule Startle devices Though noisemakers have some effect in frightening away deer, at least temporarily, they are not practical in thickly settled areas, for obvious reasons. Noisemakers include exploding devices fired from special handguns, propane exploders, and firecrackers attached to slow-burning rope. At least one noiseless startle device uses motion-activated water jets to keep deer away from sensitive areas. Dogs have been used successfully to keep deer away from well-defined areas, such as yards or fenced fields. A high-tech startler, "Scaredeer" is a robot with an infrared light sensor that, when tripped, activates a computerized voice synthesizer that blares, "Out of the garden!" Because the robot also tallies instances of tripping, it is possible to track its effectiveness in keeping deer away from sensitive areas. Frightening One of the keys to success, with frightening devices or repellents is to take action at the first sign of a problem. I't is difficult to break deer's patterns of behavior'or // movement once they have been established. · Gas exploders set to detonate at / regular intervals are the most com- mon scare devices. They can be purchased for about $150 from several commercial sources (see Supplies and Materials). The devices are sometimes available for loan from wildlife refuges or wildlife agencies as they are fre- quently used to control waterfowl damage. To maximize the effec- tiveness of exploders, move them every few days and stagger the fir- ing sequence. Otherwise, the deer quickly become accustomed to the ~ regular pattern. The noise level can ..~ be increased by raising the ex- . plodera off the ground. Success ~ depends on many factors and can range from good to poor. ^ dog on a long run can keep deer out of a limited area, but care and feeding of the dog can be time- consuming. Free-running dogs are not advisable unless they are kept in an enclosed area. Fireworks and gunfire can provide quick but temporary relief from deer damage. Such tactics cannot be relied on for an entire growing season. 'ORCHARD WARS' ..... R2D2 takes on deer If ,Joe Dombek's neighbors in Blue Hill suspect the nurseryman has been attending garage sales on the Star Wars set, they have good reason. With a device that looks and acts a lot like the indomitable midget robot R2D2, Dombek may have catapulted Maine into the 21st ,century of animal nuisance control.... · ' "-'~ ':'.': :'::'~; ;( :':;: ~" ':: .... "';.:~'.:':~ · The device is called .a Scaxedeer, iand Dombek- gives his son, Andrew, an'eleetronies'en 'gineer who helped designed lhe. gadgetty. at.Epcot. Center in Disney World,'mu~h ofthe'~'r(dit~Ia t~h~spbce ofsi~ weekends this spring;Andrew designed a device.to scare deer from the Dombek gardeks,that,,dcean't ~ xequire alLnight vigilance or ~esettifig mohs6traps ~and oth,er scare devices. And unlike:~bne~bf!:Joe {Dombek s inventions,:~lastie milk cartons tied to a ~r, tzssene, it doesnt reqmre a long electric.cord that /snsgsws~tors... ,~....,,.-.',, ~-.~.-' ¥-:~ .~rh.'~ -~.. ~k Scaredeer employs an. infarbd lighi; seni~or~that, ~hen~ tripped,~.triggers a 'computerized voice:syn- ~uesizer that blares a warning, ".Out of the garde~iY ~microprocessor keeps a log. of all intrusions, and /[he whole device is powered b,y, a,12-volt batteryand ~echarged with a solar panel. It s designed to work ,,ifi Maine :"days without sun~":- ....;....~"..' · ~' · '. .... ~,:..: ,"5." '.o ':., " ~ Smce..;gO~Uig ¢in~ ~,~,~'~g~n :' around-.Easter;~ ~ Scaredeer ~. log. shows ~.~deer; ihtrusmns ~ from eight:incideiita a~'night ~a;1~ero. Abat rece~tly~ ~ triggered tl~e" phot~lectric'..~em. 0r~ ~. range of 120' feet, b~t Dombek Says problems have '. ~ been few. Tt~e.contraption stands about three feet~ ~ high by 15 inct/~':~de, and Dombe.k ~ays his son is' !considering'. 't~' p~tent .for the latest weapon in i Maine's orch'~'d .)wars;' The p~ototype cost about · $500 to buildi:' aprice Dombek believes could be ' halved if the device is ~ut into mass produc. ti6~. Defensive driving and road safety "Deer/Vehicle Collisions" offers an excellent summary of the mostly common- sense rules for driving defensively in areas where deer coexist with humans: observe deer warning signs, drive well within speed limits, stay aware of roadside activity, use the horn, watch for additional deer if you see one, be especially alert at sundown. Deer/driver safety issues could easily be included in driver's education programs, if not already covered. Other road safety techniques include construction of deer underpasses where roads cross known deer routes, and the use of reflectors placed at proper intervals, as Iowa City has done on North Dodge and North Dubuque Streets, with positive results. P.O. 80X 7283, ILKS., ILN. SS4~! Deer/Vehicle Collisions Deer-vehicle collisions are a major concern. These collisions are'among ~ most serious and experave of all w~dllfe- related auto ocCtdents. Deer can suddenly appear in. front of a cor's headlights and then become frozen by ff~:)se lights. The best way to reduce deer-vehicle coir~ons is to modify driver behavio~. In some cases, the behavior of the deer can also be modified. The fofiowlng are some suggestk)m for reducing deer-vehic~ collisions: Identify Locations By keeping records, police and ctfy officials can Identify spedtic locations where deer-vehicle collisions have occurred. Citizens should be encouraged to report oll s~ghtings of deer crossing local roads ond highways. The public can be informed of these sites through the local newspapers and local cable T.Y. These sites con be indicated on coLr~ty or township road maps. Observe Deer Crossing Signs Akvays observe ~cr crossing warning signs. When approaching a posted area, slow down and maintain a slower speed while passing through those sites. Drive Defensively Drive defensively and within the posted speed limits. Slow down if you see deer anywhere along the sides of the road or highway on which you are driving. On the roads o~ highways that you drive frequenfiy, make a mental note to you~eff where you have seen deer before. Then when driving past those areas, be particularly careful and alert. Watch For Multiple Deer Crossing if you see one deer crossing the road, be alert-more deer may follow. Deer usually do not travel alone. Keep in mind that a deer crossing In front of you may double back. Hit The horn If you see a deer on the road or making its ~y onto the road, hit the horn. The sound gives a deer an audible signal to avoid. Be Especially Alert At Sundown Deer are mostly active at night because they are noctu'nal creatures. Be especially alert driving between sundown and sunr'r~e. If you see eyes reflected In your headlights, slow down immediately. October Through December Are Dangerous Mortlbs Deer-vehicle collisions can occur during any month of the year. However, October through December are peak months for these accidents to happen. This is a time of year when deer movements are increased because they are in their rutlir~ season. Also, hunters roaming fields and woodlands disturb the animals' natural behavior and movement paffems. Problem Areas With Frequent Deer-Vehicle Collisions In problem areas that experience frequent deer-vehicle collisions, many measures can be taken: ·Spccd limits should be reduced in those areas especially between sunset and sunrise. · Speed limits should be stricfiy enforced. · Deer cro~ng warning s~gns should be posted and highlighted. · Communities can walk with the Department of Transportation by installing 'Swarefiex Wildlife Warning Reflectors". These reflectors are ven/effective In altering deer travel in serious problem areas. To a deer approaching a road or andlng in the ditch. the spedal red-colored Swarefiex reflectors reflect light when headlights shine on them. The ,~fiectors :reate an illusion of a fence or barrier Image to deer. Studies have indicated a significant reduction in deer-vehicle collisions when these reflectors are used. !n same areas no deer-vehicle collisions have occurred. Many states, Including areas of Minnesota, have already Installed these reflectors. ,klV;NG DEI R Authored by: Dr. Thomas Eveland Ecology Consultant Published by: Cleveland Amory President The Fund for Animals 200 W. $7th St. New York, NY 10019 (212) 246-2096 Wayne PaceHe National Director The Fund for Animals 850 Silgo Ave. Suite 300 Silver Spring, MD 20910 (:301) S8So2S9! This report i~ 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 humana to exhibit greater tolerance for wildlife. Historically, people have routinely killed -- by shooting, trapping, or po~onlng -- wildlife as a matter of convenience, as a way of dealing with a conflict. Such prejudice and intolerance for wildlife is, however, le~ acceptable today. The ethical challenge ia to secure our convenience and our livelihoods and to let wfid animah live in peace.'. .... It is axiomatic that wild animals -- in the course of their search for food, shelter, and other daily needs --will have an impact on people. Chipmunks, for instance, are notorious for unearthing freshly planted bulbs. Squirrels find their way into partitions and attica. Field mice prefer the lower chambers of a household -- eventually moving into basements. And skunks and raccoons tip over garbage cans to gain the goods. Sometimes wildlife come. in bigger, and seemingly more dangerous, packages. Yet people, in many instances, have demonstrated a remarkable ability to live with these animals. Alaskaus adjust to brown bears and moose traveling through their backyards at night. In Florida, people have learned to have alligators safely removed from swimming pools and transplanted unharmed back into area swamps and rivers. And even in some housing developments in the Pocono Mountains of northeastern Pennsylvania, residents live harmoniously with black bears, by doing such things as placing their refuse in bear° proof garbage cans. In between the squirrels and the bears -- in size and abundance -- is the white-tailed deer. Principally, because of wildlife manag :ment practices designed to increase deer numbers and land use practic~ that result in the creation of suitable deer habitat, more deer may now inhabit the eastern haft of the United States than at any time in the past 150 years. Of course, many people are fond of deer, cherishing an opportunity to catch a glimpse of the graceful creatures. Others, however, claim they are little more than overgrown pests, browsing vegetation and crossing roads. Such polar views inspire the debate over deer management. Specifically, while some people claim deer should receive protection, others claim they must be hunted. RANGE AND DIVERSITY Deer are the smaller-sized, but the wider-ranging relatives of elk and moose in the United States. While moose inhabit the northernmost states of the U.S. (WA, OR, ID, MT, ND, WY, CO, MN, WI, ML N'Y, VT, NH, ME) and elk the western states (WA, OR, CA, NV, AZ, NM, CO, UT, ID, MT, WY, ND, SD, NE, OK, KS), deer inhabit every state except Hawaii. From sitka deer in Alaska to sika deer in Maryland, from black.tailed deer in Oregon to white-tailed deer in Iowa, and from mule deer in Arizona to key deer in Florida, deer, in slightly varying sizes and colors, are America's widest ranging large mammal Some subspec/es are, of course, lec~ wide-ranging than others. The key deer, for instance, is close to extinction, with only slightly moro than 100 individuals surviving; for them, the key to survival is more habitat and less direct killing by poachers and automobiles. Like Florida's diminutive deer subspecies, the columbian deer, which inhabits the Pacific Northwest, is also a federally listed endangered species. But there is often more talk of the abundance of deer than of their scarcity. The white-tailed deer, for instance, which inhabits all areas of the Rocky Mountains, numbers in excess of 15 million individuals nationwide (including four million in Texas). There may be as many as five million mule deer, which mull around the Rockies and other portions of the western landscape. A QUESTION OF CONTROL One of the most controversial issues within the field of wildlife management concerns deer hunting. People often confuse i~ues when discussing deer hunting in particular. While it is clear that deer can sustain an annual kill and not be severely depleted, that is not the same as saying that deer must be hunted. In fact, it ls clear that many land areas across the United States -- varying in siz~ and location -- maintain healthy deer herds, but no deer hunting. For instance, the National Park Service --which manages 80 million acres of land the National Park Service --which manages 80 million acres of land -- generally operates with a no- hunting credo (except for some large land areas in Alaska). Acadia, Shenandoah, Everglades, Big Bend, Voyageurs, Rocky Mountain, YeLlowstone, Glacier, Grand Canyon, and ,Sequoia are just a few national parks where deer hunting is outlawed. Also, deer reside on hundreds of smaller-sized areas, such as state and city parks, where no deer hunting is permitted. Such areas occur in all regions of ~he county, from the Pacific Northwest m Southeast to the heart of the Mid- West. These land areas provide ample evidence that there is no absolute biological need to have human hunters Icill deer. Not surprisingly, deer densities as influenced by climate, vegetation, composition, forest maturity, and abundance predators -- differ by region. For instance, in Vermont, where the growing season is relatively shor~ and winters can be severe, deer densities are rather low: 10 deer per square mile on average (1990). In the West, especially west of the 20-inch rain line, water is more of a limiting factor, especially as it affects the vegetative community, and deer densities are correspondingly low. In the mid- Atlantic states, however, where winters are not 5~'vcre, where human suburbia creates 'edge' habitat, and where few predators exist, deer densities can signilicant: more than 30 deer per square mile. Though deer densities may be relatively high in certain regions, it does not follow that hunting must be employed to limit deer numbers. Ultimately, natural regulating factors will limit deer numbers in those regions as weLl. Nor instance, deer populations are limited by a variety of decimation factors, death by disease, extreme heat or cold, parasites, predation, or starvation. If some of tho~e factors do not exert a significant impact in a particular region (e.g. absence of predators), the other factors exert a proportionately greater influence. Populations do not maintain equilibrium, however, just by the deaths of individuals. Surviving deer also decrease their rate of reproduction under less than ideal conditions. For instance, rather than produce twins or triplets, does will produce a single fawn or won't produce at all. T'nis phenomenon is not exclusive to deer. Outside of Yellowstone Natural Park, where coyotes are hunted, trapped, and poisoned, females produce six to eight pups per litter. Inside 'Yellowstone, where they are protected, coyotes produce two to four pups per litter. It's nature's way of tightening the reproductive faucet. Deer demonstrate some other noteworthy reproductive strategies to limit their numbers. John Ozoga and Louis Verme of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources point out that does will bear more males than females in times of stress. This alteration of normal sex ratios decrease~ the reproductive potential of the population; obviously, males do not bear young. Thus, the fewer the number of females in a population, the le~ reproductively capable the population. The point is, nature ultimately regulates deer numbers. A.s stated in Wh/te-Tailed Deer Management and Ecology, the bible of deer management for wildlife managers, 'Most wildlife biologists and managers can point to situations where deer populations have not been hunted yet do not fluctuate greatly nor cause damage to vegetation. Certainly deer reach overpopulation in some park situations, but the surprising thing is how many parks containing deer populations have no problem.' There are, however, select circumstances when geer do have a visible impact on a forest community. Generally speaking, the deer are not reducing plant biodiversity, but reducing plant biomass. Some noted ungulate ecologists point out that such impacts are short term. Says Dr. Orahaem Caughley, 'I do not know of any system dislocated permanently by a bout of overpopulation. The phenomenou is temporary and its remission spontaneous. Most treatments of overpopulation are justified by a dire prediction of what might have happened had the treatment been withheld. A more convincing case would be made by demonstrating that the effects of untreated abundance is irreversible.' Thus, the question of deer management is not one of the biological carrying capacity, but of the cultural carrying 'capacity -- how many deer will people tolerate in their environment? Of course, this depends not so much on the behavior of the deer population, but on the options of the human population. Two people, for instance, may view a deer eating a yew in the backyard in an entirely different manner. One person may be happy that his or her backyard is providing food for a deer..~mother person may be angered that 'his' yew tree is being aesthetically damaged by deer browsing. Fundamentally, it is a question of attitude, not science. Ungulate ecologist Caughiey sums up the controversy:. 'Is containment of an eruption (dramatic rise in deer numbers) nece~ary? That is a scientific question and I interpret the evidence available as imptying that it is seldom or never necessary. Is containment of an eruption 2 desirable? That is not a scientific question. I can boast no qualifications that would make my opinion any more valuable than those of my two immediate neighbors, a garage mechanic on one side and an Air Vice-marshall on the other.' DEER DIFFIC~TIE$ Just like any wild animal, deer will behave in ways that occasionally inconvenience people. Expensive ornamental plants used to enhance the value of a home and to increase the landscaping aesthetics can be planted one day only to be severely browsed overnight by local deer. After long hours of work to produce a small vegetable crop, gardeners can have their broccoli, corn, beets, carrots, and other vegetables eaten by. deer. Still other people plant a few fruit trees for the fruit as well. as a hobby. These, too, can be heavily damaged by local deer in a short time. And, people who move to the country may not be accustomed to watching for deer while driving the roads. As a result, deer-auto collisions can occur. These concerns are ineradicable, as long as we choose to allow wildlife to live in our midst. In some areas, these problems can seem severe. In Pennsylvania, for instance, vehicles struck an eatimated 40,000 deer in 1990. Deer browsing of ornamentals around New York was estimated to cost homeowners hundreds of' thousands of dollars per year in the mid 1980so And, landowners in certain parts of Rhode Island have complained in recent years that growing simple vegetable gardens is almost an impossibility. __Even though these problems appear to be on the increase, there is no reason to think that such problems cannot be reduced to a significant degree. Many people comfortably live in regions highly populated by deer. These people maintain beautiful ornamentals and bountiful vegetable gardens and safely drive rural roads. These people have learned to tolerate deer and to cope with the limited way in which they inconvenience our lives. UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEMS An understanding of animal behavior will put you on the path in resolving your problems. Keep in mind that deer are opportunistic feeders, capable of utili~.ing hundreds of plant species and incapable of reco~ni~ing property boundaries. As such, any new home that's built in prime deer habitat that also has ornamental plants, a garden or .otlier preferred deer foods eventually be investigated and tested. If the deer like the human-modified environment, they will establish a feeding pattern. A second reason why a new homeowner may experience severe deer damage to his or her planting relatea to the surrounding habitat. For example, a mature forest is not deer habitat. A forest consi.nting of large trees, which shade the forest floor and deprive young trees and shrubs of lifegiving sunlight, offers little for deer. Deer are, however, attracted to forest edges, where sunlight reaches the ground and which provide~. palatable and available plants for deer. Putting a house or housing development in the middle of a large expanse of mature forest will create a favorable environment for deer, by creating much 'edge" habitat (see #gure t). Another landscapers concern is the palatability of plants. When a homeowner unknowingly chooses varieties of plants that ate more appealing than a deer's regular menu of native species, he or she is inviting trouble. Palatability studiea indicate that' deer prefer certain ornamentals." over others. And, in at least some" situations, certain ornamentals ate not preferred by deer at all. Obviously, it would be a direct. benefit for homeowners to know which ornamentals are preferred by deer and which are not. A complete listing of these plants is provided later in thi.n report Deer damage is basically seasonal. Garden damage, obviously, occurs in late spring, summer, and early fnil -- the growing season. However, the browsing of ornamental plants around houses is almost solely a winter problem. As such, homeowners only have to contend with troublesome deer and ornamental brow~ing trom January through March in most ateas of the country. From April through June, grass shoots and fresh leaves ate available for deer. At that time, deer seem to prefer these fresh foods over most other plants, even ornamental species. However, if they do happen to wander into one's garden, they will no doubt sample some of the plants. It is during this time that gardeners must take care, because once deer identify your garden as a potential food source, they will return. The least troublesome time for deer is July through September -- a time when wildlife foods are readily available. The deer are. often broken into groups of 0nly a few individuals, and do~s with fawns move le~ at this time. Bucks also move infrequently, since their freshly sprouted velvet antlers are painfully delicate and damaged easily when bumped .against tree branches or other structures. Thus, deer ate 3 dispersed and their consumption is not concentrated, spreading out their impact. By October, the bucks have polished the velvet from their now hardened antlers and are preparing for the autumn breeding season, known as the rut. Last spring's fawns are feeO. ing more on vegetation instead of their mother's millq this freedom from their young allows the does to begin preparation for the rut. The rutting season, combined with the availability of mast (acorns, bex. chnuts, and other wild nuts), makes the fall period also one of infrequent deer damage to homeowners. By early winter, though, the situation is quite different. Many deer are physically drained from the rut and in search of increasingly sparse food supplies. If the mast crop was light, most of the wild nuts may have already been eaten by deer, squirrels, raccoons, turkeys, grouse, or other wild animals. Deer also gather into larger groups during winter. And, wild plants are dry and leafies.s and no doubt less palatable. Given these circumstances, it is little wonder that deer can sometimes cause severe damage to ornamentals in winter. Ornamental species, like holly tree.s, rhododendrons and yews, may be the only available green, leafy vegetation. And, since these plants are succulent and easily obtained, they become a popular food source for deer. Thus, for most homeowners, the winter months are the worst for deer damage. As such, repellents, fencing, or other damage- prevention techniques need to be only temporary. By April, fresh native vegetation will be available again, and deer problems should drama:ically decline at this time. SOLUTIONS There are a number of means to minimize, or eliminate nuisance deer impacts to your property. It is important to ander~tand, however, that the degree of success of any 'preventative measure will depend on a number of factors. As such, the homeowner must bear the ultimate responsibility for bringing deer or other animal-related problems to a reasonable and moral conclusion. A. FENCING If you wish to have a vegetable garden in deer range, then you should consider a fence. No other device or strategy will provide such vegetation protection. When properly installed, a fence can be nearly 100 percent effective in eliminating deer impacts, providing long and lasting benefits. A variety of fences are available on the market. Hardware stores, hardware sections within larger department stores, and agriculture/animal feed stores are iust some of the places fencing information and catalogs can be found. When choosing a fence, consider the topography of the site, the animal species you are excluding, and the overall size of the area. The following basic fence designs and accompanying explanations were taken from Deer Damage Control in New York ~4gricultur~ published in 1983 by the Department of Agriculture and Markets with funding from the New York State Leg~lature. These fences have been field tested and proven effective. However, if they do not fit into your garden site, then by all means do not hesitate to modify any of these designs or create your own. The following is a list of some of the companies that produce fences, or fencing materials. Thet,~ manufacturers will no doubt have other fencing designs available and will certainly share them with you upon request. KIWI FENCE SYSTEMS (412) 62%5640 RD 2 BOX 51 ~A '~ WAYNF. SBURG, PA 15370 LIVE-WIRE PRODUCTS (20'0 36S-~3~ BOX 307 SHERMAN MILLS, ME O4776 TECH FENCE (207) 327-1398 ADVANCED FARM SYSTEMS BOX 36~ RFD BRADFORD~ ME 04410 When deer are being chased or are running scared, they can jump an eight-foot high barrier. However, fences of shorter height have proven. successful in preventing deer from entering gardens. Deer ~ usually try to either crawl under or squeeze through a wire fence before jumping over it. Conditioning deer from the beginning is' much more effective then trying to stop deer from entering a garden once they have found it. A first time gardener should always incorporate a well- designed fence into the initial garden creation. This fence, if not electrified, should also include repellent bags or other deterrents for the [h-st year. Once deer learn to avoid this site and not consider it a feeding area, you should not have problems in the future. However, if you are trying to deter deer from a garden after the fact, so to speak, you will have to go to greater extremes. Breaking bad habits is just as difficult for deer as it is for humans. B. NETTING Along with fencing, there are a number of companies that produce plastic netting. In some respects, stiff, plastic netting can be used effectively as a fence. Primarily, though, netting material can be used as a temporary cover for ornamentals during critical times. For instance, most plastic nets are made for small fruit trees, such as dwarf cherries, or for berry bushes, like blueberries 'and blackberries. Their purpose is to prevent heavy berry or fruit raiding by birds. When draped over or attached to poles engulfing the small tree or bush, these nets provide adequate protection. In recent years, there has been an increasing use of these plastic nets for deer control. Many homeowners drape them over large ornamental bushes during winter months to deter deer from browsing. They are inconspicuous and much more difficult to see from a distance than fencing..' They are also easily placed and removed. However, they do not prevent browsing, but rather prevent severe overbrowsing of a particular plant. The degree of success or failure of plastic netting is subject to a high number of variables. PLASTIC NETTING 5~,NUFA~~ Almac Plastics, Inc. (301) 485-9100 6311 Erdiman Baltimore, MD 21205-3585 Green Valley Blueberry Farm (707) 88%7496 9345 Ross Station Rd. Sebastapol, CA 95472 Orchard Supply Co. of Sacramento (916) 446-7821 P.O. Box 956 Sacramento, CA 95812 Conweb Corporation (800) 422.9123 Plastic Division 2640 Patton Rd. Ro~vfile, MN 55113 internet Inc. (612) 2730 Nevada Ave. N. Minneapolis, MN 55427 Wildlife Control Technology (209) 294-0262 2501 N. Sunnyside Rd. Fresno, CA 93727 C. REP~.I.~grs Most repellents are designed to be either put directly onto the plant or close to it. They are designed to act in one of two ways; either as a repelling odor or repelting taste. A few chemical repellents may utilize both strategies. It is important for all homeowners considering chemical repellents to assess both the product and the problem situation. For example, many chemical repellents arc not recommended for garden use. Also, some repellents may contain certain chemicals that may 'burn' or in some way damage certain species of ornamental plants. Always read labels thoroughly and do not hesitate to contact product manufacturers for additional information. Their addrea~ and phone numbers should be on the repellent container. If you contact a manufacturer of a chemical repellent, be sure to request any and all information regarding the product. This includes any surveys that may have been conducted comparing the effectiveness of one manufacturer's product agaimt another. In recent years some testing has been done by certain companies that clearly indicates one repellent may be superior to another under certain conditions. One word of caution: when reviewing a su~ey report, make sure the testing was done under field, rather than. laboratory, conditions. If you own a few fruit trees and/or small garden and wish to try repellents but are afraid of the chemicals, there are two non- chemical, non-commercial repellents that are available. These are human hair and .tankage (dried animal fecal and sewage residues available as organic or natural fertilizers). Both of these repellents are odor-base~ and can be applied either on the ground or hung in bags. Human hair can be obtained at barber shops or local beauty salons and should be placed in 1/8" or less mesh made from Vexar (Dupont) bags. (These are commottly used in fruit and vegetable packaging and often used around the house as onion or suet bags.) Add a few fistfuis of hair to a mesh bag and simply hang 25 to 35 inches above the ground on .a fruit tree or on a pole in the garden. Dry tankage can be put into a light cloth, or cheesecloth bags (1/2 to 1 cup) and hung in a similar way. The results of using human hair and tankage are inconsistent. Some homeowners have used them with impressive results and some have not been so lucky. Such things as rainfall, humidity, wind, how often the bags are replaced, and even the deer themselves will play a role in determining the success of these two non-chemical repellents. In 1979, Penn State University conducted a deer repellent study at their deer research facility. The results from tiffs study were published in the Journal of Ft/i/d_/ife Management, VoL 47(2): 1983, p. 517. The data listed under 'DEER REPELLENT GUIDELINES' on p. 7 of this 5 document were taken from that study and may aid .you in your search for an effective deer repellent. D. DEER RESISTANT ORNAMENTALS Few plants are totally deer resistanL Like humans, deer are extremely adaptable animals and can eat a whole variety of foods. However, there are a considerable number of plants that deer do not necessarily prefer and may actually avoid if they have arepiG wild foods available to them. The following is a list of plants, mostly ornamental species, that will make your property le~ appealing to local deer herds. · . TREES, SHRUBS AND VINES c/Apache plume , Australian fuchaia (Correa spp.) Bottle brush (Calllstemona sppo) California Bay California fuchaia Carolina jessamine Catalina cherry Clematis (Clematis spp.) Creeper, Vir~nia Current, Golden Current, Wax Daphne (Daphne spp.) Dustry Miller Edible fig (Ficus spp.) English lavender Euonymus (Spindle Tree) Euryops (Eutyops spp.) Fir, Douglas Goldearod (Solidago spp.) Hackberry Hawthorn ~/Hazelnut, beaked Holly (Ilex spp.) Holly-Grape, Oregon Honeysuckle bush Ivy, English Jasmine Jerusalem cherry Juniper, Common (Juniperus spp.) Lead ?ant Maple Mexican mock orang~ Mountain Mahogany Natal plum Oak Oleander Olive, Russian Pine, Limber Pine, Pinon Pitcher sage Pomegranate Potentilia/Cinquefoil Red.hot poker Red.leaf or Japanese barberry Redwood Rhododendron (Rhododendron spp.) Sweet gum Shrubby cinquefoil Walnut Skunk brush Wild lilac Snowberry, Western Spanish lavender Spicebush Spirea, Bluemint Roc~o~ (Cistus spp.) ~ntolina (santolina sppo) Scotch broom Spruce, Blue Spruce, Engelmann Star jasmine ,. FLOWERS, I~RNS, nr~RBS AND GRO~ CO~G P~ ~wn's ~r Agetatum fio~fiower (Age~tum spp.) ~gefian I~ ~me (~omone spp.) ~1~ of ~el~d ~lack~ S~an BlUing H~n (Di~n~ spp.) Bracken (Pte~dium spp.) Blue Star Crier ~11a Lily (~nt~hia spp.) ~nterbu~ ~H ~t bu~e ~ain fern (W~rdia spp.) ~ive, ornamental o~on ( ~um spp.) Ch~nthemum (~~emum spp.) ~nefiower, P~iHe Corcopsis (Coreo!~i~ spp,) Daffodils (aarci~u~ $pp.) Daylily (Hemerocallis spp.) Deer tongue fern En h Ivy Fescue gra~ (F~tuca spp.) Fleabone, Daisy (F. rigeron spp.) Foxglove (Digitalis spp.) Oaillardia/Blanketfiower Golden, Banner Gumweed, Carly-cup Harebell, mountain Houndstongue Hyacinth, Grape Iceland poppy Iris (Iris spp.) Lady Fern Lavender Lily (IAlium spp.) Lay, Lily of the Nile Locoweed, Lamben's Lupine, Silver Manzanita or bearberry Marguerite Marjoram Milkweed Miner's Candle Mullein Pink: rose campion Myrtle Naked Lady Lily Onion, Nodding Oriental poppy Pasque flower Pearly Everlasting Peppermint Rhubarb Rock astor Sage, fi'inged Salvia Santolina Scorpionweed Sea pink Snowflake (Leucojum spp.) Snow-on-the-mountain Spearmint Stonecrop, ¥eilow Sulphur flower Sword fern (Nephrolepls spp.) Thyme Trailing African daisy Wake-robin Crrillium spp.) Wood fern (Dryopteris spp.) Yarrow 6 Yucca (Yucca spp.) Zinnia (Zinnia spp.) DEER/A O COLLISIONS Besides planting undesirable ornamentals and fencing your garden, many people must learn to watch for deer while driving. Deer have a habit of suddenly appearing in one's headlights and then freezing in the middle of the road. Automobiles annually kill and injure tens of thousands of deer. Deer/auto accidents can be reduced in most areas through a three step method coordinated with local police. They are: 1. The police keep records of all deer seen crossing local highways and those reported struck by vehicles. These data can be pinpointed on county or township road maps. The end result is a pattern of regular deer crossing routes. 2. Once step one is completed, the areo's motor~ts need to be made aware of these crossing spots. This can be done through deer crossing signs. If accidents are still common in any of these sites, then speed reduction within these areas could be imposed. 3. For major crossing routes that present serious problems on high speed, 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 with vaE/ing degree~ of success. Or Swearilex reflectors -- roadside reflectors that reflect light and create a barrier image to deer -- have proven to discourage de~r crossing. People who have spent time traveling country roads appear to strike fewer deer, and fewer other animals, also, than visiting or new drivers on the same roads. This would indicate that experience may I~ a major factor in reducing deer/auto collisions. People simply become accustomed to watching for wildlife once they become aware that they share their environment together. IN CONCLUSION Learning to live with deer, as with most wildlife, does not n~rily require a lot of effort on our part. Knowing what ornamental varieties of vegetation to plant, constructing proper fencing around gardens, and taking special precautions while driving are simple, logical things to do. And leoming more about the species we share our world with will inevitably help us to understand these creatures more fully and see them as companions in the environment. Deer Repellent Guidelines Flefiellem % Effectlveneu Active Ingredient Feeltrot Mea~ 98.3 Meat Meal 97.3 Tankage Dem- Away/SC_~ 97.3 "Rmea:eategg sea:Is. Ch~e 89,2 Thiram . $7.8 Thiram~,j-.j: .:'; ....... Hincler 87.3 AmmonHm Soaps of Higher Fatt~ Acids Hot Sauce 85.5 Gustofaa~ 42-S aS~ '........ . 8kxxl Meal 70.0 Blood Magic Ct~n' 67,4 '"~.'i~:':: Human Hair 58.1 Human I~r c~pping~ Mo~ 8nas. 54.8 .. 7 Anderson, Stanley H. 1985. Managing Our Wildlife Resources. Charles E. Merrill Publ. Coo Columbus, OH. Carpenter, M. 1967. Control of deer damage. Va. Wildl. 28 ($): 8.9. Halls, Lowell K. 1984. White-tailed Deer Ecology and Management. A Wildlife Management Institute Book. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. Harris, Mark T., Will/am L. Palmer, and John L. George. 1983. Prellm/nary Screening of Wh/te-tailed Deer Repellents. J. Wildl. Manage. 47 (2): 516-519. McAnich, Jay B., Mark 11. Elingwood, and Raymond J. Winchcombe. 1983. Deer Damage Control in New York Agriculture. Institute of Ecosystem Studies. The New York Botanical Garden, Caty Arboetum, Box' AB, Milbrook, NY 12545. Povilitis, Tony. 1989.'Living with Deer. Reprint from HSU$ News. Fall, Humane Society of the United States, Washington, DC, 8 Oh, Suggestions for coping with deer Deer] in the home landscape BETH R. JARVIS AND DAVID E BAVERO EVERY YEAR, the University of Minnesota's Dial U clinic gets many calls from homeowners whose gardens and landscapes have been ravaged by "rats With antlers," otherwise known as deer. These "wild" animals have learned to substitute landscape plants for their preferred foodsBnative plants and alfalfa, corn, and other grains. Deer also physically damage trees and scrape the soil around them. Although "hot lead" is often suggest- ed, it's usually not an option for subur- ban homeowners. There are several things a homeowner can do to decrease deer damage. These include using landscape and garden plants deer gen- erally don't eat, putting up fencing, and using repellents. Alarms and other auditory devices have also been sug- gested, but these are not particularly effective for protecting the home land- scape. They are more likely to be found irritating by homeowners and neigh- bors than by the deer. Plant Selection When they are hungry, deer will eat almost anything. New, tender growth is more attractive to deer than older growth. Plants deer are particularly fond of, such as hosta, will not be spared even when encircled by less- preferred plants. The deer will walk right over the less delectable ones to get to the choice plants. ~ Another kind of plant damage comes from male deer, who in an attempt to · show their dominance, damage young trees By rubbing and scraping against them during the mating season. In summer, bucks rub their antlers against trees to remove the velvet that covers their antlers. Once the velvet is removed, the animals polish their antlers and mark their territory by thrashing their antlers up and down against tree trunks and branches. This shreds and tears bark and may break branches or the trunk itself. Small, smooth-barked trees such as apples are more attractive to bucks as rubbing sites than larger trees and trees with rough bark. One way to protect trees from rubbing injury is to remove branches lower than six feet from the ground. Bucks chew and rub their scent on low-hanging branches, sometimes breaking the branches. They will also paw the soil around trees and urinate on the cleared area beneath an over- hanging branch. To protect individual trees, pound vertical barrier stakes into the soil around each, a foot or so from the trunk. Barriers Although not 100 percent effective, fences can reduce the number of deer 16 October/November 1993 MINNESOTA HORTICULTURIST that enter an area. Since deer will avoid small, penned-in areas, a small garden patch can be protected using a four- foot-high fence, or by enclosing the area with snow fence. For a larger lawn or garden, a fence made of wire, not wood, angled away from the yard creates both a psychological and physical barrier. Deer hesitate to jump over something in which they are afraid of becoming entangled. The fence should be six feet high and have a 30-degree angle to be effective. A fence angled toward the yard is no psychological barrier. Deer .will jump a vertical fence eight feet high, particularly if it is made of wood. If there are no small children arormd, electric fencing is another option. Strips of aluminum foil smeared with peanut butter affixed to electric fencing lures deer to the fence, where they lick the peanut better and get a shock. Electric fences attached to a higher voltage charger can deter deer, as they can hear the hum of the charge through the wires without touching them. Repellants Two basic types of deer repellents are available: contact repellants are applied to the plants, causing them to taste bad; area repellants are placed in the prob- lem area and repel due to their foul odor. A study conducted in Connecticut tested six repellents. Generally, repel- lents were more effective on less- preferred plants. Here are the findings. ~ Big Game Repellent, also known as Deer Away, made from rotten whole egg solids was 46 percent effective. ~ Hinder, made from ammonium soaps of higher fatty acids, was 43 percent effective. ~ Thiram, a bitter-tasting fungicide now commonly used in repellents, was 43 percent effective. ~ Mesh bags filled with human hair collected from hair-styling shops were found to be 34 percent effective. (Hair should be dirty, not collected after a shampoo.) ~ Magic Circle deer repeilent~ a bone tar oil soaked into 10 by 30 centimeter burlap pieces, was 18 percent effec- tive. ~ 'Miller Hot Sauce, containing ~ap- sicurn, an extract of hot peppers, was 15 percent effective. No scientific studies have been made of the following two techniques but they are offered for the reader's consid- eration. Perhaps they're worth a try! ~ Some people have had success tying pieces of deodorant soap to the branches of trees. A large bar is cut into about six pieces and each piece is placed in a mesh bag, such as panty hose, and tied to the branches. Non- deodorant soap does not seem to work as well. ~ Two eggs and a cup or two of cold water mixed in a high-speed blender, added to a gallon of water and sprayed on the foliage has been effec- tive in some cases. This egg mixture does not wash off the foliage easily, but re-application two or three times a season may be needed. (For a larger quantity, blend a dozen eggs into five gallons of water.) This mix should be used a distance from the residence as it has an ur. pleasant odor. It is also thought to repel rabbits. Clearly, there are no easy solutions for gardeners who live in areas with high deer populations, but maybe one of these suggestions will offer some relief. Plant List These lists are. based on the few studies that have been done on the preferred foods of deer. They may be helpful to homeowners in selecting landscape plants. However, deer have been known to feed on less-preferred plants if other choices are not available. GENERALLY PREFERRED FOODS Arborvitae Euonymus Yews Dogwood Hydrangea, especially Apple H. arborescens Birch Arrowwood viburnum Linden/basswood Impatiens Hosta Garden lilies Daylilies PLANTS SOMETIMES EATEN Hemlock Wayfaring tree Hazelnut Spruce American highbush Sumac Juniper cranberry Roses Maple Douglas fir Mountain ash White pine White fir Young .fruit trees Forsythia' Bush honeysuckle GENERALLY DISLIKED FOODS Plants with thorns, such as Russian olive Barberry Common buckthorn Balsam fir Other evergreens, except as noted Lilacs Nannyberry viburnum Anthony waterer spirea Ural false spirea Honeysuckle Potentilia A gardener in upstate New York observed that deer avoided the following flower- ing annuals and perennials. Deer in other states may have different preferences, however. ANNUALS, Snow-on-the-mountain Foxglove Agetatum (Euphorbia marginata) Gas plant Amaranth Spider flower Gayfeather Castor bean Sweet alyssum Globe thistle Cosmos Wax begonia Golden marguerite Chinese forget-me-not Zinnia Lamb's-ears Cupflower (Nirembergia) Lily-of-the-valley Dusty miller PERENNIALS Lupine Globe amaranth Achi!lea Lungwort French marigolds Ajuga Monkshood Mexican tulip Aliiurn Oriental poppy poppy/golden cup Aresonia Pachysandra Ornamental pepper Butterfly flower Plume poppy Periwinkle Baby's-breath Peony Polygonurn Bleeding-heart Rose campion Salvia Coralbells Sage Creeping zinnia Coreopsis Speedwell Signet marigold Cranesbill Turtlehead Snapdragon Flax Wormwood Experiment with different plants and keep records of which ones deer ignore. Neighbors and friends are a useful resource for their experiences with specific plants. If you really want to grow hostas, for example, put them in places inaccessi- ble to deer. Keep in mind, however, if food supplies are short, deer will browse plants they have previously ignored. Beth Jarvis is a horticultural technician at the University of Minnesota Extension Service' s Dial U clinic. David Bavero is an assistant manager at Dundee Nursery in Savage, Minnesota. Deer Damage Control Repellents Repellents will be the method of choice for most noncommerc/al users and for people with l/g~t to moderate problems. TypicaLly these people have small numbers of trees, shrubs or crops to protect and are going to apply con- trois over a small area. Some general notes on repellen.ts: Repellents are NOT fences. Repel- lents only present deer with an offen- sive odor and/or taste that is intended to reduce the attractiveness of poten- tial food items. Some damage often ac- companies repellent use, particularly in winter when deer are hungry, other food supplies are low and.repe!lent volatility is low. Repellents require constant vigilance to be effective. Much like the control of garden insects or diseases, repellents must be applied periodically, especially when new activity is observed or new growth of more than 6 inches has oc- curred since the last treatment. Spray repellents on days when tempera- ture is above 45 degrees and the sun is out for the day. Always spray early enough in the day to allow 3-4 hours for drying. DO NOT ADD STICKERS (substances which help the spray ad- here to the plant) with the repellents. Apply PRIOR TO THE PERIOD OF ANTICIPATED DAMAGE, This means apply just before bud break in the spring, before flower or fruit development for summer vegetables and flowers, before September ! for antler rubbing, and immediately after bud set in the fall for winter damage. For early _spring control prior to bud break use HINDER at a 1:10 con- centration. When planting new trees or shrubs dip the new seedlings or whips in a 1:10 concentration of HINDER which will be more effective than trying to spray the young see- dlings. For summer damage control use HINDER diluted at 1:20 and fol- low the label instructions for the crop in question. Apply on at least a 10-14 day schedule for most woody plants or on a weekly schedule for flowers and vegetables. Never let new growth ex- ceed 6 inches before applying the next spray. For ._antic_r_ ~__~_~b'na_n~use HINDER at 1:I J for trees larger than 1 inch DBH or use a 1:5 concentration for small trees and shrubs. Apply to drip on the trunks of susceptible trees and APPLY" BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1. For.winter da~__a. ge use either DEER- AWAY at a 1:1 concentration or HINDER at a 1:5 concentration. DEER-AWAY is better than · HINDER but is also more expensive. Both are good and can be successfully used by' following the label directions. Initial applications should be com- pleted soon after bud set and,. if the weather allows, a second application should be made before December. If an Indian summer period occurs in mid to late winter another application will be helpful but be sure adequate drying time is available and temperatures will be a ove 40 degrees for several hours after sprays. Few home remedies are trustworthy repellents. Fol' the homeowner with problems in winter (wHen repellents can not be sprayed), hairballs or soap may be helpful. A double fistful of hair in a mesh bag hung about 25-30 inches above the ground and no more than 2-3 feet apart will deter deer in most situa- tions. Human hair and dog hair are most effective. Soap can also be hung as a repellent but the same height and distance be/ween bars must be fol- lowed. These options are poor repel- lents for anything other than a few weeks when no other products can be used. DEER-AWAY is available from: Flora and Fauna Labs, 85-- Pillsbury Avenue South, Minnea. polis, MN 5542'0. Phone (612)881-6908.' Ben Meadows Company, 3589 Broad St., P.O. Box 80549, Chamblee, GA 30366. Phone 1-800-241-6401. Half gallon size protects approximately 200 trees. PHce - $20. Should not be used on edible plants. EPA approved. Hinder is available from Cenex/Lando O-Lakes cooperatives, many nurseries and garden outlets or can be ordered from LaCrescent Farm Supply, La- Crescent, bin 55947. Phone (507)895- 2103. Several repellents are commonly recommmended by too many people who have no personal experience with the products. Repellents that we do not recommend include MAGIC CIRCLE, ROPEL, HOT SAUCE, THIRAM (there are many thiram- based produ~) and BLDODMEAL You may encounter someone that has had success with these products, but over the long haul these products will be a waste of time and money for the average person. Fencing Fencing is an option that should be con- sidered with some caution. Because the initial cost is great and the structure is often permanent, people expect near perfect control from any fence design. It is best to consult with someone in our o~ce as you gather information and consider fencing options. Our phone number is (612) 296-3344. Least likely to be eaten by deer: ~t. Japanese Andromena (or any member of the genus pieris) ,.. Bayberry 3. S~ruce '(blue is best) 4. 'v iburnums :5. Honey & Black Locust 6. Forsvihia 7. BeeCh 8. Lilacs 9. Birch 10. Olives Most likely to be eaten by deer: 1. Cedars 2..A. pple, cherry trees 3. x.ews 4. Bass~vood 5. Burning bush 6. Mountain ash 7. Pears 8. Firs - balsam, douglas, arborvitae ' NOTE: These lists are only a guideline to go b.,v,. When deer get hungry eno.u. gh, they'll eat anything, even those irerag off the "least li'kelq' list. Flowers, as a rule, are hlie candy to deer, .~o plan accordinulv. Spra,~ing flower beds (vith the recommend solutions should help. as well as any vulnerab'16 trees.'. Trees, Shrubs and Vifies Austmlhan fuch~ffa (ColTea SliP.) eottle b~ush (~1~ ~) ~lff~ ~ ~i~ ~m~ C~ W~ Oe~ (Oa~ ~) Ou~ MI~ E~ish la~ E~us (S~ Tin) Eu~o~ (E~s ~) ~r~~~ ~.) Hack~ H~ ~k~ H~W (~x ~) H~ey~ ~ I~, ~ d~, ~ (d~i~ ~) Le~ ~ Na~ ~ ~, Um~ Red-hot pol(et Red-leaf or Japanese bart:mn, y ~Ch~sa, omamermd onion (AJffurn ~pp.) ninemum (Ch~y~anmemum ~ (~ ~) Oaff~ffa (~ '~) Oa~i~ (H~ ~) Fe~ gm~ ~ ~) ~ea~, Davy ~ ~) G~, ~ Gumw~ ~ ~ (~ ~) ~ F~ ~v~ u~, ~ u~~ ~n~ ~ ~ R~ a~ ~w~ ~ke ~ ~) ~lph~ ~ Waken ~ ~) w~ f~ ~~ ~) Ya~w Y~ ~ ~.) Zinn~ (Zlnn~ ~) · Redwood Sweet gum Shrubby cinquefog Walnut Skunk brush Snowberry, Western Spanish lavender Spicebush Spires, Bluemint Rockrose (Clstus spp.) Santollna (Santolina spp.) Scotch broom Spruce, Blue Spruce, Engelmann Star jasmine ~, Flowers, Ferns, Herbs and Ground Covering Plants Aaron's bear Ageratum flossflower (Agetatum spp.) Algerian Ivy Aneomne (Anornono spp.) ........ ~ ....a~, ~o,~l ~r o~-didales wiU run from wards in- Budgel h~ planlr~ ~77, 11600 ~ven St. N.W., C~ ~pi~. ~ plac~ ~ ~ raoul. stead olal-la~ge. m~ion ~mmonly ~k~ ....... . ........ ~e ~oka-Hennep~ ~h~l M~ ~ are ~ul~ when ~ple f~ t0 w~h - uut ~ ~e o~wazer u~er ~d ~H hold pubUc h~nO ~ ~vidual ~h~h ~ou~ Feb~ ~an~ after ~g ~e toilet ~~a w~ c~en?n ~ght ~d ~h 12 ~ ga~er sug- e~. ~e ~h~l ~a~ ~ adopt '. n~g ~a~, pm~ ~aan~ lot me zo~ ,~,,~, ~, ,~ ~so~ o3 ,~ ~,_ ~e budget ~ J~e. [en ~d f~ent h~d w~h- - ~ ~~ at Clt- H~ ~ ~ct budgeL . . . . ~e ~ct h~ had ~e~ ~t way ~ prevent ~' ~ .~ · · *' , Db~ct 11 m~ ~ a~ut $2 s~n~e cu~ for ~ve~ '~g ~e d~i ;.' ~1on ~an Jack. ~on f~m ne~ y~s p~ a row, O~o~ ~d. ~v ,' ~e~ ~d ~e p!~ ~ for ~e ~d ~ ~ avoid s~g ' of f~e ~fi~ ' - ~ O~ mo ~ ' ' - ~ -. ;' ' ".' lty ~ ~ broken ~ ua~ · $2 9 ~ re ~ It ~ n~mRv ~r ~c~ ~e ~o~ - .no~.sou~ ~ong M~e S~t ' ' ~ndent ~ger G~o~ ~d. ~e · ' .... ' '~ . ~d ~t-w~t ~ong ~e~ Str~L ~m~in!nS $90Q,000 wo~d ~ ~- ~m~l~ ~ ~.~.'" .'..~. . .- ,. · ~...~ .:, : - .....- ~,, .' . ,~.(y~; ."~.'f · .~', . '. [,~,.~*~c~." ...~.., '.' ' - . ~ ~ her fa~er, ~ou Y~j "' ./ . . ..... :, ..... .:~ . ~. ,,~.,:,.~... .... · ....:..~,.~ .,. r~ h~ · ~ *. . ..,,.. ....... .., '.. .., .~.... .... ~ ', ~.,-. .,~,',r.~,~. (~"'~.. ~ : · r~Ye~ . . . · .. · ::~.~;_.~.:.. .,.:~ . ~ - .~, .~ , · , ,:~,. .... ~..~ ..... . -,...,:;.,;. ~..., ?.. ~. .., .:. -apl~a~en~Ha~ .,'.t,' ~',:~ '. '. ..' .....,..,- ,...'~.~,: ........-~.~.. ','· : -~:~...:.,. ..... ....... ......''.' ". . . ...wor rein d meco~chlS~aer h'";' ...... ~- ~.' '.. -:' '" ' · '~'~ ~ ~ ,,. ~ ~t ~ tora p~n . · " ~- ..... .......... ,., .... _ ,a 7~ ~a ~wo mon~, ~ ~ " ':'~." ": .... ~iffi~8 ~l~ · .': '~I don't ~ow ~w ~ - eo~t ~uan .. ~.,. .......: . k~ ~imals away .. , ..... . - , ,, 7 .... 7 ;~ ~ "fe~r...pr~u~.,~m- -, ....... ,.,..,:.,,.. · · .... ~is~ltou~tde~rae. · p a~p ioaa~ u~ away · ~ ~ ... ~'.f..2~ '.... * ~ '. · c xrom IO~ e m me s ~ s~- · . ~-,c. · · .".-, .;, ~-~ ~ ~-. ~- , g P g, ..... ;~; ..~.: ..,~.,,. . )~ ~e Y~g fa~ly s ~- m~ n,a.~, ~ w,~ ~,~,~ -. ' · ' ' .' ' }~'~:. 'd~r de~ent ~ It ~ ~- ,:: .r~c ~ ~m ~o ..... whe .... "~ -- - '--- . U~vemi~s ~raflve ~en- "~ _m a~r ?ere.~o~ w..~,.appl~, ~ r~y a~ble ' ',": .' NY ' ' ' ~ ,~. m~ ~or ~ or..a '.:.r H~ '.",:~"-":'- ,"~ "a"? " ....... ., ~d ~e,~l~ve n~ of/, . · ~, ~. ,. :... --..,- ,.-, · ' ' a~. ~.<, , ~..~a a~aI ,~W~ Vt~i': · .,, . '" ' ' · *be ,~,,x-~ ~,~ .... ~,-a,'T' sWr~. ~e~ were not ~ at "We ~ot' leaH ~mmend . . . - ....... ~ ..... ,,~,~.~a~5 . . . . .: ~ . , - - .... . g ~ . · , · .- ba~.~ ~ucfion of ~-.:a .......... .. ~e ~ of ~org~te ~ a d~r .~emony at,~e CaO~to~ - ' · ..... . .... ,.:..~'~r a~ ~e ~ ~ Io~ ~at ; e e' - ' ' · ~ , or ~te ~ ~e~wau. · , , , P.... r ~ nt ~.~en lt-wo~d Cons~lum ...... g ! .:i~ "were ~m~-or~ .' .... ~r o; me .. ' - .... ' ~:? .4. :,."a~.~-.-'?:' ) ,:-' · . ~ PP . - ~ ,, .. where.~or ~ w~ ~ m . . · · Wew~ as~e at e .g. , .P . .. ~men~ ~o~on A en eMmne~ta g Y ~ · · . ,, g :- .... ~g~ ~n8 ~ ~,~, .~ · ~ut ~e plo~ ~ w~ five ~ ~tch~ Co~tv' ' ~?~,:(.~, · ~ ~"a'['w'~en h~' ~1or~te~ ~[~ ~f ~°rg~te ha~ .~ ,'-made'.R ~fic~t '"~;' deter!he I a~ ~li~i~l " fertile · plan~, . ~rlo~ly ';' spiro. a~ut. once~a monm were · whe~er ~org~te re~ ~y of Noahw~s :' .'. ' 'enou~, ~e d~ ..~y~ -.away ..,'?t°ucn~:.:,:".?:;~:";;~*~./: .. r..?-: _ l~ d~r-re~-quaH~ w~en ' - · ':' from ~e~ ~at got m ~fnki~g r*,: :-,,.~ ~e r~ ~'f~ '~e ~or sp~g, '. b~ ~ snow.', 5~,.':':~.~ ~" :'x'-*:' ' s ~h~l'~ard, · · * Hul~p ~d ~ ~ ~ '.2 re,miner '~d fall, .when p!en~ ~' T~ ,W,~d, m~ke~g ~h a Spani~ .' ,-. :. a. sub~b~ ~ where ~e ~w2' .- w~d forage ~'d~r 1~ .. for ~e ~ ~wa~ Me~o~H~ ,. · . ... ' .' ~g d~r ~pula~on ~t~ ~ ~. ' ~ely ~ ~ w~ter.~ ~m~ge "~werage ~tc~ w~ch m~ ~ s legislative .. 2' c~g dinage ~ y~d ~d g~- for m~ ~ r~idenfiat ~..' ~1orga~, ~d l~ap~g pr~ ~mea's ~ess. ', ,.' den pl~, ' .: . ~ ', .... ' H~c~p ~d ~e pre~ r~ -'f~ion~ no~c~ y~a ago ~t . Thomas studeh{ ;'.' · ~e ~e p~blem"h~'"~ '.:.'~ for ~ had.~t ~n ~- on, goH corn d~r'avoid~. ~e -" - ' .' ' '. ;'~- d~r herd h~ ~5~ W ~ s~":.':" ~" v .:':'* .... ,:; ....;-- ' · ~e fe~er w~ ~, ou[ cnew~ .... : .;' -- '.~ ~ r~ent y~, ~ ~e ~wauk~ ~. ~" a' 'fe~ w~ :" wh~" ~e ~* ' up ~e rou~ and f~a~, ~h . t . ~ ' , . , ~ .: S '. -.. ,~ , . - . ,.. ~. x., . ...,, ,., .sub~b of ~v~ .~, for ex~<,~ -1ot's t~~ "mke';'~~:'- ..... .::it w~ not ~.... .... ~d c~l~e'~"~C~d; ole,'.'~me f~a~ hom~em'~-~,;:.:.~-.'~ ...~-,..-~,-..:'v~ S~, Ward ~d, he .w~ s~.. me i~de~ ~at ~avespray~ che~ m la~ .': ...... ,: ..... ...... p~ when H~p.t91~. ~ .' leve~"..~.for~on:'..,,, :,' ~,x,r,v"~'. '~,¢',,<*, ;['_~ l~.~r;~ajj~'at a'f:m~k~t'mors'~ -".a.." ' ~ ~daitinnal tnenm~ .' ..: ' ..,.:, ~.-:., ....,.~ ..... ~ &'..'... . -~.,., ..,.:.~,';~.~,:.. ~H~[- W~ .'~d..:~. ' ' ' onda~ eff~t." .~"'.. '"' ' ............ d~ueaflon~d. '- . ; · · ~cr~ .~p for '. ,...,.;.... -...;, :.v,:l)~...i.~t....,.~,...t-..:? .,;,'.... ~..:,...,... .....; .. ' .'" ·" ~onq~t~a ~ent .......... ~ , . . .. · judge ch g :.. ,::... ,....,. ..,.......,.. ' Is Deer Damage a Problem... ? Benner's Gardens Has the Solution ! Deer Fencing A virtually invisible mesh barrier Protects garden areas or entire property Easily attaches to trees or posts For More Information: Request Brochure and Fence Sample Online Call 1-800-753-4660 Fax 215-477-9429 Details about Benner's Deer Fencing Deer Fencing FAO - Frequently Asked Ouestions Background Information Pricing Information About Benner's Gardens Details about Benner's Deer Fencing Benner's Gardens Deer Fencing is Light-weight, High strength, 7.5 feet high, Cost-effective, Easy to install, Solves deer predicament without detracting from the appearance of the properly.. Usually the fence is attached to existing trees. Areas where trees are not present, pressure treated 2x4's, 4x4's, fiberglass or metal posts can be installed for support. The fencing is also staked to the ground with metal pins every twelve feet to keep the deer from pushing underneath it. All orders come with and easy-to-follow installation guide. We also are always available to answer your questions about installation of the fencing on your site. Deer Fencing FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions #1 Why is fencing the solution to deer damage? Other deer remedies work occasionally but are not a consistent deterrence to a hungry deer. Fencing which encloses an area entirely protects the area from deer intrusion and also provides a barrier which deer can not jump. #2 Irehere should the fencing be installed? The deer fencing should be situated around the perimeter of the area you wish to protect. It should be attached to existing trees wherever possible. Additional wooden, fiberglass, or metal posts can be added for support where necessary. It is very important to completely enclose the area you are protecting. If this is not done, the deer may re-route their trails and enter the property from the unprotected direction. They will then be trapped inside the fenced area, and will attempt to escape. #3 Is it possible for the deer to damage the fencing? If deer suddenly become frightened, do not see the fence and run into it a full speed, they could damage it. This is a very infrequent occurrence however, and typically happens when the entire area has not been enclosed. In this situation the deer enter from a portion of the property that has not been fenced, become frightened, and attempt to escape by running in the other direction, and into the barrier. }rirtually no damage to fencing orplant material has been reported by property owners who have completely enclosed the area to be protected It should be mentioned that white streamers 12" long (included at no charge) should be attached to the fence every 10 feet for the first two months following installation. This alerts the deer to the fact that a barrier is now present, and is of particular importance where time-worn paths exist. #4 How visible is the material? The fencing from Benner's Gardens even though it is a heavy gauge, is almost completely invisible. This is particularly true in wooded settings where the material can be attached directly to existing trees, and blends in with the shade and shadows they produce. Background Information The deer problem in the United States has accelerated in recent years due to the ever increasing suburban sprawl. With their once bountiful grazing areas rapidly diminishing, deer are being forced to find alternative sources of food. This in turn puts many landscapes and gardens in areas with high deer populations at risk of being damaged or destroyed. For more than twenty years David Benner, retired professor of Ornamental Horticulture and resident of New Hope in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, has tried virtually every conceivable technique to protect his woodland garden from the local deer population. To keep the deer from destroying his rare and unusual plant material, Mr. Benner has resorted to everything from materials such a chicken wire, to repellents including human hair and lion dung. A variety of other unsightly items such as aluminum pie pans and white venetian blinds have also been suspended between trees in an attempt to frighten away the hungry deer. The results of these various techniques were minimal at best, with only temporary relief being achieved. Frustrated to no end, David Benner was running out of ideas for solving his deer problem. Six years ago he installed a material that has completely resolved his dilemma and revolutionized the way he and many other homeowners,' estates, arboretums, and nurseries deal with taking control of the deer situation. Because his property contains plenty of trees, Mr. Bender decided to make use of them in his. plan. He believed that the best way to stop the damage was to keep the deer off his property entirely. Starting at one comer of his garden, he began attaching a seven and one half foot high polypropylene plastic mesh fence to the existing trees. The material is pulled tight from tree to tree with spans upwards of thirty feet between trees being achieved. Mr. Bender has enclosed over two acres of his property with this material, and has attributed his success not only to the strength of the product but also to the fact that he has completely enclosed the area in which he desired protection. Pricing Information Deer Fencing, 2" x 2.5" mesh, is 7.5 feet high and has an average life of 10 years. 330 foot roll is $235.00 110 foot roll is $95.00 Box of 30 stakes (12 inches long) is $20.00 Shipping is not included in prices. Volume Discounts available: 10% for 5 or more rolls, 15% for 10 or more rolls. About Benner's Gardens Benner's Gardens is a family owned and operated business. Founded in 1992, the company offers Deer Fencing and related items to homeowners and landscape professionals throughout the country. Our business has been built upon product innovation coupled with first hand experience. Quality and customer service continue to be our top priority. Benner's Gardens also provides landscaping services and fencing installation (regionally), as well as evaluations/consultations for shaded properties (nationally). For more information or to place an order, please contact: Benner's Gardens 6974 Upper York Road New Hope, PA 18938 Phone: 1-800-753-4660 Fax: (215) 477-9429 Order our brochure and fence samole on-line through GardenNet. [ Too of Pal!e ] [ GardenNet Home Palle ] [ What's New ] [ Gardens On-line ] [ Cataloo Center ] [ GardenNet Magazine ] [ Travel & Vacation ] [ Garden Associations ] [ Events Calendar ] [ Books & Multimedia ] [ Internet Resources ] [ Visitor's Center ] Send all comments and questions to GardenNet(&,olvmous.net. Copyright (O by Cheryl M. Trine, all rights reserved[ Deer Repellants 1 o Q. The deer are eating me out of house-and-home, horticulturally speaking! Everything I plant, those devils eat. I have tried hanging pie pans, spreading moth balls, distributing nylon-bagged human hair and using blood meal. Help! A. Good news! I have the answer! It is called 270 - and - freezer - - shoot the little dears (deer) with a 270 rifle and put them in the freezer. When deer season opens get some of those plant fed deer to compliment your meal of fresh vegetables. If you are the non-violent type you may want to try a "new" deer repellent. In recent years, the use of Lifebuoy soap has been suggested as a repellent for deer. Last fall a trial was set up in Virginia where the soap was compared to barbed wire wrapped around the main stem of young apple trees. The soap was suspended from the main fork of the tree. ARer three weeks, none of the trees with the soap had been browsed, 30 percent of those with barbed wire were fed on, and 43 percent of the controls (no wire or soap) had been damaged. From these data, it appears that Lifebuoy soap (and possibly other brands - the more fragrant the better) makes a rather effective deer repellent in some cases and certainly rates a trial if this is a problem for you. If for some reason the soap doesn't work as a deer repellent, you can retrieve it for use as a bo~!y cleanser - 7 don't you wish everyone would? ! ) 2 o Q. I thought deer would leave my shrubs and flowers alone during periods of adequate rainfall. Not so! These four-legged Bambi-devils are eating everything in my yard IN SPITE of the record rainfall and lush green growth of everything. What don't deer eat and what is the best repe!lant? A. The Texas Agricultural Extension Service has a list of"least preference" landscape plants which I refuse to print anymore for fear of severe repercussions. The last time I printed the list some folks with severely ravenous deer indicated that the deer ate over one-half of the plants listed. The only plants I get a deer-won't-eat consensus are oleander, lantana and any salvia. Here is something for you deer-desperation folks to try. Milorganite organic tufffertilizer--made from Milwaukee's waste- water treatment process (a.k.a. brewery waste)--has a distinct smell that seems to deter deer, according to researchers at Cornell University's Cooperative Extension Service of Dutchess County, New York. Last April, researchers selected two sites in Dutchess County, both near wooded areas where the deep population is believed to exceed 40 deer per square mile. They applied the fertilizer on yews, hostas and tulips--a palette deer favor, according to local landscapers--using the label-recommended rate of 5 pounds per 100 square feet. They applied the product one to two times per month and after each snowfall in winter. Thus far, deer have generally kept their distance. The fertilizer works on the premise of odor, and the odor will be more distinct during the growing season--in high humidity and warmer temperatures. (Fortunately, people can't smell the fertilizer once it's applied.) I have mentioned hanging Lifebouy soap in trees, making hair balls from barber shop clippings and decorating with clumps of tiger manure from the zoo. It takes a creative mind to outwit. the Bambi multitudes. Maybe this Yankee manure named Milorganite will give you some relief. I Mice!ianeous Paoe I PLANTanswers Home I A~l~ie Horticulture I January 1995 ~ONITORING VEGETATION AND DEER iN PARKS Jay McAninch Farmland Wildlife Populations & Research Group MN Department of Natural Resources A technical report from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Farmland Wildlife Populations & Research Group, RR 1 Box 181, Madelia, MN 56062-9744, (507) 642-8478 A prerequisite of a park monitoring program is to develop an understanding of the distribution, abundance and diversity of plant species found in the park. In addition, to assess the impact of deer, data on the extent and intensity of deer consumption of vegetation is needed. If deer population control is implemented, trend data on deer abundance in the park and immediate environs will be needed to evaluate the success of management efforts° For a given park, the monitoring questions are: Current Vegetation: What is the relative abundance, distribution, and legal status of the plant species of interest? Future Vegetation: What are the desired goals for the selected plant species in plant communities and in the Park? Current Deer Impact: What is the current level of impact of deer on the plant species of interest? Future Deer Impact: What is the desired level of impact of deer on the selected plant species in plant communities and in the Park? Clearly, the answers to these questions will define the role of deer within the plant and animal communities found in a given park and the value of deer in park management policies and programs° VEGETATION MONITORING GUIDELINES Considerations Monitoring protocols should be established for use over the long-term and should allow for the collection of additional data on plants and animals whenever new information needs may arise. The sampling design must be efficient and simple so the commitment of time and resources by park staff can be optimized° For a given park, the level of monitoring should relate directly to the specific plant.species or plant communities of interest and to the level of interest in deer impacts and deer populations. The following steps should be followed to design and implement a monitoring program. 1) Stratify Plant Communities The first step is to stratify the park into plant community types and prioritize each type by the degree of concern about deer and/or vegetation for each type. Plant community types can be identified using information on soils and geology, topographical and hydrological features, dominant and subdominant vegetation, and/or previous as well as existing land use patterns. Alternatively, plant community types can also be identified solely on the basis of interest. The stratification process should result in the identification of community types that represent land units of'importance to the management objectives of the park. 2) Determine sampling Dattern within communities The monitoring technique most recommended is called the point quarter system (Cottam and Curtis 1956) which is a method consisting of a series of points often distributed along transects within each plant community type. Points are randomly located throughout each plant community to insure the data are representative of the variation found within the plant community. The sampling pattern is accomplished'by randomly locating transects within each plant community across gradients such as elevation and aspect, and are spaced at intervals of at least 20yds. A buffer area at least 10yds wide should be established around the edge of each community. All transects should avoid these areas to reduce the' likelihood of collecting data impacted by adjoining activities or conditions° Transects within community types can located by placing the first transect across the middle of the type and then locating additional transects on either side of the middle transect until the community is adequately covered. Each transect should be divided into sections at least 20yds in length. Within each a section, a sampling point should be randomly located at least 5yds from the end of the section° Using this procedure all sampling points will be randomly located within each section of each transect and thus, the points should provide a geographic representation of the plan~s in the community (Fig.1) o Initially, the number of plant species or groups of species (i.eo oaks, ashes, etc.) sampled should be high to insure the best indicator species are selected for monitoring trends over years. Limiting the number of species sampled after the first year will depend upon the experience of the staff and the vegetation data available for the park. Generally, species or groups of species should be sampled that are important in park management programs and are representative of heavy, moderate and lightly browsed species. Sampling species based on deer browsing levels will increase the potential for detecting changes in the impact of deer, especially if management programs to control deer are implemented. 3) Deer Feeding Data Collection Data on deer feeding on woody plants should be collected in spring after snow melt (late March through early May) to record winter browsing and in late summer or early fall (August through early October). Usually these data need to be collected over a period of at least 3 years to allow for evaluation of trends. Plots for monitoring deer consumption of plants should be located at each of the sampling points described above° Each plot should be 10yds in diameter in community types where the 3 plant species of interest are sparse and at least 5yds in diameter when species are dense (Fig° 2).' At each sampling point, I plot should be established at ~ least 8yds in the 4 cardinal directions from the point. The use of 4 plots allows for a single plot to be sampled each year so that any particular plot will be sampled only once every 4 years. This sampling strategy will allow for the effects of deer feeding in any given year to have minimal impact on the data collected in subsequent years° All woody plant species of interest between lft and 6ft tall that are rooted in the plot should be inventoried0 The number of twig tips of each plant that were available during the preceding season should be counted. In addition, the number of twig tips removed by deer during the past season should be recorded° Feeding from previous seasons or years should not be included even if it can be identified° S~rubs and herbaceous plants should also recorded if there are specific interests in a particular species. Available and consumed twig tips should be summed for each species within each plot and then averaged for each transect and for each community. Relative use, defined as the number of tips consumed divided by the number of tips available, should be calculated for each species by plot, transect and community° Frequency of occurrence and stem density can also be calculated for each plant species. Feeding intensity, defined as the amount of use of a given plant species relative t6-the expected amount of use, can be calculated by first determining the expected number of tips consumed for each species assuming all s~ecies were used in proportion to their abundance, and then dividing the actual use of that species by the expected use. Ratios greater than 1.0 indicate a more intensively consumed species, while ratios less than 1.0 indicate a lower rate of consumption. Chi-square tests can be used to determine~whether or not the level of consumption across species is statistically significant° Caution must be taken in using consumption data as evidence of deer preference for a particular species° Browsing data collected in the spring reflects cumulative feeding over a period of months during which deer condition and plant species availability has changed. Preference for species may change in response to the condition of the deer on a given day or the quantity of other plant species available, and thus, this concept is not easily interpreted. 4) Collection of Other, Related Data The sampling points located as described above may be used to develop a variety of plant and animal data within each community type. Techniques for sampling other attributes of 4 plants or,animals populations. can also be developed using these points. The point quarter sampling technique can also used and~ is a method best adapted for sampling communities in which the dominant individuals are moderately large and plants of shrub size or larger are common. To implement this method, the area around each sampling point should be divided into 4 equal quadrants. This can be done by using the transect line and a second line perpendicular to the transect line at the sampling point. The individual stem nearest the original sampling point in each quadrant is located and the species identification, basal area or areal coverage and the distance to the sampling point recorded. Point to individual distances should be measured to the center of the crown or rooted base of the individual (Fig° 3). Point-to-individual distances should be totaled for all species and averaged to give the mean point-to-individual distance. This value squared gives the mean area per individual which is the.average area of the surface on which an individual occurs° The total plant species density in the area sampled is obtained by dividing the mean area per individual into the community area. The basal or areal coverage values for individuals of each species should be summed and divided by the number of individuals of the species to give the average dominance values for various species. From these data absolute and relative values for density, dominance, and frequency, together with an importance value for each species (relative density + relative dominance + relative frequency) may be determined. Knowledge of the regeneration rate of species or species- groups is important in interpreting the impact of deer feeding on seedlings and saplings. The density of seedlings <lft can be used to evaluate the potential for regeneration and often provides a more comprehensive understanding of regeneration dynamics. Seedling plots can be located using the centers of the browse plots but for seedlings the plots need only be 6ft in diameter° All seedlings that have emerged above the leaf litter should be counted. Seedling density can be summed within each plot and averaged across each transect and community. DEER POPULATION ASSESSMENT The success of any deer management program(s) implemented will be measured, in part, by changes in deer abundance. Consideration should be given to initiating or increasing population monitoring efforts due to the general interest in tracking population numbers, especially if questions about the accuracy of current surveys has been discussed. Aerial Surveys Currently, aerial surveys have been used~in some parks and have created an excellent record of count data at a low cost to Parks. This method, when conducted with snow on the ground, has produced efficient and cost-effective deer counts which have ~een useful as indicators of population trends. To increase the accuracy of these counts, multiple flights should be conducted within the same time period. Often flights within the same week can produce data on the variability of deer numbers observed which can be used to generate more accurate estimates of deer abundance. A stratified random sampling scheme for counting large animals like deer in winter has been developed by Siniff and Skoog (1964) but has had limited success in accomplishing the replication requirements of the technique in Minnesota. Flights should occur along transects and counting should be done by 2 observers, 1 to scan from each side of the aircraft° A member of the park staff should be involved in the counts either as an observer or navigator° Individuals with an intimate knowledge of the park will insure the areas sampled are identical from year to year and can call on their experience to anticipate where deer may be sighted° In addition, having a pool of observers to draw upon for conducting counts will protect against variability that could result from changes in staff. Despite the best efforts of the observers, deer will be missed on each count due to a wide variety of factors. Experienced observers have often estimated the' proportion of deer seen during counts which is usually a best guess. Ludwig'(1981), in controlled tests in Minnesota, estimated winter aerial counts accounted for 65-75% of the deer present in farmland areas with cattails and 76% in rolling, timbered areas void of cattails. Helicopters should be considered the aircraft of choice in conducting counts (Ludwig 1981, Thompson and Baker 1981). The increased cost of helicopter use would be offset by the ability to cruise transects at slower speeds than the typical fixed wing speeds of 75-80 mph. Helicopters can also descend to altitudes of 300 feet or less when deer are located in dense cover or observers want to confirm suspected deer sightings° Slower speeds allow fo~ larger groups of deer to be counted more accurately and, when combined with flights at lower altitudes, will allow more deer observations to be confirmed. In addition, observers hovering at altitudes of .less than 300 feet will be able to cause deer in dense cover such as conifers to move. Stoll et. alo (1991) in Ohio farmland found helicopter counts constituted a complete census of deer in upland woodlots, riparian woodlots, brushland and fallow fields. Conditions that contributed to the accuracy of these counts were: 1) uniform snow cover; 2) relatively level terrain; 3) deciduous tree and shrub cover with no evergreen cover; 4) small, isolated habitat patches ranging in size from a few acres to a few hundred acres; 6 and, 5) deer densities of 5-13 deer/mi2. This study also cited the Observation of tracks and other deer-related disturbances in the snow as enhancing the accuracy of the helicopter countinG technique. · In Minnesota, farmland survey areas should include lands at least 1 mile and up to 5 miles from each park° Observations of deer on adjoining lands will provide a better perspective on the number of deer wintering in and around the park as well as the movements and habitat use of these deer. Roadside Counts Counts of deer taken along roads have beeneused to provide indices to deer abundance. These counts typically involve observers driving along prescribed routes during the same time each year, recordinG the sex and age of deer sighted. These methods have Gr.eat utility after a period of years when trends can be established and evaluated. McCullough (1982) found the accuracy of counts and variability of the data was improved when counts were conducted at night with spotlights. The road system at most parks provides reasonable access to most of the property, especially when all trails access opportunities are available° The best time to conduct counts would be after leaf fall until the opening of the firearms huntinG season. During this period, deer are visible and movements are maximized due to deer breeding season activities. The accuracy in usinG these observations to calculate adult sex ratios and fawn/doe ratios. has been considered good. Counts should be conducted over a route that covers all portions of park that can be viewed from a road or trail. This often means many trails will need to be mowed to minimize noise. The route should be designed with 3-5 points located at equal intervals along the route that can be used as different starting points. Routes should be completed several times (at least 5 or more counts) during the counting period and successive counts should be commenced by startinG at a different startinG point. This procedure precludes the same deer beinG seen at the same time on each count. When travelinG portions of the survey route near each other or sections of the route where backtracking is necessary, care will need to be taken to not double count any areas or deer. Counts can be completed in the morning beginning at or around dawn or, as suggested above, can be conducted at night using spotlights. Evening counts should begin 30 minutes after sundown. Lights with a narrow, direct beam.and operating with at least 300,000 candlepower are recommended. The counts can be conducted by a driver familiar with the property and 1 observer using binoculars on each side of the vehicle° Counting from high observation points such as standing in the back of a pickup truck will optimize the ability to locate and identify deer. Observers should cruise roads at speeds that allow for observers to confidently report the presence or absence of deer in their search area. Observers should continuously .scan the roadside in the same direction rather than search for deer in a nonsystematic fashion. Continuous scanning insures all areas are searched equally well. Deer observed should be recorded as bucks (antlered males), does (large antlerless deer), fawns (young of the year), unknown antlerless (antlerless deer of unknown age) or unknowns (sex and age not discernable). Conditions at the time of the counts should be recorded including moon phase, temperature, visibility, wind direction and speed, and precipitation. LITERATURE CITED Cottam, G., and J.T. Curtis. 1956. in phytosociological sampling. The use of distance measures Ecology 37(3):451-460. Ludwig, J. 1981. Proportion of deer seen in aerial counts° Minn. Wildl. Res° Q. 41:11-19. Siniff, D.B., and R.O. Skoogo 1964. Aerial censusing of caribou using stratified random sampling. Jo Wildl. Manage° 28:391- 401. Stoll, R.J., Jr., M.W. McClain, J.C. Clem, and T. Plageman. 1991. Accuracy of helicopter counts of white-tailed deer in western Ohio farmland. 'Wildl. Socu Bull. 19:309-314. Thompson, B.C., and B.W. Baker. 1981. Helicopter use by wildlife agencies in North America. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 9:319- 323° FISH e' WILl]LIFE TODAY/Fall 1996 3 Vehicle Though the car always wins, it's a conflict best avoided in the first place. Here's how: CITY OF MINNETONKA R :I:I~IDENT$ KNOW liter one of the worst places to view deer in that Twin Cities suburb is from the road--especially when it's at 45 miles per hour and without w,'u'ning. Approximately 9 of every 10 Min- [~ netonknns said they'd encountered deer on streets and highways in their heavily wooded t~.] ~. city, according to a community survey taken iu 1994. One out of 16 respondents said their vehicles actually hit deer. And more than half reported having to at least slow down for whitetails, while another 28 percent braked or swerved to miss a whitetail, says Michelle Stradtmann, a DNR wildlife research biolo- gist working on urban deer programs. Add deer dodging to the rash-hour traffic woes of many Twin Cities drivers. The mix of urban river corridors, abun- dant parks, and hundreds of wetlands provides safe havens for the region's growing deer population. According to DNR wildlife biologists, deer numbers continue to increase, primarily because the animals lack predators. Unless you count cars, that is. Each year, vehicle colli- sions kill an estimated 3,000 to 4,000 whitetails in the metro region. An untold number arc wounded and limp off to die or suffer. Cars hit country deer, too Rarely in mini Minnesota do deer densities top 25 per sqnare mile, even in the most crowded whitetail woods. Yet in same urban areas, DNR research shows deer densities as high as 100 whitetails per square mile. "Expect the deer to do the unexpected--like run right out in front of your car." --Jay McAninch, DNR Urban Deer Expert That do~so't meau rural Minnesotaos can start ignoring deer-crossing signs, however. Jay McAninch. the DNR's urhan deer expert, estimatas that at least 10,000 deer are killed ou highways each year in greater Min.oesota. An even higher uumber of deer-car accidents go unreported. Also not counted are accidents that somehow spare the deer while contributing to collisions between vehicles or with roadside objects. The cost to insurance companies from this carnage reaches into the tens of millions of dollars per year, according to industry officials. In communities and along highways where numbers of deer collisions are highest, the DNR attempts to reduce local whitetail herds by issuing additional antlerless deer permits to hunters. Where accidents are particularly common, state wildlife managers advise city or county offi- cials to erect tall fences or madside reflectore, which send headlights into woods anti ~are tile deer from tile road. Carnage en the concrete: According to DNR wildlife managerS, communities that refuse to rise lethal population control reelhods such as controlled hunts or shaq~shooting will only see an increase In deer-car collisions. Deer are mobile, often traveling several miles each day. When crossing a mad, .the animals are often paralyzed with fear by approaching vehicles, especially at night, and then dash unexpectedly at file last minuta.--oftan fight into the traffic. Tips for avoiding deer Because there's no changing a doer's behavior near roads, McAninch offers these tips to drivers to help reduce collisions: 1. Slow down---especially where dear-crossing signs are posted: "i can't tell you how many times I hear reports of collision from people who were in a hurry to go some- where." McAninch says. Ir you spot a deer anywhere near a road, immediately decelerata as safely as possible. A stand- ing deer can suddenly panic and dart in any direction. Use your horn to scare the deer away rmm the mad. 2. Drive defensively--especially if you see a deer: "Expect the dear to do the unexpected---like mn right out in front of your car. And often deer travel in pairs or threes, so if you see one cross the road ~ead there's likely another about to come out. too." 3. Be especially wary during spring and full. In March and April. roadsides have some of the fir.st greenery of the year available to hungry deer. Aud breeding activity in October and November prompt.s deer to move around more than usual. Contrary to local lore. there are not more deer along roadsides during deer hunting season. "As many as 100.000 deer are shot in tile first few days of the season, and most off the others head for dense cover," says McAninch. 4. Dawn and dusk are dangerous. Low-light hours are when deer are moving most. Nights are especially haz- ardous because it's hard to see roadside deer until they dash into the headlights. 5. Watch the side of the road, especially near woods. Whitetails regularly travel along river and streambanks or wooded bonomland.~,--places where motorism usually see deer-crossing signs. While driving in these areas, expand your field of vision beyond the road to see the road ditches and wood edges where deer might be standing. 6, Deer warning gadgets don't work. McAninch says several studies have shown that whistles and other devices attached to vehicles fail to scare or warn deer: "People want to drive 60 mile.q per hour with some device to scare deer off roadways so they don't have to slow down. It's wishful thiuking." 7. Use your lights. Drive with lights on during overcast days and use high beams at night whenever possible. Though headlights from a speeding vehicle tend to confuse whitetails, the reflecting light from their eyes helps drivers to see the animals. 8. Don't dodge a deer only to lose control and smack another vehicle. "Sometiraes hitting a whitetail actually tums out to be your best option." says McAninch. "It's not pretty, but it sure beats getting rear-ended or naming into a semi." [] ~,i*2v ~,~ .' · .I. ~ , ". ',' "," ~ ,~ ,~) ?, ,.. ; · ,, :. .,,; ~ · ?'i., , · l,. ."~¥7 ' '" ' '; ';' ' ,~ ~'pro~y'dmago:. ~i .'.'. , ., . '~qui~dtofile~:' 'ra~didont ~pon, says Rlc=~;,Wh,t~[~r~ ~e. demigod'.. ~fluim ~ accident ~?cx~'~n=.o01y good '. . ' ". . ..' . ' ' '~ou 'Can ~et a .enforc~.~ent'~ffi~ ..... · · , .... lie, $,),'.:~tln;~:s k~;ow ::;~1~ 'lg~ u d,.,,.ut.hcs .n ,ih tT{. ,h,., ~111.lt d,m.,i.ml ,. ,, I,t ;u~ . e ~.e,~ ..... ' ,, e, ,fid ... ~.d b~,xl~ ,. 3eer-car coJ i s ons Reflectors.along roads may prevent crashes ~ Jim Adams Staff Writer Many motorists thrill to the sight ofdeer along the roadside, but the thrill can disappear quickly when a deer dashes into their path afer "I've had to slam on the brakes ~nd swerve," said Ramsey CoUnty deputy Tom Murphy. "You don't see them until the last minute by the roadside. Sometimes instead of running b~ck into the woods, they run tight into the track." He patrols North Oaks, which has an estimated 900 deer. Although few motorists are killed ~ hitting deer -- three died in btinnesotn in 1990-- the collisions cause costly vehicle damage. In 1990 the number levels in most of the metro nrca's ~even counties; the metrowide 'total lose to 3t033, up 36 percent from the prewous year, according to fi~ures reported to the bfinne~ota Department of Natural Resourees (DNR). The Twin Cities accounted for one- fifth of the state total. In response, the Minnesota Department of Transportation spent $22,050 this fall to install reflecton on posts along 6.2 miles of highways to s~re deer off six busy stretches in Lake Elmo, Pine' Sprin~ Oakdale, Vadnais Hei~North Oaks, Rosemount and Earn. Several more installations are I~lanned for ~tern suburb~ m 1993. · '"The amount of property damage or personal injury done can be enormous when you strike n · deer," said Ramsey Count}~ S~. George Altendorfer. He said he was lucky to escape with little damage afer a deer hit the side of his family c~r last year in White Bear Township. On-duty police officers and . firetighten also have hit deer in Bloomington, Rosemount, North Ohks, Forest Lake Township and other suburbs. Vehicle repmrs have cost fro~ $2,000 to $5,000, officers said. In Washington County, where collisions with d~er almost doubled to 525 in 1990, sheriiTs deputies hit deer six times last year, including twice in One week in September, said Sheila Neubaner, the ' ~dministration office manager. In cities such as North Oaks and Bloomington, which hnn an estimated 750 deer, highway , reflectors ~ren't enough. Sharpsbootes and special deer hunts v/ere used this fall to reduce herds in Minnesota River communities, ineludin~ , Bloomington, which recently has had more than 100 deer-car collisions n year, officials ~id. No hunting is allowed in North. Oaks, so deer are trapp~. and shot and the venison !s delivered to food shelves and other nonprofit groups, said Tim Ws!lnce, DNR metro'area wildlife officer. Mild winters have meant i=ooming deer herds in the Twin Cities, D. NR officials said. crow Deer killed in collisions wRh cars ~n ~ 559 ~ 5~ 5~ Catve~ County 182 158 171 207 Dakota Coun~ 437 353 .314 474 Hennepln County 714 511 542 789 Ramsey County 105 122 136 179 Scott County 207 176 241 267 Washington County 379 301 272 525 !Vletrowlde 2,663 2,206 2,226 3,033 StntawMe 12,975 11,994 12,622 15,048 8ouzce: Minnesota !~ of Nnlural Reaoofcee The reflectors w6rk by deflecting headlight beams to roadsides. The light temporarily blinds deer, and the reflectors appear to be a moving wall, detening them from crossing until vehicles pass, said Bruce Kastner, the Transportation Department's east metro traffic studies supervisor. A major concern is keeping the reflectors clean of snow and slush splashed by plows, he said. The system, called Swabflex, was developed in Austria and has been tested in more than 25 states. Nearly all the states nm seeing fewer deer kills, Wallsea said. Collisions involving deer have dropped from 50 to 90 percent after the reflectors were installed on highway segments near Brainerd, Mankaro, Willmar · and Elk River, said Val Reinaas, n safety researcher for the department. The reflectors seem to be less effeetive in the Twin Cities, where the first ones were installed in 1986 on Hwy. 61 at the southern end of Cottnse Grove, Reina~ said. That installation,and another one, installed in 1987 in North Oaks on Hwy. 96 east of Rice St., have kept deer-car accidents at a stable level, fewer -. than four a year. That is significant, ~iven , increasing deer populations and . traffic. Traffic volume has increased by 20 percent in Cottage Grove and 7 percent in' North Oaks since 1986, she said. She said suburban development has reduced de~' habitat,: concentratin~ them in smaller nrcas and perhaps causin~ more highway crossings. The six installations include three .. in Washington County, two of them on Hwy. 36 between Stillwater and InterstaM Hwy. 694. The third is in Oakdale on ' Hwy..$ east of 1-694. Dakota County has two installations: ~ Hwy..13 south of 1-494 in E~nn, and Hwy. 55 east of Koch .Refinery, in Rosemount. The sixth ~s on Hwy. 96, west of Centerville Rd. in North Oaks and Vadnais Hei/,hts. 5't r/-TC;b 2-L -Cl7.. 3 new Uok-boPne diseases lu 'k Lyme disease gets headlines. but these illnesses are more dangerous -- and spreading..~ M,c.m~ ~UUJA TU.~ DRIVING HOME from her cabin near Lake Superior, Susan Egan suddenly felt ill. Her symptoms -- fever, achy joints and throbbing head- ache m matched those of Lyme dis- case, but Egan dismissed it as the flu because she didn't have a bull's-eye- shaped rash, Lyme's telltale sign. Egan called a doctor only after a news report alerted her to an emerging tick-borne disease called human granulocytic ehrlichiosis. The doctor had never heard of it, but a specialist eventually confirmed she-had it. Egan was fortunate: HGE has killed four people among the roughly 150 diagnosed with the illness since it was identified in 3.994. HGE and other new tick-borne dis- eases aren't as widespread as Lyme disease, which has stricken 70,000 Americans, but are .more dangerous because ~hey can be fatal if not treated immediately2 Another species of the The threat ~aries'by region, but anyone who enjoys the outdoors should be aware of the risk. ....... bacterium that causes HGE has resulted in 450 cases of human monocy/ic ehr- lichiosis (HME) and 13 deaths, and a tick-borne disease called babesiosis has stricken 250 Amencans, killing at least 10. These are not yet recognized as diseases that should be reported to authorities, so researchers think doz- ens of cases have gone unreported. The new maladies' Lyme-like symp- toms (high fever, chills, headache, muscle pain, fatigue) tend to be more severe and develop sooner. Doctors may misdiagnose because there are no distinguishing symptoms, and screening tests are not widely available. Particularly vexing: A single 'bite can cause simultaneous infec- rious, each requiring a separate blood test. And while these diseases almost always can be cured if treated promptly, no single drug treats them all. To learn more, call the Lyme Dis- ease Foundation: 1-800;.886-%-YME. [?J USA WEE~ENO · Ap~l 25-27,1997 13 Landscape cesign and Lyme disease Familiarize yourself with the landscape habitats that harbor the animals on which deer ticks dwell./n doing so, you can lessen your--and your customers '--risk for this disease. By Denise H. Frank and Thomas J. Daniels, New York Medical College ncreasing social change marked Lite late 196Os and early '70s. Even so, much of life in northeastern U.S. sub- urbs went on as usual. Sunliners re- mained tintes of mowing lawns. gar- dening, walking in the woods, feed- ing squirrels and birds, and watching deer that wandered onto lawns at dawn and dusk. But to some residents of Lyme. Conn., and its neighboring communities of Old Lyme and East Haddam, this time bronght about a profound change in their lives. Residents of the area began tb de- vclop arthritic symptoms, seemingly without cause. Epidemiological re- search revealed the culprit as ixodes scaptdaris. or the black-legged tick. This relatively small tick was respon- sible l'or tran.qmitting the spirochete bacteria. whiclt caused what later became familiar as Lyme disease. The black-legged tick, also knowq as the deer tick, apparently had ex- isled in tile Northeast for at least 30 years. though in low nt, mbers. Re- searchers surmised that tile tick popu~ lation increased with the expanded population of white-tailed deer, or which the ticks feed. Both had in creased to the point of initiating ar epidemic of Lyme disease. Lyme dis- ease is now the most common arthro- pod-borne infectious disease affect. ing humans in the United States. Mos' cases are concentrated in the North- east. but increasing numbers are ap- pearing in the upper Midwest anc Pacific states. Research on deer ticks did not re- ally begin in earnest until the earl? Continued.. .,..~ · ~ · Landscapes where deer ticks live can vary dra- matically. These three photos represent typical tick habitats where Lyme disease is prevalent: ar- eas with patches of dense shrubs or brush and stands of trees (above); temperate, deciduous woodlands (near right); and chaparral oak habi- tats (far right). C 8 Grounds Mainter~ance July 1994 Continued from page C 8 1980s, and the intervening years have seen an information explosion on the natural tiistory of this tick. Thus, we now have greater knowledge of the ticks, their life cycles, their hosts and the habitats in which the ticks and their hosts live. Knowing this, we can better understand what steps we can take in designing a landscape to re- duce the number of deer ticks and their hosts. Deer ticks' life cycle The deer tick, like other species of ixodid (hard) ticks, goes through three life stages during its 2-year life cycle. After it hatches, it enters two immature stages--larva and nymph--and finally its adult stage. Each stage requires a single blood meal. Larvae are born uninfected but can become infected when they feed on a host carrying tile Lyme-disease bacteria, such as the white-looted mouse. Once infected, ticks apparently maintain the infection through subsequent moltlags. As nymphs, the ticks again seek small mammals and birds as hosts, though they sometimes choose hu- man hosts at this stage. Any infected ticks--about one-qnarter of all deer tick nymphs in the Northeastmcan pass the infection on to their hosts dm'ing Ihe I'eeding period, which can last 4 to 5 (lays. Still, something of a grace period does exist for those they bite. The ticks do not immediately pass on the spirochete to their bite victims. Not until they have fed on their hosts for at least 24 hours do they infect the host. Therefore, any- one who spends' time in tick habitat should inspect themselves thoroughly Trealment Average (kilograms of active density Percent Ingredient per acre) (nymphs reduction' per acre) Carbaryl EC (0.4) 8 68 ...'.,,~..:?. , .,~ '.~' ';. ::., .~;~~:~:_,~., .;: ~ .~. .; ~"~.- ' ' ~. ~."-'T.: '"', ~ V~,.: " ~ .. Carba~l ~ (1.8) 7 78 . (0,4)':.: . ?:~-;'.-:':'..?"~. Chlo~yrifos WP 2 87 (0.2) C~luthdn EC (0.04) 1 92 ' ~e~ on d~erag~ ~m~r ot day~ (4~)ttom "' trea~efll that prope~ '~ere ~am~led for ticks. S~r~: 'R~ of N~al t~s ~mm[~(~: Ix~i~e) ~ a R~- ~n~l S~an La~ ~ Area ~l~ of I~es' by Kath~ L. Cuban, ~da~ FI~ a~ ~ P~n, J~l ~ ~t Enid, V~. ~, ~. 1, Ja~a~ I~. R~t~ ~ ~ ~ ~t~ ~ at the end of each day and remove any attached ticks. By doing so, they will remove the ticks before the ticks have passed on the spirochete bacteria. Once nymphs have fed, they fall to the ground and, later that summer, molt into the adult stage. Adults typi- cally are active in the fall and con- tlnue questing for hosts until the first frost or until temperatures become too cold (about 40°F) for tick activity , to conlJnue. Although greater numbers of adult than nymph deer ticks are infected with Lyme disease~about one-half of adult deer ticks in the Northeast~ few people get Lyme disease from adult deer ticks. Most Lyme disease is from nymphal bites. The reason: The ticks are so small at this stage that people are less likely to notice and remove them. Plus, the nymphs are active in summer, when people spend a lot of time outdoors. Adult ticks are much larger and more no- ticcable and are active during fall's cooler weather when people are out- side less often. While most Lyme-disease cases occur in the Northeast and Midwest, health agencies have reported hun- dreds of cases in the West, particu- larly in northern California and Or- egon. Tilere, the western black-legged tick (i. pacificus) spreads the disease. ' !lowever, in these sections of the country, ~he percentage of ticks in- rected with spirochares is extremely low, most likely because fewer host species in these areas carry the infec- tion. Here, researchers have collecled the western black-legged tick at sites ~ ranging from sea level to elevations higher than 6.000 feet. Adults are active from November through May, [ while nymphs are most active from ~ March through June. Cases of Lyme disease are infre- quent in the Southeastern United States. There, just a small percentage of ticks are infected, for apparently the same reason as the West's ticks. In addition. nymphs in the Southeast rarely bite humans, further reducing the likelifiood of Lyme-disease trans- mission in this area. ~.. Landscape features associated with deer ticks Generally speaking, deer ticks are ~ most abundant in the temperate, de. ~ ciduous woodlands that characterize ' ContlnuoO.,. Continued item page C tO the Northeast and Midwest. Such ar- eas have large oak/maple communi- ties with varying amounts of under- story. However, ticks also have found successful homes in areas with much different landscape characteristics. For example, the islands off Cape Cod, Mass.. are home to many deer ticks. Yet. these islands are charac- terized by patches of dense shrubs, such as bhteberry. green brier and bear- ben'y, as well as stands of pitch pitts and wo~gllands fff white oak. While researchers once' thought high densities of ticks were restricted to coastal areas witit moderate tempera- tufas. we know now that colder eli- mates do not limit populations from spreading. The deer tick is quite hardy and seems well adapted to withs!anding long periods.of cold weather. Deer ticks also live successfully in other cold- weather locales. such as northern New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Onturio, Canada. In fact, although it is difficult to determine the winter sur- vival tale for deer ticks. our data sug- gest that it is quite high. Other habile( variables. then, appear more itltpt,'tan~ in affiacting tick num- bers and surviv,rship. For example. researchers found that nun(bars of im- ntatnre deer ticks were strongly related to the density of woody vegetation. !n contrast, they were negatively carre- "~v · ~ · u ',~,?~.. F" "~ ~ ~ ~nu ar SHIPPED UPS ~ ~ .~: t,'. .. , ~ ........ ,. . - ~ under the paver ~ ~ d I ' t th~~~ers ~~ ~ffjhe paver a I s~~~ or plants t~row :~.~[ 2~ right next to the brick/pavers. \, strength as a combined unit. Then as Ihe weight of the ' '~ ~ .... brick pushes down on the horizontal leg, the vertical leg Is pulled tighter against the outside edge of the brick paver. Since our design uses the brick and edging as a combined unll there la no problem wllh froel heaving or ground movement, The edging Is staked down, the brick . Is on top el the edging and lhe outside edge Is backed up with compacted soil, rock or turf. The entire system _.t aa~ada will rise and fail legalher throughout cold or warm _ seasonal ground movements. -DGtNGS "" No sharp edges t.$00'E /,,/ BI Flexible or rigid sections ~l,/~[./~.~' ' - viLL/~ P~' ' [] Very cost competitive '' (/. _. C~A~LES ~o~_U.',, 4 705-$33'06~0 [] Will not kink or warp. 124 ~-. ~" 633 3033 P~'" )THER QUALITY EDGINQS AVAILABLE: t.106' ' Circle (27) on Reply Card C 12 Grounds Maintenance July 1994 lated to tile presence of herbaceous vegetation. Heavily wooded sites tend to be dense, protected areas with little air movement while those with herba- ceous vegetation or grass typically are open and prone to desiccation. Thus. the association between immature tick abundance and vegetation type may result from the ticks' susceptibility to drying o',~. In the western United States,,nvhere we associate ticks with HOW DEER TICKS LOCATE HOSTS Deer ticks use smell to help orient themselves to better "am- bush" their hosts, according to recent studies. Researchers found that the ticks re~ognize sub- stances associated With glands 6n the legs of white-tailed deer. The ticks respond similarly to does' urine. After researchers rubbed the gland secretions or urine onto sections of glass tub- ing~ the ticks congregated on those areas. This reaction ex- plains why ticks gather on veg- etation along deer trails. Re- searchers now are working to iso- late the chemical stimulus in the secretions arid uttne. This may lead to traps for controlling ticks and for use in sui'veying the num- ber of ticks in specific areas. For more information, contact John F. Carroll or Edward T. Schmidtmann, Livestock Insect Laboratory (Beltsville, Md.), (301) 504-9017 or (301) 504-8973; or Jerome A. Klun, Insect Chemical Ecology Laboratory (Beltsville), (301) 504-9388. ,O oak woodlands, brushy chaparral and woodland/grassland habitats--re- searchers have found that ticks restrict host-seeking behavior to periods of higher humidity and lower ambient tem- peratures. In addition to the favorable condi- tions that a woodland habitat provides for ticks, it is also a major refuge for many host species such as mice, chip- munks, raccoons and deer. Because, deer ticks do not move far on their own, C~fln~d... Continued from page C 12 · qleir dispersal in nature is strongly dependent on tile habitat prefercutes of the hosts on. which they feed. Once they complete feeding. engorged ticks detach from their hosts and bury them- selves under leaf }iuer until they molt to the next stage and are ready to feed again. They begin to quest for a new host very close to where they de- tached from the previous host. There- fore. it is not surprising to find greater nnmbers of ticks in brushy and wooded areas where the hosts are abundanl. Ticks are nol only plentiful in areas we usually associate with I)arks or forests; we also often find them Jn suburban residential areas. Many sub- urban areas in the eastern United States are the result of urban expan- sion into regenerated t~rests, which we previously used for agriculture. Although manmade sU'uctures and roads fragment these suburban land- scapes. many hosts of the deer dck~ such aft deer, illiCe and i'acco(lll~-- seem to thrive in tlles~ patch~ haiti- tats. Al~o, many wildlite ~pecies pro,- per in suburban areas because hunt- ing is not allowed there. Researchers conducting stddies in two northeastern residential commu- nifies found tick populations to be similar to non-residential areas. 1tow- ever. as you might expect, research- ers found t~wer uumbers of ticks as they moved away from lhe edges wooded, residential lots and closer lhe well-manicured, oruamenlal laud- scapes adjacent to homes. Don't peet a manicured lawn to completely decrease your exposure to ticks, how- ever. Even Ihough tim density of Hcks is lower on laWliB and around orna- mental I?lantings~cnnq~ared with woodland and brushy cdges~the risk of ucqniring lick hires increases landscapers, homeowners and chil- dren who' spend relatively large amounls or time gardening. landscap- ing or playing around homes. Reducing !he risk of Lyme disease The association between tick abun- dance and habitat stfggesls that we can reduce human risk by modifying tim hahitel. litre are several steps researchers rec(nnmend: ~ C/e'tt/' ttHd~,rh/'tt.vlr ~t/~d moFc Io,~ /files ttway.l)¥...l)'equentl)' .,¥ed ttr. eas. Uuderbrtmh and log piles pro- vide cover fin' many h.s( species such as mice and chilm]unks. $ Trim vegelaliolt belweerr /)rope/'- .lies. Homeowners value such vegeta- -. 'SEASONAL DEER TICK , .' ':('.." ACTIVITY~ CYCLE (Northeast and Midwest United States) O! the two periods of adult activity, the fall'period is the primary one for deer tick activity. It is during this time that molted adults are out for the first time seeking a host. The spring peak, which occurs in late March, represents the ticks remaining from the previous fall period. " Stage' ' ,.Actlie period Peak activity Adult March through Late March through June early April Nymph' : May through, .... -. : August ~' Late June through i early July Larva July through Late August through September early September ::';':'" ' "-- . '" September i Late'October through '". Adult* through 'y . '~ ' December::; mid-November C 14 Grounds Maintenance July 1994 lion for its screening effect, You can make il less atlractive to tick hosts by pruuing lower branches and replac- lug natural leaf-litter with dry mulch. · Increase rock walls' exposure. Chipmunks and mice use stone walls~abundant remnants of the No,'theast's agricultural pest--as nesting sites. 'these walls, then, often have high densities of ticks assocl- aled wilh Ihem. While few would advocate removing the walls~some areas consider thenl to be of histori- cal significance. and local ordinances f~.'bid Ihcir destruction--you can in- crease their exposure to sun and wind by pruning overhead branches and removing adjacent leaf litter, Doing so may provide less hospitable condi- tions for questing ticks and their hosts, 0 Put up it fence. In areas of the counlry where deer ticks are espe- cially prevalent, you usually also have deer in high numbers. Because deer are the primary host for questing adult (leer ticks, il is especially important Io keep deer awuy from areas wilere people spend a lot of time outside. Ordinary fences may not be adequate to keep deer away. however, because deer carl easily jump a 4- or 5-fool high fence from a standing position. Therefore, in those areas where deer tend to be a problem, installing an 8- foot-high fence may be an important part of decreasing the number of deer ticks on a properly. ~) Consider using a pesticide. Re- searchers have tested several pesti- cicles to control deer ticks and thus reduce tile risk of Lyme disease. (Studies have shown, however, that one strategy may not work in all ar- eas.) In one study, researchers used a kit (Damminix) of paper tubes con- taining permethrin-impregnated cot- ton balls to target white-fooled mice, the most important host of immature ticks. Researchers placed the product at outdoor sites near areas where the mice lived. Researchers hoped that. ideally, when the mice carne across the cotton be!Is, they would remove' them and carry them to their nests for bedding. in so doing, the mice would transfer the acericicle to their fur and kill any feeding ticks. Because re- searchers expected the product to stay on the fur for several days, the acericicle would also kill or repel any additional ticks tile mice encountered during that time. Researchers hoped that by prevent- Continued... MANAGEMENT PLANS USING SHARPSHOOTING OVER BAIT AN D TRAP AN D KILL EVALUATION OF A LIVE-TRAP AND KILL PROGRAM AS AN URBAN DEER POPULATION CONTROL METHOD Michelle L. Stradtmann, Jay B. McAninch, and Jon M. Parker As a result of increasing deer densities in many urban communities, city officials have had to confront a variety of issues regarding deer management and population control. In rural areas, regulated hunting has been the primary method used to manage deer. However, in urban settings, public safety concerns created pressure to develop alternative methods for controlling deer. In recent years controlled firearms hunting (Deblinger et al. 1993), controlled archery hunting (Vet Steeg et al. 1993, McAninch 1993) and various types of sharpshooting (Ishmael and Rongstad 1984, Witham and Jones 1992, Drummond 1993, Stradtmann et al. 1993, Stradtmann 1994) have been developed and implemented as population control methods. The use of live-traps to capture deer which are then killed while in the trap has been implemented in North Oaks, Minnesota (Jordan et al. 1993). In this study we will be evaluating the cost, effectiveness, efficiency and safety of a trap and kill program developed and implemented in Minnctonka, Minnesota. METHODS The live-trap and kill program was approved by the Minnetonka city council in July 1994. City staff applied for and re. ceived a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources permit for implementing the program. A contractor was hired through a competitive bidding. process in October. In conjunction with a community survey about deer, residents were asked about the implementation of the live-trap and kill program, and specifically, if they would allow a trap to be placed on their property. Based on the survey, properties were designated as those who: 1) wanted traps on their property; 2) wanted traps placed in the neighborhood; 3) did not care where or when trapping occurred; 4) wanted to know if traps were placed in the neighborhood; 5) commented that they did not want trapping; and, 6) did not respond to the survey. The city was divided into four management units based on survey responses and an assessment of the extent of reported deer damage' problems. A list of residents who wanted traps on their property was prepared for each unit. These locations were then checked to determine if any adjacent neighbor had indicated they were opposed to the live-trap and kill program. Any location with an opposed adjacent neighbor was then excluded from the list of MN DNR Wildl. Pops. And Res. Unit 1994 report 11 potential trapping locations presented to' the contractor.. The contractor investigated each location for suitability for trapping. Property owners of locations suitable for trapping were presented with a consent form prepared by the city. After consent forms were completed, traps were placed at the location and remained closed during an initial 2-3 days of baiting around the trap. Traps were opened in late afternoon a few hours before dusk and remained open until sunrise the following morning. Traps were opened Sunday night and closed Friday morning during the trapping ~riod, D~or captured in the trapg were removed in the mornings I)efore sunrise. When the contractor noticed diminished deer activity around the traps, they were relocated to the next available location. - . - ..~ , . D6er were shot in the head while in the traps and removed to an operations center for examination.. All deer were eviseerated and examined, and sex, age and reproduction data collected. Internal organs were disposed of and carcasses transported directly to a meat processing facility or a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) law conservation officer for distribution to charitable organizations. · .. '. .' PRELIMINARY RESULTS The deer management survey was mailed to residents on 14 October and information was entered into database as surveys were received.' A total of 298 property owners indicated they wanted a trap on their property, Twenty-six percent of the potential locations were excluded 'frbm consideration' due to neighboring property owners who commented' on the,' survey that they were opposed to the program. An estimated 50% of the remaining locations' were excluded due to poor suitability for trapping. 'Trap placement began on' 12 December, 1994. Trapping continued through i3 March, 1995 except from 16-19 December during court proceedings as a result of a lawsuit filed . against the'program, and from 23-26 December and 30 December - 2 January for the holidays. Twenty-one trapping' locations were'used with an average of two traps per. !o9, atio~ (range.= 1- 4). The highest number'of traps active at one.time was 17.: ' ., '. ~ ,. " A total of 68 deer were removed which included 39 fawns (57%), 9 adult males i13 %), and 20 adult females (29%). The contractor was able to remove an average of 4. deer per location (range = 0-12) with a maximum of four deer killed in one day.. No deer were removed from six locations and 10 6r more deer were removed from three locations....In the u .nit' of' highest priorlty for damage control, .75 % of the deer were removed while the .~:... ~. remaining 25 % were taken in'an adjoining unit. Trapping did not occur. in t.wo of the units... Second Harvest Food Shelves received 36 deer (53 %) while the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association's Hunters Against Hunger program received 32 deer. MN DNR Wildl. Pops. And Res. Unit 1994 report "". ~:'. Yearling females (> 1 year and < 2 years of age) (N--5) had an av6rage of one fetus each while adult females (2 or more years of age) (N= 10) had an average of two fetuses each. All fawn females (N=6) killed after 1 February, 1995 were not found to be pregnant. All adult females (N= 15) killed after 1 January, 1995 were pregnant and averaged 1.67 fetuses each. The sex of fetuses examined were 52% male, 44% female and 4% undetermined: LITERATURE CITED. Deblinger, R.D., D.W. Rimmet, controlled, limited hunting at the Crane Rese~ation, Massachusetts. In LB. .McAninch, ed., Urban deer: A manageable resource?. ":' .' Drummond, F. In p/'ess. 1993. Lethal and nonqethal deer management at Ryerson Conservation Area, Northeastern Illinois. In J.B. McAninch; ed., Urban deer,- A manageable resource? ' ' Ishmael,' WiE. and' OJ. 'Rongstad. 1984. Economics of an urban deer-removal program. Wildl. Socl Bull. 12:394-398.":'· '. -- ~ . - - '. '~ .'. ~ . . '- Jordanl P.A., R.A'. Moen, E.J'.' DeGayne~', '~nd W.C. PitL "1993.' In press. An evaluation of removal by trap-and-shoot for control of urban deer: Case history - North Oaks, Minnesota. In LB. 'MeAninch, ed., Urban deer: A manageable resource? McAninch, LB.·'"1993.· use of boWhunting in deer population management programs in Mir~'esota. Proc~ of the West. Bowhunting Conf.:33:36.!~'~':, .. Stradtm ,'M.'L., LB. Me 'Aaineh,~J.M. tlarker',:and E.P. Wiggets. In press.' 1993: Police ':~' ""' ' sharp~h0oting as a method to roduc6 deer popfilation~ in Bloomington, Minnesota. In LB. McAninch', ed.~ Urb~indeer: A manageable resource?. Stradtmann; M.L. '1994'. Optiofis' for managing urban dee~ populations~ M.S: 'Thesis, . 'University of Missodri-Columbia~" "~:'"~ .... ' ' Ver Stee , W th .a n;";nd T. I.:neiss¢l. In press. ·1993." Use of bowhunting to .... control deer in a suburbat{ park in Illinois.' In J.B. McAninch, ed., Urban deer: A V~itham,' J.'Hi and J.M; J6nes. "~992.' ·Biology, e~ology and management of deer in the Chicago metropolitan area.' Illinois Dept. Of Conserv. Proj. No. W-87-R.' 108pp.. MN DNR Wildl. Pops. And Res. Unit 1994 report PROPOSED DEER POPULATION MANAGEMENT PLAN BACKGROUND The City Coundl has discussed the concept of deer population control on several occasions during the past five years. In 1988, representatives of the Minnesota Department o1~ Natural Resources and Hennepin Parks discussed deer population dynamics and movements with the City Council. These representatives noted that Edina's deer population is part of a larger herd which occupies Bloon~ington and Eden Prairie. They noted that population reduction efforts iu NAina alone would probably be unsuccessful due to deer immigration for the other cities. In the winter of 1991-1992, the City of Bloomington, Hennepin Parks, the DNP~ and the Fish and Wildlife Service initiated a deer control program within Bloomington. In 1991- 1992, 335 deer were killed by sharpshooters and sport hunmrs, In the winter of 1992-1993, 369 deer were killed. For th/s coming winter, a goal of 370 deer kills has been established. In future years, lower numbers of deer kills will be required in order to maintain a deer population density of approximately 22 deer per square mile of habitat. The City of Eden Prairie has established a committee for[the purpose of recommending population control alternatives to the City Council. ~.t present, the Committee has not completed its world. Due to Bloomington's program and Eden Prairie's possible pwgram, a control program in Ed/na may now bc more feasible. On September 20, 1993, the Edina City Council received the results of a survey concerning Edina's deer population that was included in the Spring issue of About Town. On October 4, 1993, the C~ty Council directed staff to prepare a report and recommendation concern/ng deer population management in Edina. PROBLEM IDENTIFrCATION White-tailed deer 'are the most abundant and best-known large herbivore in the United Statcs. Deer are extremely adaptable for co-existence with the human population and enjoy a high-rate of reproductive success even within major metropolitan areas. Edina's deer herd has increased significantly during the past 10 years. Winter aerial surveys flown by Hennepin Parks show the deer population in the Braemar Park area increased from six animals in 1984 to 52 animals in 1993. Hennepin Parks reported similar /ncreascs in neighboring cities. Increases in Edina's deer population coupled with the development of rem:~inlng lands have led to more and more contacts between deer and residents. Many of these encountcrs arc welcomed by residents. However, as the deer and human populations have 1 06/[6/97 grown, more and more of the encounters have become unwelcome. The following concerns have been expressed by resideats: o Public Health Issues - Especially Lyme Disease o Plant/Lan~ping Damage o Traffic Safety and Personal Safety Public Health/Lyme Disease Lyme disease is caused by a bacteria which can be carried by deer t/cks. The disease is not usually fatal but can cause a variety of symptoms including fever, chills, headache, c~?~/ness, muscle aches, joint pain and chronic fatigue. The disease also affects the cardiac and nervous system and can lead to arthritic conditions and/or heart arrhy~hmla. ~arly diagnosis of the disease aids/n successful treatment using antibiotics.' The deer tick is carried by a variety of warm blooded --imals. Not only white- ta/led. deer but also mice, birds, woodchucks, dogs, cattle, and other animals are hosts for the deer tick. It is now believed that the adult deer tick will feed on a larger host such as a dog or deer before dropping off and laying eggs on the ground. The nymph stage is believed to feed on smaller a~imals such as rodents and birds. The nymph stage of the tick is very small, about the s/ze of a p/n head and is extremely dif/icult to detect. Birds may play a major role in dissemination of the deer tick. The mere presence of deer ticks in the environment does not mean the rhk for Lyme disease is present. The tick must harbor the bacteria which cause Lyme disease and not all ticks have the bacteria. Some areas of the country have a very low incidence of the bacteria in the ticks (less than 10%) and other areas have as high as 90% of the ticks positive for the bacteria. The Minnesota Department of Health has conducted investigations. of Lyme disease since 1982. During 1991 and 1992, 161 cases of Lyme disease were reported in the Twin Cities area. Only 22% of these cases had likely exposure within the metro area and most of these exposures occurred in Anoka and Washington counti~ which adjoin those portions of Minnesota and Wisconsin with the major concentration of Lyme dhease harbor/ng ticks. The results of the Department of Health surveillance confirm that the risk for acquiring Lyme disease in most of the metro area h less than one per 100,000 population annually. The risk is particularly low in the southern and western suburbs. Although Lyme disease must be continually studied, based upon the above data, the control of Edina's deer population as a Lyme disease preventative is not warranted~ 2 06/~6/97 16:11 FAX ~27 764~ Some residents have expressed concern regarding excessive feces produced by deer. Although this may present an occasional nuisance, no significant public health risks are associated with deer feces. Plant and Landscape Damage Deer predation of landscaping, especially orn~mentah, js the most commonly received complaint with respect to deer. Although deer are not the only wildlife spedes contributing to such damage, they probably are responsible/or most large scale predation. City staff provides written materials as well as a video to interested residents who wish to discourage predafion. Preventative techniques such as fencing and repellents have been shown to be effective in reducing damage. However, these techniques, especially the use of repellents, require a serious commitment by affected residents. Normal residential fcnc/ng is not effective as a deterrent unless it is very tall. Other fence designs or electric fencing may be effective but might not be compatible with uses of adjacent properties. Some repellents are effective in reducing predation. However, constant vigilance is necessary to maintain effectiveness. Repellents must be reapplied periodically based upon weather conditions and the growth rate of vegetation. Given the cost, repellents are most effective for relatively small landscaped area~. If the City's deer population is reduced, will predation of landscaping be eliminated? Probably not, although the frequency and magnitude ofpredation should be reduced. Even if the City were to attempt to eliminate all deer from Edina, it is virtually impossible to effect this level of control. Therefore, even with an aggressive population controI program, some predation will continue. Residents living in high deer population areas are best advised to design or modify landscape areas to reduce the potential for prcdation. For its part, the City should make known to residents any advancements or improvements in fencing and repellent technology. Traff/c Safety and Personal Safety Automobile/deer collisions are an on-going concern and the risk of such collisions increases as deer populations and traffic volumes increase. The area of greatest concern is Highway 169 and the Crosstown Highway west of Highway 100 where the speed and volume of traffic contributes to more · serious deer collisions, or collisions with other vehicles while drivers attempt to avoid deer. Although collisions also occur on City streets, the speed of vehicles in such settings' reduces the chance of serious injury. Significant vehicle d~mage, however, can occur at even reduced speeds. Some residents have reported that deer have become extremely tame and no longer flee at the sight of people. Some residents are concerned that such 06/16/97 16:12 FAX 927 7645 deer may become hostile and present a risk to personal safety. Although deer may occasionally starfie a homeowner, reports of attacks by wild deer are almost non-existent. (Attacks by captive deer seem more common.) POPULATION GROWTH AND CARRYING CA.P. ACITY Deer are very successful reproducers. A mature doe typically produces twins annually and' may produce triplets. The Un/ver~ty of Minnesota reports an average of 1.33 getuses per mature doe in a study of North Oaks, Minnesota. In the absence of natural prcdators and sport hunting, and with proper habitat, an area's deer population can increase rapidly. Hyland Park Reser~e's population was estimated to have doubled in seven years immediately pre~ding commencement of a control program. The North Oaks population increased from 240 deer in 1976 to about 800 deer in 1993 even though population control programs were implemented in seven of those years. Deer populations eventually reach an upper limit based on the quality and mount of food sources as well as the availability of winter habitat. The upper limit at which deer remain in good physical condition is referred to as the Biological Carrying Capacity. As the Carry/ng Capacity is exceeded~ the physical condition of the population and its habitat deteriorate. Although biological carrying capacity provides a proper measure o£ deer population and habitat health, it may not be an appropriate measure of deer populations in urban areas. As such, some have suggested the term "Cultural Carrying Capacity" as a better standard for urban areas. Cultural Carrying Capacity, or the maximum number of deer that can co-exist compatibly with local human populations, is a function of the sensitivity of people to the presence of deer. Cultural Carrying Capacity is understandably much more difficult to measure than Biological Carrying Capacity in that different individuals,have different sensitivities to the deer population. RECOMMENDED POPULATION OB.IECTFVES The Minnesota DNR recommended to the M/nnesota River Valley Deer Management Task Force a deer population density goal of 15 - 25 an/reals per square mile of habihat. The C/ties of Bloom/ngton and North Oaks have established population goals of 15 - 25 deer per square mile of habitat. Based upon the experience of the DNR and other c/ties practicing deer management programs, staff believes that a goal of 15 - 25 per square mile of habitat is reasonable for Edina. For purposes of establishing population objectives, we have attempted to identify deer habitat within Edina. Habitat comprises adequate food, wa~er, protective cover, and living space in a suitable arrangement to promote a healthy population. For population purposes, we believe that only those lands set azide as parks or open space, or large tracts of undeveloped private land should constitute deer habitat. Although deer roam widely and 06/16/97 utilize many areas such as residential lots, we believe that such areas do not provide all of the necessary components of deer habitat and, therefore, should not be relied upon for population purposes. Similarly, not all parks or open space land should be viewed as deer habitat. This is especially true of land lying east of Highway 100 which is isolated from the primary habitat afforded by the Nine Mile Creek corridor and Braemar Park. In our opinion, that portion of Edina lying east of Highway 100 is highly urbanized and not well suited to support a deer population. Therefore, no habitat has been delineated in this area. The attached map illustrates Edina deer habitat. The area of this habitat is approximately 1250 acres or two square miles. Based upon a recommended density of 15 - 25 deer per square mile, this habitat is capable of supporting 30 - $0 deer. Based upon the 1992 and 1993 aerial population surveys, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources estimates that our Spring 1993 deer population was approrlmately 100 animals. The DNR has developed a model which is used to predict population growth. (See attached letter from ~'ohn Parker, Area Wildlife Manager.) Based upon this model, the Edina deer population is projected to grow to 130 - 140 nnimnls by Spring 1994. It should be noted, however, that the model would have predicted a similar increase in the population from 1992 to 1993. The aerial survey, however, indicates that the population remained stable during this time. This stability could be due to a number of reasons including: 1) higher mortality (e.g. deer/vehicle collisions), 2) deer movemen~ out of the area, and/or 3) imprecise aerial surveys. Even if Edina's deer population has reached an upper limit of 100 animals due to high annual mo .r~lity, this population is approximately double what should be supported by our habitat. In order to restore a better balance between the deer population and habitat, the DNR estimates that 60 - 80 deer may have to be removed each year for two to three years in order to reach a density o£ 15 - 2.5 deer per square mile of habitat. Given the uncertainty concerning the current growth rate of our deer population, a more conservative removal rate during the first year of a program/s warranted. The DNR recommends, however, that no fewer than 50 animals should be removed in the first year to effect a population reduction. The population dynamics and removal recommendations could then be re-evaluated after the 1994 aerial survey. DEER POPULATION REDUCTION ALTERNATIVES Population reduction can be accomplished in a variety of ways: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Regulated Hunting Trapping and transferring deer to other locations Trapping and galling Sharpshooters Birth Control ~11ow nature to take its course 5 06/16/97 L6:Z0 ~AA 927 7~4o ~zLl or =uz~ ~vv, o l~e-introduce Predators Some of these alternatives are probably not feadble for Edina's situation. Regulated hunting is clearly the most economical and effective method, but it simply is not feasible given our level of development. L~qcewise, the re-introduction of natural predators such as timber wolves or mountain lions is not possible in our area. Other techniques deserve individual discussion. Trapping and Transferring to Other Locations Trapping and tr~ns!ocating deer is often viewed as our acceptable alternative to control programs such as hunting or sharpshooting. However, a recent study of a translocation program in Wisconsin concludes that tr~n~s!ocation is difficult to justify as a humane alternative to other methods. Of the 12 trs_n~located deer in the Wisconsin study that were equ/pped with radio- telemetry collars, 10 were dead w/thin 231 days of relocafion. Although relocafion may be v/able for reducing Edina's deer population, one should not assume that translocated deer live idealized lives in other locations. Translocated deer may also simply contn'bute to an overpopulation in their new locations. The DNR believes that deer are at their biological carrying capacity in all parts of Minnesota except the extreme northeasterly portion of the state. Therefore, there is virtually nowhere to which deer could be relocated that would contribute to the overall well-being of the population. Birth Control Birth control for deer may be a viable solution in the future. However, birth control is not currently available for free roaming populations. Although some contraceptives may be effective, none have been developed for deer population control. Allow Nature to Take Its Course In the absence of a population control program, the deer population will eventually reach the upper limit sustainable by Edina's habitat. It is difficult to predict what this upper limit will be er what will happen when it's reached. It is known that at such levels, populations are prone to disease or starvation and a general diminution of population health. Prior to reaching this point, it is likely that complaints concerning predation of plants will increase markedly as will deer/vehicular collisions. Sharpshooting Sharpshooting has been used within the City of Bloomington since 1991. Sharpshooting has been conducted by law enforcement officers who attended training sessions prior to the start of the program. During the winter of 1992- 1993, sharpshooters killed 319 deer in Bloomington. The cost of 6 06/16/97 16:13 FAX 927 7645 CITY OF EDINA sharpshooting in 1991-1992 averaged $68.23 per deer although the DNR estimates a total cost including disposal of carcasses to exceed $100/deer. Carcasses are turned over to the DNR which distribute meat to food shelves and other organizations. Sharpshooting is an effective method of population control in areas where hunting is not feadble. Safety is a primmy consideration. In Edina, we believe sharp~hooting over baited locations would be feasible withl, par~ of Braemar Park. Other locations in Edina may be too intensely developed ~o sharpshoot due to safety considerations. These locations would have to be researched more care/ully prior to sharpshooting. Trap and Kill The University of Minnesota oversees deer population control efforts in North Oaks. Live traps were utilized on 32 sites in North Oaks in the winter of 1992-1993. A total of 171 deer were captured using this technique. Deer were destroyed following capture. The cost per deer was $131.00. Trapping and ldlling deer appears to be an effective method of population control, especially in a felly-developed area. However, it may not be as effective as sharpshoofing and/s dearly more expensive. The University has recommended that the North Oai~. trapping program be augmented with sharpshoofing in that sufficient numbers of deer cannot be eliminated through trapping alone to achieve population goals. .CONCLUSIONS Based upon our review of the population data, the public opinion survey, review of the literature, discussions with wildlife managers, and discussions with representatives of other cities, staff concludes the following: Edina's deer population/s part of a larger heard wkich populates principally Bloomington and Eden Prairie. The deer population in Edina is increasing relatively rapidly and appears to have exceeded the population density standards used by the DNR and other cities. It is impossible to predict if and when the deer population will reach levels which will result in severe deterioration of the health of the population. The deer population in parts of Edina may have exceeded the cultural carr~dng capacity based upon the responses to our public opinion survey. However, residents have differing opinions as to the desirability of deer in their neighborhoods and methods which should be used for deer population control. 7 06/16/97 16:14 FAX 927 7645 CIT¥ OF B~n Staff estimates approximately two square miles of suitable habitat in F. xlina. Based upon a population density o£ 15 - 25 deer per square mile, 30 - 50 deer can be supported by our habitat. Our current deer population based upon the 1993 aerial survey is approximately 100 animals. Based upon the potential ffrowth rate of the population, a significant number of ~nima]s have to be removed over the course of two to three years ff the City wishes to reduce the population to a level more commensurate with its habitat. Unfortunately, techniques for reducing deer populations without killi.g individual animals are not currently available. The most feasible techn~ues for deer population reduction are the removal of a predetermined number of animals by trained sharpshooters or live trapping animals and destroying them humanely. Staff believes that trained sharp shooters could be employed in a safe manner in the westerly portion of Braemar Park during the winter months. (The City already maintains a gun range in this area.) No other areas of the City appear to be feasible for sharp shooting due to the proximity of the human population. In such areas, trapping followed by killing of animals may be £easible. The most likely locations for a trapping program would be Bredeseu Park, Van Valkenburg Park, and Todd Park. RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon our investigations, we recommend the following: The Council should authorize a three year program with an objective of reducing Edina's deer population to 40 - SO animals. If the program is authorized to start this winter, an in/tiaI goal of removing 50 animals should be established. Staff notes that it may be very difficult to reach this initial goal due to a late start for the program. (A~ the winter progresses, it will be increasingly difficult to attract deer to baited sites for sharpshooting or trapping.) As an alternative, the program could commence next winter with revised removal objectives based upon the I994 aerial survey° If the Counci~ authorizes a three year program, staff would proceed to develop specific' sharpshoofing and/or trapping strategies for implementation. o Staff recommends passage of an ordinance amendment prohibiting the artificial feeding of deer. Although feeding probably has Htfie effect on the health or population level of the deer herd, it may attract deer into residential areas where they may then prey on landscaping or become more susceptible to vehicular mishaps. o The City and State should devise a better system of documenting vehicular 8 06/~6/97 16:15 F~ ~27 7645 accidents involving deer. It is possible that m~uy accidents occurring on the Crosstown, Highway 100 and Highway 169 may not be reported to us. This information is necessa~, to evaluate the relationship between our deer population and the risk of vehicular accidents. The City should continue to cooperate with Hennepin Parks and 'other jurisdictions in the annual aerial survey of the deer population. This information is essential to measure the dynamics of the deer population and effects of population control efforts. The ideal deer population for Edina is more a function of the cultural canying capacity than its biological carrying capacity. As such, we m~t improve our methods of recording complaints/concerns that are received at City Hall regarding deer. As with the annual aerial survey, this would provide a method of measuring the effects of changes in the deer population. December 1993 9 612} ?~'2-~'981 12/02193 W_~=..fe Office Me=to Region 1200 Warner Road Saint Paul MN 55106 Sordo~ Hughes ~dina Assis=ant City Manager Ed!na ~N §5424 A'~ your request, i nave exam/ned Edlna:s aerial deer survey data from i992 and 1993. ' have used ~hls data in our deer population ;od~i zo ge~ a roug~ 'indicaTion of The numDer of deer which would have ~o be removed £~ z~e City dec~des that Dopuia~1on control is needed. ~ e$'=imated the pre-fawn iggs (April-May; popuia~1on ~o be ZOO. This ms based on survey counts o~ S5 in 1~D2 and 84 in 199~. These =oun~s seem zo indicate a s~abie population° Our model would predict an increasing popula=iono Searuing wl=h a popu!a~ion of '00, and assunhng reia=£ve£¥ low reproduction, a po~uia'cion of 100 in i993 should grow =o *a~out 130 =o 140 by April 1994. The staoiilt¥ couid be due Io higher ~han expec=ed mortality (deer- vehicle co!ilsions), deer movement out of the area, or imprecision in the survey. You have £dentifled =he poten=lai deer habitat in Edlna to conslsr o~ about 2 square miies. The popuia=ion density wouid be at least 50 per square mile of }:abi~a~. i woui~ consider ~hi~ to be a high densi:y and i would expec~ problems such as damage ~o =ommer¢iai, reslden%lai, and naturai vegetation, and high rates of vehicle co''i ions. The DNR and US Fish & W!ldli~e ,, s' Service have es~abiisned a de~r popuia~ion density goai o~ i5 *co 25 deer per square mile in ~he For~ Sneil!ng S~a~e 2ark ,' ?(innesota Valley ~eruge area.. DEER REMOVAL. Modelling resuius !n6ica~e that your popuiazion could oe reduced =o abouz 40 z¢ 80 by removing i00 deer this . _~.., = removal o~ 50 deer pot year ~or =wo yea=s would reduce =he her~ zo 60 ~o 70. Under a normal reproduction assump=~on, '=h£s ievei of removai would lead To no change in ~he population or even a siigh~ increase. if you de=~de ~o remove deer, i would recommend ~hat you s=art with no ~ewer -~... 50 per year. Ac=ua!iy S0 =o ~0 ~er year would probably resui= in a gradual decrease - a change from 50 - S0 per square =ile o 15 - 2~ deer ue= squame ..il- i.. 2 ~o 3 yea~s These goals snouid be se~ af=er an aerial survey =his January. ~hey should be aod!fled ba~ed on auOsequen: aerial surveys, i'wo or more surveys 06/16/97 16:16 FAX 927 7645 Cl~ OF BDI~A REI:ERENCES The following sources were used as a basis for r. his report and recommendations: 1. Mark 1t, Flllngwood and Suzanne Lo Caturano, An Evaluation of Deer Management Options. 1988. Jay B. MeAninch and Jon M. Parker, Urban Deer ManaEem_e~.t P.~oglllm~: A Facilitated Approach. Transactions of the Fifty-sixth North American and Natural Resources Conference. 1991. Jay B. McAninch. Contraception in White.T. ailed Deer, Sta~s of* Current Activities. Minnesota D.N. IL Memo, March 10, 1993. o Greg Ingraharm 1993-94 Program Summa ,rF a.nd Deer Control Results 1991- City of Bloomington Memo. August 12, 1993. 5. City of Edina, Deer Survey Results. September, 1993. Peter A. ,rotdan,. Ronald A. Moen, mad Dale L. Krueger. Manairemenz of a Suburban Deer Povu!ation in the City of North Oaks, Minnesota. Memo. May 28, 1993, Beverly IC Bryant and laFfiliam Ishmael. Movement and Mortality Patterns of Resident and Translocated Suburban. Whim-Tailed. Deer. Wildlife Conservation in Metropolitan Environments. 1991. Excerpt From Disease Control Newsletter. Minnesota Department of Heakb.. June, 1993. S£P-24-97 WED 15:02 DNR WILD RES PEG 4 F~ NO. 50784231¥U P, 02 S] PSHOOTING GUIDEL S by Jay MeAninch 10. Shoot any deer that present a good shot. lfyou have a choice always shoot the largest door or antlerless dear. Shoot only at deer standing still or walking slowly. NO RUNNING DEER SHOTS. Do not take shots if you can't be absolutely sure you can hit the doer in the neck or head, This is not a hunt in which wc simply want to "hit deer." We want to drop deer in their tracks AND kill them. We can't have any wounded deer or deer traveling 10+ yards after the shot. Always use a neck shot on all deer. Shoot in the middle of neck anywhcrc in front of the shoulder and below the skull. Take shots On the level or downhill - never uphi~l.. 1. If there is any doubt about dropping the deer in its tracks or the qualRy of the shot - don't sheeL Do not leave your stand until the drive is over. Note the spot where you last saw any deer that you shot but that did not fall in your view. Do not get up and move or begin hailing nnrecovered deer until we have mgroupcd. Plan on using only I shot to kill each deer. II'you plan on shooting moro than on~, you do not have a good first shot. Unnecessary shots will only clmw unneeded attention to us. When shooting over bait follow all the above guidelincs. Have the shooting areas eshablished before you get into your stand. Shoot deer over bait beginning with the deer fartherest from the pile. When deer come in to the bait, let thc first sevcral. dcer begin feeding and look for the older, larger deer. Typically, these deer will come in at'mr the others and can be shot before they get to the bait pile. At the very least, the longer you wait the more you will be able to be selective in your shots, When s~veml hunteta hunt over a single bait pile, have stands spread out over an area of 50 - 100 yards radium from the bait. Wait for deer to get in to the pile and then pick deer off that are out of sight or somc distance from the pile. Do not try to synchronize shots as this seldom works. After the first shot the decr will scatter but will usually stop and allow for several additioual shots. May 24, 1996 IV/inneton/ a Deer / anage ' ' ent Program Progress Report 1995-96 Michelle Stradtmann and Jay McAninch MN Department of Natural Resources' Farmland Wildlife Populations & Research Group A technical report from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Farmland Wildlife Populations & Research Group, RR 1, Box 181, Madelia, MN 56062-97~4., (507) 6a,2-8478 TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL INTRODUCTION SECTION I: PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION INTRODUCTION ' 2 WORKSHOPS AND SEMINARS ............. ' ................. 2 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ................................. 3 PUBLIC COMMUNICATION ................................ 3 PUBLIC SAFETY ....................................... 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................... 4 SECTION H: DEER POPULATION CONTROL INTRODUCTION ....................................... 6 METHODS ........................................... 6 Management Units ................................... 6 Live-trap and kill program .............................. 6 Sharpshooting program ................................. 8 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................... 8 Live-trap and kill program .............................. 8 Sharpshooting program ............................... 11 Control program costs ................................ 11 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................... 12 i SECTION III: DEER POPULATION STATUS INTRODUCTION ...................................... 14 METHODS .......................................... 14 Abundance ....................................... 14 Productivity ............... ' ....................... 14 Mortality ................ · ........................ 14 Population trends ................................... 15 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................. 15 Abundance . ...... 15 Productivity ..................................... 15 Mortality ........................................ 15 Population trends ................................... 18 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................... 19 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS A deer management program was approved by the Minnetonka City Council in July 1994 and included deer control using the live-trap and kill method, a resident survey, public education and technical assistance. The purpose of the program was to maintain deer as an asset to the community while reducing the number of deer-vehicle accidents, and protecting the property of residents. This report contains an evaluation of the 1995-96 deer population management program conducted in Minnetonka by the city and the DNR. We have presented information on efforts to provide education and technical assistance to residents since the program began in 1994, a review of the deer control portion of the management program which included the live-trap and kill .and sharpshooting efforts, and information on the current deer population status and future deer management and control recommendations. SECTION I: PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION SUMMARY 1. Two deer damage workshops for homeowners were held in 1995 and well attended by residents. 2. The workshop videos were replayed on the local cable channel and all,printed materials were available upon request through the city. 3. DNR wildlife damage specialists were active in Minnetonka providing residents with on- site damage assessment and/or damage prevention advice. 4. Residents were periodically informed of the progress of the deer management program through the local print and broadcast media. 5. Information on preventing deer-vehicle collisions and on aspects of residential feeding of deer were printed in issues of the Minnetonka Memo. 6. Data on deer-vehicle collisions were compiled and a list of high risk areas was prepared. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Continue sponsoring learning opportunities for residents and continue to encourage residents to take advantage of the assistance available to them. iii 2. Continue to provide periodic updates on the deer management program through the local print and broadcast media. 3. Consider preparing a question and answer style brochure on all aspects of the deer management program. 4. Inform residents of locations with frequent deer-vehicle collisions and warn people to drive accordingly. In addition, make a map of risk areas and provide this information to residents through local print media. ' SECTION II: DEER POPULATION CONTROL SUMMARY 1. The city was subdivided into 13 management units which were prioritized to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the control program. Deer population control only took place in the highest priority units. 2. The live-trap and kill program was conducted from 8 December 1995 through 8 March 1996 and removed 122 deer. The program required 6.2 adjusted trap-nights per deer killed. 3. The contractor lost 85 trap-nights of effort to vandalism and human tampering, a 175% increase from 1994-95. At the same time there was a 72% decrease in trap-nights of effort lost to problems with non-target wildlife and complications with heavy snow. 4. Costs for the live-trap and kill program were $214 per deer killed which included compensation to the contractor for vandalism to traps. 5. Sharpshooting began 16 February 1996 to supplement the live-trap and kill effort. Police sharpshooters killed 34 deer over 10 evenings and had an efficiency rate of 1.4 deer killed per hour. 6. Sharpshooting cost approximately $190 per deer killed and included staff wages, bait, equipment and carcass removal. · 7. Both the live-trap and kill and sharpshooting programs had perfect safety records. No accidents or injuries to residents, pets or non-target wildlife were reported to police or city staff. RECOMMENDATIONS General 1. Continue emphasizing public safety during both the live-trap and kill and sharpshooting programs and the current perfect safety record will be maintained. 2. Continue to use the prioritized management units, as realigned in 1995-96, as a guide for the control programs and to provide clear information on control program efforts to the public. 3. Approach owners of large landholdings to first, request they stop feeding deer and second, to gain access for deer control. 4. Approach residents who are feeding and request they discontinue while control programs are being implemented. 5. Consider a feeding ban. Live-trap and kill 1. Continue to use trapping as the primary method of deer control and begin trapping early in November or when snow and cold begin. 2. Direct the contractor to use increased amounts of bait, as recommended in February 1996, to counteract the effects of residential feeding. 3. Direct the contractor to pre-bait traps with trap doors open, prior to trap placement to attract deer to sites. 4. Direct the contractor to keep traps open during non-trapping hours to allow deer to travel in and out of the traps freely. 5. Direct the contractor to place multiple traps at sites where deer activity is high and especially in areas where trapping locations are scarce. Sharpshooting 1. Begin sharpshooting in December on high priority areas and continue until sufficient progress toward the removal goal has been made. SECTION III: DEER POPULATION STATUS SUMMARY 1. The Minnetonka deer population in 1995-96 continued to increase although at a much slower rate. The control program conducted in 1995-96 nearly stabilized the population after several years of consistent population growth. 2. Deer were 6.3% more productive in 1995-96 than in 1994-95, and 18% of fawns and 100% of yearling and adult females were pregnant. Lack of a decrease in productivity is likely due to the extensive feeding by residents during this past, harsh winter. 3. The deer-vehicle mortality rate was similar to past years with vehicles continuing t° take from 125 to approximately 150 deer per year. 4. Mortality due to 'deer-vehicle collisions and due to the control program in 1995-96 was slightly less than the increase from reproduction in spring 1995. 5. The May (prior to fawning) population estimate for 1995 was 429 while the May 1996 population estimate is 453. 6. If no control is used in 1996-97, we could expect the deer population to increase to nearly 600 deer prior to fawning in May of 1997. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Remove a minimum of 200 and maximum of 250 deer during the control program in 1996-97. 2. Removal of 200-250 deer in 1997-98 and 1998-99 will bring the deer population in Minnetonka near the desired goal level of approximately 175~200 deer. v± GENERAL INTRODUCTION Deer populations continue to increase throughout the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (TCMA) in Minnesota as well as in many cities throughout the country. Controlled firearms and archery hunts and various types of sharpshooting and live-trap and kill programs have been developed and implemented in the TCMA for more than 10 years (Jordan et al. 1995, Stradtmann 1994). During the winter of 1995-96, 9 cities in the TCMA as well as Hennepin Parks, the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and the Minnesota Zoo had received special permits from the' Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to employ sharpshooting and live-trap and kill (Jon Parker, pers. comm.). Staff from the city of Minnetonka, a TCMA suburb located 5 miles west of Minneapolis, developed a deer management program for their city in 1994. The program was approved by the Minnetonka City Council in July 1994 and included deer control using the live-trap and kill method, a resident survey, public education and technical assistance. The purpose of the program was to maintain deer as 'an asset to the community while reducing the number of vehicle accidents involving deer, and protecting the property of residents within the community. The program was first implemented in the fall of 1994 and evaluated in May 1995 (Stradtmann and McAninch 1995, Stradtmann, et al 1995a). Recommendations for the second year of the deer management program were provided to the Minnetonka City Council by city and DNR staff. These recommendations included improvements to the live-trap and kill method, the use of sharpshooting' as a supplement to live-trap and kill, and continued efforts to provide educational programs and technical assistance to residents. The second year of the deer management program was approved by the Minnetonka City Council in July 1995 after a public meeting was held in June.' This report documents the second year of the population control portion of the deer management program in Minnetonka, provides information on the current status of the deer population and offers an evaluation of efforts to provide educational and technical assistance to residents since the program began in 1994. Recommendations for the 1996-97 program are included at the end of each section. SECTION I: PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION INTRODUCTION Public education is an importam part of natural resource programs, especially where controversial actions such as the killing of deer are involved. Residents need to be informed of the program's progress as well as provided with information on reducing deer-related problems on their property and on the roadways.. In Minnetonka, city staff have taken great strides to educate the public and provide residents with assistance in dealing with their deer-related problems. The objectives of the education program were to improve the understanding of and tolerance for deer in the community, reduce the amount of damage to property, and reduce the number of deer- vehicle collisions. This section reports on the public information and technical assistance provided to residents since the deer management program began in 1994. · WORKSHOPS AND SEMINARS Two deer damage control workshops for homeowners were held in 1995, one on 29 April and the other on 20 September. Both were announced in the local newspaper (Minnetonka Sun-Sailor) and in the April and September 1995 issues of the Minnetonlra Memo. The April workshop was attended by over 100 people. The workshop covered topics including deer behavior and feeding patterns, control of damage to ornamental vegetation, use of fences and repellents, and deer feeding preferences. The September workshop was attended by 15-20 people. This workshop covered topics such as winter deer behavior and protecting property from deer damage in winter in addition to answering questions from homeowners about specific property damage issues. Both workshops were recorded on video and replayed on the local cable channel (Cable 34) during months following the workshops. In addition, videos of the workshop and materials provided during the workshops were made available to residents through the city manager's office. Residents with specific questions about their properties were provided the name and number of a DNR wildlife damage specialist to answer questions and/or request on-site visits. After the April and September workshops were held, approximately 75-100 people called the city and were provided with workshop videos and/or materials on preventing deer damage. A class through the Hopkins-Minnetonka Recreation program emitled "Deer Ecology and Management in Minnetonka" was offered to residents on 10 February 1996 but had to be cancelled. Topics included biology and ecology of deer in Minnetonka and across North America, deer adaptations and survival in urban landscapes, and the impacts of deer activities on the plant communities found in both urban and rural landscapes. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE In addition to the DNR staff member present in Minnetonka, a DNR wildlife damage specialist was very active in Minnetonka providing technical assistance to residents. The damage specialist received 12 calls from Minnetonka residents and many calls from residents from surrounding communities after the homeowners' workshops were held. These residents were provided with additional information on damage prevention by the damage specialist. In addition, the damage specialist visited 2 sites in Minnetonka to assess deer damage and make specific damage prevention suggestions to these homeowners. Finally,vthe damage specialist assisted 3 property owners with designing and installing fences or planning repellent spraying schedules. A DNR wildlife damage specialist was also present from 1-4pm on 24 June for the Minnetonka Summer Festival, to answer residents' questions about deer damage. Ten residents stopped at the booth to obtain information and damage management advice. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION 1994-95 Residents were informed on' the progress of the 1994-95 deer management program and results of the community attitude survey in the December 1994, February 1995, and March 1995 issues of the Minnetonka Memo. In addition, an informal discussion with city and DNR staff, which included a program update and answers to common questions was recorded on video in January 1995. This discussion was aired on the local cable channel during February and March 1995. Replay times were announced in the local newspaper. In March, the city announced in the local newspaper that the 1994-95 deer management program progress report was available. A public meeting was held 19 June 1995, which was announced in May and June in the local newspaper. Thirty-four residents asked questions and provided comments about the deer management program during this meeting. 1995-96 Information on the 1995-96 deer management program was provided to residents in the August 1995, November 1995, December 1995, February 1996 and April 1996 issues of the Minnetonka Memo. In addition, tips on dealing with deer-vehicle collisions and information on the negative impacts of residential feeding of deer were printed in the October and November 1995 issues of the Minnetonka Memo, respectively. Finally, city staff responded to many questions from print and broadcast media about the deer management program. Staff also handled hundreds of calls from residents with questions, concerns and comments about the deer management program. PUBLIC SAFETY The primary public safety concern with regard to deer in Minnetonka has been the number of deer-vehicle collisions. We developed a list of locations where residents frequently saw deer based on responses to the 1994 community attitude survey. This list of locations was compared to locations of collisions provided on possession permits issued to automobile owners for deer killed by vehicles from 1993-1995. Seventy-one percent of the survey respondents documented locations in Minnetonka where they frequently saw deer. A list of intersections that were reported by more than 100 respondents was prepared (Table 1). From 1993-1995 information obtained from possession permits issued for deer killed by vehicles showed that nearly 25 % of the collisions in Minnetonka occurred at these locations (Table 1). Data on deer-vehicle collisions were also checked to determine trends for the past 3 years. Fifty-six percent of the collisions in Minnetonka occurred between the months of October and January. November has consistently been the month with the highest number of deer-vehicle collisions due, in part, to the increased movement by deer during the breeding season. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Many residents have taken advantage of the workshops and technical assistance provided through the city of Minnetonka and the DNR. We recommend the city continue to sponsor learning opportunities for citizens and that residents continue to be encouraged to take advantage of this assistance. Updates on the progress of the deer management program have been provided on a continuing basis. Periodic reports should continue to be printed in the Minnetonka Memo as well as in the local newspapers. In addition, the city might consider preparing a question and answer (Q&A) style brochure on all aspects of the deer management program. In this way some staff time might be saved by having people find common information in the Q&A . pamphlet. Information on deer-vehicle accidents has been developed and press releases outlining routine but important defensive driving techniques have been distributed. We recommend residents be informed of locations with frequent collisions in an attempt to warn people to drive accordingly. We also recommend a map of the risk areas identified in this report be developed and made available through the print media. 4 Table 1. Intersections in Minnetonka where more than 100 residents indicated on the 1994 community attitude survey they frequently see deer. Ranks went from the highest number observed (1) to the lowest number observed (15). Intersection Baker Rd & TH 7 Cedar Lake Rd & Hopkins Crossroad Cedar Lake Rd & Plymouth Rd Crosby Rd & McGinty Rd W Essex Rd & Oakland Rd Excelsior Blvd & TH 101 Hopkins Crossroad & Minnetonka Blvd I 494 & Minnetonka Blvd McGinty Rd W & Minnetonka Blvd Minnetonka Blvd& Tonkawood Rd Minnetonka Blvd& Williston Oakland Rd & Stone Rd Scenic Heights Dr & Townline Rd TH 101 & TH 7 Townline Rd & Woodland Rd Rank 6 3 7 5 4 12 8 2 11 10 1 13 14 9 15 SECTION IIo DEER POPULATION CONTROL INTRODUCTION The landscape in Minnetonka includes excellent deer habitat distributed throughout the community. The city (approximately 95 % developed) contains primarily large private landholdings and a few small (less than 100 acres) parks, many of which are wooded. Because deer are found throughout the city, population control must take place on many private properties. Live-trap and kill, the principal method chosen to control deer populations, can be operated safely while in close proximity to houses, people and pets. In addition, traps can be used on properties where residents want relief from deer problems, can be easily moved from site to site, and can efficiently and humanely capture deer. City staff applied for and received a DNR special permit to implement deer population control in September 1995. The objective of the deer population control effort was to reduce the population by 175-250 deer during the period from November 1995 to March 1996. METHODS Management units To implement deer control activities, the city was subdivided into management units. The number of management units in the city was increased from 4 in 1994-95 to 13 in 1995- 96 (Figure 1) to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the control program. The realigned units were based on damage reports from the 1994 community attitude survey, and on deer numbers observed during the January 1994 and March 1995 aerial helicopter surveys. These units were prioritized for deer control activities with 1 being the highest priority for deer control and 4 being the lowest. Live-trap and kill program A list of residents who indicated they wanted traps on their property was prepared, based on the 1994 community attitude survey. In 1994-95, properties with adjacent neighbors who were opposed to the pro. gram were excluded from the control program. In 1995-96, if the property was 1 acre or more in size, the property was considered for live-trapping, regardless of the opinions of adjoining neighbors. Thus, residents who · called the city offices during the summer of 1995 asking for control efforts to occur on their property, were considered for live-trapping if they had no opposed adjacent neighbors or had property 1 acre or more in size. Trapping was conducted only on properties which were located in the highest priority management units (1 and 2, Figure 1). The contractor used in 1994-95 was hired again in September 1995. The contractor was provided with a list of potential trapping locations after which each location suitable for trapping was inspected. Property owners at locations suitable for trapping were required to sign a consent form prepared by the city. 6 PLYI~ ~PINO PR]m~ ~~ ~ LINNE~ ~ ~ RI.GEDALE ~ ~ CEDAR ~ ~ ~ 8L .... -1. ~.. ,, . ~. __ ~ " . o.~.:.o~". ' ~ -- ] ~ -/ ~ -- / '~ ORCHARD ~ ~. ~ ' D~P~N /~ J ~ . ~ I ~ · , ~ I ~ m ~ - ~ ~ ~.. / ~ ............. . .~ ....... :~,:,~ ................~..-~ .-- ~. ~ .-- .. 2' .'~ .... ~./~':~ -, ' -7 ~.,=~: ' · -,~-=z. ~,.'~ ~ z : /~~[EK ........ '~ ' , ~/ GLEN LAKE , ~, , I ,, ~T ~z~ EDEN PRM R[ £ Figure 1. Deer management units as used in Minnetonka, Minnesota, during the 1995-96 deer control program. '7 After consent forms were received, traps were pre-baited for 2-3 days (Stradtmann and McAninch 1995). Traps were operated from Sunday through Thursday and deer were removed from traps each morning before sunrise Monday through Friday. Data on sex, age and reproduction were collected from all deer removed as in 1994-95 (Stradtmann and McAninch 1995). Carcasses were transported directly to a processing facility or a DNR conservation officer for distribution to charitable organizations. Sharpshooting program The objective of the sharpshooting program was to supplement the population control effort. Sharpshooting was implemented after an evaluation of the live-trap and kill effort through January 1996 indicated the reduction goals were not likely to be reached using the live-trap and kill method alone. Sharpshooting was conducted at three sites in priority 1 units only (Figure 1). These sites were located in areas with high deer concentrations and easy access for vehicles. Sites were also required to have backstops, such as a hill, that could dispel bullets and assure public safety. Sites were baited with shelled corn and alfalfa. Four officers from the Minnetonka Police Department were selected as sharpshooters and provided with information about procedures and protocols. Two, .223 caliber riries were used for sharpshooting activities. Sharpshooters shot deer from sunset through the early evening hours, primarily on weekdays. A second officer was present to prevent residents and park users from entering the area during sharpshooting activities. Sharpshooters were instructed to shoot deer in the neck to eliminate the chance of the deer running after the shot. Deer were shot from stationary positions such as ground blinds. Shooters were instructed to shoot larger, antlerless deer before shooting other deer if the option to be selective was available. A second contractor was hired to remove deer from these sites. Again, data on sex, age and reproduction were collected from all sharpshot deer. Carcasses were transported to a DNR conservation officer for final distribution. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Live-trap and kill program There were 350 trapping locations available for consideration in 1995-96 which was a 17% increase from 1994-95 (Table 2). Forty percent of the potential locations were excluded due to poor suitability (Table 2). Another 53 potential locations were excluded according to the trapping policy about adjacent properties. The loss of potential trapping sites due to neighbor dissent decreased by 29% from 1994-95 (Table 2), indicating that changes in policy between 1994-95 and 1995-96 were effective. Considering the above exclusions, 49% more locations were available for trapping in 1995-96 than in .t994-95. Table 2. Summary evaluation of the locations used for the live-trap and kill program during 1995-96 in Minnetonka, Minriesota. Number of potential trapping locations Locations excluded due to policy Locations excluded due to poor suitability Number of potential useable locations Number of locations used Year 1994-95 1995-96 299 350 25% 15% 40% 40% 105 157 2l (20%) 26 (17%) Trapping began on 8 December 1995 and continued until 8 March 1996. Trapping was terminated when deer could no longer be attracted to bait because of warmer weather and the melting snow. Four trapping days were lost due to inclement weather conditions, and trapping was also suspended for the holidays (25-26 December and 1-2 January). In all, 26 trapping locations were used with 1-2 traps per location. The program was safe for residents as well as pets. No accidents attributed to trapping were reported to police or city staff. No pets were captured or injured by the traps, although 1 raccoon was caught and released without injury. Nearly 900 total trap-nights of effort were expended (trap-nights equal the sum of the number of traps active each night of the program, Table 3). Approximately 15 % of the trap- nights were lost due to vandalism, human tampering, heavy snow, and the activities of non- target wildlife (Table 3). The final adjusted number of trap-nights of effort was 760. A total of 122 deer were killed of which 62% were females and 38% were males (Table 4). Eighty-two percent of the deer were removed from priority 1 units and 18 % were removed from priority 2 units. Trapping did not occur in any of the lower priority units. The contractor was able to remove an average of 5 deer per location (range=0-15). No deer were removed from 3 locations, and 9 or more deer were removed from 5 locations. Trapping efficiency was calculated as 6.2 adjusted trap-nights per deer killed (Table 3). There was 79% more deer killed in 1995-96 than in 1994-95, and the contractor was able to target more locations. Table 3. Summary of the effort expended during the live-trap and kill program in 1994-95 and 1995-96 in Minnetonka, Minnesota. Total trap-nights Trap-nights lost to vandalism and tampering Trap-nights lost to traps moved at city request Trap-nights lost to non-target wildlife or heavy snow Adjusted total trap-nights Trap-nights per deer killed Year 1994-95 1995-96 648 889 31 (5%) 85 (10%) 38 (6%) 0 (0%) 155 (24%) 44 (5%) 424 760 6.2 6.2 Table 4. Sex and age of deer killed during the 1995-96 live-trap and kill and sharpshooting programs in Minnetonka, Minnesota. Live-t.rap and Kill Sharpshooting Male Female Male Female Fawn 37 40 8 7 Yearling 6 1 ! I 1 Adult 3 25 10 7 Total 46 76 19 15 .." , ,/~ Although the adjusted trap-nights per deer killed was the same as in 1994-95,, there a~J [,~vere 37% more trap-nights expended in 1995-96 (Table 3). The increase in trap-mghts lost ~./was clearly caused by the increase in vandalism and human tampering with traps. In 1995- r-_\ 96, there were 175% more trap-nights lost to human interference than in 1994-95. )7, Furthermore, we believe an unknown number of trap-nights were lost in situations where humans disturbed deer in the area of traps or used repellents near traps to deter deer activity. Evidence of this type of interference could not be documented but was felt to be occurring. Weather may have hampered trapping efforts in 1995-96 although in a different manner than it did in 1994-95. In 1994-95, the mildness of the winter allowed deer to obtain natural food throughout the season and thus deer were not attracted to the bait. In 1995-96, there was plenty of snow, but the crust created by rain and sleet restricted deer movements. In addition, 4 days of trapping (70 trap-nights) were lost because of bli~.~.ard or near blizzard conditions. This combination of bad weather and rain/sleet probably had a negative effect on the efficiency of the program. Finally, the contractor and staff reported substantial amounts of backyard feeding by Minnetonka residents. In mid-February we suggested the amount of bait used by the contractor be increased considerably in an attempt to attract deer from the residential feeding areas. However, trapping ended less than 3 weeks after the recommendations were implemented, making an evaluation of the effect of the increased bait incomplete. Residbnts may have been feeding deer for a number of reasons. Some may have heard reports of deer dying of starvation in Northern Minnesota because of the severe winter and felt deer in Minnetonka were experiencing the same stress. This was not the case as shown by the high reproductive rates observed in 1995-96. Some residents may not have heard the requests from city staff to stop feeding while others may have been feeding in an attempt to hinder the live-trap and kill program. Sharpshooting program Sharpshooting was conducted on 10 evenings from 16 February to 4 March, 1996. Sharpshooters spent a total of 24 hours at bait sites during the evenings and killed 34 deer. Forty-four percent of the deer killed were female and 56% were male (Table 4). At least 5 deer were killed at each site and all deer were killed in priority 1 units. No accidents occurred and sharpshooters killed 1.4 deer per shooter hour. Sharpshooters removed a higher proportion of males than were taken in the live-trap and kill program. Adult males could have easily been mistaken for females since many of the males had dropped their antlers by mid-February. Since emphasis was placed on the removal of large antlerless deer, sharpshooters occasionally shot adult males assuming they were females. Minnetonka sharpshooters were over 3 times as efficient at removing deer as similar programs in the TCMA. For example, in Bloomington, police sharpshooters killed 0.39 to 0.62 deer per hour over three years (Stradtmann et al. 1995b). Sharpshooting did not begin until mid-February and provided modest assistance in reaching the 1995-96 deer removal · goal. Control program costs The live-trap and kill program cost $214 per deer killed, up from $187 in 1994-95. The costs included $209 per deer to kill and remove the deer and $5 per deer for fees charged to the city of Minnetonka for vandalism to traps. The cost of lost opportunity was estimated at $2700-$2900. The lost opportunity cost are based on the probability that traps, had they not been tampered with or vandalized, would have captured an additional 13-14 deer. The costs of the 1995-96 program were similar .to those reported for North Oaks, Minnesota. There, live-trap and kill and sharpshooting cost from $72-$197 per deer during the years 1976-1993 (Jordan .et al. 1995). The sharpshooting program cost an estimated $190 per deer. Costs of the sharpshooting program included the equipment, bait and sharpshooter wages. Again, costs for this program were similar to those reported in other mid-western cities. From 1991- 1994, police sharpshooting in Bloomington cost $183-194 per deer (Stradtmann et al. 1995b). Costs per deer for sharpshooting at Ryerson Conservation Area in Chicago, from 1991-1993, were $242-260 (Drummond 1995). CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Both the live-trap and kill and sharpshooting programs, conducted in Minnetonka during 1995-96, had perfect safety records. There were no accidents or injuries to residents or other animals reported to police or city staff. Continued emphasis on public safety in both programs is likely to maintain this perfect safety record. We recommend the prioritized management units, as realigned in 1995-96, continue to be used to guide the program next season. The priority system will improve the effectiveness of the control program and provide clear information on where control program efforts have been concentrated. Trapping should continue to be the primary method of removing deer in areas where residents have requested its use. We recommend trapping begin in November or immediately after the first cold weather and snow. Increased amounts of bait, as recommended in February 1996, should be used throughout the 1996-97 program. We also recommend sites be pre-baited early, even prior to placement of traps, to attract deer to sites. In addition, trap doors should remain open during non-trapping hours and multiple traps should be used at locations where deer activity is high. These techniques are likely to increase efficiency, especially in areas where several residents have provided consent for trapping and multiple deer have been sighted. We suggest that sharpshooting again be used as a supplement to the live-trap and kill method. Sharpshooting should begin in December in high priority areas, especially in areas where trapping locations are limited. We strongly recommend city staff approach owners 'of large private landholdings that currently hold deer and explain to these landowners the program objectives and goals. The primary purpose will be to stop any feeding that may have been taking place on these large properties. The secondary purpose will be to make available at least a portion of the property for deer control activities. This will increase the efficiency of the entire control program and the effectiveness of the program in reducing populations in the immediate area. 12 Finally, the deer control effort will benefit most from increased resident cooperation. Anyone found directly interfering with the program should continue to be prosecuted as the law allows. In addition, we recommend residents who are feeding deer be directly approached and asked to discontinue feeding during the period of the ~ive-trap and kill program. We believe a direct approach is warranted since information'provided during public meetings and through local print media did not reduce the amount of feeding by residents. Furthermore, the City Council may want to consider a feeding ban during the months when the deer control program is being implemented. While a feeding ban is difficult to enforce, the ban may be necessary if residents ignore public appeals to stop feeding. Continued direct and indirect interference with the control program effort will only increase the cost of the program to the city of Minnetonka and prolong the effort to reduce populations and related impacts. :!.3 SECTION III: DEER POPULATION STATUS INTRODUCTION Information on deer abundance, productivity and mortality has been collected and used to monitor the status of urban deer populations. This information is used not only to evaluate population trends, but to guide management decisions. Computer population models are used to generate population trends and simulate management proposals. These models, which exist for many species of wildlife, are essentially an accounting system for populations and rely on abundance, productivity and mortality information on a given species. In Minnetonka, all the information required for the model is available in the data obtained in the city over the last 2-3 years. This section describes the abundance, productivity and mortality data collected for deer in Minnetonka. In addition, we will provide information on the current population status and the expected future population status with and without population control. METHODS Abundance Deer abundance was determined using aerial counts conducted during the winter in 1994, 1995, and 1996. Helicopters With an observer were used to fly in systematic patterns across the city to count deer (McAninch 1996). Altitudes of less than 200 ft were maintained while flight speed was adjusted depending on the difficulty of observing deer in different cover types. The observer and pilot discussed flight patterns and unit boundaries before flying. Deer numbers were recorded on a map as they were counted. The observer had at least 5 years of experience counting deer in the area and the pilot had many years of experience in this area as well. These counts provide an abundance index for deer in Minnetonka and have been considered conservative population indices (McAninch 1996). Productivity Deer productivity data were taken from examinations of deer killed during the deer control program conducted from December 1994 to March 1995 and from December 1995 to March 1996. Productivity rates were determined for yearling and adult females killed after 1 January 1995 and 1996 and from fawn females killed after 1 February 1995 and 1996. For 1994, productivity rates were determined from female deer killed by vehicles in Hennepin County in the months prior to fawning (March-May). Mortality Data on mortality were obtained from deer killed by vehicles in Minnetonka and from deer taken during the control program. The number of deer killed by vehicles was calculated by adding the number of deer killed and retained by drivers (a possession permit issued) to 14 the number of deer killed on roadways and unsalvageable (the meat was determined to be inedible). Population trends Deer population modeling consisted of assembling deer counts, productivity and mortality data obtained since 1993. We used a computer model called POP-II (Bartholow 1995) and started the model with an estimated initial population for June 1993. The June 1993 population was determined by taking the abundance index from a count conducted in January 1994 and adding. the number of deer-vehicle mortalities recorded between June 1993 and the day the count was conducted. After the initial population was determined, the estimates of deer-vehicle and control program mortality, and productivity were entered into the model. The population model generated outputs for each year from 1993-1999. After evaluating the population trends observed between 1994-1996, adjustments in annual trends were made when year-to-year data were not congruent. Trends from 1996-1999 were projected to simulate the future impacts of no control and of the removal of 150-250 deer per year. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Abundance Deer counts were 352 in 1994, 447 in 1995 and 590 in 1996 (Figure 2). Each count was conducted in a similar manner'by the same observer, but occurred during different months of each year. Therefore, the count data were adjusted to 1 March by adding or subtracting mortality that occurred between the time each count was actually conducted and 1 March of that year. The population trend based on the aerial counts clearly shows the population had a slower rate of increase in 1995-96 than in 1994-95 (Figure 2) and was much lower relative to population projections if no control had been implemented (Figure 3). Productivity Deer productivity was 6.3% higher in 1996 than in 1995 as the number of femses per doe increased from 1.26 in 1995 to 1.34 in 1996 (Table 5, Stradtmann and McAninch 1995). The increase is primarily due to the higher pregnancy rate of fawns resulting from the mild winter of 1994-95. No fawns were found to be pregnam in 1995 while nearly 20% were found to be pregnant in t996. In addition, all yearling (deer > 1 year and < 2 years of age) and adult (> 2 years of age) females were pregnant. Most yearling and adult females were carrying twins while one adult female had triplets and another had quadruplets. The sex ratio of the fetuses examined was 55 % male and 45 % female. Mortality In 1995, mortality due to deer-vehicle collisions was similar to that observed in 1993 and 1994 (Table 6). Mortality due to the control program has increased from 68 in 1994-95 to 156 in 1995-96. We have no value for incidental mortality, primarily because there Number of Deer 8OO 750 ' 700 ' 65O 600 550 ' 500 400' 350 1994 1995 1996 1993 Year } Figure 2. Estimated annual variations in the number of deer in Minnetonka, Minnesota, from June 1993 to May 1996. Increases between May and June of each year are due to productivity. Decreases during all years were caused by vehicle collision mortality and decreases in 1994 to 1996 were accelerated by the control program. The aerial count figures are denoted by the arrows. 1.6 700 NUmber of Deer 65O 600 55O 5OO 450 ,..., ...-" 400 ..../.....~ 350 '- 300 I I ! 1994 1995 1996 Year -~- Observed -,~,- Projected Figure 3. Observed population trends since implementation of the control program (1994-1996) as compared to projected trends in the absence of population control in Minnetonka, Minnesota. 17 Table 5. Productivity rates and age ratios of female deer killed during the live-trap and kill and sharpshooting programs in Minnetonka, Minnesota during 1995-96. Age ratio in Pregnancy Number of Age N population rate fetuses per doe Fawn 17 52% 18% 0.18 Yearling 8 13 % 100% 1.88 Adult 28 35 % 100 % 1.89 Total 53 100% 74%' 1.34 Table 6. Observed and estimated number of deer killed in vehicle collisions. Each year represents the period from June to May. Number of Collisions where possession Year deer killed permits were issued 1993-94 135 75 % 1994-95 133 73 % 1995-96 ' '126" 57 %a "The month of May was not included. has been no evidence of deer dying from causes other than the population control programs or deer-vehicle collisions. Reports from the literature also suggest that deer in urban areas do not typically die from causes other than vehicle or deer control efforts. Population trends We estimated the Minnetonka deer population in June 1993 at 450 deer. This number is based on the 352 deer counted in January 1994 and the mortality which actually occurred from June 1993 to January 1994. The mortality data was also used to develop a sex and age structure for deer in Minnetonka. The population trend in Minnetonka has continued to increase (Figures 2 and 3). The added mortality from the control program in 1996, however, has been high enough to slow the rate of increase. In addition to mortality from deer-vehicle collisions, the control program will have to remove at least 30% of the adult females in order to decrease the population. If the control program were stopped, we project the population would increase to nearly 600 deer in May 1997 (Figure 4). Including reproduction and mortality, the population will then increase by approximately 20-25 % each year thereafter. If population control efforts continue to remove 150 deer per year for the next three years, the population will stabilize at current levels or experience a slight decrease (Figure 4). Removal of 200 deer per year for the next three years (1996-1999) will result in an estimated 43% decrease in the population, but the goal of 175 breeding deer will not be reached. A removal of 250 deer for each of the next two years, followed by a removal of 150-175 deer, will bring the population near the desired goal (Figure 4). While we have observed and compiled 3 years of data for the model, there are some weaknesses. For example, we do not know much about the movements of deer into and out of Minnetonka. Therefore, we are not able to adjust for deer immigration and emigration, although we know it occurs. Furthermore, the aerial helicopter counts can only be used as the minimum number of deer known to be alive at the time of the flight. Because of counting conditions and the distribution of deer, we are confident the observer and pilot are unlikely to have double- counted deer. However, there were likely more deer than were counted because a few deer are missed regardless of the survey conditions. The strongest data used in the model, we believe, are the reproduction values. All female deer killed during the live-t~ap and kill and sharpshooting programs were used to generate the productivity estimates. We believe these data reflect the productivity of the residual population. Based on the literature, we also adjust the estimated fawning rate for fawns that die within the first month of birth. In addition, we believe the estimated sex and age composition of the population in Minnetonka that we used is reliable since it was taken from a sample of the population killed in the control programs. Based on the population trends and data obtained during the last 3 years, we believe our population model provides accurate, yet conservative numbers. For example, in the 1994-95 progress report (Stradtmann and McAninch 1995), we estimated the mid-winter count conducted in 1995-96 would be 596 deer without control. After adjusting for the 76 deer removed in the 1996 control program, prior to the count, the aerial survey team would have counted an estimated 666 deer if there had been no deer killed in the control program. The aerial observer actually counted 590 deer and, assuming he missed a few deer, our projected population numbers were within 50-60 deer of the observed total. Based on this evaluation, we have considered our modeling projections to be within 10% of the observed population trends. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We were somewhat surprised to see the increase in productivity in 1995-96 considering the severity of the winter. We believe this increase in productivity likely Number of Deer 9OO 800 7OO 6OO 500 400 3O0 200 100 , ' ' ' 1996 1997 1998 1999 --74-- No control Year [],150Deer ~200Deer 250 Deer Figure 4. Estimated impact of 3 potential deer control strategies available for implementation between 1996 and 1999 in Minnetonka, Minnesota. The impact of no control is also projected for comparison. 2O occurred due in part to the mild winter of 1994-95 and in part to feeding of deer by residents during 1995-96. Deer-vehicle collisions will continue to consistently take 15-20% of the population. Until we have a considerable decrease in the abundance and distribution of the population, we will not know to what extent the control program will decrease deer-vehicle collisions in the future. We expect that with the projected decreases in the population, there will be a reduction in the total number of, and a change in the distribution of deer-vehicle accidents, assuming only slight increases in traffic volume. As we demonstrated in 1994-95, the population will continue to increase if reduction goals are not met. Unfortunately, the control portion of the deer management program in 1995-96 did not quite remove the previous spring's reproduction. Our recommendations for the 1996-97 control program and for 1996-1999 are as follows: 1996-97 A m'mimum of 200 deer will have to be removed during the next few years of the control program for the population to decrease. Any additional deer removed, up to a level of 250 deer killed during the control program, will create a sharper'population reduction. If the control program only removes 150 deer, we expect the deer population in Minnetonka to stablize at current levels. 1996-1999 The consistent annual remo{,ai of 200-250 deer over the next 3 years will bring the deer population in Minnetonka within desired goals. Removal of 150, or less than 200, deer per year will result in a population of approximately 485 deer in May, 1999. Greater rates. of population decrease can be achieved by taking more than 250 deer each year, but will not be required to reach the goal of 175 by 1999. '21 LITERATURE CITED Bartholow, J. 1995. POP-II. Fossil Creek Software. Fort Collins, CO. 48pp. Drummond, F. 1995. Lethal and non-lethal deer management at Ryerson Conservation Area, Northeastern Illinois. Pages 105-109 in LB. McAninch, ed., Urban deer: A Manageable Resource? Proc. of the 1993 Symposium of the North Central Section, The Wildlife Society, 175pp. Jordan, P.A., R.A. Moen, E.J. DeGayner and W.C. Pitt. 1995. Trap-and-shoot and sharpshooting methods for control of urban deer: the case history of North Oaks, Minnesota. Pages 97-104 in LB. McAninch, ed., Urban deer: A Manageable Resource? Proc. of the 1993 Symposium of the North Central Section, The Wildlife Society, 175pp. McAninch, J. 1996. Urban deer population assessment. Technical Report, Farmland Pop. and Res. Group, Madelia, MN. 3pp. Stradtmann, M. and J. McAninch. 1995. Minnetonka deer management program; progress report 1994-95. Technical Report, Farmland Pop. and Res. Group, Madella, MN. 36pp. Stradtmann, M.L., J.B. McAninch, and J.M. Parker. 1995a. Evaluation of a live-trap and kill program as an urban deer population control method. Pages 11-13 in B. Joselyn, ed. Summaries of Wildlife Research Project Findings Unpub. Rep., Minn. Dept. Nat. Resour. St. Paul. ~, , E.P. Wiggers and J.M. Parker. 1995b. Police sharpshooting as a method to reduce urban deer populations. Pages 117-122 in J.B. McAninch, ed., Urban deer: A Manageable Resource? Proc. of the 1993 Symposium of the North Central Section, The Wildlife Society, 175pp. 1994. Options for managing urban deer populations. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of Missouri-Columbia. 53pp. 22 Office oftheVillage Manager Village of Gleneoe 675 Village Court Glen¢oe, Illinois 60022 August 27, 1997 FAX 847.835.1785 Phone 847.835.4114 Ms. Lisa Handsaker Administrative Assistant to the Village Manager City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Ms. Handsaker: Pursuant to your request yesterday for information concerning the Village of Glencoe's Deer Management Program, I have enclosed information that ! believe will be of use to you in considering the policy possibilities of deer management. Should you have any questions after receiving information, feel free to give me a call. this rh Enclosures CC: Sincerely, Assistant Village Manager Robert W. Hogue, Village Manager VILLAGE OF GLENCOE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Robert W. Hogue, Village.Manager David A. Clark, Assistant Village Manager May 12, lgg7 Summary of 1997 Deer Management Program The following is a summary of the lethal removal component of the Village's Deer Management Program as permitted by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The Village was permitted by the DNR to remove by lethal means up to 30 deer in lgg7. By the expiration of the permit Village sharpshooters had removed 30 deer without incident. All of the processed meat was donated to charity. More than 1,000 pounds. of processed deer meat was delivered to charities sponsored by Public Action to Deliver Shelter (PADS}. Now that this year's program is completed, the Village staff will assess the ongoing success of the Deer Management Program by continued monitoring of deer related traffic accidents and by conducting a follow-up survey Village residents in the fall. rh David A. Clark Assistant Village Manager VILLAGE OF GLENCOE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Robert W. Hogue, Village Manager David A. Clark, Assistant Village Manager December 6, 1996 1997 Deer Management Plan This memorandum includes the 1997 deer management plan forwarded today to Marty Jones, Illinois Department of Conservation Urban Deer Project Manager. These materials constitute the application necessary to acquire a permit for the lethal removal of up to 20 deer in 1997. Should you have any questions, comments or concerns about any of the information contained in the plan, please contact me or David Clark as soon as possible I intend to announce formal application for the lethal removal permit as part of the Village Manager's Report at the December 12, lgg6 Village Board meeting. rh Attachment Robert W. Hogue Vi 1 lage Manager David Clark, Assistant Village Manager Paul Harlow, Director of Public Safety Victor Filippini, Village Attorney DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN Village of Glencoe 675 Village Court Glencoe, Illinois 60022 (847) 835-4114 Submitted: December, 1996 '-- 1 -- Ae INTRODUCTION The following proposal is the product of ongoing analysis and attempts to address the concerns of many residents of the Village of G!encoe. The lethal removal of deer is one element of a multi-faceted approach to addressing the problem of white-tailed deer in residential areas. Our program for winter 1gg6-1997 includes advocacy of non-lethal means of deterrence and exclusion, but ultimately provides for the lethal removal of 20 deer from specific sites within the corporate limits of the Village of Glentoe. PROGRAM HISTORY In lgg3, the Village staff initiated an extensive analysis of the issue. This analysis and review allowed for public input into the program elements. On December 2, 1993 the Village Board adopted a resolution which outlines the Village's program {Exhibit I)o On January 5, lgg4, the Illinois Department of Conservation issued a permit for the lethal removal of 30 deer. The issue of lethal removal was debated and resulted in a referendum question being filed. On March 15, 1994 the Village voted on the following question: "ShalZ the ViZloge of Glen~oe include the kiZIing of deer within the Village limits as a part of the ViZlo£e's Beer Nanagement Program°" Of a total Village population of 8,500, 30% voted. 1213 voted "yes" and 877 (42%) voted "no." This vote reaffirmed the Board's decision to proceed with the lethal removal of deer. At its August 10, lgg4 meeting, the Village Board established an Environmental Management Advisory Committee {EMAC). The Village President directed the EMAC to review the deer management program. The EMAC presented a final report to the Village Board of Trustees in October of lggS. One of the elements initiated by the EMAC was survey analysis of ~he community to determine the scope of the problem. Since November, lgg4, the Village has conducted a survey data to monitor trends in reported damage and sitings of deer in the Village of Glencoeo In November of 1996, the Village of Glencoe completed a follow-up to the original deer report as part of the ongoing trend analysis. The Village once again, used Dr. James Danowski to provide the random sample of the community. An analysis to the lgg6 Deer Report (with comparison to last year's Deer Report) is also included with this document. -2- Ce The EMAC also developed a complete series of brochures related to deer. These brochures are available at Village Hall and the Public Library as are other resource materials gathered by the Village. PROBLEM STATEMENT As a result of the decreasing vitality of the forest preserve under story, and also as a result of the increased population of deer, the Village has experienced an increased infiltration of deer into residential areas. It appears that residents of Glencoe have experienced deer related damage resulting from direct infiltration from the Skokie Lagoons bordering the Village of Glencoe directly to the west. As a result of the continual patterns of infiltration into the Village several deer appear to have taken up full-year residence on property in the ravines east of Glencoe Road. In analyzing this problem, the Village paid particular attention to the safety aspects of this potential problem, ioeo, deer vehicle accidents, etco The increased population of deer has created a concern expressed by Village residents regarding the potential for deer to vehicle accidents. It is not certain whether or not any herd reduction will statistically reduce the possibility of having a deer vehicle accident. However, if actions result in one less accident per year that would be at least one less individual who would have to suffer the trauma of such an incident. The Village continues to monitor for any locally contracted case of Lyme Disease. Although the Lyme tick has been documented in Cook County, the Illinois Department of Public Health has not reported any confirmed human cases of Lyme disease (contracted locally) in Cook County° Resident concerns regarding Lyme disease should be addressed through education. The Village of Glencoe is bounded by the Skokie Lagoons to the west and Forest Preserve to the north. The Village is also surrounded by three ~olf courses and several ravines. All of these elements make the Village a very attractive area for deer. The features which many residents enjoy in the Village, the variety of plant life, mature trees, wooded areas, and the lagoons, also support the deer population. -3- It is the decision of the Village President and Board of Trustees that it is imperative that lethal deer reduction continue in order to limit the impact of overgrazing on residential properties. In addition to the safety concerns, the deer browsing is reported by many-residents to have a negative impact on their chosen lifestyle. D. PROGRAM GOALS The Village of Glencoe's program goals includes the lethal reduction of the number of deer in the community in order to alleviate the damage to residential planting and vegetation, and to reduce the inherent risks associated with an ever-increasing deer population in residential neighborhoods. A second equally important goal is to increase the Village residents awareness and tolerance of deer as a natural element of living in the Village of Glencoe. Deer density measures within the Village of Glencoe are not indicative of activity within the Village because th~ population of deer is so mobile and with the exception of the ravine property, few deer actually reside in the Village. Therefore,.measurement of program goals will be based upon community feedback regarding damage to property and reported in the Annual Deer Report survey series. E. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES Increase residents' knowledge and awareness of the potential of deer abatement techniques and different deterrents techniques available. Provide assistance and information to residents through the Glencoe Memo. Support efforts by the Cook County Forest Preserve District to bring the deer population back to ecological balance. e Coordinate efforts with the Cook County Forest Preserve District, the Chicago Botanic Garden, and the City of Highland Park to maximize efficiency of lethal removal activities. Fe -4- SITE DESCRIPTION The site description includes the corporate limits of the Village of Glencoe. The site can further be delineated by those areas where property damage and other visible evidence of deer presence is reported in large numbers° Generally', the above mentioned sites were determined by their proximity to areas of reported deer grazing damage and resident complaints. These action areas are properties which have been selected to maximize safety and welfare of residents. DOCUMENTATION OF PROBLEM The Village continues to receive calls and complaints regarding damage to native plant species, ornamental or other plants which are damaged or destroyed. The cost of replacement of the plants is undetermined at this time. The cost can also be expressed in effort, inconvenience, and expenditure of time to protect the plants. The 1996 Deer Report indicates perceived decreases in deer dctivity. There are 43 respondents who report seeing deer on their property more than 16 times per year. 140 respondents still report deer eating vegetation on their property (Exhibit II). The sustained level of deer activity presents the potential for safety related problems (i.e., deer-vehicle accidents}. The number of deer-vehicle accidents (DVA) can be summarized as follows (Exhibit III). Deer Related Automobile Accidents: 1991 - 8 1992 - 4 1993 - 11 1994 - 8 lgg5 - 6 1996 - 3 The Village believes that control of the Skokie Lagoons population will greatly improve conditions in the Village of Glencoe. Therefore, Village staff has followed Cook County activities with keen interest. -5- PROPOSED METHODS AND PROCEDURES The Village requests authority to lethally remove 20 deer. The Village would use two different techniques to implement the lethal removal component of the overall program for deer management. Both techniques have been used in the Village previously. These techniques are humane by Village observation, safe, efficient and cost effective. The first technique would be the use of sharpshooters. Sharpshooting is extremely limited in residential areas such as Glencoe. Sharpshooters would sit on elevated platforms and shoot down at deer which are attracted to bait sites. Attempts would be made to condition deer to expect food at a certain time and develop a routine for arriving at the bait station which reduces labor costs and enhances site control. Sharpshooters will be used at night. Areas where the shooting can safely be accomplished will be recommended by the Village for approval by the Department of Conservation. These areas will allow shooting to take place from an elevated, stationary position to maximize human safety. The designated areas will be well away from any houses or public roads. Expert marksmen will be used to minimize the risk of deer suffering from being wounded. The second technique will be "Clover" trapping with lethal removal by captive bolt. The deer again would be attracted to bait sites. Field- dressed deer will be taken to a state-licensed meat packing facility for processing, and donated to an approved charity or donated to an organization that is willing to do its own processing. Blood and tissue samples from the deer will be collected as required under the terms of the deer removal permit. We will continue to advocate the use of repellents, and barriers such as chicken wire and netting. However, these methods cannot be used as the sole means of protection for our plants. A long-term solution will involve a concurrent deer population control program on adjacent Cook ~ounty Forest Preserve District properties° OTHER ONGOING MEASURES Encourage County to Develop ~ Program for the Use of Fertility Control Agents to Regulate Deer Population --Once research supports the practical use of reversible fertility control to maintain herd size, the Village will encourage the use of such a program by the Cook County Forest Preserve District. -6- Provide Season Specific Information on Deer Habits, Alternative Planting and Other Techniques. The Village will-utilize information gathered to date and additional resources provided by the Illinois Department of Conservation on deer. habits, alternate plantings and other techniques for deer management. Such information would be dispersed in the Glencoe Me__~_~mo Glencoe News'and upon request. EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Following completion of this year's program, the Village will assess the success of the deer management program in the following way: Survey of Village Residents {lg97). Continued Monitoring of Deer-related Traffic Accidents. This information will be collected and forwarded to the IDOC for review° SCHEDULE The Village proposes 5o proceed on the schedule detailed below: December 1996 Submission of documentation for final IDOC approval. Selection of marksmen and bait sites for IDOC approval~ opening bait sites. JanuarySarch 1997 Herd reduction March-December 1997 Post-reduction monitoring A summary of the numbers, sexes, ages, IDOC carcass tag numbers of the deer and dates that animals were collected, processed and removed will be submitted within 30 days of the expiration date of the permit. We should be able to evaluate the success of our program and submit that information to IDOC at the same time as the summary of removal activities. LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT I ...................... December 2, 1993 Village Board Resolution EXHIBIT II ....................... 1996 Deer Report Results EXHIBIT III ...................... Deer Vehicle Accidents EXHIBIT I A RESOUJTIOI~ ESTABLIStIING,,,THE VILLAGE OF GI'ENCOE'S 1994 DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM RESOLIJTION R93- WHEREAS, the Village President and Board of Trustees have conducted a detailed study and evaluation of the problems associated with an ever increasing population of deer within the corporate limits of the Village of Glencop, and; WHERF_~LS, the Village. President and Board of Trustees have determiped, following three months of extensive research and a public hearing on November 8, Igg3, that steps must be taken.to develop and implement a Deer Management Program for Igg4 that will be designed to provide needed relief and protection of property owners and motor vehicle operators within the corporate limits of the Village of Glencoe, and; WHEREAS, the Village President and Board of Trustees are prepared to take this action after considering the history of this issue, the effectiveness of alternative methods made available to Glencoe property owners overthe years, and the Village's inherent obligation to protect the health, safety and welfare of all Glencoe citizens. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the. Village President and Board of Trustees that the Village Manager is hereby authorized and directed to develop for implementation on January. I, 1994 a comprehensive Deer'Management Program for calendar year lgg4 that shall include the following elements: The Village of Glencoe will develop a comprehensive educational program that will provide Glencoe residents with information on the deer's seasonal habits and guidelines for limiting localized deer damage through the use of repellents, screening, -alternative plantings and other techniques. The Glencoe Memo, the Glencoe News, cable television ~nd special mailings~dll be used to communicate to the community the educational goals and objectives of the Village's Oeer Management Program. The Village Jf Glencoe will evaluaLe and where appropriate, i~)stall, or petition the State of Illino)s or County of Cook to ins::all on roadways under their jurisdiction, warning signs that may reduce the likelihood for vehicular to deer ~:ccidents. The Village.of GlenoDe will actively work with the Cook County Forest Preserve District, the Illinois Department of Conservation and the Chicago Horticultural Society to fully understand and strongly support their efforts to reduce the deer popdlation for which these agencies are responsible and which impact the health, safety, and welfare of Glencoe residents .... -2- e The Village of Glencoe will immediately apply for permits from the Illinois Department of Conservation and will begin the lethal removal of an appropriate number of deer wJth(n its corporate limits during January and February, 1994. The location, number of deer to be lethally removed, and method utilizedtolethallyremove the deer will be determined by the Village Manager after consultation with the Illinois Department of Conservation and Oirector of Public Safety. . The Village of Glencoe ~dll fully comply with all rules and regulations promulgated by the Illinois Department of Conservation governing the lethal removal of-deer, will exercise great.caution and safety in implementing the lethal removal element of -the program, will utilize the most humane lethal removal methods available, and will ensure the deer meat is processed for distribution to shelters involved in feeding the hungry and the homeless. The Village of.Glencoe will appropriate the'sum'of $15,000 from its General Fund to'implement the Deer Management. Program outlined in this Resolution for the period through February 28, Igg4o The Village of Glencoe will'conduct a detailed evaluation of the effectiveness of this Deer Management Program at the Regular Meeting of the Village President and Board of Trustees on March 11, i994. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FlIRTHER RESOLVED that the Village Manager is to proceed immediately to ensure implementation of this Deer ManagemenK Program on Janua~ 1, lgg4 and that the Village Manager ensures the Village President and Board of Trustees are hereby fully apprised of the status of this program throughout its development and implementation° PASSED THIS 2NO DAY OF DECEMBER, 1993. NA¥~:~ ABSENT: ATTEST: Village President Village Clerk EXHIBIT II MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF GLENCOE TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Robert W. Hogue, Village Manager David A. Clark, Assistant Village Manager December 4, 1996 1996 Deer Report Results- This past November, the Village staff mailed a survey to 550 randomly selected residents as a follow-up to the 1995 Deer Report. The Village first started surveying residents concerning the deer program in November of 1994. At that time, surveys were mailed to all Village residents. The initial survey yielded a 40e~, response rate. Starting in 1995 and again in 1996 the Village staff chose a smaller sample of the Village. Those selected were chosen from a list of those who had originally responded to the 1994 survey. Approximately half of those homes originally returning surveys are again surveyed annually. The response rate for both 1995 and 1996 was more than 60~0. The following Deer Report Summary indicates that there has been improvement as a result of the Village's proactive deer management efforts as measured by resident response to specific questions concerning their observations during the past year. More residents reported seeing 0 deer on their property during 1996 than during 1995. Twenty-one more respondents reported moderate to substantial decreases in deer activity. Seventeen more residents reported no evidence of deer activity during 1996 than in 1995. There has been improvement over what was'reported in the 1995 Deer Report~ One note of interest, however, is that the current use of deterrents appears to be decreasing somewhat. Thi~ is probably another indication that residents are seeing fewer deer on their property. However, the use of deterrents-in the past may be one of the reasons why residents were seeing fewer deer. In 1995 three residents reported being involved in a deer related vehicle accident. There were no such reports on the lg96 survey. -2- Although we have seen improvements in some areas, there are still 26 respondents who indicated that the damage either increased a little or substantially from 1995 to 1996. Also attached to this report is a listing of streets and the number of residents residing on each street that noted either a substantial increase or a substantial decrease in deer activity during 1996. Our annual harvest of deer has been as follows: Winter Killed Permitted 1993-1gg4 18 30 lgg4-1995 10 30 lggs-lgg6 17 20 Total 45 Deer related activities have decreased from 11 in lgg3 to 3 (year-to-date) in 1996. Given the response to the lgg6 Deer Report there are still areas of the Village which are reporting increasing deer activity. The focus of this program will be to continue to address, as possible, site specific concerns° We hope that the favorable trend indicated hy.surveyresults and deer-related accidents continue° rh CC: ~.~ly, David A. Clark Assistant Village Manager Paul Harlow, Director of Public Safety 1996 Deer Report Results Mailing Total Number of Surveys Mailed Total Completed Surveys Received % Surveys Returned 1995 # % 550 349 63.5% 1996 # 55O 335 60.9% Change From 1995 To 1996 # % 0 0.0% -14 -4.0% Number of Times Deer Seen on Property 0 118 33.8% 135 40.3% 17 14.4% 1 - 5 103 29.5% 92 27.5% -11 -10.7% 6 - 15 46 13.2% 51 15.2% 5 10.9% 16 - 30 24 6.9% 21 6.3% -3 -12.5% 31+ 36 10.3% 22 6.6% -14 -38.9% Total 327 93.7% 321 95.8% -6 -1.8% Perceived Chan.cles Decreased Substantially 79 22.6% 98 29.3% 19 24.1% Decreased A Little 64 18.3% 66 19.7% 2 3.1% Same 107 30.7% 103 30.7% -4 -3.7% Increased A Little 20 5.7% 14 4.2% -6 -30.0% Increased Substantially 20 5.7% 12 3.6% -8 -40.0% Don~ Know 19 5.4% 17 5.1% -2 -10.5% Total 309 88.5% 310 92.5% .1 0.3% Observed Effects No Evidence Antler Damage Ate Vegatafion Dropped Feces Left Hoof Prints Other Total 132 37.8% ' 149 44.5% 17 12.9% 31 8.9% 30 9.0% -1 -3.2% 145 41.5% 140 41.8% -5 -3.4% 124 35.5% 127 37.9% 3 2.4% 137 39.3% 108 32.2% -29 -21.2% 17 4.9% 9 2.7% -8 -47.1% 586 167,9% 563 168.1% -23 -3.9% Those Feedincl Deer Yes 2 0.6% 2 0.6% 0 0.0% No 327 93.7% 326 97.3% -1 -0.3% Total 329 94.3% 328 97.9% -1 -0.3% Current Deterrent Use None 215 61.6% 216 64.5% 1 0.5% Fencing 35 10.0% 33 9.9% o2 -5.7% Repellents 43 12.3% 37 11.0% .6 -14.0% Netting 32 9.2% 27 8.1% -5 -15.6% Noisemakem 7 2.0% .5 1.5% -2 -28.6% Deer Resistent Plants 25 7.2% 29 8.7% 4 16.0% Other 22 6.3% 16 4.8% -6 -27.3% Total 379 108.6% 363 108.4% -16 -4.2% Use of De~rren~ Since LastDecember Yes 114 32.7% 160 47.8% 46 40.4% No 64 24.1% 84 25.1% 0 0.0% Total 198 56.7% 244 72.8% 46 23.2% Still Usin~ Deterrents Yes 65 18.6% 76 22.7% 11 16.9% No 62 17.8% 167 49.9% 105 169,4% Total 127 36.4% 243 72.5% 116 91.3% Deer-Vehicle Accidents (Per Suwey) Yes 323 92.6% 324 96.7% 1 0.3% No 3 0.9% 0 0.0% -3 -100.0% Total 326 93.4% 324 96.7% -2 -0.6% RESIDENTS REPORTING SUBSTANTIAL DEER ACTIVITY CHANGES FROM 1995 TO 1996 December 3, 1996 Unknown Beach Bluff Cedar Cherry Tree Country Lane Drexel Dennis Lane Dundee Edgebrook Elder Court Elm Place Elm Ridge Euclid Fairfield Forestway Greenleaf Green Bay Greenwood Grove Harbor HaZythorn Hazel SUBSTANTIALLY DECREASED 3 2 3 1 2 1 2 0 3 2 1 1 3 1 3 1 5 0 1 3 1 1 SUBSTANTIALLY' INCREASED 2 Hohlfelder Jackson Lapier Lakewood Lincoln Linden Longmeadow Longwood Madison Maple Hill Monroe Oakridge Oakdal e Old Elm Orchard Park Peach Tree Prairie Scott Avenue Sheridan Road Lane South South Strawberry Hill Sunset Sycamore Sylvan Valley Washington Wentworth West Elm Court 4 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Westley Willgate Terrace Woodlawn Woodridge 3 1 3 2 EXHIBIT III Village of Glencoe Department of Public Safety FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Dave Clark Tamar Kranick 12/05/96 Accidents involving Deer All deer accidents for the year of 1995 and from 01/01/96 through 12/05/96 are as follows: 1995 9500162 01/09/95 9500181 01/10/95 9500226 01/12/95 9504417 06/30/95 9507027 09/23/95 9508566 11/18/95 Glencoe Rd./ Harbor St o Greenbay Rd./ Lake Cook Rd. Lake Cook Rd./ Sheridan Rdo Glencoe Rd./ Jackson Ave. Elder Ct./ Forestway Dr. Adams Ave./Glencoe Rd. 1996 9601575 03/11/96 9601637 03/14/96 9602877 05/01/96 Greenbay Rdo/Lake Cook Rd. 94 Mary St. 211 Franklin Rd. VILLAGE DEER OF GLENCOE REPORT lgg6 Please respond completely to the following questions: How many times have deer been seen on your property this year, from last December until now? (Please estimate the raw number of times as best you can, from zero up, and write it below°) ~ # of times this year This year, from last December until now, have you observed any effects of deer activity on your property? (Check all that apply.) No evidence Deer rubbed antlerson vegetation Ate vegetation . . Dropped feces Left hoof prints Other (please describe): How did you determine that these effects were from deer and not from other possible causes? w This year, from last December until now, how does deer activity on your property compare to prior years? decreased substantially decreased a little same increased a little increased substantially don't know This year have you fed deer? NO YES (specify what kind of food): 13. -3- What information about deer or related issues would you like the Village to provide to the community? 14. Additional comments or concerns: 15. Please provide following infomation: (Name) (Address) Thank you for your prompt return of this completed questionnaire! Please use the enclosed envelope. VILLAGE OF GLENCOE DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WAIVER AND CONSENT We, the undersigneds, are the legal and/or beneficial owners of the property commonly known as , Glencoe, Illinois (the "Subject Property"), and hereby acknowledge and agree'as follows: The undersigneds hereby permit the Village of Glencoe, its officers, officials, agents, employees, attorneys, representatives, and contractors {the "Village") and the Illinois Department of Conservation, its officers, officials, agents, employees, attorneys, representatives, and contractors ("IDOC") to enter upon the Subject Property during the period from to for the purpose of the lethal removal of deer (the "Deer Removal Program"). The undersigneds hereby pledge their cooperation in the Village's Deer Removal Program and agree not to interfere with the Village or IDOC in their .Deer Removal Program activities on the Subject Property. The undersigneds hereby acknowledge that there exists a risk of damage or injury to property or persons in connection with the Deer Removal Program, notwithstanding any reasonable steps the Village or IDOC might take to'minimize any such risk of damage or injury~ The undersigneds hereby: {a) assume any risk of damage or injury to their property or persons resulting from the Deer Removal Program; and (b) waive any and all claims they might now or in the future have against the Village or IDOC in connection with any damage or injury to property or persons relating to or arising from Deer Removal Program activities on the Subject Property. e The undersigneds hereby agree to indemnify and hold the Village and IDOC harmless from and against any and all claims for damage or injury to property or person resulting from or relating to the Deer Removal Program made by {a) any persons residing on the Subject Property or {b) any persons (other than the village and IDOC} invited on the Subject Property by either the undersigneds or other residents of the Subject Property. -2- Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~day of , lgg6. Owner Notary Public Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 1996. Village of Glencoe Notary Public VILLAGE OF GLENCOE DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR THE PLACEMENT OF CLOVER BOX TRAPS This application is intended for those who are interested in having the Village of Glencoe place a clover box trap in their back yards for the purpose of lethal removal of deer. The opportunities for such intervention in residential neighborhoods are extremely limited. The Village will select only those applicants who demonstrate a concerted and continued effort at deterring and repelling deer. Applications and sites require approval of both the Village of Glencoe and the Illinois Department of Conservation. The Village of Glencoe considers the lethal removal of deer a last resort for those who have demonstrated a concerted effort to deter and repel deer from their property. The Village requires that residents continue to use deterrent/repellents methods. Questions regarding completion of the application can be directed to David A. Clark, Assistant to the Village Manager at (708) 835-4114, extension 103o Please provide the following information: Nature of problem. Please describe in specific terms the number of deer and the frequency of deer on your property. Describe and document the damage that they are causing. Photographs and cost estimates of damage would be helpful. Please throughly document extent of problem. Deterrent/Repellent Use History. Please describe by specific brand name, the method of application the repellent and deterrent techniques used to date to address your deer problem. (Big Game Repellent, Ropel, fencing, netting, etc.) Are you still using these techniques? If no, why not? -2- Deterrent/Repellent Evaluation. Please evaluate to the best of your ability the effectiveness repellents and deterrent techniques you have used to date. of (Name Printed) {Signature) Address Daytime Telephone # OFFICE USE ONLY: (Received By) (Date Received) Permit Issued: Pemit #: Permit Expiration Date: IDOC Authorization MF. MORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: VILLAGE OF GLENCOE Marty Jones, Urban Project Deer Manager Illinois Department of Conservation David Ao Clark, Assistant to the Village Manager May 19, 1995 M~mmary of 1995 Deer Management Pr9gram On January 27, 1995, the Illinois Department of Conservation (IDOC) issued the Village a permit for the lethal removal of 30 deer. This year Village personnel conducted the lethal removals.' During 1994 the lethal removals were conducted by a contractor. This change improved scheduling of removal operations. As of March 31, 1995, the Village had lethally removed a total of l0 deer. Two were removed by sharpshooter and eight by live capture and captive-bolt. Five of the deer were does, and five were bucks. Captive bolt was used for the first time this year. The deer were quickly and humanely killed° Captive bolt was used on residential lots within the Village. The method of capturing the deer was a Clover trap. This trap, which is approximately 4 feet high, 4 feet wide and 6 feet in length, was used without incident. Once in the trap, the deer actually settled down and ate the remainder of the bait corn. We feel that capturing the animals in Clover traps resulted in less stress on the deer when compared to conventional wood box traps. The Clover traps are also easier to transport to other locations. The Village used three different sites concurrently. Homeowners interested in participating had to complete forms holding harmless the Village from any potential damages resulting from the program and also had to demonstrate ongoing damage and continued non-lethal efforts to abate the problem. The homeowners also pledged to continue non-lethal efforts. The field dressed carcasses were delivered to Jones Natural Chews Co. in Woodstock, Illinois and to Antioch Packing House in Antioch, Illinois. The total amount processed during this years program amounts to 540 lbs. 196 lbs was delivered to Christian OutreDch of Lutherans in Waukegan and 344 lbs was delivered to the Greater Chicagoland Food Depository. Attached is a summary of the deer removed this year. Should you require any further information regarding this program, please let me know. ' . Clark Assistant to the Village Manager dac VILLAGE OF GLENCOE Deer Management program 2-24-95 to 3-31-95 IDOC Carcass tag # Date collected IDOC JHK 843371 3-31-95 IDOC JHK 843372 3-24-95 IDOC JHK 843373 3-18-95 IDOC JHK 843374 3-17-95 IDOC JHK 843375 3-16-95 IDOC JHK 843376 3-14-95 IDOC JHK 843377 3-01-95 IDOC JI-IK 843378 2-27-95 IDOC Jt-IK 843379 2-27-95 IDOC JHK 843380 2-24-95 Sex, M M M F M F M F F F Aoorox. Weight 120 175 175 150 120 110 120 130 100 130. Aoorox. AGe I 1/2 3 1/2 21/2 4 1/2 2 1/2 1 I/2 2 1/2 3 1/2 1 1/2 2 1/2 January 31, 1995 CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: VILLAGE OF GLENtOE Village President and Board of Trustees Peter B. Cummins, Village Manager January 31, 1995 Village Receives Deer Population Control Permit Earlier today, the Village staff received the attached Deer Population Control Permit from the Illinois Department of Conservation. The permit allows for the removal of 30 deer between now and March 31, 1995. rh Attachment I% asked, I will be acknowledging existence of the permit, but no other details will be provided. Please call if you have any questions. Pe Village Manager l' lllinoi Depart. ent :C" $ 0i' %..,-1. %1 Bren~ ~lannin~. Director .John W. Come6~. Dec,=ly C:,=.,.~r B~uce - ~,~/. ;.ssis[an{ D:rec:cr 30 January 1995 Mr. David Clark, Assistant to the Village Manager Village of Glencoe 675 Village Court Glencoe, IL 60022 Dear Dave; The deer management proposal/application for a Deer Population Control Permit (DPCP) and supplemental materials, submitted by the Village of Glencoe, have been reviewed and approved by the Forest Wildlife Program (FWP) of the Illinois Department of Conservation (IDOC). Enclosed are DPCP# .JMJ26-94 and metal carcass tags which authorize the removal of 30 deer from the Village of Glencoe during 30 January-31 March 1995. The enclosed DPCP authorizes the removal of deer at previously approved (by IDOC staff) bait sites by IDOC-tested and -approved sharpshooters and/or live-capture followed by immediate mechanical (as opposed to chemical) euthanization. To insure human safety and humane'euthanasia, sharpshooters must be stationed in elevated positions (eog., tree stand) to insure downward bullet trajectory and must take stationary deer at bait sites. Deer collected by lethal techniques must be tagged (one metal tag through a rear leg), field-dressed in ~ 1 hour, cooled to ~ 45°F as soon as possible, inspected, processed at a State. or federally-licensed meat processing facility, and the processed venison donated to not-for-profit charitable organization(s). Please notify me if there are any changes of processor or recipient charity during the duration of this permit~ Additionally, any deer carcasses that are unsuitable for human consumption must be disposed of properly via guidelines set forth in the Illinois Dead Animal Disposal Act. Please contact me if you require additional information on the aforementioned guidelines and regulations. Upon expiration of the attached permit, a summary of the sex, age, carcass tag number(s), and disposition of each animal collected, and the amount of processed venison donated to charity(ies), must be submitted (along with any unused carcass tags) to this office within 30 days of DPCP expiration. This summary should include any confirmed incidences of Ixodes dammini or other external parasites, Lyme disease or other diseases/ abnormalities. Prim'ed t,*n R~'~ Additionally, within one year of the expiration of the DPCP, or as part of any subsequent permit application, a site-specific evaluation of the impact of deer control activities must be provided to this office. The latter summary must contain information related to the site-specific management objectives (e.g., numbers of deer-vehicle accidents and homeowner complaints). Also, I would greatly appreciated receiving a copy of the final results of the recent mail survey contracted by the Village when available° Please review the enclosed permit, sign and date it at the bottom, and return the yellow copy to this office° If you require any additional information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Jon Mo Jones Project Manager Urban Deer Project 28W040 State Rt. 58 Elgin, IL 60120-9223 (708) 289-7620 enclosures XC:: Brouillard (Regional Wildlife) Getz (Law Enforcement) Kube (Forest Wildlife) Shelton (Forest Wildlife) Illinois Department of Conservation Deer Population Control Permit Property Owner/Managor Agency/organization name: Vi 1 ] agP of G1 PncoP Address: 675 Village Court City: C,] ~n~-r~, TL Agency/Organization contact person(s): Name: Mr. Peter Cuninins, Village Manager Name: Mr. David Clark, Assistant Manager Permit No. J~k726-94 Tag Nos. ZDOC 3BK-843351 - J~-843380. Zip Code: 60022 Phone #: ( 70R ) R.RS-41 ] ] Phone #: { " ) " " AREA DESCRIPTION Legal description of property: PF, rmi i- va 1 i cl wi i-hi n th~ ~ncor[~ra ~-ect hol]ndarJ ~s of G] encoe: Sections 1 and 12 of T42N, R12E (Northfield Township) and Sections 6-8 and 17-18 of T42N, R13E (New Tri ~ 'Pown,~hip) . Acreage: .... 2,/l~YJ County: Cook Type & extent of damage: Excessive deer-related damac~e to pr~v~i-~ pro[~m~pi~.~ (fm_g., ct~r-v~hi~l~ ~Kt~ni-.~ ~n~ ~nlmgp i-o t~-n~m~nt~].~ & gardens). REMOVAL AND CARCASS DISPOSITION SPECIFICATIONS: Permit is valid 24 hrs/day (spgtlighting al'lowed); authorized techniques are IDOC-apDroved sharpshooters from elevatec3 positions over field-dressed, Processed, and donated to charity. THE ABOVE AGENCY/ORGANIZATION IS HEREBY GRANTED A 6] -DAY PERMIT UNDER SECTION 512.37 OF THE ILLINOIS WILDLIFE CODE TO REMOVEI~]~I(~)C)~)~)~I( ~O ~ DEER CAUSING DAMAGE (DESCRIBED ABOVEI, THIS PERMIT IS VALID FROM 0] ! 3C) ! c)5 TO Oq ! q~ ! 05 (DATES INCLUSIVE} AND ONLY ON THE LANDS OWNED/NIANAGED BY THE PERMITTEE AND DESCRIBED ABOVE. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ON THIS PERMIT, OR ASSOCIATED COVER LETTER AND/OR DOCUMENT(S), THE PERMITTEE AND APPROVED SHARPSHOOTERS SHALL ADHERE TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 520 OF THE ILUNOIS COMPILED STATUTES AND TITLE 17 OF THE ILUNOIS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. PFRMIT PROVISIONS 1. Proposed sharpshooters must be tested a~l apl~oved by Depalmont of Coase~vafioa-Division of Wildlife Resources personnel. Names, addresses, phone numbers, and other pertinent information, of the approved sharp- shooters will .be maintained on file by the Authorizing Biologist. ~harpshootars must carry a copy of this permit on thei~ person at all times when collecting, transporting, and/or handling deer. 2. Removal and disposition shall only be by the method(s) stated on this permit. 3. No parts or pelts of deer collected under authority of this pemit may be sold, mounted, tanned, bartered, nor traded in any manner. 4. All de~ must be tagged (through a rear leg) Immediately after killed and before transporting. Tags must be retained with the carcass until it is disposed of or pre- pared for consumption. 5. PERMITTEE MUST RETURN ANY UNUSED TACS ALONG WITH THIS PERMIT AND A COMPLETE REMOVAL RECORD AND CARCASS DISPOSITION REPORT TO THE AUTHORIZING BIOLOGIST WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE EXPIRATION OF THIS PERMIT. A complete evaluation of the effectiveness of the removals, authorized herein, in reducing/eliminating the aforementioned, deer-related damage must be submitted within I year of the expiration or with any subsequent permit requests/management proposals; this does not apply to a permit extension during the current removal program. 6. The Department of Conservation reserves the right to refuse to issue additional permits to permlttees who fail to implement management recommendations (as provided by DOC) or do not provide the required summaries. ~ MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS enntinpe p~lhlin ~.-t~mmtimn prnqram and tn rmcnmm~nd thmt h~mrm fi~e ,~m nnnl~fh~l fn~ ~f d~ge ~te~nt (~.e.,-le~hal r~vals are the-last reso~); continue to 'tonitot d~r- I fully undostud the permit provisits, s~fi~ meth~s Rf remo.,al ~d ca'rcass disposition, summpries r~uired, and n ~agement reco~endations, li~ h~ein, '~ee to ~~em. F 3,E~ ~LDLIFE PROG~M AUTHORIZING A~T: Address: ~lQ(n, TL 601 ?O Phone ~: 70~-~89-7620 IL 422-0850 DEER MANAGEMENT REPORT Lethal Removal Summary Village of Glencoe DEER MANAGEMENT REPORT Lethal Removal Summary This report summarizes the lethal removal component of the Villagers Deer Management Program. In January of 1994, the Village contracted for individual marksmen services. Two marksmen were selected based upon previous experience and excellent references. Both marksmen also passed the Illinois Department of Conservation {IDOC} sharpshooting proficiency test. These marksmen were retained to perform the selective culling of deer in i.he Village pursuant to and in strict conformance with the terms of the permit iss~.ed by the IDOC and all related rules and regulations. The contractors performed all services in a timely and a highly professional manner and complied with the rules of the IDOC and the Illinois Department of Public Health. All dates for services were coordinated between the contractor and the Department of Public Safety. Department Staff was on site during each of the working sessions. Attached is the detail listing of dates of working sessions and results. Each contractor was paid at a rate of $75.00 per complete working session; $25.00 per deer for cleaning cost; and $40.00 per deer for the cost processing deer. The work session was defined to include travel to the Village, preparation for seeding of site, attention to safety matters, meeting with personnel from the Village, and sitting in the blind and shooting. Cleaning cost included the gutting and delivery of the carcass to a meat processing facility. The processing cost included fee charged by the facility per deer for processing. Processed meat was donated to the a Lake County charity. The attached Deer Management Project Expenditure Summary compares the 1994 program budget to the 1994 actual expenditure experience. The Village budgeted $267.20 per deer for the program. The 1994 actual expenditures for the lethal removal of deer was $248.56 per deer. The initial year lethal removal component of the Deer Management program was very efficient and humane. No deer were wounded. The 18 deer culled were dropped immediately with one shot. Lethal removal by sharpshooters is more humane than the fate that may have eventually confronted these animals (vehicle collisions, starvation, predation, disease). Of the 18 deer culled, 12 were does and 6 were bucks. The Village Staff developed a comfort level with the contractors and with the process of lethal removal. There were no incidents of on-site interference by protestors or any other parties. There is still additional funding available for other educational programs including the development of a brochure and an educational video which could be broadcast and distributed. This topic would be ideal for the newly conceptualized advisory committee. DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURE SUMMARY IPROGRAM SCOPE: 40 DEER DEER TAKEN TO DATE: 18 DEER FIXED COSTS Drag, Gut, Deliver Carcass to Plant Inspect Deer for Diseases Packing Plant Costs for Processing Insurance Fixed Total SERVICES Sharpshooters Bait Equipment Education Services Total GRAND TOTAL COST/DEER ('EXCLUDING EDUCATION) *COSTS SINCE PROGP~ BEGAN IN DECF_~BER OF lgg3 1994 1994 PROG RAM PROGRAM ACTUAL % OF BUDGET TO DATE* BUDGET $1,600 $450 28.1% 400 0 0.0% 2,000 710 35.50/0 0 584 N/A $4,000 $1,744 43.60/0 $5,760 $2,550 44.30/o 448 18O 40.2% 48O 0 0.0% 4,000 1,774 44.4O/o $10,688 $4,504 42.1% $14,688 $6,248 42.50/0 $267.20 $248.56 DETAIL OF WORKING SESSIONS TOTAL DEER WORKING DATE .COST TAKEN SESSION 21--Jan-94 $400 4 $150 23-Jan-94 485 5 150 28-J an-94 150 0 150 30-Jan-94 150 0 150 06-Feb-94 150 0 150 10-Feb-94 150 0 150 21 -Feb-94 280 2 150 24- Feb-94 150 0 150 04-Mar-94 150 0 150 07-Mar-94 75 0 75 10-Mar-94 215 I 150 11-Mar-94 410 4 150 13-M at-94 150 0 150 16-M ar-94 280 2 150 18-Mar-94 150 0 150 24-Mar-94 15~ 0 150 01-Apr-94 75 0 75 06-Apr-94 150 0 150 TOTALS $3,720 18 $2,550 CLEANING COST · $100 125 0 0 0 0 5O 0 0 0 25 100 0 5O 0 0 0 0 $45O PROCCESSING FEE $150 200 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 40 160 0 80 0 0 0 0 $710 CONFIDENTIAL DEER DISPOSITION ESTIMATED TAG # GENDER AG_.._.~EDISPOSITION 999001 FEMALE 3 SEE BELOW 999002 FEMALE 4 SEE BELOW 999003 FEMALE 2 SEE BELOW 999004 FEMALE 4 SEE BELOW 999005 MALE 2 SEE BELOW 999006 FEMALE 1 SEE BELOW 999007 MALE 2 SEE BELOW 999008 FEMALE 3 SEE BELOW 999009 FEMALE I SEE BELOW 999010 MALE 5 SEE BELOW 999011 MALE 1 SEE BELOW 999012 FEMALE 5 SEE BELOW 999013 FEMALE 7 SEE BELOW 999014 MALE 2 SEE BELOW 999015 FEMALE 4 SEE BELOW 999016 MALE 3 SEE BELOW 999017 FEMALE 6 SEE BELOW 999018 FEMALE 2 SEE BELOW PROCESSING FACILITY FRANKLIN MEATS 9431 WEST OAKWOOD ROAD FRANKLIN, Wl 53132 (414) 425-0800 CHARITY CHRISTIAN OUTREACH OF LUTHERANS FOOD PANTRY 121 WEST WATER, WAUKEGAN (708) 662-1230 TOTAL MEAT DONATED In excess of 900 lbs. CONTRACT FOR INDIVIDUAL MARKSMANSHIP SERVICES' This contract is made this 7th day of January lgg4, by and between the Village of Glencoe, a municipal corporation (the "Village"), and the undersigned individual (the "Contractor"). ~ WHEREAS, the Village has been issued Deer Removal Permit No. ~(the "Permit"} by the Illinois Department of Conservation {IDOC) for the removal of up to 40 deer using "scope and firearm from elevated position" in the Village between January 10, lgg4, and April 1, lgg4 which Permit is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Village to retain the services of highly skilled marksmen certified by IDOC pursuant to the Permit; and WHEREAS, Contractor desires to perform the services of a highly skilled marksman in the selective culling of deer in the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements of the parties, the Village and the Contractor covenant and agree as follows: Contractor is hereby retained by the Village to perform the selective culling of deer in the Village pursuant to and in strict conformity with'the terms of the Permit issued by the IDOC and all related rules and regulations. Contractor agrees to perform all services in timely and highly skilled manner and agrees to comply with all of the terms hereof and with the rules and regulations of IDOC and the Illinois Department of Public Health, which rules and regulations Contractor represents and warrants he or she is familiar with and fully understands. This contract shall expire on the earlier of (i) April 1, 1994, (ii) the date the limit under the Permit is reached, {iii) the date either party shall terminate it upon the giving of immediate verbal notice, or {iv) the date the Permit expires or is revoked. Contractor agrees to use his or her best independent judgment and skill in performing the services required under this contract, subject to the general direction and supervision of the Village's Department of Public Safety (the "Department")~ All dates and times for the services to be performed hereunder by the Contractor shall be coordinated by The Department and mutually agreed upon by the Department and Contractor. Contractor will be paid at the rate of $ 75.00 perle ? 'working session," $25 per deer for "cleaning cost" and~r~3-g. 00 per "deer processing cost." As an illustration, but not as a limitation, a "working session" shall typically include,'travel to the Village, preparation or seeding of the site, attention to safety matters, meetings with personnel from the Village, sitting in the blind or station, and shooting. "Cleaning cost" will include cleaning and disposing of the deer. "Deer processing cost" will include costs and fees associated with delivery of cleaned deer to licensed processing facility. The parties recognize that every working session may not result in the culling of deer, but that each working session shall involve Contractor's sitting in the blind or station for at least two hours. At the Village's option, payments may be made monthly or at the expiration hereof. In no event shall the total payments by the Village to the contractor for complete working sessions under this contract exceed $10,000. Contractor covenants and agrees that he or she will not consume or use alcohol, narcotics, or any other drugs, including prescription medicine, within the 24 hours preceding work in the Village pursuant hereto. Contractor represents and warrants to the Village that: A. He or she is a resident of the State of Wisconsin. He or she has never been involved in, investigated for or made a claim for any injury, damage or loss related to the use of firearms. Contractor has all necessary qualifications and has taken all tests required by IDOC. Contractor's certification from IDOC is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of any work by the Contractor, his agents, representatives or employees related to the contract, either directly or indirectly, as follows: 10. -3- A. Commercial General Liability: Per occurrence bodily injury, personal injury and property damage $1,000,000 Upon request of the Village, Contractor shall furnish the Village with certificates of insurance naming the Village of Glencoe, Forest Preserve District of Cook County, IDOC and their respective officials, agents, and employees as additional insures, and with original endorsements affecting coverage required by this clause. These certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates and endorsements may be on forms provided by the Village of Glencoe and are to be received and approved by the Village of Glencoe before any work commences. The Village of Glencoe reserves the right to request full certified copies of the insurance policies. The Village agrees to reimburse Contractor up to the policy amount for the cost of obtaining the insurance required under this Paragraph. Contractor for himself or herself and his or her successors, heirs, legatees, administrators and executors hereby waives, releases, indemnifies and agrees to hold harmless the Village of Glencoe, IDOC, and the Forest Preserve District of Cook County, and their respective officers, employees and agents from any and all claims arising out of any injury to the Contractor or his or her property, including death or serious bodily injury, which may arise from the performance of his or her duties in the Village under the terms and conditions of this contract. Contractor for himself or herself and his or her successors, heirs, legatees, administrators and executors agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Village of Glencoe, IDOC, and the Forest Preserve District of Cook County, and their respective officers, employees and agents from and against any claims, allegation, suits or causes of action, and/or cost (including reasonable attorneys' fees) incurred by any person or persons in connection with, relating to or arising from (i} Contractor's negligent use of firearms in the Village, or (ii) any other negligent act or omission by Contractor or his or her agents, representative, or employees arising out of this contract. -4- 11o This Con[ract calls for the performance of personal services and as such may not be assigned of delegated by Contractor, except' as specifically permitted under this Paragraph. Nothing in this Paragraph shall prevent Contractor from retaining persons to assist Contractor with activities required under this contract; provided that Contractor shall be fully responsible. for the acts and omissions of such persons so retained; and provided further that only Contractor himself or herself shall discharge firearms in the Village pursuant to this contract. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this contract on or before the date first stated herein. URBAN DEER A MANACIEABLE RESOURCE? THE NORTH CENTRAL SECTION TI-IE WILDLIFE SOCIETY 1995 URBAN DEER: A MANAGEABLE RESOURCE? Editor JAY B. McANINCH Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Symposium Chairpersons JAY B. McANINCH Minnesota Department of Natural Resources LONNIE' P. HANSEN Missouri Department of Conservation Editorial Assistant and Symposium Coordinator KELLY A. KELLY Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Proceedings of a Symposium held at the 55th Midwest Fish and W/7dlife Conference, St. Louis, Missouri December 12-14, 1993 117 POLICE SHARPSHOOTING AS A METHOD TO REDUCE URBAN DEER POPULATIONS MICHELLE L. STRADTMANN~, School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO JAY B. McANINCH, Department of Natural Resources, Madella, MN ERNIE P. WIGGERS, School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO JON M. PARKER, Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN High deer populations in urban communities create traffic hazards, concerns about human health, and cause extensive damage to native and planted vegetation. While many residents expect these issues to be resolved, they are often unwilling to accept the use of traditional management methods. Variations of controlled hunting have been the primary methods used to manage deer numbers (Palmer et al. 1980, Ellingwood and Caturano 1988, Deblinger 1990), although trap and transfer has also been reported (Bryant and Ishmael 1990, Jones and Witham 1990, O'Bryan and McCullough 1985). In response to concerns about cost, safety, efficiency and public acceptance, sharpshooting has been proposed as an alternative (Witham and Jones 1992, Ishmael and Rongstad 1984). However, only limited information exists on the actual cost, efficiency and safety of the technique. In 1991, the Minnesota Valley Deer Management Task Force (DMTF) developed a deer management plan for the cities of Bloomington, Burnsville, Eagan and Mendota Heights, Minnesota (McAninch and Parker 1991). The DMTF recommended a variety of methods to control and manage deer populations including sharpshooting. On the basis of the DMTF recommendations, a 3-year sharpshooting program, using police officers from the Bloomington Police Department (BPD) was adopted in the city of Bloomington. We discuss the development, administration and implementation of the BPD sharpshooting program in Bloomington and present data on cost and efficiency. We also discuss safety concerns and public reaction to the program. METHODS Program development Sharpshooting was approved as one of several reduction options by the Bloomington Natural and Historic Resources Commission (NHRC) and the Bloomington City Council for a 3-year experimental period. A number of agencies participated in the development and implementation of the sharpshooting program (Table 1). The program was coordinated by the Bloomington Planning Division under special permit granted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to the BPD. Staff from the DNR Section of Wildlife acted as advisors for the program, the BPD provided sharpshooters and the Parks Maintenance Department (PMD) and DNR, Division of Law Enforcement handled logistics. Deer population reduction goals for selected areas within the city were developed by the DNR and were based on helicopter counts, population modeling and density goals of 15-25 deer per square mile. Program implementation The sharpshooting task was assigned to the Special Operations Unit of the BPD. The Special Operations Commander was in charge of supervision, data collection and budgeting and made administrative adjustments to the program as needed. Officers were recruited and provided with an explanation of the program and expectations for time commitment and performance. Officers were required to supply their own firearms (.222 to .243 caliber rifles with scopes), pass a shooting test and receive BPD authorization for a non-standard weapon. To pass the shooting test, officers had to hit a 7" (18era) diameter target at 25 (23m) and 50 (46m) yards, 10 seconds after a "fire" command was given. Officers were also required to attend an orientation session that covered a wide range of topics, from public interaction to safety standards and shot placement. Throughout the program, emphasis was placed on public safety. Officers were hastmeted to shoot only toward adequate backstops, use only one shot to kill each deer, and to remember safety was more important than killing deer. Deer were shot within predetermined shooting lanes and from stationary positions such as a stand or vehicle. Deer were only to be shot while they were standing or walking slowly. To eliminate deer running after the shot, officers were instructed to use only neck shots. Officers were advised to allow deer to Department of Natural Resources, Madella, MN 118 Table 1. Agency participation in the sharpshooting program in Bloomington, Minnesota, 1991-1993. Agency/Organization Bloomington Natural and Historic Resources Commission and City Council Bloomington Planning Division Bloomington Police Department Bloomington Parks Maintenance Department of Natural Resources - Section of Wildlife Department of Natural Resoumes - Division of Law Enforcement begin feeding before shooting to give time for other deer to arrive at bait sites. If shooters had the option, adult females or other antlerless deer were to be shot first. Bait sites were selected based on proximity to deer concentrations, access for vehicles and opportunities for safe shooting. Residents were notified of the locations and dates of the program through local newspapers. Letters were also sent to residents bordering each shooting area. In 1991-92 (PY1) sites were baited with five gallon pails of shelled or cared corn 1-2 weeks before shooting began and checked or replenished as needed. In 1992-93 (PY2) and 1993-94 (PY3), 500 bushels of corn were placed at bait sites 2 weeks before shooting began and replenished as needed. Signs were posted at all park access points and along public trails one week prior to the start of shooting. When officers were assigned to shoot, they reported to the BPD dispatcher at the start of their shift and checked out ammunition, spotlights and radios. Participation Deer feeding ban Approval of program and £mai recommendations Waiver of firearms discharge ordinance Deer Management Plan update DNR permit application Public notification of program Coordination of program review Budgeting Bait site selection Sharpshooter supervision Data collection Bait site selection Sign posting Maintain site access and baiting Carcass collection Permit allocation Bait site selection Advise police department Assist in program review Bait site selection Distribution of carcasses Officers usually arrived at bait sites at dusk and remained at the site for 3-5 hours. Dead deer were removed from bait sites so that approaching deer would not become wary. Officers returned to the station to ffie activity reports and return equipment. Activity reports included information on hours on duty, bait site number, sex and age of deer observed, deer killed and shots fired. Carcasses were collected immediately following sharpshooting, were field dressed, and females examined for presence of fetuses. Carcasses were delivered to the DNR, Division of Law Enforcement for final disposition to charitable organizations. In PY1, in addition to shooting over bait, 3 drives were conducted. While the drives were not as controlled as shooting over bait, every attempt was made for drives to be conducted safely. Sharpshooters were set in positions with adequate backstops and each carried hand-held radios. Some drivers also carried hand-held radios and guards were posted at park entrances to prevent people from entering the park during sharpshooting. In 1992 and 1993, the Bloomington Planning Department coordinated the program review in conjunction with PMD, BPD and DNR-Section of Wildlife. NHRC reviewed the program and made adjustments based on recommendations from the group. NHRC forwarded their recommendations to the City Council who provided approval for the following year. Analysis Success rates (deer killed/hr) were calculated by dividing the number of hours sharpshooters were on duty (not just in the field) by the number of deer they killed. Cost per deer was calculated by dividing the number of deer killed into the total costs for the program. Program costs included daily BPD administration, sharpshooter wages, wages for staff to dispose of deer and maintain bait sites, equipment and bait. Costs for staff to conduct drives in PY1 were included in the total costs for that year. Differences in success between years, officers, bait sites and weather conditions were tested using the Kruskal-Wallis statistic. Daily maximum temperature, daily snow cover and snowfall information was obtained from Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The BPD sharpshooting program rau from 18 November to 13 March in PY1, from 16 November to 12 February in PY2 and from 15 November to 27 February in PY3. In PYI, 21 officers participated in the program and each worked an average of 2.9 shifts (range=l-8) (Table 2). In PY2, 16 officers each worked an average of 4.3 shifts (range=l-10). In PY3, only the 9 most efficient officers from PY2 participated in the program and each worked an average of 10.7 shifts (range=6-22). An average of 1.7, 1.5 119 and 2.3 sharpshooters worked per night in PY1, PY2 and PY3, respectively. Sharpshooters killed 135 deer in PYI, 167 deer in PY2 and 152 deer in PY3 (Table 3). In PY1, 40 of the deer were killed during 3 drives conducted along a creek bottom. The portion of the total kill that were adult females (> 1.5 years) ranged from 30% in PY1 to 42% in PY2. Conversely, the portion of kill that were adult males ranged from 27% in PYI to 19% in PY2. Four bait sites were used in PY1, 6 in PY2 and 10 in PY3 (Table 4). Sharpshooters worked an average of 52 hours (range=29-76) and killed an average of 24 deer (range=5-40) at each bait site in PY1. In PY2, sharpshooters worked an average of 45 hours (range=5-98) and killed aa average of 28 deer (range=4-66) at each bait site. At each bait site in PY3, sharpshooters worked an average of 37 hours (range--6-127) and killed an average of 15 deer (range =0-68). There were no significant differences in success (rate) between bait sites in any year (P>0.26, P>0.83 and P>0.06 in PY1, PY2 and PY3, respectively). These results were expected since all bait sites were carefully selected based on accessibility, safety and proximity to deer concentrations. In addition, large amounts of bait were used to attract the deer to the site before and during shooting operations. No accidents occurred during the 3 years of the BPD sharpshooting program. Two complaints about shooting hours were received by BPD in PY2. The Planning Department received calls during each of the 3 years, but no specific complaints about the sharpshooting program were taken. Instead, callers inquired about the general deer management program, policy, alternative solutions, damage, deer feeding and disposition of carcasses. Table 2. Number of sharpshooting days, total sharpshooting hours and mean hours worked and deer killed per sharpshooter during the Bloomington Police Sharpshooting Program, Bloomington, Minnesota, 1991-1994. Sharpshooting days Sharpshooting hours Mean hours per sharpshooter Mean deer killed per sharpshooter 1991-92 1992-93 1993 -94 27 44 41 237 270 383 11.3 16.8 41.5 (4-28) (3-41) (24-87) 4.5 10.4 16.8 (0-13) (0-24) (3-32) 120 Table 3. Number of deer killed at bait sites by sex and age in the Bloomington Police Sharpshooting Program, Bloomington, Minnesota, 1991-1994. Number of deer killed Year Adult female Adult male Fawn female Fawn male Total 1991-92 30 (31%) 28 (29%) 16 (17%) 21 (22%) 95 1992-93 70 (42%) 31 (19%) 26 (16%) 40 (24%) 167 1993-94 55 (36%) 35 (23%) 30 (20%) 31 (21%) 151 Sharpshooters reported that they did not recover six deer in PY2 and 2 deer in PY3. All deer were recovered in PYI. One of the unrecovered deer was known to have been hit in the jaw from a bullet that passed through another deer, but was never found. In most of the other cases, sharpshooters did not record any evidence that a deer was actually hit. In addition, while 3 calls were received regarding unrecovered deer in PY2, all showed no evidence of bullet wounds and were determined to have died from collisions with vehicles. Success rates for all sharpshooters combined did not differ between years (P<0.01, x=0.40, 0.62 and 0.39 for PY1, PY2 and PY3, respectively). However, success rates differed among individual sharpshooters in PY1 and PY2-but not in PY3 (P<0.001 in PY1 aad PY2 and P>0.06 in PY3). Individual success ranged from 0 to 1.11 deerfar in PY1 (x=0.41), and 0 to 0.84 deer/hr in PY2 (x=0.50) and from 0.11 to 0.65 deer/hr in PY3 (x=0.37). Weather conditions varied between program years. There were no significant differences in snowfall between years (P<0.59, x=0.53~, 0.23~ and 0.32~ in PY1, PY2 and PY3, respectively) or daily maximum temperature (P>0.39, x=30.2 and 28.5 and 25.6 C in PY1, PY2 and PY3, respectively) between years. However, there were significant differences in the amount of snow on the ground (P<0.001). An average of 8.8~ (22.3cm), 3.9~ (9.9cm) and 4.4~ (11.lcm) of snow were on the ground on shooting nights in PY1, PY2 and PY3, respectively. Only 2 nights (7.4%) had no snow cover in PY1, while in PY2 and PY3 there were 14 nights (31.8%) and 13 (31.7%) without snow cover, respectively. Success did not differ on days with or without snow cover (P> 0.94) or between days with <6H or > 6~ of snow cover (P>0.52). These results were somewhat unexpected because snow, particularly when accumulated on the ground, was thought to effect the success of sharpshooting. The sharpshooting program cost $26,142 and $30,610 and $31,277 in PY1, PY2 and PY3, respectively (Figure 1). Cost per deer killed was $194 in PYI, $183 in PY2 and $206 in PY3. The single largest cost for the program was sharpshooter wages, which was expected because of the overtime wages paid. Success and costs of the BPD sharpshooting program compared favorably with other deer control programs reported in the literature. BPD sharpshooters killed an average of 0.51 deer/hr, spent 1.96 hours per deer killed at an average cost of $184.85 per deer. Witham and Jones (1992) reported sharpshooters killed 0.37 and 0.39 deerFar at Ryerson Conservation Area and Chicago-O'Hare International Airport, respectively. Costs per deer at Ryerson Conservation Area were $287.98. Ishmael ~d Rongstad (1984) reported that shooting deer over bait took 13.5 hours (0.07 deer/hr) and cost $73.95 per deer. However, shooters were paid $3.65/hr plus travel expenses whereas sharpshooters from BPD were paid an overtime rate. In this study, we believe there were many indirect as well as direct benefits to using police officers as sharpshooters. The primary advantages stemmed from the BPD ties to the community and the comprehensive training received by each officer. The public has open communication with the police department to register concerns, receive answers to questions or respond to emergencies. Because they were on duty while sharpshooting, officers followed public safety procedures as they would have on any assignment. In addition, officers were continuously briefed and updated in firearms and public safety standards. For these reasons, we believe residents felt very safe knowing police officers were the sharpshooters. In addition, the City Attorney in Bloomington felt the use of police officers was 121 Table 4. Number of shooting hours and deer killed and mean deer killed per hour at each bait site in the Bloomington Police Sharpshooting Program, Bloomington, Minnesota, 1991-1994. Bait Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1991-92 19~-93 1993-94 Totfl Totfl Me~ deer Totfl Totfl Me~ deer Totfl Totfl Me~ der N hou~ kill killedperhour N hou~ kill Wiled ~rhour N hou~ kill killedper hour 20 71 38 0.61 16 45 31 0.94 10 23 7 0.30 4 9 7 1.00 9 32 12 0.39 13 36 18 0.58 10 31 3 0.10 $ '29 5 0.23 3 5 4 0.90 22 77. 41 0.60 24 66 23 0.35 21 76 40 0.56 27 ~ 66 0.68 39 123 68 0.55 9 21 '17 0.82 2 6 0 0.00 12 34 8 0.24 4 7 0 0.00 11 27 14 0.53 11 36 11 0.31 122 Equipment (10.7%?ait (2.0%) Administration (6.6%) Support wages (35.5%) Sharpshooter wages (45.2%) Figure 1. Average annual costs for the Bloomington Police Department Sharpshooting Program, 1991-1994. preferred because their activities are covered by the city should an accident occur or a liability 'issue arise. Police commanders also felt more comfortable having officers, who must report to them, conduct sharpshooting activities rather than a private contractor or shooter who would not have ties to the community. Finally, we believe negative public reaction to the program was minimized because residents were continually informed of the purpose and progress of the program. Open and honest communication with the public is important in maintaining appreciation for and confidence in any public agency involved in decisions about highly emotional issues. -- LITERATURE CITED Bryant, B. K., and W. Ishmael. 1990. Movement and mortality patterns of radio-tagged suburban and translocated suburban white-tailed deer. Pages 53- 58 in L. W. Adams and D. L. Leedy, eds., Wildlife Conservation in metropolitan environments. NIUW Syrup. See. 2. 264pp McAninch, J. B., and J. M. Parker. 1991. Urban deer management programs: A facilitated approach. Trans. North Am. Wildl. and Nat. Resour. Conf. 56:428-436. O'Bryan, M..K., and D. R. McCullough. 1985. Survival of black-tailed deer following relocation in California. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:115-119. Palmer, D. T., D. A. Andrews, R. O. Winters, and J.W. Francis. 1980. Removal techniques to control an enclosed deer herd. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 8:29-33. Witham, J. H., and J. M. Jones. 1992. Biology, ecology, and management of deer in the Chicago metropolitan area. Illinois Nat. Hist. Surv. Final Report, Proj. No. W-87-R. 108pp. Deblinger, R. D. 1990. Crane Memorial Reservation and Crane Wildlife Refuge white-tailed deer management program: Annual Report, 1989. The Trustees of Reservations, Beverly, MA. 12pp. Ellingwood, M. R., and S. L. Caturano. 1988. An evaluation of deer management options. Comm. Dept. Envir. Protect. Public. No. DR-11, 12pp. Ishmael, W. E., and O. J. Rongstad. 1984. Economies of an urban deer-removal program. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 12:394-398. Jones, J. M., and J. H. Witham. 1990. Post- translocation survival and movements of metropolitan white-tailed deer. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18:434-441. IN! M U N OCONTRAC EPTION Contraceptive techniques Several reports on the current status of deer contraception suggest that progress is being made in developing effective techniques for contraception as a way to control some deer populations. "Wildlife Tracks", Volume 2, Number 3, Summer, 1996 Humane Wildlife Population Control: Immunocontraception Allen T. Rutberg, The Humane Society, of the United States Is suburban sprawl and other hunran activities consume aud modi~, wildlife habitat, the ensuing conflicts henveen people and wildlife (such as white-tailed deer) have gen- erated el~ormot,s public pressure for wildlife population control. Animal protectiouists, i,lcludiug The HSUS. generally assert that most of these contlicts should be resolved instead bv modification of human actk4ties. Nevertheless. real anti perceived dweats to public health and safety, as well as to natt, ral biodiversity, have made wildlife population control unavoidable in some ar- e;is. Unfi~rtunately, wildlife population control has meant killing: by tirearms, trap, suare. bow and arrow, poisnn. or whatever other Icthal methods the state game agencies and USDA Animal Dam- age Control can come np with. Animal protection groups have always opposed use of these methods. Increasingli,, however, le- thal control of wildlife populations has become unacceptable to the public as well. Safety, ethical, ecological. biological, and emo- tional objections to killing wildlife are becoming widespread, and it has become clear that in many cases there have beeu no effective, publicly acceptable solutions to wildlife-people conflicts. For those reasons, animal pro- tectiou groups including Tile I{SUS and PNC, Inc.. have com- mitted considerable resources to the development of immnnocon- traceptives for use in wildlife. Wildlife contraception is not a new coucept; for more than twenty years, scientists have been tinker- ing with different methods to prevent births in wildlife. Most of those methods have involved ste~ folds, iucluding natural and syn- thetic estrogens, progestagens, and androgens delivered either orally, by dart. hand injection, or surgical implant. Although many methods proved pharmaco- logically effective, virtually all have had insurmountable practi- cal drawbacks, including problems with delivering appropriate dosages, capturing and bandling aniinals, significant alterations in behavior, and ecological or health risks from secondary or non-target consumption. , hnmunocoutraception first emerged as a possible wildlife contraceptive ill the mid~1980's, when Dr. Irwin Liu of the Uni- versity of California, Davis, demoustrated that tile porcine zona pe!lucida (PZP) vaccine effectively blocked pregnancy in domes- tic horses. hnmunocontraceptive vaccines work by turning the immune system against a very specific fncet of the reproductive system. The PZP vaccine, for example, consists of a naturally oc- curring proteiu (zoua peilucidae ~ "ZP") extracted from pig ovaries. All female mammals have a version of this protein on the surface of their eggs; it allows attachment and fertilizatiou only by sperm of the same species. When PZP is injected iuto. for example, a female horse, her immune system responds to this foreign protein by producing antibodies to attack it. How- ever, pig and horse ZP's are similar enough that the antibodies produced in response to pig ZP also attack the ZP on tile horse's egg, thereby preventing sperm from attaching, and blocking fer- tilization. Dr. Liu was joiued by long- time horse contraception re- searchers Dr. Jay Kirkpatrick of ZooMontana, Billings, Moumna, and Dr. John Turner of tile Medi- cal College of Ohio, Toledo, for field tests of PZP on wild horses. Working atAssateague Island Na- tional Seashore (AINS) ill Mary- land, Kirkpatrick and Turner suc- cessfully delivered PZP vaccine to wild horses using barbless, self- injecting darts fired from tran- quilizer guns. These treatments blocked conception with better than 90% effectiveness. After eight years of such research, the National Park Service has now developed and implemented n management plan to stabilize the horse population at A1NS us- ing immun0contraception. Continued on page 6 hnmunocontraception tvnt, Jn.n page 5 A successlid PZP pilot prqject was al~o condncled by Ihc research team, The HSUS, and the Bureau of Land Manage- roelit on wikl horses in northeastern Ne- vada iu 1992-94. A second collaborative project began in.lanua~T 1996 at Nellis Air Force Base in southern Nevada. lu collaboration with The HSUS, Dn William McShea of the Smithsonian Con- servatim~ Research Center, and others, Turner, Kirkpatrick and Liu began testing PZP on white-tailed deer in the late 1980's. Captive and tield tesu have indicated that, as in horses, the vaccine reduces individual t~rtility by 85-95%. Again in collaboration with the National Park Se~ice, the re- search team and The HSUS began the tirst tiekl test on t?ee-ranging deer in autmnn 1993 on Fire Island National Seashore, New 5Brk. Two additional sites were added in 1995: the Gaithersburg, Ma~land cam- pus of the Natiomd Institute of Standards and TechnolobD', and Sharon $Xk~ods Metro Park in Columbns, Ohio. In past trials, individual animals have received nvo doses of the vaccine over a three-to-tBur week period to provide one to two years of con- traception, wi~h single annual booster silots prm, iding an additio,lal 5'car o,' two of coutraception. (hu'rellt research is cusing lb'st on discovering whether the timing of the delivery of the tirst two in- .jections is tlexible. aud second, on devel- optnent of a vaccine that would provide one or illore vears of protection with one shot. Current research is also focusing on the development of a specialized "mark- ing dart" that will simultaneously vaccinate aud mark animals. Even a tempotinT (two to six week) mark will allow discrimina- tion benveen vaccinated and unvaccinated animals without the intense eltorts quired to identi~ individual animals, and simplil? population management. Opera- tional field tests of marking darts are scheduled to begin this thll. While ~rkpatrick, Turner, and Liu have shown singular success with tield tests of the PZP vaccine, other research groups (including those led by Dn Robert War- ten at the University of Georgia, Dn Rob- err Swihart at Purdne University, Dr. GaiT ~11ian at Penn State University, and Dn Lar~ ~tz at Rutgem University) are also aggressively pursning wildlife imnn.mocont raception. Tilere is thus little doubt that wildlift2 · immunocontnlcepfion will become widely available lbr some applications within the next five years or so. h is impe~i~tive, Ihere- fi)re, that serkms thought be given to devel- oping an ethic lbr iu application. The I ISUS is especially concerned, [br example, that wanton and needlc~ hlling ol'prcdato~ not be replaced bv wanton and needless tmcepfion of predatom; and that conu~ce[~ tion is not applied to western wild horses simply to leave more tbmge lbr evm~swcll- ing numbers of livestock. Immnnocontraception has the poten- tial to introdnce a new humane ethic into wildlife management, and indeed, to lim- damentaily change how the public views wildlife. Nevertheless, we must use it care- fifily and thougllflhll); and reinember that tile Illore l~lndanlental answers to otlr wildlif~ concerns lie in wisely managing landscapes and changing attitudes. For more intBrmation about wildlitk immunocontraception, or to open a dia- logue on im ethics in this uewslettet; tact: Allen Rutberg, The Humane Society of the United States, 700 Professional Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20879 (E-mail: Trac ks~'ix. n e tco re.corn ). I t brhin,ff with State Agencies cont./?ore page 4 We generally tried to approach this like cyrn~~npI}]inm) to those who often otherrehabili~fion proj~cmand found that 'l~e ot~ ~ctive and {)pinions. Onr i/npro~ng relations ben~een rehabilimtors timc~ne~w t~n~ni~l i~sonrces are and a state ~dldlife agen~ is possible. We ~ stmrt~(~b' b~m~ o~ did ~e research, were pafi~ mhabilitat~mnmitmenu~ .,~ .;:~ ...... and pe~istent, id~t~d~, ~ l~e did I alrh, ~~'~~ttct tn~ exercised [~n, and were possihle when a ~ncerted el- ~ ~re ~ed not to be fort is made to communicate. Working with a wildlife agency is not easy, but most as- pect~ of rehabilitation are not easy. It requires getting in- volred and taking risks. people may be more be involved and more effective w' a project than ast like sonle people are more in and effective with some spe- cies than they are with others. were patient and persistent, iden. caution, an'd were ro;t.~l;'ttclil,e. by difficulties and but instead learned from ~ppre- elated any and all gardless of size. We bnilt find nurtured relationships and col- laborated with others whenever we cotlid -- synergy does work. We expressed thanks for all the contributions that made the project t~asible and continue to believe flint it is possible to make a difference. T g A C K S * S U 6 References Decke,: l).. Brown. 1993. The Fu~ Will II~, Pass On the ,resented at the 2rid Azmual Governor's Sympositm~ on North America's Hunting Hertimge, Pierre, South l)akou~, August, 199g. Sieme~; X[5 E and T. L. Brox~. 1994. O~- acte~fi~ of WH~fe Coopemtom in ~. Human Dimensions Research Uuit Pttbli- cafions 9+5 Dept. Nat, Resoun N.E S. Coil. A~c. and Life Sci., Cornell Univ.. ~5.44 j. 1994. The Connecticult Exln. rience: A llehabilita- tion Paper presented at the Fifth gainhal Meeting: Rabies in the Americas: Coping with the Invading Rabies Epizootics, Niagra Falls, Ontario, Canada. Nov. 16-19, 1994. (Obtained froin authon) .%1 M i: g I 'f !~ ~i SUMMARY OF STATUS OF IMMUNOCONTRACEPTION RESEARCH IN DEER The following summary is derived from the currently available scientific literature, telephone conversations and correspondence with the principal investigator in this field, Dr. Jay F. Kirkpatrick, of the Deaconess Research Institute in Billings, Montana. This information is accurate as of October 10, 1993. Although immunocontraception will not reduce the size of a local deer herd, it will stabilize the population at a desired level, 1) The initial research on immunocontraception was conducted on captive whiteotall deer over a period of four years. Findings were: - the contraceptive effects of the vaccine are better than 95%. - the contraceptive effects are reversible. - no secondary, negative effects have been observed. - an initial, two-shot treatment, one month apart, was nsed to get the best results. - thereafter, a single annual booster shot is all that was needed for effective contraception. - the vaccine can be delivered remotely, using a Icc Pneudarto 2) Following the captive studies, the method was tested (during August and October of 1992) on free-ranging deer at the Smithsonian°s Wildlife Preserve at Front Royal, Virginia. A primary focus of this study was the behavioral responses of both bucks and does, following immunocontraception treatment, Findings were: the two-shot immunization was 100% effective, an equal number of does were given only one innoculation. Contraception' was 50% effective in this group, unlike the tamer deer in Eden Prairie, these deer were very wild and had to be darted at distances often up to 40 or 50 yards. immunized does (which did not become pregnant) continued to cycle until March of 1993, bucks paid gentle attention, (not like during the Fall), during the February / March cycling, but they showed no untoward effects of the lengthened breeding season. extension of the estrous season for the contracepted does has no negative effects upon their health. 3) Following these studies on free-ranging deer in 1992, studies were initiated in a mixed urban / wild setting not unlike portions of Eden Prairie. This study at Fire Island National Seashore was started in September of 1993. This is the initial stage of a planned multi-year projects to complete development of a one-shot vaccine suitable for managing deer herds in urban and confined areas. During a 10 day period, individuals involved in the project were able to innoculate 80% of the adult does in the area. 4) In summary: - there exists a vaccine that works very well in deer, at levels approaching 100°/0. - it can be delivered remoteIy at distances up to 40 or 50 yards, with the' proper equipment and training. the vaccine does not pass through the food chain. - the treatment is reversible. -2° - the initial application for an INAD approval has been filed with the FDA. It is not known how long this process will take. o since the'vaccine is delivered by darting. the FDA has stated that species- specificity issues do not exist. - for best results. the currently used vaccine requires two treatments during the first year. A single-shot vaccine protocol has been developed. It will be initially tested during the Fall of 1993 on captive deer, and in wild deer in the Fall of 1994. It should be available by the Fall of 1995, pending4JSl~ a~roval. - the currently used vaccines are produced (for research purposes only) in small batches at the University of California-Davis and are thus expensive. Once commercially available. the realistic cost of each treatment would be $3.00 to $5.00 per dose. · .-. - Dr, I~!rkpatrick has offered to provide training for any individuals or government employees who want to learn hnmunocontraception techniques, Although Dr, '~ Kirkpatrick is presently accepting no new research projects, the Minnesota DNR/] recently invited him to conduct such a study in the Twin Cities .area. 2S Zoological Research Service 142~ Golf View Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55346 COMMENTS ON DNR FACT SHEET RELATED TO "CONTRACEPTION IN WHITE-TAILED lO ~4d~,.c44 ~ q 1. Contrary to DNR claims, a preliminary application' for the use of PZP has been filed with the Food and Drug Administration. It has passed through stage 1 of this process and is continuing to be considered. It is expected to receive approval. 2. Contrary to DNR claims, a remotely delivered i~nunocontraceptive, effective in controling reproductive output in female white-.tailed deer has been field tested on a free-ranging deer population in Virginia (a large nature reserve) and is currently being tested .with an entirely wild; white-tailed deer population on Fire Island, New York. 3. Based on past field experience and considering the costs involved, orally delivered, inm~nocontraceptive methods are not being seriously considered. Methods involving darting are currently being used successfully. There is no longer a need for oral administration. A model for evaluating the population impact of contraceptive systems would be very useful and interesting, but is not a prerequisite to developing and adopting the inmunocontraceptive technolog3r. Jurisdictional concerns regarding which federal and state regulatory agencies have responsibility over the use of wildlife contraceptives is a political issue unrelated to the efficacy of the methods. PZP vaccine no longer requires two innoculations. Single dose vaccines have been available and in use since 1992. Experience from field studies with deer in Virginia,' indicate it is no more difficult to administer PZP by darting, than it would be to kill the animals with firearms. o 0 Respect fully submit ted, -/~John McArdle Serving the Archaeological, Biological and Paleo,~tological Scie,ces Simulations of deer contraception.at K~nt P~k(~. ' ~ ~ gm~ons. Fo~ ~ s~ula~ne I u~ ~ for I y~. ~ ~ ~tlons I assum~ ~at'only ~ult ~e ~ue ~ok p~e bef~ ~e ~ b~g s~n ~hniqec ~ u~ ~ fo~w~g 2 ~. ~a 2 shot pm~l To aobi~vc a ~0~ reduction i~t th~ numb'e~ of d~ in ~ ~ ~'~.~ ov~ 80~ ~ ~e ~t d~ ~ ~n~~ (S~O~ ~ in Fig l), ~ ~oun~ m ~ 1~ 419 ~ult does ~ 3 ~s ~ 2), ' ' Stable numbers wer~ at~tn~ with about 6~ of the does '~tn§ contracepted. This also assumes that ~ld[tionat mmovaJ, du= to hunting remain the s'tme in ea~h ye~. Th/s would :c~/ui~ conbaccptlng about 120 do~s each year. Fig 2, Simulated deer numbers u.~der 4 different levels of sontrace.orion, Only does 1.6,.old were contraae~ted. ~ -: 600 4,00 NUMBER A - No 0ontraceptlon: 8 - 26f', oontracepted' C - 60~ =ontrnceptsd' D - 70% Contracepted:. E - 80~.c~'ntraoepted. 84 81~ 88 · 90 92 YEAR ' Total Number.=(> · Doe8 ~ 94 Table 9. The number of adult does that were Omltracepted In the a years of the aimelations, ~ 1997 Total 98 Applications of pig zona peHucida inununocontracepfion to wildlife fertility control J. F. Kirkpatrick'f, J. W. Turner. Jr, I. K. M. Liu'~ and R. Fayrer-Hosken4 ~ZzoMo, t~n,. PO &~z $0905. Billi~s, MT 59108, US~'.at)~rfmoa of Ph~tsioloa~, Mtdical College o[ Ohio, Toledo, OH 43099. U5~; JD~partmmt of Population Hrulth a#d P~produ~tio,. School of V~t~mmj Medirine. Unimr~it)! o[ C~lifomia, Davis, CA 95616, U~A; and 4t~arimm! of Large Animal Medic~nt College o[ Vctcrina~ Medicine, Univosily of Georgia, Aristas, GA 30602, USA ^ unique application oE pig zona pelludda (PZP) immunecontraception is the control of wildlife populations. ^ native PZP vaccine has been .successfully applied to wild horse and donkey populations. ^ single annual booster inoculation was capable of maintaining cnntraception. Seven consecutive years of PZP treatment in wild mares resulted in no detectable debilitating side effects° and reversibility of contraception has been dac~nenled among ~l~ares treated for up to 4 con.~ecutive years. Long.term treatment (5-7 years) is associated with some ovulation failure and depressed urinary. oestrogen concentrations. Complex social hohaviour~ in horses were u~affected by treatment, PZP immunecontraception has also been successfully applied to while-tailed deer, with no detectable change~ in ovarian histology after 2 years of treatment'. Seventy-four species of captive zoo animals have been treated with I~e PZP vaccine, with documented success in ~7 species, including members of the orders Perissodactyla (Equidae), ^ffioda~yla (Cervidae, Capridae. Giral]idac, Bovidae). and Carnivora (Ursidae. Mustclidae, FeMae). Immun0cytocbemiatry stylies have demonstrated a high degree of crossreactivlty between anti-PZP antibodies and MrJcan elephant zona pellucida, The need [:or a one-inoculation form of the vaccine has led to the incorporation of PZP into lactide-glycolide microspheres, which cause a delayed release of the PZP. PZF immunecontraception of wildlife has potential because of (i) > 90% el~ective- ness, (Z) the ability for remo~e delivery, via darts, (3) mvetsibili~y after short-tenn use. (4) a wide breadth of effectiveness across many ~pecies, (5) a lack of debilitating side-effects even after long-term ~reatment. and (6) minimal effects upon social beharlouts, inlzad~ction The maiority of research devoted to zona pelluclda fertilization-biockew has been directed at potential contracepti~m in humans. A unique application of zena pelluclda (ZP) vaccin~ is contraception of certain wildlife populations, wher~ legal restrictions or social objce~ions to lethal control have made fertilib7 control the only remaining option {Kirkpatrick and Turner, 1985). S~eroid-ba~ed wildlife contraa.-ption has prov..'d unacceptable because of difficulHe~ wi~h delivery (Kirkpatrick, 1995). variou~ a~sociated pathologie~ (I.innehan and Edward.s, I99I}. and ~he abili~ el~ Mereiris to pa~s [through food chains (radq)atrick and Turner. 199~). 40~:~529281 ~- 1 ~-97 09: 09 [ 83 ] ~ Table Group Treated 3 1 tl 50,0 51, ! 0.0 Treated .z 8 02.4 3?.4 0,0 ~-treatcd 0 O 3J-~ .~3.3 S0,0 Untreatcd o ~ ~. ~ ~$.4 Them are certain similarities in the -'oncems of human~Jirected and ~ildlife-dlrecled ZP contra- ceptive m~arck 'l'l~se include rewrsibillty (although .in some species, like white-tailed d~r, this is not an issue), s~fety in pregnant animals, health side effects and ctk'cts upon behaviour. Despite these simll.~rities, tiara are two issues that are unique ta wildlife-directed ZP contraceptive research. The first is thu s~.d for remote deliver. either by dart injection or oral admim'stration, and the second is the need for a one-inocuhfilcn~ tong-a~n§ form of the vaccine Crum~ and Kirkpatrick, 199I), ~11~e remainder of this review examines progress to date with ZP wildlife immunocontrac~ttve r~search in wild and fexal t,xluirls, white-faded deer, captive exotic zoo animals, and free-ranging African elq~hants, aml directkms for future researd~. Applientlons in Wildlife Wi/d ~nd f~i ~/ds The first applicatio~ of immunoconh~cepti~n in wildlife ocamed in wild barsin (Eqsms rotraffias) in 1988. A native pig zona pelludda vaccine (PZP) was administered remotely in 65 pg do~s by means darts to 26 mares on A~sat~ague Island National .Sea,hare (A515), Mase~ receiv~ either two or three inm'ulations aver 8 weeks, aM contraception was ~o0% successful (Table 1) (Kirkpatrick ef M., I990). Foudeen'of the mares were pregnant at the !/me of PZP treatment and all delivered healthy foals whose survival rates were not different from those of foals f~om unt~ated mums. Complex sodal organization and behaviou~s were unaffected. ^ year later a single booster inoculation (65 p~ was given to {4 of the ;16 mares and ~mly a single foal was ham {Kirkpatrick v! ~L, 1991a}. The remaining 1~ mares were not treated and five produced foals (41,6%), a rate not different ~om unLreatrd mares on .~!~. Over 7 years (120 mac-years) only four foals were born to Ireated mares and ~he difference in fertillfy between ~matc~ 'and untrea~ed mares w~s signi~c~.~ (P < 0.001} iKirkpatrick e~ aL in pre~s). Two of the four fo.~ ham to Ireaired mares w,,te produced by the same mare. During that ? year period, a tolal of 27 mares received their initial PZP inoculatinns during ~he la~er stages of pregnancy aM all 27 delivered foals, Three m~r,:s from the foals delivered in 19~8 have rrached maturiC] and have produced foals of own (Kirkpatrick ~f al.. 1995a). '[be use of PZP contraception for the control of ASLg wild horse impulations has now reached the management stage, i. a second. larger shuty oF PZP ¢nn~raceptlon of wild hor~e~, animal~ were rounded up in Nevada. in December ~992, and hand-iniected as they p~ssed through chutes. During Ihe summer of I994, ~hey were relocated and ob~'ved for the present.' of fc~ls. Untr~ted tuareg (n = 63) produced 34 foals (.53.9%). sham-iniected mares (a- z0) produced '[ ! foals {.5~%)0 m~l mares receiving ~wo inoculations about ! month apart (n -- 44) prnduced two foals (4.5%) 0. W. Turner. per~onal communication). Larger .'.~,~le trials am in ~he planning stage 6~r Nevada horses. An initial Iwo. inoculation protocol r~ts in effective eoniraeeption in wild mares fm up ~o a year: however. a one-inoculation treah~ent is more pradicable fat use in ~e field. The 5miag of a single PZP Z~g~N~ 4~:>652928 ! 09- ! 0-97 ~9: ~9 [ 83 ] ~t4 P'ZP O.,n,mo~on~on of inoculation with wild horses is importa~t. In the northern hemisphere. wild mares breed beiwe~ April and luly. ^ ~in$1e inoculation of PZP plus Freu~d's complete adiuvant (FC.A) w~a given to 20 mares in Nevad~ in December I992, approximately 4 months bette the onset of the breedtog se~on. in 1994. 14 ~ those 20 mares were located and four mates (28.f~%) had foals at I~eir sides (L W. Turner, conununicafiun). in a ~'cond tcut of a one. inoculation PZP ~iaL a ~ingie 65 I~R PZP L,x~ulatioo wa~ Rive~ to 42 wild A515 march in March 1994. immediately be[ore the onset of the breeding season. ~ treatment ri..'sulted in eight foals (19%), a fedility rate w~ich was significantly cL~'erent (P < 0.05) the non~a] 4.5-55% Knaling ~ate (J. F. Kirkpatrick. unpublLshcd). Purified PZP has also been administered to horse~ using a biodesradable bullet (WL!~ d eL, ~994). The PZP was dellw.~ed at an inRL~ dose of 400 U~. The mares ~eo-'[ved a booster dose of ZOO .t-4 wet:l~s later. AU mares developed significant c,oceaka~ons of anti-PZP antibodies and mares wee infertile ~or 2 year~ without an annual hoosier (IL Fayrer-Ho~ken, per~mtal communication). In a[rial with a non.seats)reilly breeding cquid, I6 fore| donkeys in the vitals Islands Nalional Par~ were immu~zed with PZ'P remotely. Each irony received 65 Iq~ PY-~" ~i]owed by a second inoculation 3 weeks later and a third inocu]atiun 10--1 ! months later. Results were not. calculated until 12 month~ after the i~itial inoculation, to aUow 6~ any pregnancies in progress at the time of inoculation. On basis oi~ observed {oals and p~egnanoj detectio, by means of feecol ute~oids (Kirkpatrick d ,,/, I99Ib,c), ¢~nJy a single treated [emale (6.2%) produced a foal ur was pregnanh while ~ o~ ~1 ($4..s%) control donkeys produccc[ foals ur were pregnant 0. W. Tum,:r. unpubtished). Cm~ White-tailed deer (Odo¢oilt'~ vlrgJniamte) populations ~ve tea&ed unprecedented numbe~ in the US~ largdy b~ of lhe a~ptability of the s~cs to h~ acti~ ~d a d~l~e in h~ting. ~me of ~ more ~vem pmbl~ am oc~ing in ~ban areas. on millt~ bases, a~ ~ not,hal ~c:es~! PZP conlt~fion 'o[ ~s ~p~, ~ing ~wo ino~lakio~ ~ 05 ~g do~ was ~ de~ns~at~ wi~ captive d~r ~w d eL. ~). Su~c~u~t t~s with ~pHve de~ exami~d the e~cts o~ ('[) one- ~d ~o-in~lation pmt~ols, ~d (Z) ~v~ibility oE ~nlmo~live ~cts. contto~ does (n = 27) ~uc~ 24 {~s (gB.S%). No d~s (n a 13} ~cei~g ~ther Iwo t~ thee ino~ti~s pro~ [a~.~ ~d antlb~y ~mx:n~afions ranged ~om 72.~a to 9Z0% of positive ~[~t:e serum ~body ti~ea 7. to 10 month~ ~ter treatm~t (the positive t~ ~mm was composed o[ a ~ o~ at least t~ s~m ~ples f~m deer ~ w~ch con~ac~tion ~ oozed ~t~ PZP ~atment). ~ven~-five p~ c~t of d~ t~ated in year ~ o[ t~ s~dy ~d giv~ a s~gle ~ter ino~lation in'ye~ 2 pr~uc~d fawns ~ ye~ 4; -~ s~an~ ~s Reat~ ~ year: b~ not gi~ [~ter i~ati~s ~ year 2, two ~oduc~ lawns (2a.6%) ~ ye~ 3 ~ Rye of t~ seven pt~d A{t~ ~s with cap,re d~, a ~d test ~as ca~ out with ~ee ~ngi~ d~r at the Smi~li~ I~ntttute's Cooperation and R~atch C~te~ in V~ginia. Th~ does wc~ live-~p~ weigh~. ear-t~g~, ~ ~le~ed. Ten rec6ved a s~le int~tinn oF 05 ~g P~ at t~ time ~ ~tu~ (Group A). A month ~ter. ~ October ~ the ~als in Group A ~v~ a ~cond 05 gg ino~l~'ion. re,rely, by means of d~s. Another te,I (Group B) receiv~ a ~ingle ino~lation o[ PZP. T~ does received a s~gle inoculation of ~ine plus adiuvant (Group C}. A year later ~, 78% and aZ% oE does ~ Grou~ ~ B. ~ C, m~ctively, pr~uced lawns. All b~ing activity ce~d in control ~ (Group Q by Dc~mbcr. ~t breedln~ a~ivity continued on itlto E~mary for ~imala in Gr,ups A and B. that their br~ding ~c~n w~ ~te~ wh~ p~ancy did not ~ eadier, P~turition dates lawns born to an~s in Group B indicat~ t~t conception .cc~ d~ng the~ extended .~ns. pr~ly wh~ antibody r~nc~trat~s d~a~ below cm~lraccTtwe ~ounts. Nine of t~ ~es in Group B w~ ~ven a S~Rle booster i~ulation in ~3. ~d in ~994. onlg ~o pr~uced fawn~ ~i~ btter expe~ment w~ ~g~cant ~c~ it s~gc~t~ t~t, if a ~ngIe I)~ ino~iaHon was ~vcn ~or the pu~e o{ antig~ r~ogni~n ~ if con~ac~ptiv: eff~ts were disrega~ ~ year 1 of t~ study. a o~w..in~ati,n ~oto~l wo~d be ~ectlve by the ~ year. OV~ ~rt~ dL~r in a[i 1~ Rroups showe~ ~u e~d~ o~ autoi~une ~sea~ ~d t~e were no ~cr~ce~ ~w~n groups ~, M~ per~o~i Z~tN~ 4~6652928 I. ~ ! ~-97 09: ! 0 [ 8:3 ] W5 A second large scalr. ~iti t:~ with free-mamin§ cicqn' is -~rzentl¥ b..inF, coined out (:n Fire Island Natim~ Se~hore, NY, In year a~e (Z993), 74 dm, s w~e given eiiher one (. = o) or ~'wu inoculation~ of 65 pg PZP remotely. Of these 74 doe~ 6~- were adu]~ m 199;~ and of these, 90% produc~'d fawns in May/lone of the preheatmerit year, [993. A ye~ later only .~9.2% produced tawre. This was a significant redut'tinn over pret~atment fawning rates. but a ~u'p:biinl~ly tow effectivene~ compared wilh results with capEve deer, The primary cause far this relatively low k'ffectivene~s was thought to be incompk. te injectJon~ by the d~ds. In [994, of th~,.~ 73 does, 40 were given a si,~gle booster im~.'ulaUon and anothcr?O previously untreatcd does were given two inoculaticms, u~ing an improved dar~. In I995, of the total deer t~ted in both years d the study only 20% produced fawns. Among the d~ms given bcmsler inoculations, 15% produced fawns and among ~ 76 does receivinR the JotHal two inorulaUons in 1994, only ZI~% produced fawns (]. F, Kirkpataclc. unpublished). The~ results are encouraging and have led to the initiation of s~.vefal additional iriah with frae-roaming deer. Ezotlc :vv .nimals A third application of PZP immunocontracept~on in wildlife has takc~ p 'lace with cap~R,e exotic zoo animals. Modem spacious and naturalL'~ic exhibits in zoos have re~ulted in intoeased reproductive succe.~ am:m~; many exotic ~p~es. even to the l~olnt of prodm.ing la~e nm,lhers of 'su~lus~ anima~u. In addttio~ there is a need to ~,move some ~emales. with g~eth: problems or Ixx, r health, reproductive potential without al~o n:~:wtng them from their so6al proups. Contraception in zoos histurically has b~n canfined h~ steroid contraception, sterilization, or I~th techniques. but pathologies (Kollias el at. 1984) and the sm~ of surgery for placing imp[ants have led to incma~'d intcres~ L~ PZ? immunocontracepfion, Initial successful trials. were cmicd oul with I'rzewalski's hotroes (F_.quu.s przewalksit] and banteng {t~.q javanicas) at the Cologne Zoo (Kirkpatrick et at, 1995b)o with West Caucashn fur (lbct ibex) at the 'toronto Zoo (Kirkpatrick el aL, 1992a), and will, .~ika deer (Coyus nippon), ramhat deer (Cervas artlictor). tauntjoe deer (Munffarus reeves~'L Himalayan tahr (Hemitra~g~ jt.m~a/~ic~}0 axis deer (Crams azis}, and Roosevelt t'lk {Cerous clapbin) at the Wildlife Conservation Center (formerly the Bronx Zoo) (Kirk-pa~ick d ai.° Z~;~). in all cases° except the tauntinc deer, the females received either two or three initial inoculations air (~5 ~tg PZP: the munqac received 4.1 pg doses. Annual booster inoculations were successful in preventing conception. Together with subsequent ITials. 68 spt-cies have been inoct, lated and data are available for 2~ specie~. ContractTrion has been successful in 2? SpeCik~., including members of ~e order~ Perissodactyla (F. quidae), Artiodactyla (Cervidae, Capridoe, Giraffidae° Buyidac). Carnivora. (Ursidae, Mustelidae, and I;elidae) (Table 2). The only outright t~ontraccpttve failure has been in ~aliow deer (Doom dame). Daha for the rerun'ming 40 species are not yet available. (.')fie of the greatest challenge~ for safe ye~ d~dive wildlife contraception is the free-ranging African elephant (Loxodonta a~rfm~O. Crossreactivity between P2:.P and elephant ZP was examined to evaluate the pott'ntial use of PZP as a safe, effective contraceptive vaccine in alephants. Poiydonal ~erum to hit~hl), purified PZP was produced in rabbits. The specificity for native PZP was confirmed using one-dimensional and two-dimensional PAGE and western blot analysi~ Cro~sreactivity with hererolo- gnus zonae peilucidae (equine) was confirmed with immunocytochemiutry using light and trar~mi.~sion electron microscopy. lmmu,tlcytochemicai evaluation was perforated with rabbit anti-PZP antibodie.~, to · ~est the hypothe.~is that elephant and pig ZP have similar domains. ,qigntficm~t immunogold staining of the elephant ZP of primary. secondary and tertiary oocytes was present when compan:d with COntrol oncyte~. This cro~sreactivity suggmis that I'ZP can be used as a contraceptive in elephants (IL Fayrer-Hosken. unpublished). The contraceptive ~uccess acror~ so many taxa indicates a broad spectrum of crossreactivity bet-ween' anti-PZP antibodies and the mamma]tan tom pel]ucida and supports the nazism of a high degree of bvoiutionary coo~rvation of the zona sperm receptor. The contraceptive failure of [he PZP vaccive in f-allow deer is unexplained. particularly considering that t.~nception was prevented in five other mereheft of Cervidae. Tabl~ ~-. Oq~tive exoHc zoo s[~'~cies in wid~ concepti~m bas been prevented · with native pi~ There are two important dimen~o~ to the immunocontraceptton of wildlife that 'supersede other cancem.s, The fi~l~ is the i~ue of reversibility of contraceptive effects. The public's concern ova' certai~ free.ro.~'~g wildlife r, per. i~s, and the co~.~n'vation value of ram and endangered captive exotic species make ~he issue of revetdbility of PZ~ immunocontrac~Uon ve.~ impaltanL Thus far, in wl]d~i~e. reversibility has been, dc~:tunezlted ill addax, ibex, ~ muntjac deer, and amonl~ white-laik, d deer as~d ck~me~klc and ~ horses, but mosi studies have involved only the d~ects ~ shor~4enn t-reatment (3.-$ years). Only in the wild horse have ~eve~sibi]ity studies been exitcoded to 7 years of treatn~-nt, Reversibility has ~een d.cumented.in mares treated for 1, 2. 3 azu:l 4 comecutivu yeapa (Kkkpatrick gt al., 1992b. 1995b). Ovulatton rates Fnr mares treated from I. 3 and 7 consecutive years declined hum 73.t% (l! of 15), to S5_s% (S of 9), and 10% (1 of ~.0), respectively, One mare tn:a!ed ~ur S consecutive years ovulat~ duri~ff year 6 and year 7 but has nol yet ¢cmceivecL Utina.-y oestto§en concentrations declined from a normal range, uf i00--~65 ng rng- s aeatiniae during 7 yeas of PZ~ treatn~,~t. The percentage of mares with normal um~aty aestm§~n concentrations declined to 46%..t3%. 40% and 0% ~ter 2. .1, b and 7 year~ o~ treatment, respectively. Several m,ues with d~:essed urinary oes~og, en concant~tie~s continued to demonsh ate cyclic oesfrogen peaks and n~di.. susgesttal~ continued follicular activity. The results of this study indicate that long-term PT~ tzeatment i~ associated with a decline in ovarian oestroBen productton and ovulatio~ tales, However. the reversibility of low oestmgm production and ovulatio~ failme, and thsu'efote ~enility. will reqube 5-? addih'onal yel.'s to assess. Western blot analysis of &!yeopratein hu~aoms was perfoal~d to ensure the ~y o~ lhe PZP va'r, cine imm~i.h'y of equine somatie tmues. No i~ochemicd czossreactivity usin8 horse anti-P7.P or rabbit anH-PZ? was present with head, Iddaey, lung, liver, the somalie ovary or teste~. :7001'K~,ITI::~NI~ 4~29251 09-10-9? (~: ! 1 [ 83 ] ~ ~:CA-PZP bolus + i 5 q9 114 P~ ~os~ fi 4 70 107 ~ 6 33 70 9S IV ~ 36 76 IZ0 tl~ 39 M~n ~tt~ · .'~ 5,0 59~ 95.0e 1~5ee ~.8 ~.6 · 3.1 ~H.9 ~9.1 ~0.4 ~S~ ~.0 FCA-F~ ~ + ~ 4 ~ 130 131 F~-P~ ~ v~ o ~ ~45 X ~ 67 ~47 {20 130 94 M~ tit~ · ~ S.0 70.8 131~* 1Z9.6~ ]Z9~ 70.2 · 0.9 · 5.3 · 6~ · ~2 ~ I0.~ · 13.8 Furthermore, rabbit anti-PZP did not crossreact with equine IJ-L FSH or thorionic gonadotrophin OL Fayrer Hosken. per~o]'tal communication]. Perhaps the single most impcsd. a~ issue in wlldli~ immunocontraception is the need for a one-inoculation form of the vaccirm. While it has been clearly established that two inoculations given 3-6 wee!~ apart will provide contraception for about -~ year, Lhe need to give two inoculations reduces the usefuL.~es~ of the PZP vaccine in wildWe. In an initial trial to determine whether continuous release ~ PZP would cause contraceptive antii~xi¥. ¢oncentraUans, as opposed to tolerance, three does were given an initial inoculaUon ,f 65 pg native PZ:P and on the satne day an osmotic mini,p~mp cornEa'ming ~$ pg PZP was implanted subcutaneously in the neck of each animal. The pump was des{gned to re/ease P7_.P coatinu,usl~ ft~ days at approximately 2.5 ~g da~ ~. Anti-PZP anHbody titres were 76.~% o~ p,siUve oderenee serum several weeks after placemen~ of the pumps, and 69.5% 7-~0 rnonths !a~er. indicating tha~ conli,uous release will raise titres ko contraceptive concenkatio~s (Turner ~t al.. in press). in an attempt to develop a one-inm'ulation PZP vaccinc. the PZP antlg..n was incorporated into non-toxic, biodegradable 50 pm homogenous loot[de-glycol[de microspheres. Upon intramu.v.'ul~r i~ectioa the 'lactide-glycolid~ material erodes. rclea~ing the amigen over ~redetermiaed periods ~Eldnd§c d aL 19~9L 31m lactid,-~gl¥colide is metabolixed h) lactic ae. id and carbon dioxide. Five mares were inocolated wi~h an ini~i~ bolus o~ 05 p§ PZP plus anofher 05 gg PZP c~ntained in mkrosphcres. Antib~d¥ concentrations were compared in mare.e inoculated with two 6s pg doses of PZP given 3 weeks apart'. Over ,S! weeks antibudy conce~tTatioas did not d~er signffir. anfl¥ between the trealTneni groups at weeks ,3. T4. am:l 31, but were sibmificantly higher in the two-inoculation g~oup at week~ 5 and ~ lhan in the one. inoculation grtmp ~Table 3). 'ilfis same preparation wa.~ administered to i¢ wild ^SIS mares. One dart failed to inie:'L This plus one other mare produt~:d foals foUowin§ tr~.atmenL The ditferenc~ in ~-tilif.¥ were significant (P< 0.051 compaqrig either two foals per 14 marts m u~ foal per 13 ma~ ~dth fooling rate Far untreatc'd mares (Kirkpatrlck ~! mr,, in prcs.~). While-tail does receivin§ a ~n~e inoodaiion 189 PZP + PZl'<mdaining microspheree (~f = 7) produced two Fawns (Z8.0%) and had antibody conc, en. tTati.ns o{ 19.1 4- 43% 7-10 monks after treahllent. These Tesults co~!fitmed that a sinSic inoculati¢)n o~ PZP * mi~osphete~ produced a siplj~ank mntrak-epfive dTect b~tt not as well aa · pmiocol. geearch is undenvay to product. a one-inoculation vaccine udng microcapsuk, s, which are made (tom the..~une hctlde--glycolide material hal which releuc the PZP anti§en in pulseu rather than c~mtinuous|y. Pig ~.una pelhcida immuncw:ontractTtiun appears to have great ix~tL.~lLd in eedairl lmPUlaHcals o~ wlki~e, because o~ (I) > 90% contraceptive efi'ec~ivenass. (2) fhe ability ~o deliver the vm:ine remole|¥, via daris, {$) reveTsihility a~ter KimrNerm use, (4) a wide brradth o~ effedivene~ across many Sly, ties, (~) a lack of debiliMinB side effects even a~er hn84enn trodmeat, (6) minimal ~ upon behaviuurs. and (7) the inability o[ the vaccine nr its resulting anlibodi,~ to pa,~ khrough ~ood chains. The work w.T~fled in thb i~Per was ~upportcd by the N~i~l P~ ~ice, NaEi~ ~iLu~ ~ H~ T~ Aq~. the ~i~ R ~ge Fn~ a~ ~ Epp~T Fou~atiua. ~ Hm~ ~e~ ~ ~ US References · %%. E/dr~e JIL Gilly RM. ~ ~C. MMde~.a~u Z. Maelbmek ~ ~ iron in ~t~ ~ ~ o[ ~, a~ ~t~i~ ~Z ,~9z. 408 ratdi~ ~,~ 44 32~ J~ ~kpa~ JF, '~ ~ ~ Tm~ ]W. Jr tT991b) ~o.~ K, T~. I,.~ I~~M (~) mli.B ~ ~ ~ Vw~'~ 2~. 291 K~IJ~ ~ 411~13 ~ if, 7~ W. ~ L ~ ~ ~ T~r ~, k (twSb) I~~i~ d c~Hve ~m~R (~ ~) 7~ ~1~ 14 40~te wi~ ~ f~ ~ids. In C~tr~i~ with ,n~g~ul ~et~e Jo.~l ~j [~f hone s',mtrK~is,n ~d the( pot~t.~ ~hve[~ i~cot~lr~l ~ ~pii~ white*ta~J d~ ~r~ of ~ildiift M.~m~t 56 15~tS7. '! h I'.H~, · .~.'tmsey Esq. ' ' ..:'~:a:~ ot me Board , ,:~ "3 Wiebers, M.D. -my Freeman Lee, D~.D, : ~,~ ~. i~in _ ~hcmas Waite Ill : .'rc,a A. Forkan 5, ec ;mve Wce President . i~ =.:qer A. Kintiler, Esq. :'~ ,=residen~'Gene~ ~n~t - ~ WF vICE I'RESI~[~ "~ ' ' '7-'~ .'.~::ra C. Arms~ong ~ :mcanion Animals : c~ard M. Clugston, Ph.D. - 2-er Educa~o~ ' ,?ae~ W. Fox, D.~., Ph.D. : 's: Meal., M,R.O.V.8. - ~ .V Grandy, Ph.D. ' , -. 'e ~d Habitat P~t~n --' :3.. _cckw~d, Ph.D, . z ,r ~ ent Affal~ and M~ia : ~c.:rah J. ~Iem : '~¢t'c L. Stephen, Ph,D. ;-,real Reseach l~s . ';'~- ' 2 ":.. .'., es~gative SeNices . Y-:.l S, Thdff ~urc~ugh StuaA ~ wor Counsel [_ ~I RE CT~ )ItS :.~.~er A. Bender :cna~a W. Cashen, Ph.D. a-,ta W. Coupe, Esq. .;! -'=,ledman -2:-:,d H. Gatdiner · :e = Garey :re Goodall. Ph.D. :~ - s A. Hayes. Esq. +¢'~ ~er Leaning, M.D. · -7 =.eeman Lee, Litt. D. -_-, ~.~re ',"J, Lorenz ::x ¢1 Lydman ' am ,=. Mancuso ~ 22 Marten-Brown : ; Ramsey, Esq. e"er./O. Rose ¢-.':'es O. Ross =zr:'Tn G. Seyler :-.,;[a R. Smith :~'r E. Taft ::cert. F. Welbom, Esq. :av;d O Wiebers, M.D. ,~zr,lyr~ E. Wilhelm · ' 'Ni[liam Wiseman . September 10, 1997 Misha Goodman, Director Animal Control 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Ms. Goodman: Thank you for contacting The Humane Society of the United States (IlSUS) concerning prospects for beginning a deer contraception study in your community. Interest in applying immunocontraception to solve local deer conflicts has grown enormously over the past few years. Over 100 locations in 26 states have contacted The HSUS about beginning deer contraception programs. Unfortunately, this demand has far outstripped the ability of The HSUS to implement such programs. As of autumn 1997, six deer field studies of the PZP immunocontraceptive vaccine are being carried .out, with the longest-running study beginning in 1993 at Fire Island National Seashore, New York. It is anticipated that one to two new sites will be added each year over the next few years; but that means any individual site has only a slim chance of being chosen. In the meantime, we are working as hard as possible to improve and simplify the technology, so as to make widespread use of wildlife contraception a reality in the not-too-distant future. The HSUS is providing this summary of the steps involved in establishing a deer immunocontraception program to convey some idea of the nature of the effort involved· Fortunately, the implementation of many of these steps will contribute to the understanding and solution of deer conflicts no matter what management approach is finally chosen. Sincerely, Allen T. Rutberg, Ph.D. Senior Scientist Wildlife and Habitat Protection The Humane SocieW of the United States 2100 L Street, .N~'~; ~hshington, DC 20037 202.452.1100 · Fax 202.778.6132 · Internet: ~a~,v. hsus.org CHARACTERISTICS OF AN IDEAL SITE FOR DEER IMMUNOCONTRACEPTION 1. The site should be between 100 acres and 3 square miles. 2. The deer population should be isolated or semi-isolated. Isolation may be accomplished by physical barriers (such as large expanses of water), habitat barriers (such as dense urban development), or behavioral barriers (such as traditional female ranging paRems). 3. Deer should be approachable and easily located at least some of the time. The tamer the deer are, and the more regular their movements, the easier it is to dart them with the irnmunocontraceptive vaccine. Most deer should be approachable to within 25~30 yards; however, baiting and other tactics may be used to bring deer within range. 4. There should be an extensive data base on the deer population. (See step 1 below). 5. The proposed program should have strong, broadly-based political and public support. Like all experimental field studies, deer contraception projects are inherently difficult to carry out. The enthusiastic cooperation of all interested parties is therefore essential for success. STEPS TO BE TAKEN BEFORE CONTRACEPTING DEER 1. Baseline data must be collecte& Before a contraception program can be designed, data should be collected on population size (with particular attention to adult does), annual birth rates (percent of does fawning and average number of fawns per doe), annual death rates, timing of the fawning season, and ranging patterns of adult does. Such data should be collected for at least one year, and preferably two or more years. 2. Funding sources must be located. The HSUS will provide limited support for all deer projects, but principal funding must be provided from some combination of the community, participating public agencies, or private organizations or individuals. 3. An experimental design must be developed. A detailed plan for carrying out the experiment must be developed jointly between The HSUS research team and all cooperating agencies. This plan will include a description of how many animals will be treated, how animals will be selected for treatment, when and where treatments will be carried out, how treated animals will be identified (if live capture and tagging are to needed, how that is to be done), how success will be measured, and other details. Although driven primarily by the scientific questions being asked by the research team, to the extent possible the experimental design will be tailored to meet the management needs of the community. 4. The individuals who will conduct the actual study must be identified and trained. Carrying out an immunocontraeeption project requires field personnel to make a serious commitment to the study. It also requires considerable training and skill. Although some projects are carried out directly by research team members and trained HSUS employees and consultants, most projects will ultimately be conducted by local personnel who have been trained by The HSUS. Training begins with a*one-week workshop held in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and continues with a field apprenticeship with experienced HSUS-associated personnel (preferably at the location where the project is to be conducted). 5. A local veterinarian must become associated with the project. Each project must have associated with it a local veterinarian who can advise project personnel on handling animals and respond to veterinary emergencies that arise during project operations. This veterinarian must attend The HSUS training workshop. 6. Consent of landowners upon whose lands the project will be conducted must be obtained. Landowners may be private individuals, corporations, or public agencies. ?. The approval of all public agencies with jurisdiction over the project and the site must be obtained. Typically, these agencies include the local government, the state wildlife agency, and the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The HSUS, through its Investigational New Animal Drug exemption, must submit a detailed research.protocol for FDA review at least 60 days in advance of the beginning of field work. Generally, a formal proposal must also be submitted to the state wildlife agency, and the project may be revised in response to state agency concerns. 8. A program must be put in place to inform the public and local law enforcement authorities about the project, andto allow for quick response to specific concerns. To ensure continued public acceptance of the project and avoid misunderstandings, a strategy must be devised and implemented to inform the public and local law enforcement authorities about project activities and their purpose. A combination of direct contacts, fliers, media releases, and other techniques should be employed to keep local residents and police informed about the project, and to allow project personnel to respond quickly to any concerns raised by the public or police. BOW HUNTING nlmal Rights Challenges to Bowhunting est Virginia Uni e sity Morgantown R. Ben Peyton Michigan State Universi~ Minnesota Department of Natural Resources H. Lee Gladfelter Iowa Department of Natural Resources Des Moines Dwight Guynn Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Helena Introduction Bowhunter numbers have increased from 0.5-2.5 million over the past 15 years as a result of increased numbers of deer (Odocoileus virginianus) (Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study 1988), liberal hunting seasons and the advent of the compound bow. Participation and deer harvest rates have increased dramati- cally, mostly in response to rapidly growing deer herds around the country. The growth of bowhunting has been associated with issues: competition between firearm and bow hunters; utility of bowhunting as a deer management tool, especially in residential areas; appropriateness of technological aids (compound bows, lighted sights, mechanical releases, and tree stands); and, more recently, wounding of game by bowhunters and related anti-hunting challenges. Managing these bowhunting controversies is made difficult by at least three conditions. First, wildlife managers and agencies who must represent the wildlife resource as well as allocate recreational opportunity find themselves in the difficult role of mediating among other stakeholders .and participating as an advocate of hunting as a management tool. Second, bowhunting issues are very complex and many stake- holders are involved. Third, data has not always been readily available on these issues to allow separation of opinions from facts. This paper analyzes bowhunting issues related to anti-hunting chhllenges using an issue analysis framework model by Peyton (1984) which suggested that management of issues is enhanced if the stage of issue development and the status of three contributing factors are assessed. Issues may develop through latent, emerging, active and disruptive stages. The effectivenegs of options available to the manager for resolving the issue varies with the development stage. Issues which can be identified at the latent and emerging stages can be dealt with through effective planning. At these stages, communication regarding the issue is primarily within stakeholder groups. Agencies may be able to avoid further development of the conflict. For example, changes in wildlife management programs or regulations may effectively reduce controversy surrounding the issues. Educational programs may alter public perspectives and/or behaviors and lessen potential for conflict. Public involvement activities can successfully increase communication, understanding and acceptance among potentially conflicting stakeholders. At the active stage, stakeholder groups are communicating directly with the agency. Positions on the issue become rigid and high. emotional levels make the issue more difficult to manage. At the disruptive stage, communication lines circumvent the agency. At least some of the stakeholders go to different authority (e.g., judicial or .legislative powers) to seek resolution. When an issue reaches this stage, there is usually much conflict among the different stakeholders. This conflict may lead to further polarization which makes planning, education and public involvement more difficult. Also, all stakeholders must expend funds to prepare for court appearances. The outcome of disruptive issue stages will be less a function of wildlife management planning and more a result of the political and legal process. The three contributing factors proposed by the model are: (!) the status of our science and technology to provide information, alternatives and assessment of risk; (2) the beliefs (perceptions of reality) held by stakeholders; (3) the values and prior- ities held by stakeholders. Issues vary'in the relative contribution of each of these components and, thus, require different management strategies. In the anti-bowhunt- ing issue, all three components contribute to the issue, however, the major cause of conflict is differing values and philosophy. History of Anti-bowhunting Though bowhunting was common in the 1950s and 60s, it was not considered a major part of herd management due to gmall annual harvests. However, with the growth in bowhunting, it has become an effective tool in assisting state agencies to manage deer herds. For example, in 1977, 45,000 West Virginia bowhunters har- vested 2,531 deer. Ten years later, over I00,000 bowhunters took 19,742 deer. Similar growth occurred in many states. In New Jersey, 29 percent of the total deer harvest (48,178) was taken by 50,000 bowhunters (D. Burke, personal communi- cation). In 1989, Michigan bowhunters took an unprecedented 96,700 deer, repre- senting 21 percent of the 452,490 deer harvested (H. Hill, personal communication). Burgeoning deer populations in urban and suburban areas have caused increased numbers of auto accidents (Blouch 1961, Bellis and Graves 1971, Langenau and Rabe 1987), damage to ornamental plantings (McDowell and Benson 1960, Carpenter 1966), hazardsto airplanes (Iker 1983) and may pose risks to human or animal health where deer act as hosts for disease vectors (Spielman et al. 1985). Concerns over firearm safety have limited the actions of agencies responsible for regulating deer populations. In many cases safety reasons preclude the use of firearms and since alternative removal methods may not always be practical nor fimfncially possible bowhunting has been suggested as a tool to remove the deer. Unfortunately, oppo- 378 ~ Trans. 56th N. A. Wildl. & Nat. Res. Conf. (1991) sition to bow hunting has surfaced among anti-hunting organizations (Pacelie 1990), sometimes restricting management efforts. A recent set of deer management rec- ommendations developed in Minnesota did not include bowhunting because of con- cerns over killing effectiveness and the potential for wounding and wasted animals (Minnesota Valley Deer Management Task Force 1990). The first legal attack against bowhunting took place in 1973 at the Chincoteague and Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuges in Virginia and MaD, land, respectively. This case originally focused on shotgun hunting at the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey, but was later expanded to include bowhunting at the above two refuges. In this case, the Humane Society of The United States argued that hunting was inhumane and that the use of primitive weapons was contrary to principles of sound wildlife management. In 1973, a hunt was planned at Great Swamp NWR, but several groups filed a restraining order because no environmental impact statement had been filed. No hunt was held that year. The impact statement was filed in 1974 and, over legal appeals, the hunt was held. In 1975, the Fund For Animals and other groups filed suit for a temporary injunction to prevent a hunt on Great Swamp NWR, claiming that it wasn't necessary for herd management, but was conducted merely for sport. Presently, bowhunting is conducted on all three refuges involved in this suit. Occasional confrontations have occurred over the years. One notable example took place in Princeton Township, New Jersey, where firearm hunting was stopped in 1972. Deer/car collisions increased from 33 in 1972' to 196 by 1984 (Kuser and Applegate 1985), while adjacent townships with hunting saw only a 25 percent increase dutihg that same period. (Schneider and Kuser 1989), Other problems, such as farm crop damage, garden and. shrub damage, increased incidence of Lyme Dis- ease, the tree damage on nurseries (Schneider and Kuser 1989) led to the formation of a deer committee to seek solutions. Based on a poll of residents, the committee recommended a public education program and a controlled firearms hunt. Bowhunting in the township has remained open with harvest steadily increasing through 1989 while road kills peaked in 1986, then declined (Schneider and Kuser 1989). In recent years, anti-hunters have tested state hunter harassment laws by inter- rupting bow and gun hunts. In 1990, there were bowhunter harassment incidents in California, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Nebraska, New York, Ohio and Penn- sylvania, to mention a few. Two of the most publicized incidents occurred at McBee B~eshers Wildlife Management Area in Maryland in 1989 and 1990, and Mason Neck NWR in Virginia'in 1989 and 1990. Both incidents led to anti-hunter arrests and much publicity, and the bowhunts are continuing. Anti-hunting efforts have also been aimed at small, urban/suburban state parks with growing deer herds. One good example of this situation occurred at Rock Cut State Park in Rockford, Illinois, where an estimated 80 deer per square mile caused problems typical of high deer numbers in small, protected, urban areas. Over a two- year period, controversy led to proposed anti-hunting legislation, heatings, public outcry and threats to the budget of the Illinois Department of Conservation. Anti- hunter concerns centered around several items; (1) that hunting would lead to a higher deer population by stimulating reproduction, (2) that bowhunting was ineffective and inhumane, and (3) that the Department of Conservation did not have an exact pop- ulation count of deer in the 2,743-acre park. In 1990 public heatings led to a compromise solution; a bowhunt was followed by a firearm kill by marksman in an Challenges to Bowhunth~g ~ 379 effort to lower deer numbers. Anti-hunters supported lhe use of marksmen, but opposed the bowhunt. ] In 1989, a group called Wildlife 2000 opposed the spring bear hunt in Colorado (bow and firearms). They felt that too many lactating females were harvested and also questioned the ethics of hunting over bait. The result was that the Colorado Wildlife Commission shortened the spring bear season from April l-Jun 15 to April l-May 15, thus, effectively eliminating the spring bow season. In September 1991, the Colorado Wildlife Commission will set a three-year structure for bear hunting. Any changes will be made at that time. Animal fights groups have also attacked bowhunting in Rhode Island, beginning in the mid 1980s and continuing today. The most recent approach has been to get a bill passed through the state legislature to ban bowhunting, and a legislature-appointed commission is now deliberating this issue. A bill also was introduced under a safety concern that would limit all hunting within 1,000 feet (previously, 500 feet) of a road or occupied building. Such action would eliminate hunting on $0 percent of state wildlife management areas (J. Myers personal communication). Also, the anti- bowhunting issue addressed by the legislative commission has expanded to include other forms of hunting (J. Myers personal communication). The most publicized anti-bowhunting incident occurred in California in 1990, when the black bear archery hunting season was stopped. The California Environmental Quality Act requires the Game and Fish Department to justify each hunting season by making a full disclosure of all effects of any hunt via an environmental impact statement. The Fund For Animals challenged this document for the black bear bow season, and the court ruled against the game department based on an inadequate review of wounding literature and consideration of the welfare of individual animals. That ruling is being appealed: and the state game agency has filed complete documents to reinstate the bear bow season in 1991. Almost certainly, other anti-bowhunting bear hunting situations will arise in 1991. On February 18, 199 l, a Minnesota animal protection group--Friends of Animals and Their Environment--announced that it will attempt to get legislation passed that would ban bowhunting for deer in Minnesota, because it is inhumane and wasteful. If that fails, they indicate they will file asuit to ban bowhunting utilizing state laws to prevent cruelty to animals. Today the anti-bowhunting issue is basically a smaller segment of the anti-hunting issue. Bows apparently are targeted because they are viewed as primitive and lacking the ability to kill in a humane fashion. It is apparent that anti-bowhunting activity will continue and that other planned expansions of bow and firearms seasons will come under heavy scrutiny. Issue Analysis Stage of Development The anti-hunting controversy in general, and bowhunting issues in particular, are rapidly becoming disruptive issues. In large part, this is a predictable result of the' anti-hunting stakeholders being outside the traditionally recognized constituency of fisheries and wildlife agencies. Anti-hunting groups have perceived the wildlife management process to be closed to them and thus have sought other authorities to 380 ~ Trans. 56th N. A. Wildl. & Nat. Res. Conf. (1991) represent their interests. One example is the approach taken in california where anti- hunters used the courts to stop the archery black bear season. Other states have experienced similar instances where hunting regulations have been ~:hallenged by referendum, court action or other authorities (e.g., Lautenschlager and Bowyet 1985). The trend can be expected to continue as anti-hunting interests find new ways to circumvent and influence the management processes of the state and federal agencies. Components of Bowhunting Issues Findings of several researchers suggest that the."anti-hunting" group is actually comprised of several stakeholder groups with different primary concerns (Shaw 1977, Kellert 1978). Hunting may be opposed on the basis of concerns for public safety, matters of trespass, inconvenience or disturbance, concern for animal rights (mor- alistic value), concern for animal welfare (humanistic value), and/or ecological con- cerns. Of course, individual participants may be motivated by a range of these values and concerns. Alliances may be formed among these groups in their anti-hunting efforts, often causing the values to become entangled and confusing to managers, non-hunters and even the stakeholders involved. For example, animal rights issues and environmental issues are intermixed by the media and others, yet there are important contrasts in basic values and perspectives advocated by each of these (Callicott 1989). Animal rightists value the rights of individual members of animal populations. In extreme forms, protection of individual animal rights may take prec- edent over concern for the ecological system. (The name of the animal welfare group seeking legal action in Minnesota, "The Friends of Animals and Their Environment," appears to be an attempt to embrace both philosophies). An environmental philos- ophy, however, places priority on the welfare of the ecological system (e.g., pop- ulations and communities) and recognizes the dispensable role of the individual in a healthy ecosystem. An environmental argument against hunting would be based on undesirable manipulation of ecosystems to produce harvestable populations of game species, or on fears of overharvest of species (e.g., bear). At least in theory, conflicts between environmental concerns and bowhunting offer opportunities for resolution. Alternatively, the animal rightist is philosophically in conflict with bow- hunting regardless of the status of the hunted population or ecological, social or other impacts. Few opportunities appear to exist for resolving bowhunting issues so that values of animal rightists and hungers are not compromised. - Important differences also exist between the animal rightist and the anti-hunter primarily motivated by concern for animal welfare. The latter may not assign moral rights to non-human species, but objects to hfinting when animal suffering or dis- comfort are unnecessarily inflicted. The animal rightist would object to hunting mortality under any condition. Modifications in hunter behavior and/or regulations, and public education programs offer opportunity for increasing acceptance of bow- hunting among those concerned for animal welfare but will not impact strong animal rights advocates. Schmidt (1990) makes a convincing differentiation between animal rights and animal welfare and urges the wildlife profession to focus on those interested in animal welfare. One'advantage of maintaining a distinction among the many values in anti-hunting issues is to be able to communicate these clearly to the non-hunting public who have not joined the ranks of either hunters or anti-hunters. Non-hunters appear to be concerned more for environmental, safety and animal welfare reasons than for mor- Challenges toBowhunting · ' 381 elistic rights of animals (Rohlfing 1978). If agencies approaci/the bowhunting con- troversy from this perspective, the large non-hunting public will be able to evaluate anti-hunting controversies more accurately by maintaining clear distinctions among. the values and positions involved in the issues. Profound differences in values and philosophies are confounded by differences in perceived "facts" (beliefs). The beliefs which stakeholders hold are applied to their values to evaluate the bowhunting issues and form attitudes about them. Much of the debate in this controversy centers on wounding rates, the fate of wounded animals, pain experienced by game animals, the utility and necessity of hunting as a man- agement tool, the economic benefits of hunting activities, etc. Some of this contro- versy exists because information has not been accurately communicated to all stakeholders, however, for other aspects (e.g., wounding rates) data exist, but may not be conclusive. To this extent and for the purposes of refining our management programs and communicating with non-hunters about the anti-hunting controversy, efforts to improve our scientific understanding of the issue is worthwhile. However, it must be recognized that even if all stakeholders agreed on the factual basis (e.g., the actual rate of wounding and fate of wounded game), the value conflicts in the issue would be more clearly defined, but the issue would not be resolved. Conflicts of science and fact are often the focus of skirmishes among stakeholders, but the. primary goal of the process must be to gain acceptance and understanding of con- flicting values. The utility of bowhunting, the safety of bowhunting and the occurrence of wound- ing deserve further review here since these impact on the human safety, animal welfare and animal rights values which appear to be the primary issues in current bowhunting controversies. Safety. Bowhunting's good safety record has made it a choice for deer herd control in some suburban/urban situations. Where high deer numbers threaten habitat and endanger human lives via automobile accidents, bowhunting is being utilized for deer herd control. Statistics for 1989 show that during an estimated 30 million many days afield (L. Smith personal communication), 2.5 million bowhunters had only 21 accidents; 3 of these were fatal (Hunter Education Association 1989). Nonpar- ticipants were not involved in any bowhunting accidents. Thus, when deer numbers necessitate moderate reductions, bowhunting may well be an answer. Many smaller areas combine the use of the bow for harvest with a bowhunter education course to fully ensure that safety precautions are taken. Re- quiring participants in selected-area bowhunts to take such a course may also help to allay fears of the nonhunters who live in the area. The course that is used is the 10-hour International Bowhunter Education Program which is available in all states and Provinces and is mandatory in New Jersey, New York, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island and Nova Scotia. The Utility of Bowhunting. Bowhunting also plays a major role in deer herd management in larger areas as well. In New Jersey, bowhunters take 28.7 percent of the total deer harvest (Table I). In Michigan, bowhunters take 21.4 percent of the total harvest; in Indiana, they take 20.0 percent; and in Maryland, they take 17.3 percent (Table I). In many states bowhunters take over 10 percent of the total deer 382 ~ Trans: 56th N. A. Wildl. & Nat. Res. Conf. (1991) Table 1. Bow and gun deer harvest for selected states." Bow percemage of Number of' $~ate Year Bow harvest Gun harvest total harvest bowhunters Indiana 1990 17,775 70,98 ! 20.0 72,000 Iowa 1989 11,857 87,855 11.9 34,745 Maryland 1989 7,988 38,305 17.3 41,553 Mibhigan 1989 96,700 355,790 21.4 275,000 Minnesota 1989 9,307 129,5 ! 1 6.7 66,668 Missouri 1989 10,966 157,415. 6.9 83,500 New Jersey 1.990 13,826 34,352 28.7 50,000 New York 1989 12,770 169,109 7.0 159,096 Ohio 1989 4,690 76,117 5.8 80,000 West Virginia 1989 16,217 129,350 11.1 100,000 Wisconsin 1989 46,400 310,700 13.0 210,900 *Data obtained by personal communication with J. Olson (Indiana). L. Gladfelter (Iowa), L. Fromm and K. D'Loughy (Maryland). H. Hill (Michigan). J. McAninch (Minnesota), L. Hansen (Missouri). D. Burke (New Jersey), W. Jones (New York), D. Watts (Ohio). W. Santohas (West Virginia), and K. McCafiery (Wisconsin). harvest. The quiet nature of the sport allows large numbers of bowhunters to safely take to the field with few interactions with landowners, firearm hunters or other · recreationists. Wounding. The frequency-and fate of wounded game is an important aspect of the bowhunting issue because of the prominence of animal welfare and animal rights values, although there does not seem to be a biological basis for concern. Anti-hunters believe that bowhunting produces a large number of animals that are wounded and left to suffer pain and a lingering death. Still further, they believe that archers are more brutal to animals because of the inaccuracy and lack of killing power of the bow. Bow wounding literature is incomplete and difficult to interpret for several reasons. First, there is the problem of no standardized definitions for terms and the associated understanding of the fate of "wounded" deer. Scientific studies, technical reports and popular literature utilize such terms as "cripple loss," "wounding loss," "wounding · rate," "wounded" and "crippled" as being synonymous. McCafiery (1985), in a paper on "crippling" semantics, provided some insight into the proper definitions for the commonly used wounding terms. The definitions he proposed were: Wounded: Animals that have been injured in some fashion by hunting equipment and their fate is unknown. Actual hits may range in severity from superficial (hair, antlers, flesh, etc.) to more severe wounds. · UnretrievedHunting Mortalities: Any animals dying from wounds and not found by the hunter. This would include terms used in the literature such as unrecovered kills and illegal kills. · Abandonment: Any animal killed, found by the hunter and abandoned. Even though McCafiery (1985) summarized the problem, improper use of termi- nology still goes on today. K. Mayer (personal communication) suggested (in his summary of bow wounding for the environmental document needed in the California Challenges to Bowhunting ~, 383 bear-bow legal dispute) that the term "crippling" infers to make disabled, lame or · deficient. Mayer noted that in biological terms "crippling" means to render the animal physically deficient, hence highly susceptible to death as a result of the deficiency. He pointed out that there are no studies to confirm the number of "crip- pled" animals, though some studies show that many archery wounds are apparently superficial, thus not life threatening (Nettles et al. 1976). He agrees that the use of different terms in all literature makes comparisons among studies difficult and this has led to inaccurate conclusions by stakeholders who attempted to introduce such literature into court proceedings. Another reason the wounding literature is incomplete is that obtaining such data is extremely difficult. The two most common approaches involve hunter interviews or ground searches, and both methods have limitations (Langenau and Aho 1983, Lohfeld 1979). Usually such studies are conducted in special areas (e.g., parks or fenced military areas) and results may only apply to a special group of hunters and may not be extrapolated to all hunting populations. Often there are special conditions utilized for the hunt on such areas, and this also confounds the data. Still further, hunter interview methodology does not usually allow a determination of the fate of wounded animals. Ground search studies require tremendous labor, and even then all dead deer may not be found, wounded deer may leave or enter the study area, or die after the search. There are other problems with wound studies. There is no way to differentiate superficial wounds from serious, debilitating wounds. Once dead deer are found it may be impossible to determine what caused the death. Benke (1989) provided many personal accounts of bow wounding and suggested that wounding rates for deer were I0-100 percent. Pacelie (1990) adapted such data and indicated that 80 percent of'unretrieved animals died from arrow wounds. How- ever, empirical studies show a wide range of data on unretrieved hunting mortalities. Ground search studies showed bow wounding losses of 9 percent (Herron 1984), I 1 percent (Lohfeld 1979) and 50 percent (with a sample size of eight animals) (Downing 1971). In a controlled shooting situation, 30 percent of African big game animals hit with broadheads were unretrieved (Ludbrook and Tomkinson 1985). Questionnare and interview studies showed 12 percent of Iowa bowhunters felt they wounded a deer (Gladfelter et al. 1983), 62 percent of deer believed hit by bow hunters on a special situation hunt in Michigan were not retrieved (Langenau 1986), while McPhillips et al. (1985) noted that the perceived reported wounding rate as a percentage of the total deer harvested in South Dakota was 48 percent. In February 199 I, the California Fish and Game Department conducted a complete review of the literature and concluded that "archery wounding does not appear to be either bio- logically significant or inhumane" (K. Mayer personal communication). Obviously, beliefs on this issue differ considerably among stakeholders. Both ground search studies and hunter interviews or questionnaires have reliability and validity problems and, thus, results must be interpreted cautiously. We need more studies of both types, under generalized conditions, before we can reach final conclusions on this topic. Obtaining such data will be extremely costly and will take extended periods of time. In conclusion, wounding losses are not large enough to affect a herd, they are a social problem and not a biological problem, and education is the way to solve this rather than a ban of bowhunting. 384 ~ Trans. 56'h N. A. Wildl. & Nat. Res. Conf. (1991) Summary While space does not permit an exhaustive analysis of' the many issues and stake- holders involved in the bowhunting controversies, the principles have been illustrated. As further analysis occurs it will be important to identify all stakeholders in an issue including unorganized stakeholders, other types of hunters, anti-hunters, property owners, professional wildlife managers, legislators, commercial interests and non- hunters. Involving a broad array of stakeholders will provide a more representative process and balance the intense activity of some stakeholders. Further, these groups must be understood well enough to be able to segment them on important charac~ teristics such as the primary value concerns or information levels. This allows the management agency to identify the most promising investment of resources in 'a broad plan of activity including research, public information programs and public involvement which targets specific dimensions of the issue and associated stake- holders. For example, citizens who oppose particular applications of bowhunting must be segmented based on the nature of their concerns (e.g., safety, trespass, animal welfare, animal rights). Animal rightists are not likely to be infiu6nced by new information regarding wounding rates, economics or benefits of bowhunting since they have clearly defined the issue in terms of animal rights values and philosophy, and their beliefs merely support that position. Non-hunters, however, respond to a broader array of values and concerns and often will evaluate their positions in the presence of new information. Implications Several implications of the analysis have already emerged: 1o o Without a strong educational response which reflects the more ecological and utilitarian values regarding wildlife resources, increasing numbers of non-hunters will continue to adopt the orientation of anti-bowhunters. Wildlife managers can expect that the issue will become more disruptive and involve more legislative and judicial activity, since that is the accepted procedure for getting values and philosophies recognized and established in our society. In this and other wildlife issues, we should integrate methods to deal with the value conflicts so that stakeholders better understand and respect differing value positions. Specific needs for scientific research and information can be identified. For example, the management community should standardize terms associated with wounding phenomena and increase research to better monitor wounding and its consequences. However, attempts to manage the issue by responding soley to the need for more science or information transfer will fail to lessen the issue intensity. References Bellis, E. D. and H. B. Graves. 1971. Deer mortality on a Pennsylvania highway. J. Wild[. Manage. 35:232-237. Blouch, R. I. 1961. Winter deer mortality on two private hunting clubs. Michigan Acad. Sci., Arts and Lett. 46:277-287. Challenges to Bowhunting ~ 385 Benke, A. 1989. The bowhunting alternative. B. Todd Press, San Antonio. 110pp. Callicott, J. B. 1985. In defense of the land ethic: Essays in environmental philosophy. State University of New York Press. Albany. 324pp. Carpenter, lvl. 1966. Control of deer damage. Virginia Wildl. 28:8-9. Downing, R. L. 1971. Comparison of crippling losses of white-tailed deer caused by archery, buckshot and shotgun slugs. Proc. Southeastern Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 25:77-82. Gladfelter, H. L., J. Ivl. Kienzler, and K. J. Kochlet. 1983. Effects of compound bow use on deer hunter success and crippling rates in Iowa. Wildi. Soc. Bull. 11:7-12. Iker, S. 1983. Swamped with deer. National Wildlife 21:4-11. Herron, J. S.C. 1984. Deer harvest and wounding loss associated with bowhunting white-tailed deer. Masters thesis, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison. 34pp. Hunter Education Association. 1989. Hunting accident report with graphics of 1985-89 data. Annual Report, Hunter Education Assoc., Draper. Utah. Kellert, S. R. 1978. Attitudes and characteristics of hunters and antihunters. Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. and Nat. Resour. Conf. 43:412-423. Kuscr, J. E. and J. E. Applegate. 1985. Princeton Township: The history of a no-discharge ordi- nance's effect on deer and people. Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference 41:150-155. Langenau, E. E. 1986. Factors associated with hunter retrieval of deer hit by arrows and shotgun slugs. Leisure Sciences '8:417-438. Langenau, E. E. and R. W. Aho. 1983. Relative impacts of firearms and archery hunting on deer populations. Pages 97-121 in K. H. Beattie and B. A. Moss, eds., Proc. Midwest Bowhuntin~g Conf., Wisconsin Chapter, The Wildlife Society, 238pp. Langenau, E. E. and M. L. Rabe. 1987. Deer-vehicle accidents in Michigan: A task force report. Michigan Dept. of Nat. Resour. Wild[. Div., Rep. No. 3072, Lansing. 46pp. Lautenschlagerr. R. A. and R. T. Bowyet. 1985. Wildlife management by referendum: When profes- sionals fail to communicate. Wild1. Soc. Bull 13:564-570. Lohfeld. M. L. 1979. Crippling loss and illegal kill of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus vi.r$inianus) during a controlled hunt in a New Jersey State Park. Masters thesis, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, New Jersey. 25pp. Ludbrook, J. V. and A. J. Tomkinson. 1985. Evaluation of bow hunting as a form of recreational hunting in Natal Parks. Game and Fish Preservation Board, Natal, South Africa. 27pp. IVlcCaffery, K. R. 1985. On crippling semantics: An opinion. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13:360-361. McDowell, R. D. and F. C. Benson. 1960. The deer herd and landowner in Connecticut. Univ. of Conn. Ag. Exp. Stn. Bull. No. 348. 15pp. McPhillips, K. B., R. L. Linder, and W. A. Wentz. 1985. Nonreporting, success and wounding by South Dakota deer bowhunters. Wildl. Soc. Buli...13:395-398. Minnesota Valley Deer Management Task Force. 1990. Final report and recommendations. Min- nesota Dept. of Nat. Res., St. Paul. 47pp, Nettles, V. F., Fo A. Hayes, and W. M. Martin. 1976. Observation on injuries in white-tailed deer. Proc. S. E. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 30:474-480. Pacelie, W. 1990. Bow hunting: A most primitive sport. Animals' Agenda, May, p15-18. Peyton, R. B. 1984. A typology of natural resource issues with implications for resource management and education. Michigan Academician 17:49-58. Rohlfing, A. H. 1978. Hunter conduct and public attitudes. Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. and Nat. Resour. Conf. 43:404-41 I. Schmidt, R. H. 1990. Why do we debate animal rights? Wildt. Soc. Bull. 18:459-461. Schneider, D. and J. Kuser. 1989. Suburbia--too many deer or too many people? New Jersey Outdoors, Jan./Febr:28-32. Shaw, W. W. 1977. A survey of hunting opponents. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 5:19-24. Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study. 1988. White-tailed deer populations, 1982. Map done with Emergency Programs, Veterinary Serv., Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Dept. of Agric., through coop. agreement 12-16-5-2230, Univ. of Georgia, Athens. Spielman, A., M. L. Wilson, J. F. Levine. and J. Piesman. 1985. Ecology of lxodesa dammini- borne human babesiosis and lyme disease. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 30:439-460. '25~t~ ,~, "FrrT,?V. .~th N.n. Wildl. & Nat. Res. Con.['. (1991) NlcAmnca, .~.B. t~9.~. ~owauntmg az an ur0an (leer management tool. Pages 33-36. In: D.E. Guynn and D.E. Samuel, eds., Proceedings of Western Bowhunting Conference, Bozeman, Montana. 134pp. BOWHUNTING AS AN URBAN DEER POPULATION MANAGEMENT TOOL Jay McAninch, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Madelia, MN Abstract: Over the past :20 years, many states have experienced an increase in bowhunter numbers. Some have attributed the change to the technological developments of archery equipment such as the advent of the compound bow (Gladfelter ~ el. 1983) while others have cited the growth of deer popularlens and liberalization of hunting seasons and limits as causative factors (Samuel et el. 1991). Regardless of the reasons for the trend, several s~ates have reported an increased role of bowhunters in controlling deer populations, particularly in urban and agricultural situations (Samuel et el. 1991). The Case for Bowhunting'in Urban Management Areas In Minnesota many municipalities have experienced significant growth in deer populations which has lead to increased damage to landscape plant~ngs and gardens, deer-vehicle collisions, browsing on native vegetation in parks and refuges, and concerns about the potential for increased risk for contracting Lyme disease (Iker 1983, Schneider and Kuser 1989, McAninch and Parker 1991). In most communities, the growth of deer populations has coincided with increased intensification of land use which, in turn, has resulted in a decline in gun hunting activity. In fact, with increasing human population densities and limited open space, many cities have passed ordinances prohibiting the discharge of firearms ('Kuser and Applegate 1985). The motivation for bad'ming firearms has been to insure the safety of residents, paxti'cularly those who recreate in urban open space that might be hunted, and to reduce the anxiety of individuals who live near areas that could be hunted. In the absence of gun hunting, many cities have debated the~se of alternative methods for managing deer popttlations (McAninch and Parker 1991). Although controlled gun hunts have been occasionally permitted, few other methods have been implemented with success. Proposals advocating' the use bowhunting have been opposed by animal protection groups because of concerns that the number of deer that are wounded, die and left: in the field by bowhunters is nearly as high as the number of deer successfully retrieved ('Benlee 1989, Pacelle 1990). Alternatively, sup~port for the implementation of bowhunting to control local deer populations has been based on evidence that unretrievecl deer numbers may be closer to 10% (Horton 1984, Lohfield 1979). The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN-DNR) has considered bowhunting in urban and suburban areas to have significant management potential for a variety of reasons. Bowhunting is safe both for participants and nonparticipants (Hunter Education Association 1989). Arrows fired by bows are projectiles that have a typical range of less than 50 m which is compatible with the limited open space in urban areas. Missed shots are not a safety hazard as bowhunters commonly hunt from elevated stands causing most shots to be taken at an angle toward the ground which nearly eliminates the possibility that arrows will be lost. Further, bowhunters will typically not shoot arrows at deer that are more than 30 m away. Bowhunting is an unobtrusive form of hunting which is compatible with the limited space and high numbers of residents fo/md in urban areas. A distinct asset.of bowhunting is the firing of arrows does not create any sound. Thus, the concerns.associated with the sounds of hunting are not likely to develop among local residents. In addition, bowhunters typically hunt alone, hunt from a single location and remain stationary during their hunting efforts. In essence, access to very small parcels of land is ideally suited to the habits of bowhunters who typically wait.for deer to come to them. Thus, the activities and movements of bowhunters to and from hunting areas and while hunting would be less conspicuous to urban residents. Bowhunting can be an effective method for killing problem deer. The situation where a particular deer or group of deer are creating problems in a specific location is common in urban communities. The limited range of archery equipment and the utility of hunting from 'stationary stands allows deer to be hunted in relatively small areas. As with most animal damage control programs, managers or control 33 agents are interested in removing the offending deer as efficiently as possible. Many cities have allowed hunting on a reserve some distance away from the problem area which typically does not eliminate deer using the problem area and, worse, likely results in deer being removed that are enjoyed by users of the reserve.. Bowhunters can also be asked to kill specific deer or deer of a particular sex and age group. Although all hunters can be selective in shooting deer, bowhunters typically must take shots at standing deer and must have a dear path for the arrow to travel to the deer. In addition, the awareness associated with hunting in urban areas where the likelihood of interactions with people is high would enhance the selectiveness of bowhunters in the deer they shoot. Because Of.these factors, organized bowhunting should allow for a more predictable deer kill effort. Urban Bowhunting Profitams in Minnesota By the mid-1980's, wildlife management staff in the 7-county metropolitan region that includes Minneapolis and St. Paul decided to create a Metro Bonus Bow Hunt to enhance population control opportunities. This hunt was the first occasion in which bowhunters were allowed to take a second deer in the state. The program was popular with bowhunters as it allowed them to hunt with their any-sex license and to have the opportunity to tag a deer with an antlerless license. The archery deer kill in the Metro area has increased in recent years and has become a siguificant deer mortality factor in most deer management permit areas (Figure 1). In the communities with the highest density of residential dwellings, the archery kill represents nearly all of the hunting mortality. While the Metro Bonus Bow season has not been focused on hunting in any particular community, it has provided a framework for increasing the deer kill which has slowed the rate of growth of deer populations in several areas. 1600-' .~,..~] FIREARMS 1400--~ ~ 1200-/ 1000 -/ 60% 800-/ 600-/ 400-~ 200-,/ 0 '/ 236 ARCHERY 66% 40% ~ 337 73% 72% 27% . 28;/0 338 339 DEER MANAGEMENT PERMIT AREA Figure i. Comparison of the 1992 firearms and archery deer kill for the 4 Metro Deer Management Permit Areas. 34 As important as the number of deer killed has been the distribution of the deer removed by bowhunters. In many cities specific concerns about deer have developed in and around recreation areas including parks and golf' courses, natural features such as lakes and rivers, urban open spaces and developed areas where zoning has created habitat among dwellings. These Hhotspots' are of'ten the locations where citizens find deer problems unacceptable and want deer removed. In cities where residents have demanded lower deer populations, special bowhunts have been organized to focus efforts on deer removals to satisfy the tolerance of urban residents. In 1992 in Minnetrista, where a city ordinance had prohibited all hunting for 5 years, bowhunters coordinated the development of' a hunt with elty and state wildlife officials (Gillette 1993).. Hunters were required to take the Minnesota Bow Hunters Education course, attend an orientation, hunt in teams on designated areas and pay an admiriistrative fee. Hunters also kept daily hunting diaries and provided a summary of their activities at the end of the season. During the 7-week hunt, 50 bowhunters killed 29 deer and reported hitting and not retrieving 4 deer. Hunters did not create any safety, property damage or trespass problems that were reported by landowners (who were surveyed after the hunt) or city officials. Future hunts are being planned based on the notion that bowhunters and local authorities can mold die~' control efforts to fit each particular situation. In 1992 in Red Wing, Minnesota, 25 bowhunters were allowed to hunt in a city park in an effort to reduce deer damage in the park and the surrounding residential area (Heather personal communication). An area within the park was restricted to bowhunting from October 15 through December 31 which allowed bowhunters to work at achieving the goals of the program while still providing park users with access. City staff and council members have plans to expand the hunting zones in i993 and to increase the number of antlerless deer permits allocated to bowhunters. The city of New Ulm responded to citizen complaints about damage to gardens and ornamentals by approving a bowhunt for deer for a 3-year period beginning in 1~992. The hunt was operated by the city police department and occurred during the regular archery season. Prospective bowhunters were required to pass a shooting test, attend an orientation session and pay a fee before being issued a permit to hunt within the city limits. Each bowhunter was assigned an elevated stand which was located in neighborhoods where homeowners were-supportive of the deer hunt. The acceptance of the hunt has lead to increased numbers of antlerless permits being offered to qualified hunters and an expanded number of stands available to archers in 1993. Conclusion In recent years, deer kills i~ urban and suburban areas during archery hunting seasons have increased and, in Minnesota, have contributed significantly to controlling deer at levels tolerated by residents. The increased kills have resulted not only from higher deer population numbers, but from the development of innovative bowhunting programs. These programs are beginning to achieve success due, in large part, to bowhunter cooperation and the understanding and support of citizens and municipal officials: The management of urban deer to control deer problems while' maintaining deer in areas where many benefit from their presence is the challenge wildlife managers must meet if they are to keep deer as valuable urban resource. Acknowledgements I thank Mike Osterberg, Dave Schad and Jack Heather of the Minnesota DNR, Section of Wildlife. Literature Cited Benke, A. 1989. The bowhunting alternative. B.Todd Press, San Antonio, TX 110pp. Gillette, L. 1993. The 1992 Kings Point archery hunt. Whitetales, Spring:28-30,47. 35 Gladfelter, H.L, I.M. Kienzler, and K.J. Kochler. 1983. Effects of compound bow gse on deer hunter success and crippling rates in Iowa. Wiidl. Sec. Bull. 11:7-12. Herron; J.S.C. 1984. Deer harvest and wounding loss associated with bowhunting white-tailed deer. MS thesis, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison. 34pp. Hunter Education Association. 1989. Hunting accident report with graphics of 1985-89 data. Annual Report, Draper, Utah. Iker, 15. 1983. Swamped with deer. Nat. Wildl. 21:4-11. Kuser, I.E. and I.E. Applegate. 1985. Princeton Township: The history of a no-discharge ordinance's effedt on deer and people. Trans. N.E. Fish and Wildl. Con. f. 41:150-155. Lohfield, M.L. 1979. Crippling loss and illegal kill of white-tailed deer (Odocoileux virginianus) during a controlled hunt in a New Jersey State Park. MS thesis, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ 25pp. McAninch, LB. and J.M. Parker. 1991. Urban deer management programs: A facilitated approach. Trans. N.A. Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf. 56:428436. Pacelle, W. 1990. Bow hunting: A most primitive sport. Animals Agenda, May, p15-18. Schneider, D. and J. Kuser. 1989. Suburbia - too many deer or too many people? New Jersey Outdoors, Jan./Feb.:28-32. Samuel, D.E., R.B. Peyton, LB. McAninch, H.L. Gladfelter, and D. Guynn. 1991. challenges to bowhunting. Trans. N.A. Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf. 56:377-38t5. Animal rights 36 Friends'of Animals and Their Envir6nment ~ate), has studied the sport of bowhunting carefully and concluded that the facts present bowhunting as very inhumane and wasteful. The possibility that a deer impaled by a broadhead arrow, then dying instantaneously is very slight, Through our' research we have pulled together approximately 24 studies across the country; all these studies have concluded that for every deer legally killed at least one, or perhaps more, is struck by a br0adhead arrow and not recovered. These studies indicated an average wounding rate of 54%.' The average shots per kill is 14. We believe these numbers are conservative. We have read some of the bowhunting journals and it is clear that they do not want bowhunters speaking to anyone about wounding. Their editorials even suggest that bowhunters should underestimate the loss. In Bowhunter Oct/Nov ~Bow Wounding Losses THE BIG MYTHu by David Samuel the author states "It is disquieting to know that we probably wound one deer for every animal harvested. The only reason I can think of is that bowhunting is difficult, more so than gunhunting. Some non-thinking bowhunters apparently feel it's better to say that they at least hit a deer than admit they didn't harvest one. That's really dumb logic, every time someone says they wound a deer to anyone else, even a bowhunter friend, it gives the.wrong message to anyone who is listening." In Western Bowhunter Sept 1991 "Responsible Hunting Starts with You" I.arry Jones states; "Don't t~lk to anyone about wounding animals, especially in public places or among non- hunters. If you videotape your hunts, .don't show bloody kill scenes, rough handling of animals and animals struggling, kicking or quivering as they go down, to non-hunters or anti-hunters. No one, including myself, enjoys seeing animals suffer." In Archery World Mar/Apr 1988, "Hit or Miss", Glenn Hegeland states "Why do so many bowhunters think just hitting an animal with an arrow is the pinnacle of success? I heard a guy the other night brag that "I hit four tonight". Then he sort of mumbled in his soup that he couldn't find any of them. In Bowhunter 1989 Big Game Issue "A Call for Accuracy", Dwight Schuh states "Our sport can't stand forever in the' face of growing hatred. Archers must work to counteract that sentiment and build Bowhunting in a positive light. The first step should be obvious. Don't brag about hitting and losing animals. He goes on to say "There's nothing honorable about hitting and losing an animal; it just means you screwed up. Don't brag about it. Just shut up." Adrian Benke, a Texan, and a still active firearms hunter, laid down his bow in 1969 after he had shot at 31 deer with arrows. Of these 31 animals Benke states in his book, The Bowhunting Alternative. B. Todd Press, 1989, "I'd killed just seven and later found the carcasses of four others.~ He goes on to say, "I then declared bowhunting a farce and quit the sport." Since the early 1970's Benke has done his own research and studies on bowhunting. According to Benke, "Archery wounding is the most denied problem in bowhunting and the most ignored problem in wildlife science." He cites empirical studies and hunter surveys that consistently' indicate that bowhunters wound at least as many animals as they kill. In 1989 a major study was done by Glen Boydston and Horace Gore, wildlife biologists with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. They .compared data on 'archery and gun wounding losses gathered at four wildlife management areas in Texas from 1972 through 1985. During this period archers bagged 128 deer and wounded and failed to retrieve 130 others, for a crippling loss exceeding 50%; revealing that for every deer.legally killed and recovered .by a bowhunter, at least one or more deer were wounded and possibly left to die. Gunhunters killed 2,266 deer and wounded 150 others with a crippling loss of 7%. The Texas study also states: Bowhunting is an extremely demanding, exacting.sport predicated on a hunter being able to be within 30 yards or so of a deer, draw and release an arrow undetected, and hit the vital parts of the animal. The broadhead must cut major blood vessels, thoracic organs, or neurological centers to cause a quick death. Under most hunting conditions it is generally difficult to shoot a razor sharp broadhead .into a vital. area, an absolute must for bowhunting proficiency. Almost all abdominally shot deer not retrieved from the field die a slow death due to peritonitis. If there is a relatively low exit wound in the thoracic hits, most bleeding is internal which results in poor blood trails. The deer runs off and may die a slow death in .the woods days or even weeks later. Many bowhunters are novices who lack experience and knowledge in stalking, shooting and tracking. Even experienced bowhunters can wound more deer than the novice because they get in more shots and th'erefore have more of an opportunity to wound. The Texas study provided evidence that, on .average, 21 shots are made for every deer killed, or about 10 shots per deer hit. In addition, the potential for bowhunting inaccuracy is enormous. Benke's book cites several studies documenting that the best bowhunters wound more animals than the worst. Even the most skilled bowhunters would have to admit that a direct hit to the heart in a hunting situation 'would be extremely unlikely. The Texas study is by no means unrepresentative: In a 1983 study of wounding loss in Iowa, H.L. Gladfelter confirms'Benke's contention, and reports that "crippling is not correctable by increased training or field experience and is a by- product of the sport." In 1989, during a bowhunt at Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge, bowhunters killed 8 deer and left 9 wounded. At Rock Cut State Park in Illinois in 1988 bowhunters killed 53 deer and left at least 42 others in the woods injured. During'the 1985 archery season at Walter Buck Wildlife Management Area in Texas, 101 bowhunters launched 86 arrows and seriously wounded 11 white-tails without killing a single animal. The ratio of those struck, killed and recovered to those hit but not recovered is alarming. A 1983.(unpublished) Minnesota study stated for every 112)0 deer legally killed 116 were lost. In a survey conducted at the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, bowhunters averaged sh{~ofing 15 arrows per kill, and wounded 52 % of the deer that were hit. Rob Wegner, author of Deer and Deer Hunting, Book 3. cited observations from records by Deer Search, Inc., an organization that has used leashed dogs to recover wounded deer for many years. Some of the observations are: 1. Chest hits which penetrate only one lung present very difficult tracking problems. 2. High lung shots are difficult to track even with a dog, especially if no exit wound exists. But this situation varies with the dog's abilities and experience... 3. Deer die from "peritonitis hits" in the lower intestines. Some of these deer take several days to die while others move about for only twenty-four hours after being hit... 4. Deer wounded with broadheads are much more difficult'to trail with leashed dogs than deer hit with bullets, although this generalization greatly depends on the 'type of hit... 5. The entire lung area does not necessarily represent a reliably lethal target zone for bowhunters. The fact that many of us have dropped deer quickly with a broadhead does not alter this fact. More research on this topic would lead to. better explanations and revisions. From Michigan, Westcott's and Payton's Investigations of Reliability of Self Reported Deer Wounding Rates and Bow Hunter Responses to Information on Wounding research project on bowhunting and bowhunter attitudes found that archers released 9.1 arrows per deer killed, with hits that tended to be scattered all over the deer. (The wounding rate was 50%. Like Deer Search, Inc.,' and Benke's observations, this research documents the fact that deer shot through the chest are wounded and lost. Most disturbing was the callous attitude of the hunters in the rating of bowhunter satisfaction. Those who wounded animals rated the quality of their hunts far higher than those who missed or released no arrows at deer°) Why so much wounding and crippling? The difficulty in shooting arrows accurately ofi'ers a partial explanation for the high 'crippling loss. Unlike bullets, which fly in a more linear path, arrows loop. As Bonke says "they rainbow. ~ Whereas a gun hunter takes dead aim at an animal, an archer must estimate the distance from the target and adjust the shot to compensate for the rainbow trajectory of the arrow. Animals commonly "jump the string" on hearing the release of the arrow; they reflexively move some distance before the arrow reaches them or from wherever they'd. been at the time of the shot. According to experts, animals can completely evade an arrow at a distance of 15 to 20 yards, .which means they can also partially evade the arrow and become wounded. Considering that bowhunters often shoot from a tree stand or position themselves on sloped terrain, they can become anxious when an animal is finally within range. This is known as Ougk fever. Archery proficiency testing revealed: 1. At 35 yards, a mere 2 1/2 yard error in range estimation was enough to cause a complete miss on a deer-sized target according to Benke summarizing a study by D. Sage in .Archery magazine. 2. In Bowhunter 1991; Big Game, the article "Make a Difference" describes a moose hunt on Eielson AFB, Alaska. All potential hunters were asked to pass both a written test and a shooting proficiency test. The shooting test required only that the acceptably competent bowhunter place at least 'three of four arrows in the unmarked heart/lung area, "over 30 inches in diameter", on a life-sized moose figure at 30 yards. All participants passed the written test but only 5 out of 54 passed the simple shooting competency portion of the test. This figure represents less thah 10% accuracy. 3. In another instance, a group of wildlife professionals assembled a report protesting the use of drug-tipped arrows. Through their. study, they were exposed to a number of bowhunting education courses and, mobserved only a small percentage of archers who have passed the shooting exercise. (approximately 15 %) Passing this exercise (3 out of 5 arrows in the kill area of a deer target at 10-25 yards) is not required to pass the course. Hence, 85% of the archers tested could not hit the vital area from a distance of 10-25 yards, 60% of the time. When it comes to the real thing, where stress and terrain factors are present what would the results be? What h~pens to the animal? Bowhunters 6ontend that though crippling is undesirable, most wounded animals do no die agonizing deaths, but'can quickly recover. They feel the broadhead inflicts clean wounds that quickly heal. Bowhunters suggest that a broadhead arrow is an efficient killing tool, with brand names such as the: "Ripper~', ~Penetxator" and "Terminator Doublecut"'which, according to The Complete Book Of Bowhunting "stop all body functions with incredible speed-within 30 seconds in most cases~. This implies that the animal quickly bleeds to death. But in order for this to happen, its blood clotting. system must be overwhelmed. In order to do this the broadhead must penetrate the heart or sever one or'more major. blood vessels--if these are not lacerated the animal cannot bleed to death. The blood clotting system sees to that. Broadheads do not inflict clean wounds. Because of the multi-bladed broadhead, when it enters the animals body, numerous hairs are clipped, and often they bxe caught in the slots of the blades and distributed throughout the wound channel. The external wound opening is sealed. by clotting and dried blood-matted hair. The bacteria from the clipped hairs can cause bacterial infection and death can result one to two weeks later. A Veterinarian's Perspective on Bowhunting According to Steve Nussbaum, M.A., DVM, if the damage to the vital area is less than severe, and if an arrow nicks an auricle rather than cuts through both ventricles, the blessing of shock- induced analgesia setting in can take a long time. Bowhunting as a Management Tool The effectiveness of the use of archery hunting as a method to control deer population densities seems to be questionable. In a February 1988 report about bowhunting at Rock Cut State Park in .Illinois, Department of Conservation biologist Tom Beissel stated, "this report. recognizes that bowhunting has never been an effective tool for deer control.." Ia Texas, which has more deer than any other state, Parks Wildlife biologist Horace Gore comments,.. H You cannot call bowhunting a population control measure, it is a recreational pursuit." And.he adds, "We do not advocate bowhunting when the objective is controlling population". According to ~Iohn Parker, Area Wildlife manager for the Minnesota Department of Natural ' ~'.. Resources only 3 deer were killed from 29 bow permits issued in the 1989 Minnesota River/~~._. Valley Area bowhunt. · Larry Gillette, Wildlife Biologist for Hennepin Parks acknowledges that bowhunters fail to retrieve a substantial number of deer they shoot and does not advise the use of archery hunting to control deer populations. i !tVSIDE: .I .....,,:. .~ · ..... . ':.;~.~ . :~;:~' ~.:'* :,: -,~'~,.,:,, . ~'.' . .... ,: '~,*~ ,,~..",.,,~: ~,~,..'.*..:,,., · . ..,..,,.,..! :~.: ;"" t *' '~ ' - ·, .,.,.. ,,..*, . .,, '..,..~ ": ~' ' '"'"' "'%. :: , i,.~ ~o ',., .~., , . This report has been printed and distributed by sponsorship from: ~:~. Study Documents Bow-Hun ing's Effec iv®n®ss By Jay McAninch, Minnesota DNR The articles in this brochure report the results of a four-year study of bow-wounding on deer at Camp Ripley in central Minnesota. The articles origi- nally appeared in the August 1994 and 1995 issues of Deer & Deer Hunting magazine. In May 1995, the wounding research was completed and accepted by West Virginia University as a master's thesis. The study- "Aspects of Wounding of White-tailed Deer by Bowhunters"--was paid for by the Save Our Heritage Committee of the Archery Manufacturers Organization, and more than 50 bow-hunting and conservation organizations. The study was written by Wendy Krueger of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. I helped supervise her work, along with Professor Dave Samuel at West Virginia University. Study's Impacts Felt Since the thesis was finished, we've been inundated with requests for information about our study. We are grateful to Krause Publications, publishers of Deer & Deer Hunting, for reprinting this brochure and making it available to the media, bow-hunters and anyone else interested in this study. The impact of this study on bow-hunters and bow-hunting -- and in political and legal circles -- was well under way soon after the project was complete. Hunters have been much more interested in the study than any of us expected. We've made presentations at the annual meetings of the AMO, Pope & Young Club, Safari Club International, and the Outdoor Writers Association of AmeriCa." In addition, thousands of bow- hunters have heard the results at deer semi- nars and exhibitions in Michigan, Montana, Wisconsin, Mississippi, Ohio and Minnesota. Further, we JayMcAninch briefed numerous smaller groups at dinner meetings and banquets. An Attention-Getter Our study also received extensive media coverage. Newspapers and most major hunting magazines carried the results, and many of them conducted extensive interviews with us that resulted in feature- length articles. In addition, we conducted broadcast interviews on radio and television across the nation. By the end of summer 1995, the bow-hunting wounding study had become the most widely known and understood hunting study ever completed. Also, we presented our find- ings to deer biologists and scientists at several profes- sional conferences and meet- ings. In addition, several leading deer and hunting researchers have reviewed our work. The study has been well- received. We were flattered to receive awards from the American Archery Council, World Bowhunting Chapter of the Safari Club International, the Pope & Young Club, the Minnesota Bowhunting Chapter of the Safari Club International, the Minnesota Bowhunters Inc., and the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association. Anti-Hunting Response How have anti-hunters responded to the study? No legal challenges or calls to end bow-hunting have been made since the study's release. That doesn't mean wounding rates are satisfactory to anyone, but it indicates the anti-hunters' message has been damaged by hard evidence collected scientif- ically. In Minnesota, bow-hunting has been adopted in many cities as the most cost-effective, efficient and safe method for killing deer. Several new hunts have been proposed and sanc- tioned in parks and suburbs. These programs have met token resistance, and none of the programs has attracted protest- ers. Clearly, the anti-hunting problem, which was at a peak in 1991, has subsided substan- tially since the study was completed. Armed with this study, bow- hunters should be able to strengthen their case to cities, counties, refuges, parks, small reserves and other sites with deer problems. Clearly, we believe bow-hunting can meet the challenges of managing deer 'in these situations. For us, the most important outcome of the study has been that many people -- including archers -- seem now to accept the fact that wounding is a natural part of. hunting. Although we will continue to work to reduce wounding rates as low as possible, that issue should not impede the implementation. of bow-hunting programs in this~: country and around the world. 't "4 Wendy Krueger, Minnesota DNR, interviews bow.hunters to help assess wounding during a three-year study at Camp Ripley. All hunters were surveyed as they left the camp at the end of each day. excerpted and twisted by animal- protection =~roups, who used it -- along with misinterpretations of videotapes and articles by other well-known hunters and researchers -- to attack bow-hunt- ing in California and elsewhere. Their misleading campaign caused some hunters to urge that wound- ing information be suppressed in the future. Of course, to defend bow-hunting intelligently we must pursue research and a free exchange of information. In the aftermath of the August 1990 article, Minnesota deer researcher Jay Mc.~xinch and other scientists on the Professional Wildlife Management Committee of the American Archery Council looked at all available research about wounded deer and, with few exceptions, they repeated the clas- sic conclusion Wegner had cited: · 'More research is needed." As McAninch says, of all the scores of "studies" everyone was quoting, only two -- one in Wisconsin and one in New Jersey -- had bothered to go out after a hunt to see how many dead deer had been left in the woods. "We realized if we were going to deal with bow-hunting contro- versies, we had to admit we had almost no solid data to use; not only on wounding, but on all the other aspects of bow-hunting that contribute to hunter behavior and success," McAninch said. "I view that (Aug-ust 1990) article in Deer & Deer Hunting ~ even though it caused problems -- in a positive light, overall. It made our profes- sional wildlife management group look carefully at all the literature and ask: 'What does it say? How much do we really understand about wounding, and all the vari- ous terms people throw around, like crippling loss, wounding rates, unrecovered loss?' "We also wanted to describe hunter behavior, and how it relates to success, how it relates to the potential to wound deer, and even how it relates to people who don't take shots." McAninch works with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in New Lrlm. In 1991 he began working with DNR wildlife biologist Wendy Krueger and Professor Dave Samuel of West Virginia University to devise a study of bow-hunting at the National Guard's Camp RipIcy near Brainerd in central Minnesota. The study would even- tually cost more than $250,000, which the Minnesota DNR could never have afforded by itself. Therefore, McAninch solicited outside funding, going first to those who could potentially be hurt most by the research: bow-hunting groups and archery manufactur- -ers. "Frankly, bow-hunters had everything to lose and probably very little to gain from the study," McAninch said during an inter- view in March. "And, obviously, the people who sell products in this field had concerns. Would this study speak well or poorly of the different equipment or hunting techniques? Even though they had a lot to lose, the suppor~ from both groups came fairly quickly." As of Spring 1994, the study had received more than $100,000 in grants from the Archery Manufacturers Organization's "Save Our Heritage" program. The Save Our Heritage program is a special fund established from a small surtax on archery products imposed by manufacturers to help defend bow-hunting. In addition, money for the study was donated by more than 40 bow- hunting clubs and organizations from around the United States and Canada. To ensure no one could later accuse the researchers of being biased, McAninch also asked for financial help from those who oppose bow-hunting. "Even though we tried to enlist aid directly from anti-hunting groups, they never helped," McAninch said. "I asked them but they never got back to me. In fact, the group here in Minnesota (The Friends of Animals and Their Environment) explained that they were an activist organization and, what money they had, they spend on public relations and developing information to support their posi- tion, and to work with the political arms of government. "I think this will make a valu- able contribution to this whole wounding controversy. Our open, scientific approach will stand up to scrutiny by anyone. As the project developed, the built-in peer review process by the university and DNR was incorporated every step of the way." Krueger, in fact, pursued the study as part of her graduate work for a master's degree with S~muel. The intense research was broken into three areas. The first involved personal interviews with the thou- sands of bow-hunters as they left Camp Rip[ey at the end of each hunting day. The camp, which covers 53,000 acres along the Mississippi River, is open for two two-day bow-hunts each year. In 1993 it attracted 2,107 archers for the first two-day hunt, and 2,020 for the second two-day hunt. In the previous two years, the hunts usually attracted slightly smaller numbers. Researchers found the bow- hunters to be extremely coopera- tive, even though some worried that their answers could be used against the sport. The hunters were asked to pinpoint where they had hunted, if they had shot deer, if they had hit but not recovered deer, if they had passed up deer they could have killed, what shot- angle(s) they chose, how many wounded deer they saw, and a myriad of other specific questions. These interviews were done during all three years of the study. A number of Camp Ripley's bow- hunters later received a mailed questionnaire that repeated many of the questions. This enabled researchers to study how responses differed several weeks later from answers given on-site. (One criti- cism of earlier studies was that people tend to forget specifics by the time they receive mailed ques- tionnaires weeks or months after a hunt.) The second aspect of the study employed state-of-the-art technol- ogy in 1993 to locate dead or dying deer left in the woods. Using a Minnesota State Highway Patrol helicopter equipped with sophisti- cated infrared video equipment, researchers systematically combed the woods at an altitude of 700 feet, videotaping each pass. This system is known as aerial videography. Later, researchers used computers' to scan the videotapes to detect temperature readings that would indicate a dying or recently killed deer. The third part of the research involved ground searches to locate unrecovered deer after the hunts. In 1993, the aerial search helped locate potential dead deer, and then ground-searchers checked the sites to determine if the "target" was a deer. If it was, they tried to determine its cause of death. The ground searches continued until snow covered the ground. The searchers also returned to the camp in spring 1994 to complete the ground search. When they finish verifying the locations of dead deer, they will plug the numbers into their data to conclude the research. McAninch said the RipIcy project showed that the confidence researchers had in bow-hunters was more than just faith. It's already clear the unrecovered losses will be substantially lower than those reported in previous literature. This will dispel one of the unfounded charges critics often level against bow-hunting: That archers leave disproportionately more deer to die in the woods than they take home. The findings are expected to resemble the results of two previ- ous scientific studies that conducted systematic ground searches to verify dead deer left in the field. A master's thesis by J.S.C. Herron at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1984 put the unrecovered loss at 9 percent during ~ bow-hunting study. And a master's thesis by M.L. Lobfield at Rutgers University in New Jersey in 1979 put the unrecovered loss at 11 percent during'a controlled bow- hunt in a New Jersey state park. It's important to note that unrecov- ered losses include animals killed but not found by bow-hunters, and also deer killed but illegally aban- doned by violators or poachers. An area with higher potential for misunderstanding is "wounding rate." This often causes emotional debates because the rates fluctuate wildly between the various "studo ies." The differences sometimes might be simple failures of defini- tions. As McAninch says, "The terminology used in previous stud- ies is a wreck." For instance, if two dear are shot and only one is recovered, the traditional definition would say this represents a 50 percent wounding rate, even if the other deer survives. Others, however, look at those numbers and say if one wounded deer is left in the woods for each deer recovered, the wounding rate equals 100 percent Despite having little to gain from the research, bow.hunters in the Camp Ripley study were very will- ing to share daily hunting information with researchers. of the actual harvest. Still others have looked at the total number of shots taken -- including complete misses -- compared it to the number of deer killed, and included the results in discussions of wounding loss. And still others say the wounding rate should be determined by the proportion of hunters who go into the woods and leave a wounded animal behind. And to go even further, some would say the wounding rate should be determined by the percentage of wounded deer in the total herd. Unfortunately, ifs too easy for outside observers to mix and match these figures and defini- tions. and totally confuse the issue. To inject meaning and fair compar- ison into the discussion. it's crucial that researchers agree on basic definitions. No one should assume everyone ~vill detect and analyze the differences on their own. In the Ripley project, researchers simpli- fied discussions by employing straight-forward terms and elimi- nating ambiguous words. For instance, they don't use the word, ~crippling," which implies every wound causes life-long physical problems for a deer. Instead, they use "wounding" because it's not vague. Still, even with simpler and clearer terminology, McAninch says he is at a loss to explain some findings from earlier research. "In our work in the camp, even if we considered that every shot wounded a deer, we come up with wounding rates of only 30 to 40 percent," McAninch said. "We're really wondering how people came up with wounding rates of 50 and 80 percent or more in their studies. We just can't fathom how they got rates that high. Setting aside the motivations of animal-protection groups, many researchers and writers probably didn't think through the complexities of the whole process of shots taken by bow-hunters. We believe our numbers will be a substantial contribution to understanding wounding as a part of bow-hunt- ing." To further assess wounding in the Ripley study, the researchers also developed two categories of reported hits. They recorded "presumed hits" and "substanti- ated hits" through in-depth, analytical interviews with the bow- hunter. As McAninch reports, the interviewers became skilled at detecting when certain hunters might have been confused, or were straying from facts. "After about four questions into our survey -- through experience and because of the sequence of questions we asked -- we could detect when things weren't adding up," McAninch said. "Yet, remark- ably, our interviewers found it rare that a hunter was uncooperative or unwilling to share information." When all the field work is completed and analyzed, all these data will be figured into a "maxi- mum wounding rate," which presumes every reported hit resulted in an unrecovered deer; and an "actual unrecovered-loss ra~e," which is the minimum after adjusting for all other possible outcomes of hits. In this second case, researchers subtract shots in which hunters couldn't describe tangible evidence of a hit. Presumed hits don't mean researchers believe the hunter was lying; they just mean the hunter couldn't reconstruct the shot and cite physical evidence of a hit, such as blood, clipped hairs or an obvi- ous wound. In fact, the bow-hunter might have missed cleanly, lost the arrow, and assumed he hit the deer. On the other hand, some hunters might have hit deer and assumed they missed. Another thing most previous research didn't check was how many wounded deer are later found or killed by another bow- hunter, who then tags it and takes it home. "The person who first shot it went home not knowing the guy on the next hill got the deer," McAninch said. "It could easily get reported as a wounded, un- recovered deer, even though it's no longer in the woods. We checked for that in our study." Another possible explanation for high wounding rates in.previous studies is that several hunters often see the same wounded animal. McAninch said when researchers studied responses from individual quadrants in Camp Ripley, they found several hunters reported seeing the same wounded deer, identifying it by sex, site and location of the wound. "In one case we had six reports of a wounded deer that walked on a line through an area," McAninch said. "Carelessness in reporting that information could have inflated our wounding estimates. In this case, none of those six hunters reported wounding that. deer." McAninch said hunters and researchers must go back to Square I to get this discussion onto solid footing, and not miss the point of wounded deer research. He especially dislikes it when a hunter asks if the bow or gun causes worse wounding problems. "I resent those type o£ ques- tions," McAninch said. ~To me it's like asking if male hunters wound deer at a greater rate than female hunters. It's as if they're saying, ~/e're bad, but they're worse.' We should all realize that every hunter wants the wounding rate to be zero, and we must do everything we can to ensure we make quick, clean kills. "But we should also realize wounding is an unfortunate by- product of hunting. It occurs no matter how great our efforts. As a percentage of the herd's popula- tion, wounding is insignificant. We can't manage for numbers that low. But because we want to make humane kills, we're working to make wounding as low as possi- ble." McAninch thinks it's simplistic to suggest four-legged predators are inherently more efficient than human hunters, as some anti- hunters claim. "Killing is an inexact science," he said. "The coyote, wolf or lynx -- when they chase prey -- they claw or bite whatever part of the body they can touch. They do whatever it takes to wear down their prey and take it down. Yet when a coyote bites the rear leg of a rabbit and it escapes down a hole, no one considers that coyote to be unethi- cal or immoral. The difference is that humans have a conscience, we have the option not to shoot, and we sometimes make mistakes because we're human. "But it's not realistic to suggest we not pursue a certain recreation because some individual animals might not be cleanly killed. That suggests we shouldn't allow certain recreation whenever there are impacts on individuals of a species. If that's the case, we shouldn't open trails in wilderness areas. Trails kill or displace individual plants and critters just so people can enjoy a walk in the woods. There's a downside to everything." If it wasn't clear before, it should be obvious by now that the Camp Ripley research was sorely needed. No previous wounded-deer research has been as sweeping and carefully constructed. ¥ Wounded Deer?f was written in the midst of the four-year study at the Camp Ripley National Guard camp, the site of an annual bow~ hunt. Because the research was still in progress last year, our '94 story didn't contain the study's data and conclusions. Now that the field work is complete and findings analyzed and reviewed, we can examine the results of this landmark study. The Animal-Rights Influence At the core of the study -- like it ornot- was one of hunting's most- debated questions: "Do archers wound' too many deer?" Jay McAninch, a noted white-tailed deer researcher with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, said the study needed to address a growing number of controversial statements about bow-hunting wounding rates. Those statements usually come from animal-protectionist groups across the country, including one from Minnesota, FATE, an acronym for Friends of Animals and Their Environment. This Minneapolis-St. Paul animal-rights group sought a ban on bow-hunting in Minnesota in 1991. Its leaders contended that bow-hunting violated the state's law prohibiting inhumane treatment of animals. FATE also sought to end bow-hunt- ing in May 1994 on the grounds it created significant environmental impacts throughout Minnesota, and they repeated their charges that bow-hunting violated animal- cruelty statutes. Mc,~minch, Dr. Dave Samuel of West V~trginia University, and their colleagues on the Professional Wildlife Management Committee of the American Archery Council real- ized the trump card the animal- protectionist groups kept drawing was wounding rates taken from sometimes questionable research. Clearly, an intense, scientific look at this issue was warranted. Wendy Krueger of the Minnesota DNR had a deep interest in the subject, and decided to take on the research as part of her master's degree work with West Virginia University. First, Krueger and her colleagues reviewed the available technical literature, which involved . This chart shows the percentage of archers who were inter- viewed after their daily hunts by researchers at Camp Ripley. For example, after Hunt I in 1992, 96percent of the successful hunters were interviewed, while 49 percent of the unsuccessful hunters were interviewed. 47 papers on bow wounding. They found few of the studies had dealt with archery wounding in depth, and only three had used post-hunt ground searches to locate dead or dy/ng deer. In addition, "Previous research contained confusing language or terminology, or the reports often dealt with wounding only as a peripheral issue," Krueger said. Such shortcomings underscored the need for her research. Research Team Forms Next, Krueger, McAninch and Samuel set out to develop a mean- ingful study, and to find a way to pay for it. The research would eventually cost $250,000, which the Minnesota DNR could never have paid for by itself. Even though animal-rights groups were asked to help financially, none responded. The cost was picked up by those who had the most to lose: bow- hunters and archery companies. Before the study concluded, 44 hunting organizations and busi- nesses from North America helped out, including the Archery Manufacturers Organization's ~Save our Heritage" foundation, which contributed more than $105,000. The researchers chose Minne- sota's Camp Ripley for their work. This National Guard camp covers 53,000 acres and is the site of two, two-day archery hunts each fall. Krueger said Camp Ripley was picked because it has a long history and tradition of bow-hunting. "It's been famous since the 1950s, and has produced more than 40 Pope and Young bucks," she said. "We didn't just put together a hunt for purposes of this study." Ripley was also ideal for research because all hunters must check in and out of the camp at the start and end of each hunting day. Also, all deer killed must be registered on site before the archer leaves camp. These factors allowed the research team to interview most hunters at the close of each day when their memory of the hunt was still clear. Most previous stud- ies were conducted well after the hunt's conclusion, and relied mainly on interviews or mailed-in surveys. That system has several shortcomings, including memory failure and lower response rates. A hunter's recall of specific events that happened days, weeks or months before can be sketchy. Krueger trained her interviewers to conduct the on-site questioning using a non-threatening, conversa- tional technique that allowed the hunters to participate in the infor- mation-gathering process. The interviews also had to be conducted efficiently and thoroughly, which was no small task. Between 1,500 and 2,000 hunters departed the camp at the end of each day, and so it was essential to keep their lines of vehicles moving through the gates. In almost all cases, researchers were able to question the bow- hunters 30 mi. nutes to one hour after they left the woods. They found the hunters more than eager to describe their hunting experi- ences. For example, by the end of the study, I4xuegeFs team had met with more than 6,000 bow-hunters, and only three had declined to talk. "Going in, we believed there would be a portion of hunters who wouldn't want to cooperate, but we were extremely pleased by the response," Krueger said. "Most hunters were fresh from their stands when we interviewed them, and they talked freely with excite- ment about the day's events. A lot of the time we had to end the inter- view!" As Figure 1 shows, nearly all successful hunters were inter- viewed each year. The interview rates were somewhat lower for unsuccessful hunters. That's because the available time, the mass of departing hunters, and the careful sequence of the survey's questions simply didn't allow the research crew to interview each of the 1,500 to 2,000 hunters as they left camp each day. Confusing Terminology As we reported last year, a "muddy" area in previous research was terminology· In fact, some misleading statements about bow wounding evolved because defini- tions are seldom uniform between studies. For example, although the terms "wounding" and "crippling" are used in the technical literature, researchers and laymen interpret them differently. According to Webster's dictionary, "wound" means: An injury to the body consisting of a laceration or break- ing of membrane (skin) usually by a sharp instrument forcefully driven or applied." Also, "cripple" means: "To deprive the use of a limb and especially a leg; to deprive the strength, efficiency, wholeness or capability of service." Krueger designed her research to ensure clarity and consistency with such terms. Kin this study, hunters were not asked if they 'wounded' or 'crippled' a deer," Krueger said. ~hey might have their own interpretation of these terms, which can lead to A primary goal of the Camp Ripley research was to develop standard terminology for the many scenarios that can occur after a hit. This chart shows the various outcomes of deer hit, and how they are categorized by the researchers° inaccurate reporting. In this study. we asked the hunters if they hit a deer that they were unable to retrieve." One of ~he primary goals for Krueger and McAninch was to evaluate all the wounding-related definitions, and develop standard terminology. to get a firm ~asp of the issue. They decided that one way to clear up the definitions was to account for the many scenarios that could occur after a shot. Primarily, Krueger and her team focused on the number of deer that bow-hunters reported hitting. We show their system in Figure 2. Frequency of Reported Deer Hit When conducting their inter- views with Ripley's bow-hunters, and in their follow-up field work, Krueger and her team could now list almost every hit reported by an archer into one of the specific cate- gories. Obviously, verified misses don't figure into the wounding discussion. After all hit deer were recorded, researchers categorized the percentages of each type' of deer hit as a part of the total. Figure 3 shows the ratios from each year. An interesting sidelight to Figure 3 becomes apparent when compar- ing the total number of deer hit during each hunt with the number of archers in the woods (Figure 1). For instance, the highest number of bow-hunters at Ripley was 2,107 during Hunt 1 in 1993. This group accounted for 266 deer hit, or 12.6 percent of the group's size. The highest deer-hit total, however, was 331 recorded during Hunt 1 in 1992 by 1,859 bow-hunters, or 17.8 percent of the group's size. The lowest deer-hit total, 139, came during Hunt 2 in 1993 with 2,020 bow-hunters, or 6.9 percent of the group's size. These figures illus- trate there is no predictable pattern to how, when and why shots are taken. Most importantly, however, Figure 3 illustrates that most of the deer hit are retrieved. This is an encouraging statistic by itself, but it looks even better when studying Figure 4, which shows the fate of the substantiated deer hit. Researchers found that 45 percent of deer that sustained a substantiated hit were soon retrieved by another hunter. In the past, these substantiated kits were likely recorded as wounded deer, and received no further considers- tion. Thus, this oversight inflated the ~wounding rate~ in previous studies unintentionally. In some cases, this led to claimed "wound- ing rates" of one deer for every deer taken home. Krueger thinks the influence of "prior" hits on retrieved deer is one of her study's most important find- ings. By following up and cross- checking each reported hit, Krueger showed that up to half of these deer had actually gone home with someone. Figure 4 illustrates the occurr- ence of prior hits. Unretrieved Deer Next, researchers turned their attention to the remaining substan- tiated deer hit that they could not account for at the end of the hunt. They did this by carefully recording all deer hit during the Ripley hunts, categorizing them by type, and tracking the fate of as many wounded deer as possible. After taking those steps, researchers came up with a number they called the "Loss Rate." Those percentages are found in Figure 5. The 13 percent figure represents a decidedly lower "wounding rate" than has often been attributed to bow-hunting in the past. Krueger stresses that the "Loss Rate" simply represents the number of deer hit that researchers couldn't account for, and the fate of those deer will remain unknown forever. "The animal in question could have sustained a simple flesh wound and recovered, it could be lying dead in the woods, or it could have actually been hit two or more times; we simply don't know and never will," Krueger said. "What the figure does tell us is one of the most important conclusions of our study: Just over 13 percent of the total deer hit by bow-hunters are unaccounted for. Or, conversely, we could account for 87 percent of the deer that hunters said they hit." Locating Unrecovered Deer Unlike most previous research, a big part of the Camp Ripley study involved expensive, exhaustive searches for deer that weren't recovered by bow-hunters. Besides interviewing archers after the hunt, the research team went out and looked for dead deer in each hunt area. This was accomplished in two phases: The first involved flying the various hunt compart- ments (areas) with a helicopter and scanning the terrain for carcasses Researchers found that 45 percent of deer that sustained a substantiated hit were soon retrieved by another bow. hunter. Previous research never took this factor into account when calculating "wounding loss, ~ thus inflating the figure unintentionally. The "Loss Rate" is the number of deer that researchers could · not account for at the end of the study. These deer might have died, suffered a flesh wound, or represent two or more hits. The researchers simply don~ know their fate and never will. with high-tech infrared video equipment. This technology, called aerial videography, is "terribly expensive," McAninch said. The helicopter alone cost about $600 per hour to operate. In addition, all videotapes were enhanced by a computer and evaluated by research staff. The computer's image-enhancement capability is far more sensitive than the human eye, and greatly increases the researchers' ability to detect poten- tial carcasses. In the second phase of the search, researchers went to the coordinates provided on the video- tape to verify that the video image actually was a deer carcass. The Study's Significance The four-year study at Camp Ripley was sorely needed, and undoubtedly was important for bow-hunters, biologists and wildlife managers nationwide. Never before has any study taken such an intense and thorough look at how archers hunt for deer, and what role wounding plays in the kill. Now, after working with the data and statistics from this landmark research for four years, McAninch and Krueger are able to step back and draw conclusions about how this study fits into the deer- management picture. "This study yielded three impor- tant conclusions," McAninch said. "First, it provided a more detailed and clearer picture of the shots taken in the field. Second, the study showed recovery rates to be much higher than previously claimed. And third, we learned bow-hunting is an efficient and effective method to control deer populations. The growing efforts to use bow-hunting to control urban deer suggests that others agree." While the Ripley findings are important, McAninch and Krueger warn they aren't the last word on the subject. They believe the prob- lem with definitions remains. ~We tried to simplify and clean up the language surrounding wounding, but in some ways we added to the complexity," Krueger said. %Ve had to come up with new terms and define some language, and there are always problems with interpretations. For example, an archer whose arrow clips hair off a deer might not think he 'wounded' the deer, but in our terminology, it was recorded as a hit. If our study accomplishes anything, we hope it makes people think more carefully about the terms they use to describe the outcome of shots they take at deer." McAninch also cautions that Camp Ripley represents just one bow-hunting situation. Its hunts contained many variables that are umque to the camp, and might not always be found in other areas. For example, each of these hunts lasted two days only, the camp covers 5:3,000 acres, access is tightly limited to 2,000 hunters, and hunter distribution (hunting pres- sure~ varies greatly by area. Meanwhile, by comparison, Minnesota has more than 70,000 bow-hunters, and they have access to millions of acres across the state. Because of these differences, McAninch discourages efforts to spread the studfs findings across all bow-hunting situations. "Clearly, we need a better under- standing of what happens during our more common, widespread hunting situations," McAninch said. "Much research remains. As a result, in autumn 1994 we began a second phase of this research that will give us a clearer look at the big picture. This will be a long-term study, but we should have some interesting material in another year or Still, McAninch is extremely confident in the study's findings. The results have undergone a lot of peer review, and he believes they will hold up to further intense scrutiny. That's because Camp Ripley shares many similarities with the sites of previous wounding studies. "As with all previous studies, we picked a relatively small, controlled area," he said. "And let's face it: The discussions and criticisms people have made of wounding and bow-hunting have been based on studies at this type of site. Typically, the studies have dealt with relatively small sample sizes in controlled. unique settings with short, high-intensity hunts? Conclusion What is McAninch's biggest impression after spending thous- ands of hours involved in this intensive study? "I'm more clearly focused than ever on using bow-hunting as a management tool," he said. "Bow- hunting deserves to maintain its place as a legitimate form of recre- ation, primarily because it's a sound tool for controlling deer populations. "No, it's not perfect, but neither is the automobile in terms of trans- portslion, and we certainly haven't abandoned it for travel. Wounding will always be a part of the hunt, and every hunter has to come to grips with that issue. We all want the wounding rate to be zero, of course, and all our efforts and education should go toward achiev- ing that goal. But let's realize there is no wounding rate that anti- hunters will find acceptable. They'll still oppose hunting no matter how low the wounding .rate. "This s~udy reinforced that the number of deer lost to bow-hunting is not biologically sig-nificant. The loss rates are extremely low, and they show archers are working hard to get those numbers as low as possiblef Metro Bowhunters Resource Base P.O. Box 2'7391, Minneapolis, MN 55427-0391 Cooperaters Capable Partners, Inc. Minnesota Bowhunters, Inc. Minnesota Deer Hunters Association Minnesota State Archery Association Minnesota Bowhunters Chapter of Safari Club International Development and Implementation of a Metro Bowhunter Resource Base 1995-96 Progress Report Michelle L. Stradtmann and Jay B. McAninch A technical report from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Farmland Wildlife Populations & Research Group, RR 1, Box 181, Madella, MN 56062-9744, (507) 642-8478 Programs designed to control deer populations have been implemented in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area frCMA) of Minnesota for over 15 years. These programs have included controlled firearms and archery hunts as well as various types of sharpshooting and live-trap and kill efforts. Most programs are implemented to reduce populations or to maintain populations at desired densities. Metro Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB) was developed so qualified hunters could be more efficiently matched with hunting opportunities in the TCMA. More importantly, members wanted to demonstrate through these hunting experiences that archery hunting is a cost-effective, efficient, and safe tool to manage deer populations. Finally, members hoped to create a self-sustaining program than could be initiated in urban areas throughout North America. This report is split into three sections. The first presents the development of MBRB as an organization and current information on the makeup of MBRB members. The second and third sections of this report evaluate two of three archery hunts in which MBRB members participated; Hennepin Parks and Mendora Heights bowhunts. The third archery hunt, Lebanon Hills Regional Park hunt, was evaluated in a separate report. Developtnent Metro Bowhunters Resource Base is a coalition of the Minnesota Bowhunters, Inc., Minnesota State Archery Association, Minnesota Bowhunters Chapter of Safari Club International, Minnesota Deer Huiaters Association, and Capable Panners all working in conjunction with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, (DNR). The coalition operates with a governing board and executive committee. MBRB met in May 1995 to discuss program development, administration, member requirements and funding. The group agreed that maintaining the database of hunters would require a staff person for at least a few months each year, especially during the first few years of the program.. Funding for the staff person was provided by the Save Our Heritage Committee of the Archery Manufacturers and Merchants Organization, the participating hunting organizations contributed $7600 cover the administrative costs of the program, and the MN-DNR provided overall support as well as hired the biologist. The DNR biologist lead meeting discussions and prepared minutes, helped design the MBRB application and solicited data from prospective archers, developed and maintained the hunter database, developed promotional materials, monitored and evaluated hunts and produced an annual report. MBRB meetings were conducted biweekly through the summer of 1995. Early discussions focused on requirements for membership, application design and fees. An application was prepared by the wildlife biologist and approved by MBRB board members. MBRB was promoted through coalition member organizations, through local archery shops and newspaper articles. Interested hunters obtained applications through one of the coalition member organizations, through local archery shops, or by sending a self-addressed stamped envelope to a post office box acquired for MBRB. Members were required to pass a National Bowhunter Education Foundation Bowhunter Education course, complete the MBRB application, sign an ethics pledge (Appendix 1), and pay a $5.00 fee. Applicants were also provided with a list of potential hunting restrictions and were required to check those which they would be willing to accommodate. These included conditions such as passing a shooting test, hunting for antlefiess deer only, using tree stands, or hunting during restricted hours and days. In addition, applicants were asked questions about how long they've been bowhunting, how many deer they have killed while bowhunting, and the type of bow used. The biologist collected appiications, and developed and maintained the member database. Each .applicant was sent a postcard notifying them if their membership was complete or which requirements still needed to be met. All application fees were delivered to the MBRB Treasurer. Next, the MBRB Board focused discussions on a hunting opportunity submitted by Dakota County at Lebanon Hills Regional Park. The MBRB board signed a Memorandum of Agreement in September 1995 which provided a list of responsibilities for MBRB members and Dakota County staff. The MBRB board agreed to insure participants had completed bowhunter education, to provide shooting tests, and to discuss of MBRB rules and hunter ethics during the hunter orientation. During the hunt, MBRB members were responsible for checking hunters in and out of the park, collecting data on hunters and deer, and preparing a final report on the hunt. Dakota County staff agreed to conduct a hunter orientation, notify adjacent landowners and park users' of the hunt, and provide security during the hunt. While the Lebanon Hills Regional Park hunt was being planned, MBRB received information on hunting opportunities in Mendota Heights and Hennepin Parks. These hunts are described later in this report. From May to December 1995, MBRB board members met 9 times. From June 1995 to March 1995, the wildlife biologist spent an estimated 75 hours in meetings and preparing meeting minutes, 225 hours preparing materials and promoting MBRB, 300 hours maintaining the member database, and 225 hours evaluating hunts and preparing reports. In addition, many volunteer hours were spent organizing and implementing the Mendora Heights hunt, and at the registration station during the Lebanon Hills Regional Park hunt. From June 1995 to March 1996 an estimated $12,750 were. spent in wages and $1050 in travel expenses for the wildlife biologist, $750 in printing, copying and postage, and $800 for supplies and computing. Member makeup As of March 1996, 410 members were in the MBRB database. Members ranged in age from 13 to 69 years, and 97% of the members were male. Members had been bowhunting an average of 13 years (range=140), and had killed an average of 4 deer over the last five years. Ninety-one percent of the members used compound bows, 4 % used recurve bows, 1% used longbows, and 5 % used crossbows. Fifty-eight percent of members applying before 21 September 1995 (the last day when lists were due for 1995 hunts), participated in MBRB hunting opportunities during the 1995 archery season. Members were willing to accommodate many of the restrictions listed on the application (Table 1)o Future needs and recommendations In 1996, more effort will be neec~ed to promote MBRB and recruit members. MBRB can be promoted through sportman's and hunting shows held throughout the spring and summer, through posters and brochures placed at local archery shops, and through local newspapers and hunting magazines and newsletters. We recommend the MBRB board consider adoption of the following timetable for 1996-97; April-June 1996 1. Prepare and distribute promotional materials 2. Promote MBRB by attending summer events geared towards hunting 3. Send information and updated applications to current members for membership renewal July-August 1996 1. Update hunter database 2. Assist governing agencies in developing hunts September-December 1996 1. Supply lists of hunters to governing agencies 2. Help implement hunts 1. Evaluate hunts 2. Prepare annual report January-March 1997 Table 1. Percent of members of Metro Bowhumers Resource Base (N=410) willing to accommodate hunting restrictions. Hunt Restriction Shooting proficiency test Assist at check stations Kill antleriess deer only Kill an antlefiess deer before a buck Use temporary tree stands only Use non-screw in tree steps only' Must purchase additional permits Can't keep deer killed outside regular archery season Donate a deer at no cost Donate a deer with an additional cost of < $20 Hunt weekdays only Hunt weekends only Hunt mornings only Hunt evenings only Percent of members willing to accommodate restriction 99.5 89.5 92.3 99.0 96.3 91.5 95.6 81.2 98.3 64.1 90.2 96.8 94.1 95.6 HENNEPIN PARKS BOWHUNTING Study Area Three parks, under the jurisdiction of the Hennepin County Parks Department, (Hennepin Parks) were open to bowhunting. Eagle Lake Regional Park is a 218 acre park located in Plymouth, just west of Minneapoli.s. Noerenberg Memorial Garden is a 74 acre park located 10 miles west of Minneapolis in Orono. Lake Minnetonka Regional Park is an 274 acre park located 15' miles west of Minneapolis in Minnetrista. Seventy acres (32%) of Eagle Lake Regional Park, 45 acres (61%) of Noerenberg Memorial Garden and 70 acres (26%) of Lake Minnetonka Regional Park were open for hunting in 1995. Background Hennepin Parks are not open for hunting except for management purposes. The Hennepin Parks Wildlife Manager (Parks Manager) responsible for wildlife management for the entire county parks system presents the yeaifs management plan to the Hennepin Parks Board of Commissioners for approval, usually in March. Periodically, hunting becomes a part of that plan. Hunting occurred in 1992 and 1993 at Eagle l.ake Regional Park and Lake Minnetonka Regional Park. These hunts were advertised and promoted through the Minnesota State Archery Association, Minnesota Deer Hunters Association and Minnesota Bowhunters, Inc., but not through the DNR hunting regulations. Hunters expressing interest in these hunts were selected by Io~tery. No hunting had previously occurred at Noerenberg Memorial Garden. In Eagle Lake Regional Park and Lake Minnetonka Regional Park, hunting was suspended in 1994 because the Parks Manager determined the number of deer within these parks was at desired densities. Bowhunting was allowed in Minnetrista without special permit within the boundaries of Plymouth and Orono by permission from Hennepin Parks and with city bowhunting permits granted to individual hunters. In 1995, the Parks Manager determined that the number of deer in each of the three parks was above desired densities. As recommended by the DNR Urban Wildlife Manager, the Parks Manager requested a list of hunters from MBRB rather than going through the entire state lottery process. METHODS In 1995, the Minnesota archery deer season ran from 16 September through 31 December. All of the above parks were located within permit area 337. In this permit area hunters were allowed to tag up to five deer (one deer of either sex and up to 4 additional antlerless deer) using a bow. Hunters were allowed to use their regular archery license ($24.00) and/or one archery deer management permit (antlerless only, $12.00) and/or an intensive harvest permit (antlerless only, $12.00 each). Pre-hun6 rules and regulations In August 1995, the Parks Manager asked MBRB for a list of hunters to bowhunt in the three parks. The MBRB database of hunters was queried for hunters who had completed a National Bowhunter Education Foundation bowhunter education class and who were willing to hunt in the western metropolitan area. A list of 131 hunters meeting these criteria was sent to the Parks Manager. On 1 September 1995, the Parks Manager mailed a letter explaining these hunting opportunities to 70 hunters from the list provided by MBRB who lived close to the parks. Thirty-five hunters responded and 32 attended an orientation on. 12 September 1995. Hunters were assessed a $5.00 administrative fee at the orientation. Hunters were also required to purchase an archery deer management permit or intensive harvest permit to allow the taking of antlerless deer. Hunting was from 19 September-3 October 1995 and again from 6-16 November 1995. Each hunter was selected for 1 of the 3 parks and for a total hunt of 2 weeks. The goals were to remove 15 deer from Eagle Lake Regional Park, 6 from Noerenberg Memorial Garden, and 10 from Lake Minnetonka Regional Park. Hunters were expected to hunt a minimum of 4 days per week, and work cooperatively with other hunters, including sharing stands. Portable stands were required to be between 5' and 16' off the ground. Hunter Survey In February 1996, a survey was sent to hunters who participated in these hunts. The survey packet included a two-page survey with brief instructions and a return, postage-paid envelope. Surveys received by March 5 were analyzed using SAS software. Unless otherwise indicated, questions with no response were excluded from the analysis. RESULTS General Information Ninety-one percent (N=29) of the hunters returned their surveys before 5 March 1996. Respondents indicated the orientation was good at providing information about hunt rules and regulations. Eighty-six percent of the respondents indicated the quality of the hunt was good to excellent. Eagle Lake Regional Park Over the course of the 26-day season, four hunters killed four deer which was 11 deer short of the goal. Information obtained from our survey indicated that respondents hunted an average of 9 days (range = 6-16 days) or only 35 % of the days, open for hunting. Fifty-seven percent of the respondents indicated the number of hunters they encountered in the field was just right. An equal number of respondents (21%) said there were too many or too few hunters present. Half of the respondents indicated the number of deer they saw was just right. The other half of respondents said there were too few deer. Fifty-seven percent of the respondents indicated the hunt was as good or better than expected while 36% said it was'less than expected and 7% said they had no expectations. Regardless of how respondents felt about the number of hunters and deer or the quality of their hunt, all said they would participate again if the hunt was conducted in the same manner in 1996. Noerenberg Memorial Garden Over the 26 days of hunting, 2 hunters killed 3 deer which was 3 deer short of the goal. Information from surveys showed that respondents hunted an average of 4 days each (range = 2-6 days) or only 15 % of the hunting days available. Two (50%) respondents indicated there were too many hunters and 2 (50%) indicated the number of hunters present was just right. Four of the respondents (80%) said they saw too few deer. Three respondents (60%) indicated the hunt was less than expected. One respondent (20%) said the hunt was as expected and one respondent (20%) had no expectations. Three respondents (60%) said they would participate again in 1996 if the hunt was conducted in the same manner. The other two respondents (40%) said they would only participate in 1996 if hunting began earlier in the season. Lake Minnetonka Regional Park Only one hunter killed a deer during the 26 days of hunting (17% 'of the desired take). Respondents hunted an average of 10 days each (range -- 2-18 days), or just under 40% of the hunting days available. Sixty percent (N=6) of our respondents indicated the number of hunters they saw was just right. An equal number of respondents (20%) said there were too many or too few hunters. An equal number of respondents (50%) indicated the number of deer was just right or that there were too few. An equal number of respondents (50%) indicated the hunt was as good or better than expected and less than expected. Regardless of how respondents felt about the number of hunters and deer or the quality of their hunt, 90% said they would participate again if the hunt was conducted in the same manner in 1996. SUMMARY While deer harvest goals were not reached in any of the 3 parks, the Parks Manager indicated satisfaction with the hunters provided by MBRB. The Parks Manager liked the process of obtaining hunters, although he hoped it could be done earlier in the year to allow more time to contact and prepare hunters. With a year of experience by MBRB Board members and participants, we believe this request can be met. Most hunters were satisfied with the orientation in providing them with the information needed to hunt in the parks. Hunters also seemed to be happy with the opportunities these hunts provided, although most did not kill deer. Most hunters only hunted a small portion of days available to them (.x =7 days or 27% of days available). In the future, some efforts need to be directed toward getting hunters to commit more time to hunts. Otherwise, we recommend hunting, if authorized for 1996, be conducted in a similar manner. MENDOTA HEIGHTS BOWHUNTING Study Area This hum took place on 87 acres of private land within the city limits of Mendota Heights located just south of St. Paul, Minnesota. The land is owned by nine residents who requested the city implement some method for deer control. Background The.city of Mendota Heights participated in the Minnesota River Valley Deer Management Task Force (DMTF) which began in 1989 (McAninch and Parker 1991). The DMTF was composed of representatives from the DNR, 2 counties and 4 cities as well as from pro-hunting, anti-hunting and conservation groups. The DMTF met for a period of more than one year and came up with recommendations for deer management in the area, including Mendota Heights.. The DMTF recommended a controlled timarms hunt and sharpshooting in Fort Snelling State Park and the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, portions of which are located within the city limits of Mendota Heights. These programs were conducted from 1991 to 1994. In late 1994, staff from Mendom Heights continued to receive complaints from residents regarding deer. The city sent a petition to a group of landowners who wanted action suggesting they agree to open their land for deer control measures. The residents agreed to the DNR recommendation that bowhunters be used to take deer. The City Council passed a resolution in early 1995, and a DNR special permit was granted for the purposes of removing 10 deer using bowhunters. During March 1995, the hunt was conducted and 9 deer were removed. While MBRB had not officially formed at the time, the bowhunters conducted themselves in a fashion similar to the concepts of MBRB. METHODS Staff from the city of Mendota Heights requested a special hunt be scheduled in fall 1995 to coincide with a portion of the state's archery season. Hunters were allowed to hunt from 1/2 hour before sunrise to 10:00am and from 2:00pm until 1/2 hour after sunset, from 1 November through 31 December 1995. The MBRB database of hunters was. queried for hunters who met criteria established by MBRB Board members. These included having at least $ years of bowhunting experience, having killed at least 5 deer with a bow in the last 5 years and having not yet hunted in other 1995 MBRB hunt opportunities. A total of 52 hunters from MBRB were sent a letter regarding the Mendora Heights hunt along with the hunt rules and regulations. Thirteen hunters who had already passed a shooting test, responded with interest in participating and an orientation was held 30 October 1995. Two hunting groups were established. Each group consisted of a hunt coordinator and 4 hunters with 3 alternates available to hunt for either group.' Hunting was only allowed from tree stands and a minimum of two hunters were required to be in the field at any one time. Hunters were required to transport any deer killed to a designated site for field dressing. Activity logs were maintained by each hunter, and weekly reports were 'submitted by hunt coordinators to the Mendota Heights Police Department. Hunter survey A survey was sent to hunters who participated in the Mendora Heights hunt. The survey packet included a one-page survey with brief instructions, and a postage-paid, return envelope. Surveys received by 5 March 1996 were analyzed using SAS software. Unless otherwise indicated, questions with no response were excluded from analysis. RESULTS 1995 Hunt Participants hunted a total of 383 hours (104 hunter-days) and an average of 34 hours each (range = 19-123). A total of 7 deer were killed, of which 3 were antlerless. In addition, one deer was hit and not recovered. However, this deer was hit low, hunters did not f'md a blood trail despite the arrow being recovered with evidence of hair and fat. Hunters reported seeing the same deer at least 2 times during the season and it showed no evidence of permanent disability injury. While in the field, hunters saw 120 deer (primarily bucks), and indicated passing shots at 18 deer. Hunters indicated they passed up shots because they didn't want to use their archery license for a small (body size or antler size) buck or had already used their regular archery license and, therefore, could not kill a buck. Hunter survey Seventy-seven (N = 10) percent of Mendora Heights hunters returned surveys before 5 March 1996. Respondents indicated the orientation was good at providing information on hunt rules and regulations. Respondents indicated they hunted an average of 8 days (range = 0-27 days) and only 30% of the respondents indicated they killed a deer. Factors that respondents said most limited their success included too much hunting pressure in a small area (N =5 or 50%), bad weather conditions (N = 1) and the choice of bow used (N = 1). In addition, one alternate hunter suggested their success was limited by the amount of time able to hunt (N = 1). Respondents also commented that hunting pressure pushed the deer out of the area by the end of the first week, more deer could have been taken if there were more permits for antlered deer, and hunters should not be allowed to smoke while on their stands. In addition, one respondent suggested alternates not be used in such a small hunt as they are often invited on short notice and cannot adequately scout the area. Instead, this individual suggested participating hunters should be required to hunt a minimum amount of time. LITERATURE CITED McAninch, J.B and J.M Parker. 1991. Urban Deer Management Programs: A Facilitated Approach. Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. and Natur. Resour. Conf. 56:428436. Stradtmann, M.L. and LB. MeAninch. 1996. Lebanon Hills Regional Park 1995 Bowhunt - Final Report and Recommendations. Pages XX-XX in B. Joselyn, ed. Summaries of Wildlife Research Project Findings Unpub. Rep., Minn. Dept. Nat. Resour. St Paul. APPENDIX A. Metro Bowhunters Resource Base Application and Bowhunters's Ethics Pledge Metro Bowhunters Resource Base P.O. Box 27391, Minneapolis, MN 55427-0391 APPLICATION PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Last name First name MI Address Daytime phone:( City and State ) Evening phone: ( ) zip My Bowhunter Education ID number is: 1. Under which of the following conditions, if required by a city, county, or landowner, would you be willing to hunt? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY If necessary, I would be'willing to participate in hunts: that required me to pass a shooting proficiency test that required me to assist at check stations at least one day of the hunt that were restricted to antlerless deer only that required killing one antlerless deer before being able to take a buck that required hunting from temporary tree stands only that required the use of non screw-in tree steps __'that required party hunting to maximize harvest that required the purchase of additional permits that were outside the regular season where I could not keep the meat, hide or antlers. where I would donate a deer (or part of a deer) to charity at no cost to me where I would donate a deer (or part of a deer) to charity at a cost to me of $20 or less where biologists would obtain samples/data from any deer I kill in the Central Twin Cities Metro (see enclosed map) in the Northwest Twin Cities Metro in the Northeast Twin Cities Metro in the Southwest Twin Cities Metro in the Southeast Twin Cities Metro in Metro areas outside the Twin Cities that were restricted to weekdays only that were restricted to weekends only that restricted hunting to mornings only that restricted hunting to evenings only 2. Complete the following: * Date of birth / / Sex * I have been bowhunting yrs. * I have killed bucks does bowhunting in the past five years. M F fawns while 3. List any city/urban county hunts or special hunts in which you have participated. What type of bow do you use? Compound bow Recurve bow Longbow Crossbow 5. List any.limitations that may prevent you from hunting or moving deer (undressed) without assistance (This will not cause you to be excluded from participa6ing). List all hunting clubs/organizations to which you belong° 'Please check to see that yodr application can be read easily. Send this completed application, signed ethics pledge and $5.00 to Metro Bowhunters Resource Base, P.O. Box 27391, Minneapolis, MN 55427-0391. Metro Bowhunters Resource Base P.O. Box 27391, Minneapolis, MN 55427-0391 BOWHUNTER'S ETHICS PLEDGE I, the undersigned, do hereby pledge and promise that I will: - abide by.and obey all state game and trespass laws as well as any additional rules and restrictions placed on any special management hunt participate in. - cooperate with everyone involved with the hunt and act in accordance with the spirit of the hunt's rules and regulations. - act in a safe, ethical and conscientious manner in all my activities related to the hunt. - respect .the property rights of those who own the land I hunt on as well as those who own adjacent lands. I understand the right to participate in this' special management program is a privilege, not a right. I understand that my failure to live up to the responsibilities of this pledge will be grounds ~or my removal from the Metro Bowhunters Resource Base. Signed Date Print Name Address City State Zip RELEASE AGREEMENT By my signature, I hereby release the Metro Bowhunters Resource Base and other sponsoring agencies or organizations from all liability for any injury or claim I may have out of my participation in any special hunts, and related activities taking place during the designated time frame. I certify I have the ability and desire to join in these activities at my own risk and decision. Signed Date March 1996 Lebanon Hills Regional Park 1995 Bowhunt Final Report and Recommendations IV!iche!le L. Stradtmann and Jay B. McAninch Minnesota Department of IVatural Resources A technical report from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Farmland Wildlife Populations & Research Group, RR 1, Box 181, Madelia, MN 56062-9744, (507) 642-8478 INTRODUCTION This report presents data collected during the 1995 Lebanon Hills Regional Park (LHRP) bowhunt in Dakota County and from a survey sent to hunters in February, 1996o The report was completed as part of a grant from the Save Our Heritage Committee of the Archery Manufacturers Organization to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to evaluate bowhunting in urban areas. Primary objectives for the first'year of this hunt were to successfully implement hunt procedures, acclimate hunters, maintain safety, and develop ideas for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of future hunts. Results of the 1995 hunt and the hunter'survey as well as our recommendations for the 1996 hunt will be covered in this report. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the staff of Dakota County Office of Planning and Parks Department, especially Johnnie Forrest, Doug Gross and members of the Park Patrol for their attention to detail and assistance in implementing the daily activities of the hunt° We also thank Jon Parker, Kelly Kelly, Wendy Krueger and Robert Barta of the DNR for their help in preparing this report and editorial comments. Metro Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB) board members, including Mark Graham (Safari Club International), Rod Guthier (Capable Partners), Norma Martin (Minnesota Deer Hunters Association), Dan Williams (Minnesota State Archery Association) and Jon Witt (Minnesota Bowhunters, Inc.) also assisted in designing the hunt and provided editorial comments on this report. Finally, we thank the many volunteers who helped at the registration station: Dan Williams, Jennifer Nelson, Sean Hill, Ron Cormier, Mark Hatten, Don Johaneson, Dick Williams, Woody Bren, Lee Waltman, Deryk Funkhouser, Richard Da~ue, John Hanks, John Miho, Calvin Thielbar, Paul Lee, John Weber, Steve Stocker, Ed Kulhanek, Jerry Rauchwarter, 'Don Frogner, Mike Heinisch, Keith Jacobsen, Pat Henderson, Darren Locknet and Steve Russell. LHRP is a 2,000 acre park located in the cities of Eagan and Apple Valley, Minnesota immediately south of Minneapolis. The 1990 census showed human populations in Eagan and Apple Valley to be 47,409 and 34,598 respectively. The park is surrounded by densely populated residential areas, the Minnesota Zoo and the Valleywood Golf Course. DEFINITIONS Ta9ging a deer - Hunters may either tag a deer they killed or using party hunting regulations, can tag a deer killed by another hunter. Eligible Hunter o Any hunter who met all hunt requirements and attended the orientation° Assigned Hunter - An eligible hunter who was signed up to hunt on a particular day. Alternate - An eligible hunter who took the place of an assigned hunter who was absent. Hunter-day - One hunter hunting on a particular day, regardless of the actual hours hunted. Total hunter-days for one day of hunting is equal to the number of hunters hunting on that day. BACKGROUND Deer populations in LHRP in January, 1994 reached an estimated 59 deer per square mile based on helicopter surveys. The DNR has recommended that deer densities of 15-25 deer per square mile in metropolitan areas are compatible with urban living. Along with high deer' densities, Dakota County Parks Department personnel noticed increasing damage to park vegetation, especially to oaks (Ouercus spp.) along field edges. Staff also noticed an increasing trend in the number of deer- vehicle collisions on roads near the park. In October 1994, the Dakota County Board of Commissioners adopted a ~esolution directing the formation of a Deer Management Evaluation Team. The team consisted of citizens from the Dakota County Park and Recreation Committee and representatives from local communities and townships. Meetings were held in early 1995. In March 1995, the Dakota County Board adopted a resolution that a controlled bowhunt be conducted in the park. Staff .from the Dakota County Office of Planning met with the DNR Urban Wildlife Manager and MBRB representatives during the summer to work out the details of the hunt. Dakota County and MBRB signed a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the operation of the hunt in August 1995. METHODS Pre ~hun t Hunters were notified of the hunt through local newspaper .advertisements and through the MBRB. Hunters expressing interest in the hunt were sent Dakota County and MBRB applications in late July to be returned by 1 September. All hunters were required to complete the National Bowhunter Education Foundation Bowhunter Education Course~ Hunters were required to pass a shooting proficiency test which consisted of shooting at least 5 of 7 arrows in a 9" pie plate at 15 yards° Hunters were required to attend an evening orientation session where hunt objectives and special hunt rules and regulations were discussed° Park staff also described the park habitats and layout and provided maps to hunters. At the end of the orientation, all hunters meeting the hunt requirements were called in random order and allowed to select up to 3 of the 9 weeks of hunting time available° Season framework In Minnesota, the archery deer season ran from 16 September through 31 December, 1995. LHRP was located within permit area 337. In this permit area hunters were allowed to tag up to five deer (one deer of either. sex and up to 4 additional'antlerless deer)° The cost of an archery license for a resident was $23.00 with each.additional permit costing $12.00. Hunt rules and regulations The park was open for hunting Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays during the months of October and November (25% of the regular archery season). Hunting was from portable tree stands only which could be put up on Monday morning and were not required to be removed until 10:00am Wednesday of the same week. No motorized vehicles and no screw-in or spike tree steps were allowed. Hunters were required to tag at least one antlerless deer before they could tag an antlered deer. All deer killed were to be transported under cover (either in a vehicle or under a tarp). Hunters were instructed to say nothing and take no action if confronted by protestors, except to notify Park Patrol staff. Handicapped hunters were provided a designated hunt area that was accessible and where tree stands were not required. However, those hunters were required to hunt with a partner. 3 Daily hunt procedures Volunteers were present at the registration station at Shultz Lake from approximately 5:00-11:00am to check hunters in and out, collect data, register deer and, if needed, help hunters recover deer. A list'of hunters who had signed'up to hunt each week was provided (assigned hunters). Eligible hunters who were not assigned to the week in question were allowed to hunt as alternates beginning at 6:00am to replace assigned hunters who were absent. A maximum of 68 hunters could check-in at the registration station each day. An additional 6 pairs of handicapped hunters and their partners (12 hunters total) could check-in at their designated hunting area° -Hunters-were required to check-in each day of the hunt and could do so as early as 5:00am. At check-in, hunters were provided with the required back and parking tags and were asked to select 1 of 9 parking lots. Shooting hours were from 1/2-hour before sunrise to 9:00am. Hunters were required to check out at the'.registration station before 10:00am and return their tags. At check out hunters were asked about the number of deer they saw, the number and fate of shots taken and any problems or concerns. Deer were tagged, registered and sex, age and other biological data were collected. If a hunter was not able to recover a wounded deer by 10:00am, they were required to report to the registration station and Park Patrol was called to assist in a search. Handicapped hunters generally followed the same' procedures at their designated parking lot, except any deer killed had to be registered at the registration station. Hunter survey The survey was mailed to 145 MBRB members who participated in the LHRP bowhunt on 12 February 1996. The survey packet included a three page survey with brief instructions and a return, postage-paid envelope~ Surveys received by March 5 were analyzed using SAS software. Unless otherwise indicated, surveys with no response to individual questions were excluded from analysis. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 1995 Hunt One hundred sixty-seven hunters hunted a total of 1214 hunter-days (Table 1). However, the average length of hunting time each day was only 2.2 hours° Of the hunter-days, 55% of the effort was expended by assigned hunters, 26% by alternates and 19% by handicapped hunters and their partners. The lowest number of hunters to check in on a single day was 24, while the highest was 66. No eligible hunter who wanted to check in as an 4 alternate was ever turned away. During the month of November, at least 30% of effort each day was provided by alternates. Hunters hunted.an average of 7 days (range=l-26 days). Twenty-five percent of hunters hunted 3 or fewer days. However, there were 4 hunters who hunted more than 20 of the 27 days open for hunting. Alternates clearly played a vital role in providing effort during the hunt. As the weeks progressed, alternates increasingly provided a significant portion of the hunting effort. Therefore, the use of alternates to fill the available hunting opportunities should be continued. Maintaining adequate numbers of hunters afield each day will maximize the take and increase overall efficiency° Hunters could select up to 9 days of hunting. The fact that 25% of them hunted less than 3 days suggests that the hunt rules or the nature of the park made hunting more difficult or less acceptable than anticipated. The hunter survey analysis will provide more insight into this dilemma. A total of 44 deer were killed during the 27 hunting days (Table 2). Of these, 45% were fawn females, 5% were fawn males, 43% were adult (including yearlings) females and 7% were adult males (Table 2). Nearly 50% of the adult females killed were 4.5 years old or older. The first adult male was killed 15 November. Prior to that, 31 antlerless deer had been killed, 42% of which were adult female and 58% were fawns. Given the emphasis placed on the harvest of adult females, hunters clearly accomplished this goal. At least 9 of every 10 deer taken were antlerless and nearly half of those were adult females. Therefore, we believe the provision to tag an antlerless deer before tagging a buck was well understood by hunters and a successful reduction tactic. We recommend the rule be continued during future hunts as long as the primary goal is to reduce the population. To calculate the population impact of the deer taken in the 1995 hunt, we used deer productivity data to estimate the total deer removed. For the metro area in Spring 1995, examinations of female car-killed deer by DNR staff and volunteers found that 33% of fawns were pregnant with an average of 1 fetus each and 85% of adults were pregnant with an average of 2 fetuses each. Extrapolating from these data, we projected that hunters effectively removed an additional 39 deer that would have been added to the deer population this spring. Therefore, the total impact of the hunt was actually a removal of 83 deer and a reduction in reproductive potential for several years. Hunter efficiency varied widely during the 9 weeks of the hunting season. On average, hunters hunted 28 hunter-days to kill each deer and hunted 64 hunter-days to kill each adult 5 female deer° Hunters required the fewest hunter-days per deer killed during weeks 7 and 8 and the most during weeks 5 and 9 (Table 1)~ Thus, the selection of hunting time during the season did not seem to effect efficiency. Hunters who killed deer (N=33) saw an average of 10 more deer and hunted an average of 7 more days than hunters who did not kill deer (N=137). An average of 15 deer were seen and 13 days of effort were expended per hunter who killed a deer versus 5 deer seen and 6 days hunted pe~ hunter who did not kill a deer. One hunter killed 4 deer (all antlerless), 8 hunters killed 2 deer each, 24 hunters killed 1 deer each and 134 hunters did not kill deer. One of the hunters who killed an adult male had not killed an antlerless deer himself but had registered an antlerless deer killed by another hunter. This hunt demonstrated that a hunter who expends more effort will see more deer, have more opportunities for shots and, ultimately, kill more deer° Hunters who killed deer spent, on average, twice as many days hunting and saw 3 times as many deer as those who did not kill a deer. Clearly, future hunts should capitalize on those hunters who are willing to spend more time afield. Beginning in 1996, we recommend hunters be required to hunt a minimum of 9 days, if all other rules remain the same° However, if the number of daily hunting hours is increased then the minimum number of hunting days could be modified accordingly. In addition, party hunting should continue to be encouraged so that successful hunters can continue to hunt without being discouraged by the cost oE additional antlerless permits. The 9 parking lots were well distributed throughout the park and were used to distribute hunting pressure in the park. We analyzed data by parking lot to 'determine how hunting effort and success was distributed. Handicapped hunters and their partners were required to hunt near lot 6 and as expected, more days of effort were expended there than near other lots (Table 3). In addition, hunters hunted more hunter-days per deer seen at lot 6 than at any other lot. Hunters killed the fewest deer at lot 8; however, hunters there did not see fewer deer than at other sites° Lots 5 and 9 required the fewest hunter-days per deer killed. Lot 9 was located on the western edge of the park just north of the Minnesota Zoo while lot 5 was located in the center of the park north of Jensen Lake and the Valleywood Golf Course. These two locations may be areas where deer move more freely into the park. Hunters hit but could not recover 10 deer (Table 1) and in each case the hunters observed evidence of hitting the deer (saw arrow in deer or found a blood trail). Four deer were lost during the first week, 6 were lost during the next 4 weeks, while none were lost during the last 4 weeks. Two hunters who hit but did not recover deer ultimately killed 6 additional deer. 6 While the fate of the wounded deer remains unknown, no park users or local residents reported finding dead deer. Given the nature of human activity in and around the park, if deer died in the area we expect someone would have reported the carcasses. Therefore, we assume these deer survived. Two hunters indicated that they probably could have recovered the deer they hit if they could have waited at least 30 minutes before trailing the deer. If unrecovered deer were reported lost after week 6, hunters bould arrange to meet Park Patrol to track the deer later in the day. This delayed tracking provision proved to be beneficial in recovering deer, and should be continued in upcoming hunts. Two hunters also indicated that it would have been easier to recover their wounded deer had they been allowed to carry. their bow while tracking. We recommend that this provision be implemented in future hunts since Park Patrol staff are already present and could insure public safety. Two hunters were prohibited from hunting after hunt staff discovered they did not attend the orientation session. Instead, they sent representatives to the orientation who posed as the absent hunters. Unfortunately, these 2 hunters were allowed to hunt on a few occasions which suggests that some hunters knew of the deception and chose not to report the violations. Hopefully the 1996 hunters will be.more vigilant in protecting the integrity of the rules. Finally, 2 hunters were suspended from hunting for 3 weeks for transporting a deer through residential property without permission from the landowner. No hunters were cited for violating state hunting regulations, while at least 2 parking violations were issued. Although we hoped there would be no hunt violations, those committed can be considered relatively minor. Hunter survey: orientation quality Eighty-one percent of hunters (N=118) returned their surveys before March 5. In general, respondents were happy with the orientation. At least 90% of respondents said the day, time, location, room size, seating and presenters were good to excellent. Nearly 70% of respondents felt registering for hunt days was good to excellent and 30% felt it was fair to poor. With regard to the topics covered during the orientation, more than 80% of respondents felt hunt objectives, park description, rules and daily hunt procedures were worthwhile. Respondents felt coverage of state regulations was not worthwhile. However, over 90% of hunters felt the orientation, overall, was worthwhile. 7 While the orientation went well, we do recommend some improvements be made. Seating arrangements should be improved to accommodate handicapped hunters. Furthermore, since state regulations are available to hunters when they obtain their hunting license, we recommend discussion of these regulations be reduced or eliminated. However, we do recommend a conservation officer be available for questions during the orientation. In addition, the list of hunters in random order could be posted for hunters to view, if they wish. Finally, we recommend hunters be allowed to apply and re~ister for hunt days as parties° We continue to recommend the use of a single orientation as long as available meeting rooms can support the number of hunters expected° In addition, we recommend presenters continue to stress hunt objectives and clearly describe special rules, regulations and hunt procedures° Hunter survey: responses regarding hunt rules and procedures Respondents clearly noted shooting hours and days as the most restrictive rules. Shooting hours were considered unacceptable by 41% of respondents and fair to poor by an additional 51% of respondents. Respondents indicated that rules regarding shooting hours and days were the biggest factors in limiting their hunting success (66% of respondents) and that the hunt would be more successful if rules regarding shooting hours and days of week were changed (71% of respondents). Many respondents suggested the use of evening hunts, all day hunts and/or weekend hunts. This information clearly supports the need for consideration of changes in the number of daily shooting hours available. Even doubling current shooting hours by extendin~ hours to noon would result in twice the effort expended and likely increase the harvest. Similarly, 3-4 all day hunts would equal weeks of effort under current conditions yet require less staff time. Furthermore, hunters would be more likely to commit to hunting fewer but longer days. Alternatively, as the number of hunting days decrease, the effects of weather on effort and harvest may become more significant. While we make no specific recommendations at this time, we do see the need for change and a considerable amount of discussion on this topic. Other park rules and hunting procedures were more acceptable to hunters. More than 90% of respondents said that check in, check out and parking during the hunt were good to excellent. Only 11% of respondents said the hunt would be more successful if the antlerless before buck rule was changed. Other rules mentioned by less than 3% of respondents included; use of stands and non screw-in tree steps, parking, putting up stands earlier and leaving them up, having the hunt later in the season, having 8 fewer hunters and being able to carry a bow to retrieve wounded deer. Other factors mentioned as affecting success by a small number of respondents included the antlerless before buck rule (12%), not seeing enough deer (8%), use of tree stands (4%), disruption by other hunters or too many hunters (5%) and inexperience or lack of preseason scouting (4%). While a majority 6f respondents (73%) thought the number of hunters present during the hunt was just right, they also thought there were too few deer (63%). However, 14% of respondents thought'there were too many hunters and 12% thought there were too few. Only 37% of respondents said the number of deer they saw was just right° Most trees in the park held their foliage well into the month of October which may have affected the number of deer seen by hunters. Some of the agricultural fields near the park were not harvested until late October and may also have held some deer. We recommend hunting at LHRP begin after leaf fall and crop harvest is completed. The provision should increase shooting opportunities and could reduce impacts on other.park users. Sixty-nine percent of respondents said their hunting experience was rarely or never disrupted by other hunters. The remaining 31% of respondents said their hunting experience was disrupted by other hunters occasionally or frequently° Respondents commented that most of the disruption had to do hunters putting up stands too close to one another or with other hunters entering their hunting area too close to start of shooting hours. Extending hunting hours may alleviate some of these problems by allowing hunters more time to move to a new location when necessary. Fifty-seven percent of respondents said that the behavior of hunters did not effect their hunting experience. However, 39% said behavior of other hunters made their experience more enjoyable and 16% said the behavior of other hunters contributed to their success. Only 7% of respondents indicated the behavior of other hunters was disruptive or dangerousD Over 90% of respondents indicated non-hunters rarely or never disrupted their hunting experience° This data indicates that, in general, hunters were satisfied, cooperative and helpful. Furthermore, activities by non-hunters had little negative effect on hunting experiences. Despite the comments of some hunters, we do recommend the number of hunters present each day of the 1996 hunt remain the same as in 1995o Fifty-eight percent of respondents said the overall quality of the hunt was good to excellent while 42% said it was fair to poor~ In addition, 37% said their hunting experience at LHRP was as good or better than expected, while 55% said it was less than expected. Only 8% of respondents said they had no expectations with regard to their hunting experience at LHRPo Regardless of how respondents felt about their hunting experience, hunt procedures or rules and regulations, 81% indicated they would hunt again at LHRP if the hunt was conducted in the same manner next year. Those who indicated they would not participate commented if hunt hours were extended or there were more deer they would reconsider. Others indicated there were just too many restrictions, it was too hard to get off work or LHRP was too far away from home. Two hunters indicated they would only participate.again if the procedures for retrieving wounded deer changed. Hunter survey: responses to days hunted Since we felt there was a relationship between hunting success and effort, we grouped respondents by the number of days hunted to determine differences between the groups. As expected, those who hunted 9 or more days were more positive wi~h regard to hunt quality than those who hunted fewer than 9 days (Table 4). However, the groups.fairly equally disapproved of shooting hours (Table 4). Again, this suggests a need for changes in shooting hours to increase hunter effort which will likely improve hunters feelings about their hunting experience. We also were not surprised to find thab those who hunted 3 or fewer days more frequently indicated they saw fewer deer than those who hunted more days (Table 4). This is another good indication that some minimum requirement of effort be established. Hunter survey: responses related to hunt quality Finally, we grouped respondents by their responses with regard to the quality of the hunt to determine what aspects of the hunt needed improvement. Respondents who felt the quality of the hunt was fair to poor seemed to feel they saw too few deer and did not kill deer (Table 5). In addition, this group of respondents, on average, hunted fewer days (Table 5). This group of respondents also was not as pleased with the number of hunters present. An equal number of respondents in this group felt there were too many and too few hunters (Table 5). We maintain that the number of hunters remain the same during the 1996 hunt and that hunters are likely to feel the quality of the hunt will improve with changes in shooting hours. This change is likely to increase the amount of effort expended and number of deer seen and killed. 10 SUMMARY 1. No accidents occurred and the public safety record was excellent. 2. Many hunter-days were expended with few, relatively minor, violations. 3. Staff developed numerous prospects for improving future hunts. 4. Hunters directly killed 44 deer and effectively removed 83 deer from the spring population. 5. Hunters were cooperative and gengrally respectful of other hunters. 6. Non-hunters did not cause significant problems. 7o While hunters reported wounding deer, no dead deer were ever found. 8. The orientation went well'and hunters considered it worthwhile° 9. Hunting procedures were easily implemented and well accepted by hunters~ 10o Most hunters clearly understood hunt rules, specifically with respect to killing antlerless deer. 11o Shooting hours seemed to have the biggest effect on hunter efficiency and success° 12. Regardless of the restrictions, most hunters said they would participate again. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1996 Orientation 1. Continue the use of a single orientation. 2. Provide special seating for handicapped hunters° 3. Continue to stress hunt goals, rules and procedures during presentations. 4. Have a Conservation Officer present to answer questions instead of giving a presentation° 5. Encourage hunters to be alternates° 11 6. Allow hunters to register for hunt days as parties. Hunting rules and procedures 1. Maintain the same number of hunters as in 1995. 2. Increase shooting hours and/or implement a minimum effort requirement° 3. Consider having the hunt start later in the season, after harvest and leaf fall. 4. Continue the antlerless before buck provision° 5. Allow hun~ers to. wait at least 30 minutes before tracking a wounded deer. 6o Allow hunters to take a.bow when'tracking wounded deer° 7. Continue emphasizing to hunters that those not complying with rules will have their hunting privileges revoked° 8. Maintain security as in 1995. 12 Table'l. Hunter days, deer seen, deer killed, deer wounded, deer seen per hunter day and hunter day per deer killed by week at Lebanon Regional Hills Park bowhunt, October-November, 1995. Deer seen Hunter days Hunter Deer Deer Deer per hunter per deer Week days' seen killed wounded day killed i 196 255 9 4 1.3 21o8 2 159 106 6 I ' 0.7' 26.5 3 155 149 3 2 1.0 51.7 4 147 77 4 2 0.5 36.8 5 149 136 I 1 0.9 149.0 6 94 97 3 0 1.0 31.3 7 113 149 8 0 1.3 14.1 8 118 108 9 0 0.9 13.1 9 102 137 I 0 1.3 102.0 1214 1233 44 10 a Equals the sum of the number of hunters who checked in each day. 13 Table 2. Sex and age of deer killed by week during the Lebanon Regional Hills Park bowhunt, October-November, 1995. Female .Male Week Fawn Yearling Adult Fawn Yearling Adult 1 3 2 2 3 1 4 3 5 1 6 3 7 4 8 3 9 0 Total 20 2 3 i 0 0 0 3 i 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 5 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 15 2 2 14 Table 3o Hunter density, number of deer seen and killed and hunter days per deer killed by parking lot during the Lebanon Hills Regional Park bowhunt, October-November, 1995. Average Hunter .Deer Deer Deer seen Hunter number of days seen killed per days hunters per hunter per day (range) day deer Lot killed 1 6 (0-13) 185 249 4 1.3 46 2 3 (0- 7) 80 77 3 1.0 27 3 5 (3-12) 151. 178 6 1.2 25 4 4 (0- 8) 110 139 3. 1o3 37 5 3 (1- 7) 80 82 7 1.0 11 6' 9 (6-12) 248 141 5 0.6 50 7 5 (0-10) 155 152 6 1o0 26 8 4 (1-10) 118 92 2 0.8 59 9 4 (0- 9) 102 90 8 0.9 13 All handicapped hunters hunted at this lot. 15 Table 4. Hunters feelings about hunt quality, the number of hunters and deer seen, hours, rules, and future participation by days hunted in the Lebanon Hills Regional Park bowhunt, October- November, 1995. Good-Excellent Fair-Poor Hunt quality Number of days hunted 3 days 4k8 days k 9 days 48% 48% 73% 51% 51% 26% Number of Hunters Too many 17% 21% 7% Just right 71% 68% 79% Too few 12% 11% 14% Number of deer seen Just right 12% 48% 14% Too few 88% 53% 59% Shooting hours Good 0% 10% 11% Fair-Poor 61% 44% 52% Unacceptable 39% 46% 37% Rule changes Hours/Day 83% 70% 66% Antlerless 4% 8% 16% Future Yes participation No 72% 73% 94% 28% 27% 6% 16 Table 5. Hunters feelings about the number of hunters and deer seen, hours, rules and future participation by their feelings about hunt quality during the Lebanon Hills Regional Park bowhunt, October-November, 1995. Average number of days hunted (range) Number of hunters Hunt quality Good-Excellent Fair-Poor ~ 9 (1-25) 6 (1-17) Too many 5% 28% Just right 87% 50% Too few 7& 22% Number of deer seen Just right 55% 15% Too few 45% 85% Shooting hours Good 9% 5% Fair-Poor 64% 41% Unacceptable 27% 54% Rule changes Hours/Day 75% 69% Antlerless 15% 8% Kill deer Yes No 34% 11% 65% 89% Future Participation' Yes No 90% 67% 10% 33% 17 APPENDIX I 18 Metro Bowhunters Resource Base P.O. Box 27391, Minneapolis, MN 55427-0381 Cooperators Capable Partners, Inc. Minnesota Bowhunters, Inc. Minnesota Deer Hunters Association Minnesota State Archery Association Minnesota Bowhunters Chapter of Safari Club International Dear hunter: Thank you for your participation in this years Lebanon Hills Regional Park Hunt with Metro Bowhunters Resource Base. We are interested in hearing from you regarding your hunting experiences. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed questionnaire and return it in the postage-paid envelope provided. Your prompt response will eliminate any further contact. Any comments or suggestions for improving the hunt for next year would be appreciated° 1. How would you rate the overall quality of your hunting experience at Lebanon Hills? (PLEASE CIRCLE ONE) Excellent Good Fair Poor Unacceptable 2. In regards to the pre-hunt. orientation, how would you rate each of the following? (PLEASE CIRCLE ONE FOR EACH) The.Date : Excellent Good Fair Poor Time of day: Excellent Good Fair Poor Location : Excellent Good Fair Poor Room size : Excellent Good Fair Poor Seating : Excellent Good Fair Poor Presentor : Excellent Good Fair Poor Registering for hunt. days : Excellent Good Fair Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Poor Unacceptable 3. How many days did you hunt at Lebanon Hills? 4. Which ONE of the hunt rules do you believe, if changed, would make your hunt more successful? PLEASE DESCRIBE. 5. In regards to the topics covered during the pre-hunt orientation, how would you rate the following? ('PLEASE CZRCLE ONE FOR EACH) WORTHWHILE Hunt objectives i 2 Park description 1 2 Special hunt rules 1 2 State regulations 1 2 Parking areas 1 2 Check in/out procedures Overall orientation WASTE OF TIME 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 i 2 3 4 5 i 2 3 4 5 Any additional comments in regard to the orientation: 6. In regard to the actual hunt, how would you rate the following? CIRCLE ONE FOR EACH) Checking in: Parking: Shooting hours: Checking out: Numbers of hunters: Number of deer seen: Excellent Good Fair Poor Excellent Good Fair Poor Excellent Good Fair Poor Excellent Good Fair Poor Too many Just right Too few Too many Just right Too few 7. How often was your hunting experience disrupted by other hunters? (PLEASE CIRCLE ONE) Frequently Occasionally Rarely Not at all (PLEASE Comments: 8. How often was your hunting experience disrupted by non-hunters? (PLEASE CIRCLE ONE) Frequently Occasionally Rarely Not at all Comments: 9. How do you feel about the behavior of other hunters you encountered? (Circle as many answers as are appropriate.) Disruptive to my hunt Contributed to my success Dan9erous Not a factor in my experience Made my hunt more enjoyable Other 10. Did you kill a deer while hunting in Lebanon Hills? (PLEASE CIRCLE ONE) No, I did not kill a deer __Yes, I killed (fill in blanks) bucks does __fawns 11. What single factor do you believe most limited your success? PLEASE DESCRIBE. 12. How do you feel your hunting experience at Lebanon Hills compared to what you expected? (PLEASE CHECK ONE) Better than expected Just as I expected Less than expected I had no expectations 13. If the hunt was conducted in the same manner next year, would you participate? Yes No : If not, please describe. PLEASE USE BACK SIDE OF THIS PAGE FOR ADDITIONAL COI~fENTS Name Address City State Zip C~da,r Rapids Bowhunting Guidelines- All participants must accomplish the following: Must complete or have compk~ed ~he Imemadonal Bow Hunter Education courze (a course can be scheduled). Pas~ the archery proficiency ~est (no warm-up, only 1 quali~ing time per 24 hour period, shoot at a life size 3-D deer target, and $ sho~s each at 10, 15, and 20 y0xds (15 show total - 12 .must be in tire vital area). You will be allowed attempts, Proflci~ncy test may be takrn one month prior to hunting season thru ^ix One Arcl~ery. 3. H~,ve written permission from the landowner, 4. L~censes must be purchased thru proper channels (commission, police dept, etc). 5. All bows must be cased while in transit to and from the stand site. 5. No bow may be. carried or displayed within 600 feet o£ any residence without permission from the landowner. 7. There will be no driving or stalking of dee. n Shoot from a stand (ground or tree) and be at least 25 yards from all designated ~'ails, roads, buddings, etc (or at the landowners pem~ission). 9. Know your effective shooting range and do not shoot beyond thai: range, Recommended shots axe 25 yards or less, 10. Be sur~ to identify your target as an anfigrless deer. 11. Take only high perccdlrag~ $hol~ - avoid wounding deer. 12. Be sure what is dow~ range of your stand and make every e~ort to retrieve arrows. 13. The participant must report co the governing body in charge by phone within 12 hours after a d~r has been harvested. The p~rson should klenti~ him/he. rseLf and provide the following inforotation: property where deer was taken from and location; sex o£ the deer;, and date (see phone numbers below). 14. The participan! must report to the governing body by phone wi~in 12 hours if they are unable to locaie a wounded d~r (see phone numbers below). If you take a deer alld wish to continue hunQng £or anotilCr deer, contact the governing body about ge~ng an additional bonus tag. The number o£ ~ags issued will not exceed the maximum issued by the DNR. 1 & Use proper field dressing techniques. Do not leave entrails in a conspicuous location. 17. P,.espect private properly. 1 $. Remove yourself fl'om any harassmen£ situation and immediately report the incident to ~h¢ governing body and DNR officer (see phone numbers below). R.epor: violators to the DNR conservation officers (see phone numbers below). Nor have any fish or g,xrne violations in ~e pa~t th.,~¢ years according ~o the DNR. Have in your l~e~e~ion a valid Iowa hunting license, habitat ~camp, and proper deer license. Season will run c0n~inuously during tile state archery deer season and alio during the Cue. arms deer season. All parQci- pants ob~rve all state talcs and regulations with exceFdons for this special program within the city Iimi~. ~3, Boundaries are anywhere wir. l~ the Cedar Rapids city limits and only on privat~ property. Phone nualber~: Governing body Parks commission-319-398o~080 DNR officers Eric Slo~rdyk-~ 19-350-2863 Kkby Bragg-319-350-2871 URBAN SUBCOMMITTEE CEDAR RAPIDSILINN COUNTY DEER TASK FORCE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Some parts of the city of Cedar Rapids, Iowa provide abundant food and cover for the deer. Deer productivity is high, proberly averaging about 2 fawns per doe per year. The morality rate is low because hunting is not permitted within the city limits and predators are nonexistent. Under these conditions urban deer herds are known to increase at a rate up to 30% per year, with the population doubling every three years. 2. From a recent helicopter deer survey carried out by the Cedar Rapids Police Department in January of 1995 it appears that the density of the deer in Cedar Rapids is much higher than the 5 to 10 deer per square mile presented to the deer task force by Willy Suchy of the Iowa DNR as the" Cultural Carrying Capacity, "or "Deer Tolerance level". This is the of deer which can be maintained without causing unacceptable damage to crops and or landscaping, or an undue safety hazard due to car/deer collisions the sur~ey shows 1835 deer in Cedar Rapids, distributed by quadrants as follows: NE - 218 ~ - 162 SE- 1320 SW- 156 As of July 1, 1996 there is 57.3 square miles included in the Cedar Rapids city limits (data from the city Planning Commission), ~ving an overall density of 32.3 Deer mr square mile which is three times the maximum .deer tolerance level cited above. We 'recommend that the deer population in Cedar Rapids be reduced to the (~ultural ' Carwing Capacity within the several years and then to b~ maintained. at that level. We recommend that the primary method of population reduction and maintenance be restricted bowhunting carried out during the regular Iowa Archery, hunting season. Archers selected tO participate in this pro,am must have: passed a hunter safety course and be registered bv the state of Iowa. (Blackhawk Coun~ used the international bowhunter education course for this purpose Minnesota cities used the Minnesota bow hunter education course) written permission from the property, owner to hunt on his/her land an appropriate permit issued by the Cedar Rapids Police Department passed a shooting proficiency test purchased the appropriate licensec(s) the following procedures used in the Cedar Falls/Waterloo Special Deer management zone (Blackhawk County, Iowa) The Urban Subcommittee recommends that the Iowa DNR create a special Deer management zone for those private lands falling with/n the city limits of Cedar Rapids and issue 300 special anterless licensees to be used only within this zone. In order to participate the hunter who meets the above criteria above purchase the special licensees from the IDNR for $25 and after filling one tag could fill another until the 300 tags were all filled restricted bow hunting in the city of Cedar Rapids could only be done legally if the city passes a variance to the local missile ordinance that would allow bowhunting in the city limits during the regular archery season. We recommend that the city council pass a missile ordinance exemption patterned after that of Marion, Iowa (See Attached) Rationale: Restricted bowhunting is preferable to ~n hunting in an urban setting because it is quiet, thus not upsetting residents with the sound of gunfire and it is safe. shot are usually taken at 30 yards or less and particularly if taken from an elevated stands, there is almost no possibilit?' of the arrow ricocheting and compromising safety. The Iowa DNR reports of only one accident in the past decade during the general bowhunting season and that was not lethal. Bowhunting restricted as cited above would be likely to take "probtem deer", because landowners who have experienced deer damage would be most likely to permit bowhunting on their land. This might reduce deer damage disproportionate to the numbers of deer taken by the restricted bowhunters. Examples of places where restricted bowhunting has been successfully to control the deer population are Kings Point, Minnesota, Rock cut State Park, Illinois, M/nnestra, Minnesota, Red Wing, Minnesota and the Iowa Ammunition Plant. The success of this pro,am ~411 depend on the skill of the archer and enough land owners making their land available. potential problems with bowhunting in Cedar Rapids include safety concerns and bad publicity if a deer should escape wounded and was later found by someone other than a hunter. We predict that compliance with the above criteria should minimize these concerns, and indeed that has been the experience of cities which have controlled hunts similar to what we propose. the city of Marlon IA. has experienced no problems in the four years that restricted bowhunting has been allowed in the city. Promess reports from the Blackhawk Countx' Deer Task Force indicates no safety complaints, no violations, no reports of wounded ,'unclaimed deer by the public, and a 6% wounding rate during the 2 years of their controlled hunts. Minnestm, /vlinnesota experience is similar with no sat~ty concerns, Trespassing, or game law violations and 4 deer wounded and not retrieved tbr 29 deer killed. For situations in which deer must be killed but where landowners or other concerns would prohibit the use of restricted bowhunting, we recommend the use of sharpshooting or the trap and kill In sharpshooting, deer are short with rifles by official sharpshooters (typically law enforcement or park personnel) usually at night over bait. The bait is placed where the shooter can safely shoot the deer coming into the bait. Rules are followed to determine the sequence in which the shoots are taken when there is more than one deer at the bait area. shot deer are remove as quickly as possible to be processed In the trap and kill method (e.g. the clover trap) are locked open and baited for several days until they become used to the trap then it is set. The deer are shot at close range by the personal who are operating the trap. The deer is then processed as soon as possible. Rationale: Both of these methods are highly efficient in the reduction of the deer numbers. Both methods are safe and humane when done correctly. Sharpshooting, particularity is capable of quickly reducing deer density at a precisely-defined location. Trap and kill can pinpoint and remove problem deer. Either of these methods might be more acceptable to some of the public than restricted bowhunting. The major problem with both of these methods is that the city of Cedar Rapids would have to bear the cost of staffing and coordination and processing and distribution of the venison. With the restricted bowhunting the archer bears that responsibility of taking care of the meat. Both methods are labor intensive and the DNR would have to approve either of these methods. There is no history. of the DN'R approval for either of these two methods in Iowa. o ~ 7, We also considered and rejected the Contraceptive method and the trap and release method The Federal Food and Drug Administration does not approve the use of contraceptive drugs for use on free-ranging herd animals, thus removing this technique f¥om consideration. Trap and release program is very expensive (costing in excess of $600 per animal removed), frightened and the stressed deer while they are being handled and moved to another area where they won't be a problem for someone else. Telemetry studies of such trans. located deer indicate that they have only a 20% to 50% chance of survival for one year following the relocation This population control which at first glance seems to be ideal thus tums out to be costly and inhumane. In human created urban environments "deer problems" are inevitable problems of the city dwelling humans interacting with deer ,thus are really "human deer problems". We recommend that landowners who ereate gardens and landscape plantings in areas that are inhabited by the deer educate themselves as to which plant species are least susceptible to deer damage, effective use of available repellents and effective use of fencing techniques in order to minimize deer damage on their property. Seminars coordinated by the city., or appropriated private agencies as well as in~brmation dispensed In order to meet the goals listed above, the success of the program must be evaluated annually and adjusted as necessary. We recommend that the Cedar Rapids Police Department carry out an annual helicopter survey of the sort done in 1995. Careful thought should be given to the design of these surveys so that they give scientifically-defensible results, and can be repeated exactly in successive years. These surveys will permit assessment of changing deer populations in the Cedar Rapids, and evaluation of this proposal The Urban Subcommittee of the Cedar Rapids/Linn county Deer Task Force Randy Beelner Mark Clark 'Gary Donnenneyer John Gegner Harlo Hadow Steve Hamilton Dale Peterson Audrey Rahn Truman Wilkins APPLI(~ATTOH FOR H&RIOH BOW AND ARROW DEER HU~FI'I~G pF,,R~TT 3o ~,State ~eer license number= 4, Do you have written permission o~ the ~rcp~rty owner to engage ~n hunting? Yes Ho. Dates upon which you will be hunting: ~hrou~h · Describe location where you will be hunting: Are you. aware that City ordinances require that you cleon up ~pplicant's s!gna:ure CITY OF HA~IOH O~DINAHCE ~o27 BOY AND AP~O~ HUHTIH~ No person shal~ shoot any arrow within the city limits except= (1) Properly licensed bow hunters within deer season upon private property with the written p~rmission o~ the owner and provided no ~rrov is shot within 200 yards o~ ~ny residence {excep~ the res:deuce o: the owner of the property) or public property. Prior deer with a bow and ~row ~hall obtain a permit from the Marion Police Department, :he permit application shall require.a showimp of a valid deer license and the written permission c~ the property owner to engage in hunting and the date and location ~h~t the applicsnt desires to hunt. In addition, the appiican% shall clean up and remove from the premises any residue from ~ield dre~slng of Shy deer. The above Applicant is hereby issued a permit-in accordance with the ~bove and ~orego£ng Application. Approved Date Ced~ Rapi~ ~whunting Ouid~l~cs - ~ p~ci~ must accompu~ t~= ~u~ Must complete or ~v{ ~01et~ ~e ~t~ma~ Bow Hunter Educ~on com~ (a coume c~ be schedffi~). Pass the ~ch~ pmfid~cy te~ (no w~-up, only 1 qu~y~g ~ per 2a hour ~, sh~t a~ a life s~e 3-D t~et, ~d 5 ~o~ ea~ ~ 10, 15, ~d 20 y~ (~5 shots to~ - 12 must ~ ~ ~ vital ~a). You will be ~owed two attempts. Pmfidmcy te~ may ~ t~ one mon~ p~or to h~g ~on ~m Ak One ~h~. 3. Have ~tt~ ~siou ~m ~e ~downer. ~censes must ~ pu~h~ed ~ pw~r churls (~mmission, ~li~ dept, etc). 5. All ~ws must be ~d w~c in ~sit to ~d fwm ~e ~d site. 6. No bow may ~ c~cd or displayed wi~M 6~ f~t of ~y msid~ce w~out ~i~ion f~m ~e l~downer. 7. ~ere will ~ no dfiv~g or st~ng of deer. 8. Sh~t from a stud ~m~d ~ ~) ~d be at le~t ~ y~s f~ ~1 desi~at~ U~Is, roads, b~gs, etc (or at ~e l~downe~ penission). 9.. ~ow your effe~ive ~g ~ge ~d do not sh~t beyond ~at ~ge. Rcco~d~ shots ~ 25 y~s or 10. Be s~ to iden~ yo~et as m ~Uerless de~. T~e only high p~ntage shots - avoid wound~g deer. 12. Be sum w~t is do~ ~ge of yo~ stud ~d m~e eve~ effort to ~eve 13. ~e pa~icipmt m~ m~ to the gowm~g body ~ ch~ge by p~ne wi~ 12 hou~ alter a deer has b~n h~usted. ~e ~on should iden~y ~e~eN ~d p~vide ~e foHow~g ido~a~on: pwp~y wh~ d~r w~ t~en ~om l~a~on; sex of ~e d~u ~d date (~e phone n~bers below). 1 n. ~e p~cip~t must ~n to ~e govem~g b~y by phone wi~ 12 ho~s d ~ey ~e unable to lo~te a wounded (~e phone numb~ below). 15. If you take a d~r ~d wish to cont~ue h~g for ~o~er de~, conrad ~e gove~g ~dy about getting ~ addiaonal ~nus tag. ~e nm~r of tags hsued wiU not cxc~d ~ m~m~ issued by ~e D~. Use ~per field ~ss~g t~ques, Do not leave ~a in a conspicuous 1oc~on, Res~ct pdvate 1 ~. Kemovu you~e~ ~m ~y ~ent simeon md i~e~ately ~ ~e incident to Ee governing ~dy ~d D~ oCic~ (~ phone n~ below). 19. Report violato~ to ~e D~ con~ation o~ce~ (~u p~nu n~ ~1ow). No~ have ~y fish or g~e viola~ons m ~ p~t ~e ye~ acco~g W ~e D~. 21. Have ~ y~ ~ssiou a v~d Iowa h~g ~cense, ~bitat ~p, ~d pro~r deer license, 22. Se~on will ~ ~n~usly during ~e st~ ~ d~r se~u ~d ~o d~g ~e ~ d~ scion. All p~ici- p~ ob~we ~1 sta~ mies ~d reg~aao~ wiE uxcep~om for ~ ~ci~ pm~m wi~ ~e ci~ l~ts. 23. Bo~d~ies ~ mywh~ wi~ th~ C~dar Rapi~ ci~ ~i~ ~d o~ on private progeny. Phone numbers: Governhag bo~y Parks commission-319-398-5080 DNR officers Eric Slotcrdyk-319-350-2563 Kirby Bragg-319-350-2871 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Iowa DNR Conservation Officers: Mike Bon~r Jennifer Lancastcr-Woodicy Black Hawk County Conservation Board Rules, Procedures and Ethics Special Deer Management Zone Cedar Falls/Waterloo, Iowa 1996-97 George Wyth State Park, Hartman Reserve Nature Center, and Black Hawk Park have been divided into 10 zones. These zones am shown on the aUached maps. The special hunt in these zones has been separated into five seasons: 1. November 1 to November 15 4. December 14 to December 27 2. November 16 to November 29 5. December 28 to January 10, 1997 3. November 30 to December 13 Hunters must complete or have completed the International Bow Hunter Education course. Hunters must pass the archery proficiency test. You will be allowed lwo attempts. Proficiency test may be taken begimting 9/15/96. If you wish to hunt on private lands within the Special Deer Management Zone, you must also do the following: Have written permission from the landowner and a copy of an aerial map of the land with the boundaries shown. Have approval of the site by the Iowa DNR. All hunters must attend one of the four informational meetings which have been set for Saturday, Sept. 21 or 28 f~om 9-11 am or on Monday, September 23 or 30 from 6:00 to 8:00 pm at Archery Outfitters, 1040 Alabar Av., Waterloo, 235-7206. Hunters will be assigned to a season and a zone within the Wyth/Hartman complex and Black Hawk Park. If you do not ifil your tag before the end of your season, contact a DNR conservation officer. You may bc able to continue hunting in another empty slot. Season 5 hunters will be assigned to zones on wnekcnds only. You will be allowed to hunt within any of the 10 zones on weekdays. Licenses must be purchased by October 15 to gnarantcc your zone and season. All bows must be cased while in transit to the stand. No bow may be carried or displayed within 600 feet of any residence without the permission of the owner (Waterloo City O~dinance). Hunters in Zone 6 & 7 have permission to hunt within 600feet of the Nature Center Directorb house. There will be no driving or stalking of dcer. Tbe hunter must shoot from a stand (g~und or tree) and be at least 25 yards from all designated trails, roads and public buildings. Hunters can not shoot across a road or trail. Know your effective shooting rsagu and do not shoot beyond. We ~ccemmcnd that shots be limited to 25 yards or less. Bc surc to identify your target as an antlerless deer. Take only high percentage shots - Avoid Wounding Deerl Bc sure what is down range of your stand and make every effort to retrieve arrows. The hunter must report to the conservation officer by phone within 12 hours after a deer has been harvested. The hunter should identify himfacrsclf and provide the following information: 1.) Zone the dear was taken from and location; 2.) The sex of the deer; 3.) The time; 4.) The date; 5.) The car lag number if thc dccr was taggcd. (Scc phone numbers below). The hunter must report to tbe conservation officer by phone within 12 hours if they ate unable to locate a wounded deer. (See phone numbers below). If you take a deer and wish to continue hunting for another deer, contact the conservation officer about getting an additional bonus tag. Radio collated dces are legal game. Pieas~ return all radio collars to Hamnan Reserve Nature Center or C~co~c W~h State Park. Your bonus tag is also good in c~Jating public hunting areas within the Special Dccr Managemere zone such as Falls Access or Black Hawk Park except during the shotgun season. Scc DNR conservation officer for details. Use proper field dressing techniques. Do not leave entrails in a conspious location. At Hartman Reserve Nature Center (Zone 6 & 7), field dress the deer in the Nature Center Director's backyard. Respcct private propertyl Locate park boundaries and stay on the public side. Remove yourself from any haxassment situation and immediately report the incident to ~ DNR conservation officer. Repost violators to the DNR conservation officers. Important Telephone Numbers (all 319-area code) Black Hawk Park 266-0328 240-5034 Hartman Reserve Nature Center 277-2187 240-5017 Nature Center Director 233-6961 266-6813 Ceorgc Wylh State Park 232-5505 BLACK HAWK COUNTY DEER TASK FORCE PROGRESS RIgPORT FALL 1991 - FALL 1993 '"" Edited by "~ Veto Fish & Janet Tyrrell Hartman Reserve N{tmre Center 1993 Introduction The Black Hawk County Deer Task Force Was created from a growing concern by the managers of Hartman Reserve Nature Center and in response to concerns raised by neighbors adjacent to Hartman Reserve Nature Center. These concerns came in the form of verbal complaints and reports of deer damage from propoily ownemo Letters were also sent to the mayors of both Cedar Falls and Waterloo. These letters were written by dtizens expressing concern about the damage being done by deer coming out of the Hartman forest. The following is a quote from one o£ these letters: 'Last year they were fun to watch. This year they are destructive, eating the tops off hosta plants all over my yant .... The yard has be- sore .... Cute but destructfie! Are there plans to do something .-June 10, 1991 % The staff of the Black Hawk County Conservation Board be researching the issue of urban deer management. The approach they recommended ad- dressed the issue by creating a task force to study the urban deer herd and make recommendations. This task force was composed of a very diverse group of people who represented a bwad range of viewpoints on this issue. The task force has reached a group consensus on all recommendations, Black Hawk County Deer Task Force --Progress Report 2 ' Members Several groups were asked to send representatives to an organizational meeting. Over the course of the first year additional groups were added with the permission of the task force. This approach is similar to a method utilized by Minnesota in the Twin Cites. Currently the following groups are represented on the Black Hawk County Deer Task Force: Conservation Officer for Black Hawk County Iowa Department of Natural Resources Black Hawk Humane Society Sherwood Park Association Friends of Hartman Reserve Timber Drive neighbors, Cedar Falls Black Hawk County Conservation Board Hartman Reserve Nature Center Sierra Club Prairie Rapids Audubon Society City of Cedar Falls Cooly Street neighbors City of Waterloo George Wyth State Park Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Whitetails Unlimited Watedoo Park Commission State Dee.r, Biologist iowa Department of Natural Res0u'rces ' Black Hawk County Deer Task Force w ,Progress Report $ Position Statement On October 9, 1991 the task force agreed to the following position statement: The Black Hawk County Deer Task Force was formed to review the status of the urban deer herd within metropolitan Black Hawk County. In its initial discussions, the task force has identified a concern among local park managers and the general public as to the number of deer within the urban parks in the Cedar River Valley. To determine if a problem exists the task force will undertake three different measurements: a survey of local public opinion, an aerial deer count and the construction of three deer exclosures. A deer exclosure is a small area which has been fenced to prevent deer from grazing and bwwsing. These protected areas will be used to contrast the impact deer may have on the surrounding vegetation. Deer exclosures will be constructed at Hartman Reserve Nature Center, George Wyth State Park and the Black Hawk Greenbelt. The task force welcomes public input on this issue. The public should address their concerns to Larry Miller, Chairperson, Black Hawk County Deer Task Force,. 124 Berkshire Road, Waterloo 50701, (319) 235-7562. Summary of Surveys Survey of Homeowners Attitudes Toward Deer Students from the College of Business of University of North~m Iowa, conducted a phone survey of the attitudes of local homeowners toward urban deer during the month of February of 1992. A Red and a Blue group of homeowners were identified. The 138 people in the Red group lived within a few blocks of the Hartman Reserve Nature Center and ~ adjacent privately owned natural areas. The 184 people in the Blue group consisted of people outside of the Red group, but within a mile of nature center. These two groups were identified using the city directories of Cedar Falls and Waterloo. A copy of the survey questions has been attached. The Blue group did not see as manydeer as the Red group, does not have as many problems with deer, and sees little need for change in deer numbers. The Red group has more problems and appears to be favorable to management techniques to reduce deer numbers. Both groups favor fences, but are neutral on repellents and birth control° Both groups disagree with sharpshooters, capture and removal, gun hunts and bow hunts. Although, fewer of the Red group view these tech- niques negatively. The Red group appears to possess more polarized views than does the Blue group. The Red group seemed to think that deer numbers are too large, although some people within the Red group strongly disagree. The Blue group leans toward leaving the situation alone, while many in the Red group do not favor the status quo. The task force also concluded that at this time the impact of deer on private property was very 10Pal. It also concluded that..i..t. was important to educate the public about deer ecology and methods available to protect landscaping from deer browsing. Black Hawk County Deer Task Force --Progress Report Aerial Survey of Deer Population · To date the Black Hawk County Deer Task Force has conducted two aerial surveys of the deer population in Black Hawk County. The flint survey was conducted on January 29, 1992 while the second survey was conducted on January 22, 1993. The conditions for each survey are listed below. The following is a summary of the results of these surveys: Black H~wk Creek (6 sq. miles)* Hudson to Shaulis Road Shaulis Road to Ranchew Road Ranchero Road to Ridgeway Ave. Ridgeway Ave. to Cedar River Sub Totals Deer/square mile 1992 1993 None 11 None 6 3 3 10 32 1.66 5.3. Cedar Valley Corridor (2.5 sq. miles)** George Wyth & Hartman Reserve San Souci Island 2 George Wyth State Park 29 Hartman Reserve Nature Center North of South Riverside Trail 10 South of South Riverside Trail 10 Sub Totals 51 Deer/square mile 20.4 1 27 71 28 *The area managed by the Waredco Park Commission along Black Hawk Greenbelt is actually 1.72 sq. mile. For the purposes of this study, a buffer of one half mile has been added. This buffer in- creases the area to 6 square miles. **The 2./; square miles' calculated for the Cedar Valley Corridor does not include surface of lakes or the ~ River. The following are the conditions under which the two aerial surveys were conducted: Jnnunry 29, 1992' Janunry 22,1993'* Temperature 35 degrees 36 Cloud Ceiling 300 to 800 feet Clear Visibility I to 1.5 with fog 10 to 15 miles Snow Cover 3 inches 5 inches Wind 10 mph, south switching West, 11 mph to west Please note * These conditions were considered poor. **These conditions were considered good. Although it is premature to make inferences after only two surveys there appears to be an increase in the number of deer who wintered in the Cedar Valley Corridor from 1992 to 1993. Black Hawtc County Deer Task Force ~Progress Report Deer Exclosures In the fail of 1991 deer exclosures were built at Hartman Reserve Nature Center, George Wyth State Park, and the Black Hawk Creek Cnwnbelt. These exclosures were 75 x 75 feet in area and eight Feet high. These fenced areas keep deer out, but do not exclude rabbits, woodchucks or other smail herbivores. These exclosures were established in order to visuaily determine the effects of white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus on the woody and herbaceous vegetation in these parks. A detailed study of the vegetation within the exclosure on an upland site at Hartman Reserve Nature Center was begun in June of 1992. Only one exclosure site has been studied in detail because of limitations of time and costo Two 25 meter x 25 meter plots were established Within and outside of Hartman Reserve Nature Center exclosure. The plot outside of the exclosure is similar in slope, soil type and vegetation composition to the plot inside the exclosure. Each month during the growing season, beginning in June of 1992, data was collected in both plots. Tree species were identified ~ and quantified according to the diameter at breast height. Seedlings were identified and counted to determine the . .. relative density. Finaily, herbaceous vegetation was identi- fied and a eanopy-coverage method (Daubenmire) was used to determine the-frequency and coverage percentage of each plant species. This study will be continued on into the 1993 growing season. All of the data collected to date from the Hartman exclosure is summarized in tables 1, 2 and 3 which have been placed in the appendix. Table 1, which has been reproduced below, may provide insight into the impact the deer are having on the ability of the forest at Hartman Reserve Nature Center to reproduce itself. Table 1. Total seedling counts for the plot within the exciosure (50 meters square) and in the outside plot (50 meters square) for the month of June through September, 1992. Month Sampled, 1992 Plot l~cation ~ July Auoust September Within 678 1127 977 782 Exelosure Outside 176 342 376 .. 353 Exclosure Ratio: 3.8 3.2 2.5 2.2 Within/outside Black Hawk County Deer Task Force NProgress Report 6 ' There is anywhere from twice to three times as many seedlings within the exciosure as there are outside after being protected from deer browsing for just one growing season. Deer browsing has apparently reduced the number of seedlings outside of the exclosure. This number of seedlings may be inadequate to replace older flees as they die or are blown down. This is early evidence of how the deer may be impacting forest succession at Hartman Reserve Nature Center. Points of Agreement At the August 4, 1992 meeting of the Black Hawk County Deer Task Force agreed upon the following points: There should be deer in our parks. Deer are a part of Iowa's natural heritage. Watching deer is an important form of outdoor recreation. e Currently, there is not a major deer population problem, but the task force should continue planning for the future. There is potential for the urban deer population of Black Hawk County to reach a point where the deer will cause damage to the vegetation of local parks and personal property. e There is a threshold where the deer population will be coasidered a problem. This threshold is somewhere between 15 and 30 deer per square mile. e There is a need to gather additional data on the local deer population, their impact on vegetation and migration movements. Educational efforts on basic deer biology and living with deer should continue. ~ Black Hawk County Deer Task Force mProgress Report 7 ' Educational Efforts The following educational activities have been sponsored by the Black Hawk County Deer Task Force: o Jay McAninch of the Minnesota DNR made presentation to 88 peopleon February 26, 1992 on deer ecology. This program was video taped for future reference. Mr. McAninch also provided a program to 15 people on how to protect your landscaping from deer browsing on May 9, 1992 at Hartman Reserve Nature Center. The staff of Hartman Reserve Nature Center created a display on deer ecology in the west wing of the Hartman Interpretive Center. A program on deer collaring was presented by Willie Suchy of the Iowa DNR on November 10, 1992. A total of 34 deer were tagged during January and February of 1993. This event was televised on KWWL TV and the local cable network. Articles on the deer collaring program appeared in the following publications: The Oak~ A quarterly newsletter of the Black Hawk County Consen, ation Board, Des Moines Register. Waterloo Courier. Cedar Falls High School Tiger Hi-Line. and The Iowa Outdoorsman. The staff of Hartman Reserve Nature Center conducted a program on deer ecology in conjunction with the Hawkeye Community College on February 14, 1993. ~ The staff of Hartman Reserve Nature Center have made various presentations to civic groups and school groups on deer ecology. Management Alternatives On March 10, 1992 the Black Hawk County Deer Task Force brainstormed a lengthy list of deer management options. On May 5, 1992 the task force approved a motion to condense that list of management options into the following practical alternatives: ~ 1: Prevention & Mitigation Fencing the bluff Selective fencing Artificial and natural corridors Repair or compensate for damage Black Hawk County Deer Task Force wProg,ress Report 8 ® Education Neighbors, personal perception and personal habits Control methods Deer biology Capture Remove and relocate Destroy Sell or trade Kill and utiliz~ Identify and kill problem deer Lethal Bow and Arrow (controlled) Bow and Arrow (public hunt) Shot gun (controlled) Sharp shooter over bait Sharp shooter random Problem deer Individual permits for landowners S. Birth Control Individuals were assigned to research each of the five major options and prepare reports for the task force. The following is a summary of these reports: Prevention & Mitigation Fencing the bluff: This idea would require erecting a fence along the bottom of the bluff and around the southern boundary of Hartman Reserve Nature Center to exclude deer from the $$ acre upland tract. Advantages: This would protect the most unique natural area within the Cedar Valley Corridor. Disadvantages: The fencing would be expensive. It would be visually and physically disruptive to the forest and would require gates to allow park visitors to pass. It would also prevent the visitor from seeing deer within the fenced area. Selective fencing (Public Lands): Specific sensitive areas would be identified and fenced to exclude deer. Advantages: Can be used to protect small areas Disadvantages: To protect every sensitive area'would r~{fire 'a 'patchwork of fences which would be visually and physically disruptive. The net result might be more cosfly than fencing the borders of a Black Hawk County Deer Task Force m ,Progress Report 9 larger area. There is always a possibly that a "unknown" sensitive area would not be protected by fencing. The fences will only move the deer and their browsing to other areas. ,%icetire fencing (Private Lands): Private parcels would be fenced to exclude deer° Advantages: Can be used to protect small private pareels near high deer population centers. Disadvantages: Fencing can be expensive and unsightly. The fences will only move the deer and their browsing to other Artificial and natural corridors: These pathways would allow deer to freely move in and out of the Cedar Valley Corridor and serve as population release valve. Advantages: Socially acceptable Disadvantages: It would be very difficult to change the existing barriers to deer migration. Repair or compensate for damage: Pay landowners for property damage and restore damage done to public lands. Advantages: Does not require any management actions. Disadvantages: No current source of funding and does not address on going deer population pressures. Education: Provide information to adjacent landowners and park visitors on the basic deer biology and methods available to control deer browsing. Advantages: Helps adjacent landowners pwtect their property from deer bwwsing while helping the public become better informed on the issues surrounding urban deer. Disadvantages: Requires a great deal of staff time and resources to reach a large population. Capture (See Trap Options) Trap and relocate: The deer Advantages: are trapped and tr:~n.~ported to new locations. Safe for deer and people, humane, and unobtrusive. Disadvantages: This method has been used in Missouri. Very costly, limited number of release sites, only the young deer are captured,' more then 50% of the deer .will. die shortly after the release. Milwaukee, Chicago and reseawh projects in Iowa, Illinois, and Black Hawk County Deer Task Force --Progress Report · . 10.' ' Trap and sell: The deer are Advantages: Disadvantages: Trap and destroy: The deer Advantages: Disadvantages: trapped and sold or traded to private or public agencies. Safe for deer and people, and unobtrusive. Limited number of release sites and would require approval of the Iowa DNR. are trapped and destroyed by a blow to the head or drugs. Safe for people and humane for the deer. lidrugs are not used the meat can be'donated charities. Traps will allow the capture and removal of a single "problem dee~. Traps are labor intensive and can be expensive to operate. This option has been used in DuPage County, Illinois. Trap Options Box Traps: The deer are trapped in baited box traps. Advantages: Disadvantages: The traps are safe for deer and people, humane and unobtrusive. The number of deer which can be trapped is limited by the number of traps and staff available. Nets: The deer are trapped in rocket nets, cannon nets or drop nets. Advantages: Relatively safe and more selective than traps Disadvantages: Cosfly, requires the use of class B explosives for rockets Dart guns and drugs: The deer are shot with darts which inject immobilizing drags. Advantages: Disadvantages: and Very selective and humane Costly and iabor intensive with the possibility of losing dalts and deer, not very effective for large numbers o/~deer, must be within 30 yards or less to hit target. Black Hawk County Deer Task Force --Progress Report 11 4. Lethal PUblic Hunt: The public is allowed to hunt during the normal seasons. Advantages: Effective, efficient and cheap. Disadvantages: Concern for safety, conflict with some social values and impacts other forms of recreation. This method has been used in urban areas in Minnesota, Illinois, Missouri and other states. Controlled Hunt: The management agency says who can hunt, at what time in what areas, and at what time of day and year and methods of take. Advantages: Effective, easier to control Disadvantages: Conflicts with some social values, may also impact other forms of recreation, cmts more in the form o£supervision and training. This method has been used in urban areas in Illinois, Minnesota & New York. In Iowa it has been used at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in Des Moines County and Lake Darling State Park. Sharpshooters: Expert shooters use rifles to shoot deer over bait. Advantages: Very efficient and effective with a low rate of crippling. Can be done at night to minimize impact on other forffL~ Of recreation. Disadvantages: Cost, hunters lose recreational opportunities, may also impact · other forms of ~tion and is in conflict with some social values. This method has been used in urban areas in Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Individual kill permits: Special permits are issued to individual landowners to hunt problem animals on their own land. Advantages: Disadvantages: Selective to problem area Safety, Social values This method has been used to address agricultural damage in Missouri, Minnesota, and Michigan. It is also used with nuisance animals in Iowa. Black Hawk County Deer Task Force mProgress Report 12 ~. Bir~h Control Oral Application: Fertility contwl agents are delivered orally through bait. Advantages: More socially acceptable than killing. Inability to contwl dosage, inability to build up an effective dosage in target species, ingestion by non-t~rgct species, and taste aversion, not licensed by the Federal Food and Drug Administration for free-ranging ~nimalSo Sterohi Implants: Stewids arc implanted beneath the skin of captured animal° Advantages: Effective in preventing conception, can last for at least two years an is socially acceptable. Disadvantages: Ineffective in contwlling herd growth because it is difficult to capture and treat enough does to make a significant difference and no~ licensed by the Federal Food and Drug Administration for flee-ranging ~nim01s. Remote Steroid Injections: Steroids are injected with a dart gun into fre~-ranging or cap~ tured animal. Advantages: More socially acceptable than killing, don't have to capture and release, is effective on wild homes. Disadvantages: It is difficult to identify individual deer and get dose enough to dart the correct deer, very labor intensive, not effective with large herds, requires repeated dosages and is not licensed by the Federal Food and Drug Administration for flee-ranging animals. Black Hawk County Deer Task Force ~ Progress Report 13 Black Hawk County Urban Deer Research Study To learn more about the migration patterns of the urban deer the task force sponsored a deer collaring program. Using funds raised from the public, 20 radio collars were acquired by Willie Suchy, Iowa Deer Biologist. In December, 1.992 two box traps were placed at George Wyth State Park and two at Hartman Reserve Nature Center. These traps were baited with corn for about a month. In late J ~anuary and early February these traps were set and deer trapped. A trapped deer was released into a net and' held to the ground while it was marked. Numbered radio collars were placed on twenty does. The does also received numbered yellow tags. The bucks were not collared but they were marked with numbered, orange ears tags. A total of 13 bucks were tagged. The collared does will be tracked every two weeks for the., .:~. next. two years. The public has been asked to help in this ' ~;,~ process by reporting the number and location of any deer,,' they spot by calling the Deer Hot Line at 232,.1508. The movements of these marked deer are being mapped in a display at Hartman Reserve Nature Center. Time Table for Future Recommendations This progress report will be presented to the following groups and individuals during the fall of 1993: Mayors of Cedar Falls and Waterloo Black Hawk County Conservation Board Iowa Department of Natural Resources Media Donors to the Adopt-A-Deer program The Black Hawk County Board of Supervisors The deer collaring, aerial survey and deer browsing impact studies will be continued over the next two years. The task force will make recommendations for the management of urban deer in ~Black Hawk County by the fall of 1993. The task force will review the legal ramification of its recommendations by the fall of 1993. Black Hawk County Deer Task Force --Pro~ess Report 14 August 4, 1992 August 25, 1992 September 15, 1992 November 10, 1992 January 18, 1993 The task force agreed upon six points of agreement. Willie Suchy reported that he is willing to capture, radio collar and track up to 20 deer if the task force can raise the funding., The idea of adopting a deer to raise the money was discussed. An Adopt-A-Deer brochure was approved. The budget for a deer collaring program was presented. Different funding sources for the Adopt-A-Deer program were discussed. Collars and tags were being ordered for the collaring program. A pwgress report from Jennifer Hurley on the deer browse study was presented. The task force approved a policy in regard to members being convicted of a violation of deer game laws. Willie Suchy presented a public program on the deer collaring program. Willie Suchy reported on the progress of the deer trapping efforts. The task force agreed that the media should be invited to document the deer trapping. The task force also agreed that it should issue a progress report on its efforts to date. February 16, 1993 March 23, 1993 April 27, 1993 May 25, 1993 The results of the second aerial survey were discussed. Trapping and tagging program was drawing to a close. A poster inviting the public to call a deer hotline when they see a tagged deer was unveiled. It was agreed by the task force that every effort should be made not to cause the tagged deer behavior to be changed by following them too closely with .t..he radio receiver during education programs. Samples of letters sent out to Adopt-A-Deer sponsors were also displayed. A draft of the progress report reviewed. It was reported that five collared deer had died since the last meeting. Approval of the progress report was tabled due to lack of quorum. It was reported that as of May 13 all of the remaining 16 collared deer were still within the core area. The progress report was approved. A draft deer management recommendation was also approved. Black Hawk County Deer Task Force 16 ,Progress Report September 4, 1991 October 9, 1~1 November 13, 1991 Deemher 11, 1991 January 29, 1992 February 19, 1992 March 10, 1992 March 24, 1992 April 22, 1992 April 29, 1992 May $, 1992 May 26, 1992 June 16, 1992 S.mmary of Meetings H!ohl!ohts First organization meeting of the Black Hawk County Deer Task Force. To learn more about the urban deer herd and people's attitudes toward the issue the following actions were agreed upon: Conduct deer surveys from a helicopter Conduct a survey of public attitudes Construct deer exclosures at George Wyth State Park, Hartman Reserve Nature Center and Black Hawk Creek Greenbelt. A position statement and a media policy was also approved. The education committee met to discuss ways to educate the public about urban deer. A representative from Sherwood Park was added to the task force. How the aerial deer population survey was to be conducted was discussed in detail. The video tape "Deer Management at Rock Cut State Park" was shown. The questions to be asked on the public opinion survey were discussed. The upcoming presentation by Jay McAninch was discussed. The results of the first aerial survey were discussed. The results of the public opinion survey wer~ shared. A list of deer management options were generated. To gain more information, it was suggested that the task force sponsor a deer migration study. Articles for release to the media were approved. The task force also received an analysis of the public opinion survey and reviewed recommendations on how to evaluate management optionso The task force reviewed the scores from the evaluation sheets. The task force completed the scoring of the evaluation sheets. The task force agreed to reduce the management options intq five major groups: prevention & mitigation, education, capture, lethal, and birth control. Jennifer Hurley outlined her plans for a deer browse study. Willie Suchy pi'esented information in regard to capture alternatives. Willie Suchy reviewed lethal management techniques. Black Hawk County Deer Task Force ,.~ Progress Report 15 Apl~ndix Black Hawk County Deer Task Force m Progress Report 17 Deer Management Options WHEREAS, White-tailed deer are a part of Iowa's natural heritage and should be a part of the diverse fauna found in the urban parks of Black Hawk County; and Deer and other non-migratory wildlife are a public resource held in trust and managed by the state; and In the absence of management, deer populations in the urban parks of Black Hawk County will increase beyond the ability of the habitat to .support them in the long term, and the quality of the habitat will deteriorate significantly causing deer health to eventually suffer;, and In the absence of management, deer populations will degrade the habitat available to other :~nimals and plants and reduce the biodiversity of the urban parks of Black Hawk County° In the absence of management, deer populations will cause damage to private land owners and increase the potential for serious' human injury from car collisions with deer;, and Based upon studies of deer browsing and population it is deemed necessary to manage the Black Hawk urban deer herd at a maximum of 30 deer per square mile; and Birth control, fencing and natural predators are not viable options for managing deer in Black Hawk County urban lands at this time; and THEREFORE, the Black Hawk County Deer Task Force makes the following recommendations for urban deer management in Black Hawk County: Before deer populations exceed the stated population goal the Black Hawk County Deer Task Force will: Explore the possibility of creating or enhancing migration corridors to allow the urban deer to move out of the urban areas. Be Explore the possibility of controlling urban deer by increasing hunting pressure in the rural areas around the urban parks. Co Educate adjacent landowners and park visitors on methods of controlling deer browsing in urban settings. De Continue to document the population trends, migration patterns.and-browsing impacts of the urban deer. Black Hawk County Deer Task Force ~ Progress Report 18 IL After deer populations exceed the stated population goal the Black Hawk County Deer Task Force will: Recommend how many deer of which sex should be removed from what locations based upon the advice of the DNR deer biologist. 1. The Trap and Relocate option will be explored first if the following questions can be answered: a. Who will pay for capture and release? b. Can release sites can be identified? c. Can enough deer of the right sex be removed? e Lethal options will be explored second and judged by their effectiveness, cost, safety, legality and minimum impact on existing recreation patterns° These options will be explored in the following order: a. Individual Kill permits for private urban landowners ' adjacent to public parks. b. Controlled Hunts on private lands within the city limits and adjacent to the urban parks. c. Trap and Destroy on private lands within the city limits and adjacent to the urban parks. d. Sharpshooters on private lands within the city limits and adjacent to urban parks e. Trap and Destroy within the urban parks. f. Sharpshooters within the urban parks. g. Controlled Hunts within the urban parks. Bo Monitor the ecological (population patterns and browsing impacts) and social implications of these management applications. Reevaluate the population goals and modify management options as needed. Black Hawk County Deer Task Force ~ Progress Report 19 ' T=ble 1.--Total seedling counts for the plot.within the excloeure .''.(50~.m~) and in the control~lot (50 m~) for.;the months.=June september, 1992. Month Sampled, 1992 Plot Location ..... June August Sept~ Exclosure 678 ".;Control-,Plot .~ 1127 977 782 176 : 342 376 353 Table 3.--Coverage (percent) and frequency (percent) of undergrowth species in exclosure and control plots for the months June through September, 1992o Month Bampled June July August September E C E C E C E C . Coveraae/Freaveno¥ 0,S/10,9 1.4/25.$ 0.9/14.9 2.7,'20.4 l.g!7.0 2.9,'24.5 0.~10.4 0.1~.1 0.1~.0 , 0.1~.1 - 2.3117.4 1.7~.4 2.9~1~ S.4~$.6 5.3~.5 7.5118.4 4.~ll.I 5.4~0.4 0.~6.4 0.3~.2 - 1.~.4 0.1~.1 0.8110.9 0.1~.1 0.716.4 0.3~.0 O.~.l 0.~.8 1~10.4 0.1~.0 0.3~.2 - 0.7/4.4 0.1~.1 . O.!~.! 0.1~.0 O. 1/4.4 0.4/4~ 0.4/6.4 O.I~A 7.7/M.4 L8/17.0 6.4/~1.1 1.7/18.4 6.~48.9 3.1/IS.~ 0.9/16.7 1.~14.3 0.3~.2 0.7/6.1 0,1/4,3 0,4/4,1 0.7/6.3 0,5/L2 1.~1.7 0.7/6.4 0.4/6.4 0.3~.0 0.4/6.4 I.~.9 - . 0.7/6.5 O.l~.l O.~J 0.3~0 0.1~.i 0.~4~ 0.~4.1 0.~6.4 03~,0 - 0,~4,1 . , - 0,1~,1 O,M4,i 0~,0 , , ' 10,9/~,9 18,~6,6 9,~ 13,~,6 11,~$~ 12,~,~ ~,9/4S~ 7,~61,2' 0,~,7 2,~,4 0,~,0 - * ~!~,0 0,~,7 0,~!0,6 0~,1 0,~,0 0,1~,! A 0.1/4~ 0.4/4~ ' 0.3~.0 0.1/4~ - 0,2/I,7 i,4/6,4 0,1/4,3 i,~l,2 0,1/4,3 L~,2 0,~4~ L~10,2 0.~6.5 0.1~.1 0.1~,1 0.1/4.1 0.1~.! . 3.~8.3 i.5/1~.2 2.~.4 i.3/10.2 2.~17.0 0.3~.0 i.~.3 O. iO.O 2.1/10.9 O.l;4J 0.1~.2 0.1~.1 0.4/4.1 0.7/8.2 0.~6.1 0.1/4.3 0.3/10.2 0.1~.1 0.4/4.S 0.~6.~ OJ/10.9 0.3~.i 0.5fi0.6 0.1~.0 1.~17.0 0.1~.0 0.~.3 0.1~.0 2.~.~ 3.~.~ 1.9~1.9 2.~1.0 2.~ 3.1/~.8 l.l~.O 1.9~.7 Tableo2~.~-Seedling counts aGcording to sgecies in exclosure and control 9lot (50 m2)for the months June-Segtember, 1992. Month: Sampled June -' ~uly' : ;=,:August ~ September Acer nagundo 0/1 Acer saccharum " 54/51-' Carya cordiformis - carya ov~ta· Comus racemosa - Fraxinu$ $p. 600/93 Ostrya virginiana 0/? Prunus $erotina - Prunus virginiana /2 Quercus alba 21/0 Quercu~borealis 0/1 Tilia americana 0/5 Ulmus sp. 1/15 # Within Exolosure/# in Control Plot -55/63 46/64 .. ,.40/61 - 0/1 0/1 - 1/2 2/0 a/z 4/0 - 1040/232 901/258 718/254 0/? 2/5 0/2 0/9 0/12 0/7 ~/4 1/1 o/1 19/0 19/0 19/0 1/2 1/2 1/1 1/0 2/14 1/13 2/15 o/17 o/7 Table 3.--Coverage (percent) and frequency (percent) of undergrowth species in exclosure and control plots for the months June through September, 1992. Month Sam91od June July August Se~e~er E C E C E C E C Coverage/Frequency 0.8/10.9 1,4/23.5 0.9/14.9 2.7/20.4 1.0/17.0 2.9/243 0.S/i0.4 2.7~6.5 0.1~.1 0.1~.0 . 0.1~.1 . 0.~6.4 I.~1.7 0316.4 0.416.4 0.3~.0 0.4/6.4 !.~.9 . . 0.716.5 0.1~.1 0.~43 0.~0 0.1~.1 O.g4~ O.~.J 0.~6.4 0~.0 0.~4.1 . . . 0.1~.1 - 0.~4.1 0~.0 ~ ' o.~.7 O.blO.6 O~.l 0.~.0 0.1~.! 0,~.0 0.114~ 0.~4~ ' 0.3~.0 0.114~ O.J/!O.9 0.3~,1 0.~10.6 0.1~.0 1.~17.0 0.1~.0 0.~.3 0.1~.0 Tableo2.?-Seedling counts aocording to species in exclosure and control 9lot (50 ~)for the months June-Segtember, 1992. June " September Acer negundo 0/1 Acer saccharum ~.- 54/51.' Caz,/a cordiformis - carya ovata' - Cornus racemosa - Fraxinus $p. 600/93 Ostrya virginiana 0/7 Prunus serotina Prunus virginiana 12 Quercus alba 21/0 Ouercus borealis 0/1 Tilia americana 0/5 Ulmus $p. 1/15 Month:Sampled Within Exolosure/# in Control Plot · 55/63 46/64 .40/61 - oil o/1 - 1/2 2/0 6/1 4/0 - 1040/232 901/258 718/254 0/? 21§ 012 0/9 0/12 0/? 3/4 1/1 Oil 1910 z9/0 z9/0 l/2 1/2 1/0 2/14 1/13 2/15 O/Z? 0/7 Progress Report II Special Deer Management Zone Cedar Falls/Waterloo, Iowa Black Hawk County Deer Task Force April 25, 1995 Edited by Vexn Fish, Nature Center Director Hartman Reserve Nature Center History Black Hawk County Deer Task Force In the summer and fall of 1991 neighbors of Hartman Reserve Nature Center wrote a letter to the mayor of Cedar Falls complaining about the impact of urban deer. Park officials were also noticing an increase in the number of deer within the urban parks. The Black Hawk County Deer Task Force was formed in the fall of 1991 to review the status of the urban deer herd within Hartman Reserve Nature Center, George Wyth State Park and the Black Hawk Creek Greenbelt and make recommendations as to their management. This report is an update and continuation of the Deer Task Force's lsto Progress Report - Fall 1991 - Winter 1994. Studies The task force consisted of individuals from over twenty different organizations and included citizens and public officials. The task force initiated three studies: 1. An annual aerial population count using a helicopter. 2. A browse impact study using a three exclosures. 3. A movement study using radio telemetry. A summary of these studies is provided in the first progress report prepared by the task force. The task determined that the ecological balance of the patios would be impacted if the deer population was allowed to exceed 30 per square mile. Alternatives The task force reviewed over 60 different non-lethal and lethal options to manage the urban deer herd. The following are the optionsgiven the most attention: Birth Control Rejected, it is very labor intensive, expensive and it has never been proven to be effective on a free ranging deer herd. Capture & Relocate Rejected, it is very labor intensive, expensive and up to 90% of the deer die within the first year. Relocating deer could spread disease. Capture & Kill Controlled Hunt Private Property Rejected, it is very labor intensive and expensive and would require approval of the Iowa DNR. Required approval of the Iowa DNR, and the city councils of both Cedar Falls and Waterloo. Controlled Hunt Public Lands Uses volunteers and is inexpensive. Required approval of the Iowa DNR and the City Council of Waterloo. Special Deer Management Zone - Progress Report 94-95 I Population Problem On February 9, 1994 our aerial survey counted 95 deer in a 2.5 square mile zone which includes Hartman Reserve Nature Center, George Wyth State Park and adjacent private property. The zone includes the open space area along the Cedar River from San Souci Island to Roosevelt Street in Cedar Falls and is bounded by Highway 57 on the North and the bluff line along the River on the South. 95 deer in 2.$ square miles is 38 deer per square mile. On April 4, 1994 the Black Hawk County Deer Task Force declared there was a deer popula- tion problem in the urban area. Management Plan The task force originally recommended that a controlled bowhunt on private lands be used to reduce the popula- tion. The first step required the creation of a Special Deer Management Zone by the Iowa DNR. The DNR approved this request on September 1, 1994. This Special Deer Management Zone included most of Cedar Falls, Waterloo West of Highway 63 and Black Hawk Park North to County Road C-57. The task force requested that the City of Cedar Falls approve a special permit to allow a controlled hunt within the city limits of Cedar Falls on private lands. The Cedar Falls ordinance allowed bowhunting under specified conditions and provided for special use permits to be issued. The Cedar Falls City Council rejected this proposal. Initial discussion with the City of Waterloo produced concerns for ailowing bowhunting on private property throughout the Management Zone. After a long public debate the city council approved a modified request to allow bowhunting within Hartman Reserve Nature Center, George Wyth State Park and adjacent private lands included within the 2.5 square mile study area under a strict set of safety requirements. A temporary exemption from their ordinance restricting the firing of"missiles" within the city limits was passed after 3 readings. The initial proposal had been for the season to run from November 1 to December 2 and open again on December 19 to January 10. Waterloo City Council approval and publication of the ordinance change was completed on December 1 and there- fore the hunt was delayed. The hunters were required to take the International Bowhunter Education Course and pass a profi- ciency test. They also were required to stay 600 feet away from an inhabited building or have permis- sion and be at least 25 feet away from a trail or road, An informational brochure was produced stressing the safety, legal and humane aspects of the bowhunt. Cedar Falls reconsidered the request for a Special Permit which was rejected a second time. Special Deer Management Zone - Progrer, a Report 94-95 2 The Hunt Hartman Reserve Nature Center and George Wyth State Park were divided into 7 zones and the remaining time divided into two periods to allow as many hunters as possible to participate. Two hunters were assigned to each zone during one of two seasons by a lottery. The hunt took place on December 2 and December 19 to January 10. Hunters were also assigned to private lands if they had written permission from the landowners and passed all of the other requirements. Two bowhunters were issued licenses to hunt on private prop- erty in Cedar Falls and another two hunted on private property in Waterloo. A request from the Biological Preserves Committee from the University of Northern Iowa to conduct a bowhunt in the Matala Preserve in Cedar Falls was received and two bowhunters were assigned to tl~is area. Bowhunters were required to pumhase a deer hunting license for $25.00. A limit of 100 licenses had been authorized by the DNR. Bowhunters were allowed to purchase additional licenses after they had harvested a deer. The licenses were valid for "antlerless" deer only. Hunter Survey Each hunter who qualified to hunt within the Special Deer Management Zone was sent a question- naire. Every hunter surveyed, 100%, returned a questionnaire. Number of Hunters Number of licenses sold Number of Days spent hunting per hunter(average) Number of hours per day spent hunting per hunter (Average) Number of deer taken: 33 47 7 4.8 Total 15 does + 4 antlerless bucks = 19 deer Number deer hit but not recovered: One Only one hunter reported hitting, but not recovering a deer. The arrow was recovered at the scene. The deer was a radio collared deer and it was later seen running with other deer without any apparent injuries. Unlawful activities as witnessed by the hunters 27 no, 6 yes Two hunters reported seeing firearm hunters in the City limits of Cedar Falls, a violation of the city ordinance. Three hunters reported seeing people moving or driving deer out of the area. At least one hunter had trouble with dogs chasing deer, a violation of park rules. Number of hunters who would be willing to participate again: All Situations where public safety might have been compromised as witnessed by the hunters. 30 no, 1 yes One hunter witnessed people walking off the trail. A second hunter, who was hunting on private ground, had three cases where he had to ask trespassers to leave. Special Deer Management Zone - Progress Report 94-95 3 Comments from Hun~ers "I thought it was good we had to have safety class and proficiency test. This should be a requirement everywhere" "I feel the Black Hawk County Deer Task Force did a great job of keeping inference to a minimum" "Allow hunters to stalk deer on the ground." (two responses) "Great hunt. Let's do it again next year before the deer herd is up and before it gets so cold." ~"Issue two licenses at once." (two responses) "Season should have stayed open during shotgun season. This is the best time for a bowhunter to participate in something like this." "Be able to take two deer per license, as $25 each gets expensive." ~'I would like to see the season open in October when the state deer season opens." Impact on Population The 15 does taken represent a potential population reduction of 49 deer. An average doe will give birth to two fawns. Thus, 15 X 2= 30 fawns that will not be born. The 30 unborn fawns plus the removal of the 19 adults equals 49. That means there will be 49 less deer to browse and impact the vegetation of the parks. Wounding Rate A total of twenty deer were hit by hunters. One deer was hit and not recovered. Thus, the wounding rate was a very low 5%. None of the deer harvested left the parks and entered private proper~y. The single wounded deer was radio collared. Park officials were able to trace its movements and determine that it is alive and moving freely. Park User Conflicts Both Hartman Reserve Nature Center and George Wyth State Park were open for normal winter recre- ational use during the 24 days of the controlled hunt. This use included skiing, ice fishing, hiking, and running. NO COMPLAINTS were registered with park officials at either park in regards to hunters, hunting or wounded deer. Special Deer Management Zone - Progress Report 94-95 4 Aerial Survey, 1995 An aerial survey by helicopter was conducted March 8, 1995 under the following conditions: Temperature W'md Sky Snow cover C, onditions were considered excellent. 4 degrees F Northwest at 10 mph Clear & sunny 5 inches Park Black Hawk Creek Greenbelt(6 Sq. Mile) Wyth/Hartman Complex (2.5 Sq. Mile) George Wyth State Park Hartman Reserve Nature Center Subtotal Total Deer Count Deer/Sq/Mile 1995 1994 58 deer 9.6 8 55 deer 24 deer 79 31.5 38 152 deer The 1995 aerial survey found 31.5 deer per square mile in the Wyth/Hartman Complex after the controlled hunt. The population had been reduced from a high of 38 deer per square mile in 1994. Road Kill Data The Iowa Department of Natural Resources collects deer road kill data. This information is collected from salvage tags issued to the public and includes the following information: date, sex, and location. Although the Conservation Officer is responsible for collecting this data in Black Hawk County other law enforcement agencies assist in this process. These include the Black Hawk County Sheriffs Department, the Iowa State Patrol and individual city police departments. Car-deer Kills in 1994 Area 70 Within Waterloo 26 Within Cedar Fails 105 Rural Black Hawk County Total 201 These numbers reflect only those deer reported and/or salvaged by the public. Many car deer kills are not reported and therefore these numbers are conservative. Summary of the Urban Deer Research Project Black Hawk County 1993-1995 A total of 57 does have been radio-collared from 1993 to 1995 in George Wyth State Park and Hartman Reserve Nature Center. An additional 54 bucks were ear-tagged during the same period. All radioed collared deer were located about once every 2 weeks. Visual reports were also recorded for both collared does and tagged bucks. Special Deer Management Zone - Progresa Report 94-95 5 Despite the urban environment, the collared deer have exhibited movement and dispersal patterns similar to other studies. About 30% of the juvenile does and 5% of the adult deer leave the park during the summer. Roughly half of these only travel to the edge of the city. Several of these deer have returned to the Wyth/ Hartman Complex during the winter months. Deer that stay within the Wyth/Hartman Complex appear to have a high level of fidelity to specific areas. Deer can often be located in the same general area within each park. No radio-collared does have been killed by hunters outside of the special deer management zone. However, several of ear- tagged bucks have been killed by hunters outside of the zone. Population Model Simulations of deer numbers in the Wyth/Hartman Complex were done using the same computer model used for the statewide deer herd. It starts with an initial June 1 population, adds fawns for reproduction, subtracts deer first for natural mortality (summer & fall), then for hunting losses and then more natural mortality ( winter & spring). Based upon these simulations a reasonable target for the fall of 1995 would be to harvest 30 to 40 deer within the Wyth/Hartman Complex. This should be enough to stabilize the population and bring the population down closer to 20 deer/sq. mile. Plans for 1995 The Black 'Hawk County Deer Task Force recommends that the Iowa Department of Natural Re- sources reestablish the special deer management zone within the city limits of Cedar Falls and Water- ioo. The management zone will be the same as 1994-1995 with the dates changed to November I to December 22, 1995. Based upon aerial surveys and population models the task force recommends that at least 25 does be removed from within the Wyth/Hartman Complex in 1995. The task force will seek approval from the Waterloo City Council to conduct another controlled hunt with in the two parks and on surrounding private property within the Waterloo City limits. The existing Cedar Falls ordinance allows bowhunting for deer within the city limits. The task force will not seek a special use permit from the City of Cedar Falls. For More Information Black Hawk County Deer Task Force Hartman Reserve Nature Center 657 Reserve Drive Cedar Falls, Iowa 50613 319-277-2187 Special Deer Management Zone - Progress Report 94-95 #4 e:~ prog~r~2.PM$ Progress Report III Special Deer Management Zone 1995 Cedar Falls/Waterloo, Iowa Black Hawk County Deer Task Force April 2, 1996 Edited by Veto Fish, Nature Center Director Hartman Reserve Nature Center History Black Hawk County Deer Task Force In the summer and fall of 1991 neighbors of HaRman Reserve Nature Center wrote a letter to the mayor of Cedar Falls complaining about the impact of urban deer. Park officials were also noticing an increase in the number of deer within the urban parks. The Black Hawk County Deer Task Force was formed in the fall of 1991 to review the status of the urban deer herd within Hartman Reserve Nature Center, George Wyth State Park and the Black Hawk Creek Greenbelt and make recommendations as to their management. This report is an update and continuation of the Deer Task Force's first Progress Report (Fall 199 ! - Winter 1994) and Progress Report 11 (Winter 1995). Studies The task force consisted of individuals from over twenty different organizations and included citizens and public officials. The task force initiated three studies: 1. An annual aerial population count using a helicopter. 2. A browse impact study using a three exclosures. 3. A movement study using radio telemetry. A summary of these studies is provided in the first progress report prepared by the task force. The task force determined that the ecological balance of the parks would be impacted if'the deer population was allowed to exceed 30 per square mile. Alternatives The task force reviewed over 60 difl~rent nonlethal and lethal options to manage the urban deer herd. The following are the options given the most attention: Birth Control Rejected, it is very labor intensive, expensive and it has never been proven to be effective on a free ranging deer herd. Capture & Relocate Rejected, it is very labor intensive, expensive and up to 90% of the deer die within the first year. Relocating deer could spread disease. Capture'& Kill Rejected, it is very labor intensive and expensive and would require approval of the Iowa DNR. Controlled Hunt Private Property Required approval of the Iowa DNR, and the city councils of both Cedar Falls and Waterloo. Controlled Hunt Public Lands Uses volunteers and is inexpensive. Required approval of the Iowa DNR and the city council of Waterloo. Progress Report 111. Special Deer Management Zone, 1995 1 Population Problem On February 9, 1994 an aerial survey counted 95 deer in a 2.5 square mile zone which includes Hartman Reserve Nature Center, George Wyth State Park and adjacent private property. The zone includes the open space area along the Cedar River from San Souei Island to Roosevelt Street in Cedar Falls and is bounded by Highway 57 on the North and the bluff line along the River on the South. A total of 95 deer in 2.5 square mile zone equals 38 deer per square mile. On April 4, 1994 the Deer Task Force declared that there was a deer population problem in the Hart- man/Wyth complex. Management Goal The Deer Task force has set a goal of maintaining the deer herd in the Hartman/Wyth complex at a maximum of 30 deer per square mile. Management Plan Based upon aerial surveys and population models the task force recommended that up to 25 does be removed from the Wyth/Hart- man Complex in 1995. To reduce the population, the task force recommended a controlled bowhunt within George Wyth State Park and Hartman Reserve Nature Center for both the 1994 and 1995 season. To conduct this hunt it was necessary to ereate a Special Deer Management Zone. The DNK approved this request for both the 1994 and 1995 seasons. This Special Deer Management Zone included most of Cedar Falls, Waterloo West of Highway 63 and Black Hawk Park North to County Koad C-57. Public Debate In 1994 the task force requested that'the city of Cedar Falls approve a special permit to allow a controlled hunt within the city limits of Cedar Falls on private lands within the Special Deer Management Zone. An existing Cedar Falls city ordinance allowed bowhunting under specified conditions and provided for special use permits to be issued. The Cedar Falls city council rejected this proposal. The task force did not approach the Cedar Falls city council for the 1995 season. After a long public debate the Waterloo dty council approved a modified request to allow bowhunting within Hartman Reserve Nature Center, George Wyth State Park and adjacent private lands under a strict set of safety requirements in 1994. A temporary exemption from a city ordinance restricting the firing of "missiles" within the city limits was passed after 3 readings. The Waterloo city council approved the same ordinance for the 1995 season. The Hunt The hunters were required to take the International Bowhunter Education Course and pass a proficiency test. They also were required to stay 600 feet away from an inhabited building or have permission fi'om the inhabitant and be at least 25 feet away from a designated trail or road. An informational brochure stressing the safety, legal and humane aspects of the bowhunt was produced for the hunters and the public. Hartman Reserve Nature Center and George Wyth State Park were divided into 7 zones. Another three zones were created in the southern end of Black Hawk Park. Two hunters were assigned to each zone during one of four seasons by a lottery. The 1995 hunt took place from November I through December 22, 1995. Progress Report 11[ - Special Deer Management Zone. 1995 2 Hunters were also assigned to private lands if they had written permission from the landowners and passed all of the other requirements. Bowhunters were issued licenses to hunt on the Matala Preserve and adjacent' private property in Cedar Falls. Hunters also received permission to hunt on private property in Waterloo adjacent to Hartman Reserve Nature Center and George Wyth State Park. Bowhunters were required to purchase a deer hunting license for $25.00. A-limit of 100 licenses had been authorized by the DNR. Bowhunters were allowed to purchase additional licenses atter they had harvested a deer. The licenses were valid for"antlerless" deer only. Hunter Survey Each hunter who purchased a license to hunt within the Special Deer Management Zone hi 1995 was sent a questionnaire. 1994 Number of Hunters 33 Number of licenses sold 47 Number of Days spent hunting per hunter (average) 7 Number ofhours per day spent hunting per hunter (average) 4.8 Number ofdeer taken: 19 (See Table 1 for details) 1995 41 62 7.4 4.2 30 Number deer lethally hit but not recovered: 1 * 2** · Only one hunter reported hitting, but not recovering a deer in 1994. The deer was a radio collared deer and it was later seen running with other deer without any apparent injuries. · *A third deer was wounded but later harvested by the same hunter. Unlawful activities as witnessed by the hunters 1994 - 27 no, 6 yes; Two hunters reported seeing firearm hunters in the city limits of Cedar Falls, a violation of the city ordinance. Three hunters reported seeing people moving or driving deer out of the area. At least one hunter had trouble with dogs chasing deer, a violation of park rules. 1995 o 8 yes, 1 maybe; None of violations observed involved DMZ hunters. Four hunters reported damage to tree stands. One individual not involved with the DMZ hunt thought it was legal to bowhunt in George Wyth State Park. One of the DMZ bowhunters stopped him before the hunter started hunting. Four hunters reported people who they felt were trying to interfere with the hunt. At least one hunter reported people harassing deer. The "maybe" response came from a hunter who saw a person before the season throwing out buckets of apples in the ditch in George Wyth State Park. Situations where public safety might have been compromised as witnessed by the hunters. 1994 - 30 no, 1 yes; One hunter witnessed people walking off the trail. A second hunter, who was hunting on private ground, had three cases where he had to ask trespassers to leave. 1995 - 4 yes; Two hunters reported problems with anti-hunters, one reported bikers off the trails and laughing at the hunters, one answered yes but gave no explanation. Progress Re-port 111 - Special L,Xet~r Management/.one, 1995 3 Comments from Hunters 1. The humers reported the following: The hunt was educational and rewarding Five reported hunter harassment 2. Hunters made the following suggestions: Wave the need to qualify for previous participants Start the season sooner or allow it to run longer. Make the individual seasons run longer Provide better maps. Close the parks for the hunt or restrict other park use to the trails. Break the hunt into weekends and weekdays. Impact on Population A total of 17 does and 4 antlerless bu¢ .ks were harvested in the Hartman/Wyth complex during the 1995 hunt. Does in our area average two fawns per birth. The removal of 17 does means that 34 (17 X 2) fawns will not be born in the spring of 1996.. The 34 unborn fawns plus the 21 adults harvested reduces the population by 55. Using a similar accounting system 49 deer were removed in 1994. Thus, over the: last two years, a total of' 104 deer have been remo~,ed from the Hartman/Wyth complex. Wounding Rate A total of 30 deer were harvested. Two deer were wounded but not harvested. Thus, the wounding rate was a low 6%. One deer was wounded and later harvested. No dead deer were found or reported to park officers by the public. None of the deer harvested or wounded left the parks and entered private property. Park User Conflicts Both Hartman Reserve Nature Center and George Wyth State Park were open for normal wimer recre- ational use during the 54 days of the controlled hunt. This use included skiing, ice fishing, hiking, and running. NO COMPLAINTS were registered with park officials at either park in regard to hunters, hunting or wounded deer. Progress Report 111 - Special Lk~r Management Zone. 1995 4 Aerial Survey, 1995 An aerial survey by helicopter was conducted on January 20, 1996 under the following conditions: Temperature Sky Snow cover Conditions were considered excellent. 9 Degrees F Clear and Sunny 7 inches Park Black Hawk Creek Greenbelt (8 Sq. Mile) Wyth/Hartman Complex (2.5 Sq. Mile) George Wyth State Park/San Souci Island Hartman Reserve Nature Center Subtotal Total Deer Count 115 deer Deer/Sq/Mile 1996 1995 1994 14 9.6 6 70 deer 50 deer 120 235 deer 48 31.5' 38 *This survey was done in March and may have been low due to normal dispersal and winter mortality. The 1996 aerial survey found 48 deer per square mile in the Wyth/Hartman Complex ai~er the controlled ham. Road Kill Data The Iowa Department of Natural Resources collects deer road kill data. This information is collected from salvage tags issued to the public-and includes the following information: date, sex, and location. Although the Conservation Officer is responsible for collecting this data in Black Hawk County other law enforcement agencies assist in this process. These include the Black Hawk County Sheriffs Department, the Iowa State Patrol and individual city police departments. Car-deer Kills Total 1994 1995 Area 70 100 Within Waterloo 26 59 Within Cedar Falls .105 83 Rural Black Hawk County 201 242 These numbers reflect only those deer reported and/or salvaged by the public. Many car deer kills are not reported and therefore these numbers are conservative. The 1995 data indicates that numbers were up within the city limits but down in the rural areas. The task force feels that rural numbers are down due to reporting procedures. Summary of the Urban Deer Research Project Black Hawk County 1993-1995 A total of 57 does have been radio-collared from 1993 to 1995 in George Wyth State Park and Hartman Reserve Nature Center. An additional 54 bucks were ear-tagged during the same period. All radio col- lared deer were located about once every 2 weeks. Visual reports were also recorded for both collared does and tagged bucks. Progress Reporl Ill - Special Deer Management Zone. 1995 5 Despite the urban environment, the collared deer have exhibited movement and dispersal patterns similar to other studies. About 30% of the juvenile does and 5% of the adult deer leave the park during the summer. Roughly half of these only travel to the edge of the city. Several of these deer have returned to the Wytlg Hartman Complex during the winter months. Deer that stay within the Wyth/Hartman Complex appear to have a high level offidelity to specific areas. Deer can often be located in the same general area within each park. Population Model Simulations ofthe deer population in the Wyth/Hartman Complex were done using the same computer model used for the statewide deer herd. This model starts with an initial June 1 population and then adds fawns from reproduction. The model then subtracts deer who die fi'om natural mortality throughout the year. Deer harvested during the special deer management hunt are also subtracted from the total. Based upon these simulations a reasonable target for the fall of 1996 would be to harvest 30 does and up to 40 anterless deer within the Wyth/H~-hian Complex. This should be enough to stabilize the population and bring the population down to less than 30 deer/sq. mile. Plans for 1996 The Black Hawk County Deer Task Force recommends that the Iowa Department of Natural Resources reestablish the special deer management zone within the city limits of Cedar Falls and Waterloo. The management zone will be the same as.1995 with the dates set for November 1 to January 10. Based upon aerial surveys and population models the task force recommends that up to 30 does be removed from within the Wyth/Ha~man Complex in 1995. The seasons will be modified to encourage more hunting pressure. Dates for the Bowhunter International Education Course will be set for early fall and announced at the volunteer recognition dinner on April 2, 1996. The task force will seek approval from the Waterloo city council in the fall of 1996 to conduct another controlled hunt with in the Hannan/Wyth complex and on surrounding private property within the Waterloo city limits. The existing Cedar Falls ordinance allows bowhunting for deer within the city limits. The task force will not seek a special use permit from the city of Cedar Falls. For More Information This progress report is a summary. For more detailed information or previous progress reports contact: Black Hawk County Deer Task Force Hartman Reserve Nature Center 657 Reserve Drive Cedar Falls, Iowa 50613 319-277-2187 Progress Reporl 111 - Special Deer Management gone, 1995 6 ~'4 c'. deef:progt~s3 PM~' GWSP ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4 ZONE & HRNC ZONE 6 ZONE 7 BHP ZONE 8 ZONE 9 ZONE 10 SFASON 1 SEASON 2 doe buck doe buck 1995 Statistics Cedar FallsJWatedoo Deer Management Zone 3 1 2 1 1 1 SEASON 3 doe I buck PRIVATE GWSP' 1 1 PRIVATE HRNC** 1 PUBLIC UNI*** 1 2 TOTAL wig BHP & UNI 6 1 TOTAL W/BHP & UNI 8 4 I GW/HRNC CORE AREA: BLACK HAWK PARK: UNI MATALA PESERVE: TOTAL HARVEST: 1 2 SEASON 4 doe buck 2 TOTAL BY ZONE 4 1 1 5 0 1 3 3 6 2 5 0 0 1 2' 6 2 7 0 2 1 30 17 DOES & 4 BUTTON BUCKS 5 DOES & 1 Bu3-rON BUCK I 1 DOE & 2 BUTTON BUCKS 23 DOES & 7 BUTTON BUCKS * Private areas adjacent to Geo Wyth State Park ** Private areas adjacent to Hartman Reserve Nature Center *" Public property - University of Northern Iowa - Matala Preserve Core area includes zones 1-7 and private property adjacent to GWSP and HRNC 4 Special Deer Management Zone 1996-1997 Cedar Falls/Waterloo, Iowa Progress Report IV Black Hawk County Deer Task Force April 1, 1997 Edited by Vern Fish Nature Center Director Hartman Reserve Nature Center History Black Hawk County Deer Task Force In the summer and fall of 1991 neighbors of Hartman Reserve Nature Center wrote a letter to the mayor of Cedar Falls complaining about the impact of urban deer. Park officials were also noticing an increase in the number of deer within the urban parks. The Black Hawk County Deer Task Force was formed in the fall of 1991 to review the status of the urban deer herd within Hartman Reserve Nature Center, George Wyth State Park and the Black Hawk Creek Greenbelt and make reconunendations as to their management. This report is an update and continuation of the Deer Task Foree's first Progress Report (Fall 1991 - Winter 1994), Progress Report II (Winter 1995), and Progress Report (Winter 1996). Studies The task force consisted of individuals from over twenty different organizations and in- eluded citizens and public officials. The task force initiated three studies: 1. An annual aerial population count using a helicopter. 2. A browse impact study using a three exclosures. 3. A movement study using radio tdemetry. Urban Deer Research Project A total of 57 does were radio-collared from 1993 to 1995 in George Wyth State Park and Hartman Reserve Nature Center. An addi- tional 54 bucks were ear-tagged during the same period. All radioed collared deer were located about once every 2 weeks. Visual reports were also recorded for both collared does and tagged bucks. Despite the urban environment, the collared deer have exhibited movement and, dispersal patterns similar to other studies. About 30% of the juvenile does and 5% of the adult deer leave the park during the summer. Roughly half of these only travel to the edge of the city. Several of these deer have returned to the Wyth/ Hartman Complex during the winter months. Deer that stay within the Wyth/Hartman Complex appear to have a high level of fidelity to specific areas. Deer can often be located in the same general area within each park. A summary of these studies is provided in the first progress report prepared by the task force. The task force determined that the ecological balance of the parks would be impacted if the deer population was allowed to exceed 30 per square mile. Special Deer Managemint Zone - Progreas Report 96-97 Alternatives The task force reviewed over 60 different nonlethal and letlml options to manage the urban deer herd. The following are the options given the most attention: Birth Control Rejected, it is very labor intensive, expensive and it has never been proven to be effective on a free ranging deer herd. Capture & Relocate Rejected, it is very labor intensive, expensive and up to 90% of the deer die within the first year. Relocating deer could spread disease. Capture & Kill Rejected, it is very lab6r intensive and expensive and would require approval of the Iowa DNR. Controlled Hunt Private Property Required approval of the Iowa DNR, and the city cotmcils of both Cedar Falls and Waterloo. Controlled Hunt Public Lands Uses volunteers and is inexpensive. Required approval of the Iowa DNR and the City Council of Waterloo. Population Problem On February 9, 1994 an aerial survey counted 95 deer in a 2.5 square mile zone which includes Hartman Reserve Nature Center, George Wyth State Park and adjacent private property. The zone includes the open space area along the Cedar River from San Souci IslEand to Roosevelt Street in Cedar Falls and is bounded by Highway 57 on the North and the bluff line along the River on the South. 95 deer in 2.5 square miles is 38 deer per square mile. On April 4, 1994 the Black Hawk County Deer Task Force declared there was a deer population problem in the urban area. Management Goal The Black Hawk Deer Task force has set a goal of maintaining the deer herd in the Hartman/Wyth complex at a maximum of 30 deer per square mile. Management Plan To reduce the population, the task force recommended a con- trolled bowhunt within George Wyth State Park and Hartman Reserve Nature Center for both the 1994 and 1995 .season. Based upon aerial surveys and population models, the task force recommended that at up to 40 does be removed from the Wyth/ Hartman Complex in 1996-1997. To conduct this hunt it was necessary to create a Special Deer Management Zone. The DNR approved this request for the 1996-97 season. This Special Deer Management Zone included most of Cedar Falls, Waterloo West of Highway 63 and Black Hawk Park North to County Road C-57. ., Special Deer Management Zone - Progress Report 96-97 2 In 1994 the task force requested that the City of Cedar Falls approve a special permit to allow a controlled hunt within the city limits of Cedar Falls on private lands. The Cedar Falls'ordinance allowed bowhunting under specified conditions and provided for special use permits to be issued. The Cedar Falls City Council rejected this proposal. The task force did not approach the Cedar Falls City for the 1.996-1997 season. After a long public debate the Waterloo city council approved a modified request to allow bowhunting within Hartman Reserve Nature Center, George Wyth State Park and adjacent private lands included within the 2.5 square mile study area under a strict set of safety requirements in 1994. A temporary exemption fi'om their ordinance resttiering the firing off'missiles" within the city limits was passed ~ffier 3 readings. The Waterloo city council approved the same ordinance for the 1996-1997 and the 1997 - 1998 season. The hunters were required to take the Intemational Bowhunter Education Course and pass a profidency test. They also were required to stay 600 feet away from an inhabited building or have permission from the inhabitat and be at least 25 feet away from a designated trail or road. An informational brochure was produced stressing the safety, legal and humane aspects of the bowhunt. Summary of the 1996-1997 Runt Hartman Reserve Nature Center and' George Wyth State Park were divided into 7 zones. Another three zones were created in the southern end of Black Hawk Park. Three hunters were assigned to each zone · during one of five seasons by a lottery. The 1996-1997 hunt took place from November 1, 1996 through January 10, 1997. Hunters were also assigned to private lands if they had written permission from the landowners and passed all of the other requirements. Bowhunters were issued licenses to hunt on the Matala Preserve and adj aemnt private property in Cedar Falls. Hunters also received permission to hunt on private property in Waterloo adjacent to Hartman Reserve Nature Center and George Wyth State Park. Bowhunters were required to purchase a deer hunting license for $25.00. A limit of 100 licenses had been authorized by the DN1L Bowhunters were allowed to pumhase additional licenses after they had harvested a deer. The licenses were valid for"antlerless" deer only. The table on page 4 summarizes the 1996-1997 hunt by zone, season, and park/private land. Within the Hartman/Wyth Complex 24 does and 12 button bucks were harvested on both public and private land. Hunt- ers removed 6 does and 1 button buck from Black Hawk Park. A total of 31 does and 13 button bucks were harvested from the special deer management zone. Special Deer Management Zone - Progress Report 96-97 3 Cedar Falls/Waterloo Special Deer Management Zone 1996-1997 Statistics Park/Zone Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 Season 4 Season 5 doe buck doe 1 2 3 1 1 4 I 3 5 I 1 Sub Total 3 1 4 Hartman 6 3 7 1 1 Sub Total I 0 4 Black Hawk 8 9 1 I 1 10 Sub Total I 1 1 Private 3 1 Private 1 Matala 1 Preserve Sub Total 3 1 2 Total 8 3 11 buck doe buck doe buck 1 I I I 2 2 I I I 1 I 2 1 2 3 doe buck 0 I 0 1 1 0 I 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 7 3 3 2 3 1 Totals by Zone/Park 2 1 3 15 6 6~ 11 6 7 6 10 Parks/Natural Areas Deer Count 1997 Deer!SqlMile Black Hawk Creek Greenbelt 139 6 9.6 14 17 (8 sq. mile) HartmarVW~ Complex 99 38 31.5° 48 40** ( 2.5 sq. mile) Conditions were considered excellent. * This survey was done in March and may have been low due to normal spring dispersal and winter mortality. ** The 1997 aerial survey found 40 deer per square mile in the Hartman/Wyth Complex~ This is a drop in population fi'om 48 deer per square mile which was recorded in the 1996 aerial survey. Impact on Population A total of 24 does and 12 antlerless bucks were taken in the Hartman/Wyth complex. An average doe will give birth to two fawns. Thus, 24 X 2= 48 fawns that will not be born. The 48 unborn fawns plus the removal of the 36 adults equals 84. That means there will be 84 less deer to browse and impact the vegeta- tion of the parks. Last year 55'adult and unborn fawns were removed. Over the last three years a total of 188 deer have been removed from the Hartman/Wyth complex. The deer population in the Hamnan/Wyth Complex dropped from 48 deer per/sq mile in 1996 to 40 deer per/sq mile in 1997. The number of road kills within Cedar Falls and Waterloo also dropped. Wounding A total of 51 deer were hit by archers. A total of'7 deer were reported unrecovered; 1 questionable hit, 6 continned hit~ with obvious signs of wounding. Ofthe six confirmed hits, 4 were later seen alive and moving about normally. Park User Conflicts Both Hartman Reserve Nature Cemer and George Wyth State Park were open for normal winter recreational use during the 71 days of the controlled hunt. This use included skiing, ice fishing, hildng, and running. NO COMP~ were registered with park officials at either park in regards to hunters, hunting or wounded deer. Special Deer Managemeat Zone - Progre~ Report 96-97 6 Comparison of Managed Hunts The following is a sununary of the past three managed hunts in the Cedar Falls/Waterloo Special Deer Management Zone. Hunters participating Days to hunt Licenses sold License revenue Deer hansested Unrecovered deer Roadkills^ - Cedar Falls Roadkills^ - Watedoo 1994-1995 1995 1996-1997 33 41 52 24 52 71 47 62 78 1175 1550 1950 19 30 44 15 does, 4 bucks 23 does, 7 bucks 31 does, 13 bucks 1' 3** 7*** 26 46 39 17 does, 8 bucks, I unk 25 does, 21 bucks 27 does, 11 bucks, 1 unk 68 88 89 41 does, 26 bucks, 1 unk 54does, 33 bucks, 1 unk 51 does, 35 bucks, 3 unk Roadkills - 104 83 108 RuraIBlack Hawk Coun~ 54does;47 bucks, 3 unk 41 does, 42 bucks 59 does, 55 bucks, 2 unk * Doe #29 was later observed and tracked by radio at~er the 1994 hunt. ** 3 deer were reported unreeovered; one was later harvested, and the other two were questionable hits. ** *A total of 7 deer were reported unrecovered; 1 questionable hit, 6 confirmed hits with obvious signs of wounding. Of the six continned hits, 4 were later seen alive and moving about normally. ^ The Iowa Department &Natural Resources collects deer road kill data. This informationis collected from salvage tags issued to the public and includes the following information: date, sex, and location. Although the Conservation Officer is responsible for collecting this data in Black Hawk County other law enforcement agencies assist in this process. These include the Black Hawk County Sheriffs Department, the Iowa State Patrol and individual city police departments. These numbers reflect only those deer reported and/or salvaged by the public. Many car deer kills are not reported and therefore these numbers are conservative. ! Aerial Su .trey, 1997 An aerial survL"srby helicopter was conducted January 28, 1997 under the following conditions: Temperature 0 Degrees F Sky Clear and Suri~y Snow cover 7 inches Special Deer Management Zone - Progress Report 96-97 5 Population Model Simulations of deer numbers in the Wyth/Hartman Complex have been done using the same computer model used for the statewide deer herd. It starts with an initial June 1 population, adds fawns from reproduction, subtracts deer first for natural mortality (summer& fall), for hunting losses and more natural mortality (winter & spring). Based upon this simulation, a reasonable target for the 1997-1998 season would be to harvest 30 to 40 deer with at least 25 being does. The goal of this harvest is to bring the population down to less than 30 deer/sq. mile within the Wyth/ Hartman Complex. Plans for 1997 The Black Hawk County Deer Task Force recommends that the Iowa Department of Natural Resources reestablish the special deer management zone within the city limits of Cedar Falls and Waterloo for the 1997-1998 season. The management zone will be the same as 1996 with the dates set for November 1 to January 10. The task force has also requested the authority to issued up to 10 any sex deer tags and up to 200 antherless bonus tags for the 1997-1998 season. To achieve the management goal of reducing the population to less then 30 deer per/sq mile, the task force will continue to look at ways to increase the number of deer harvested. The task force will review comments and suggestions from the public, hunters, wildlife biologists, and the park managers to structure the hunt and set harvest goals for the 1997-1998 season. The task force will not need to seek approval fi'om the Waterloo City Council to conduct a hunt in 1997. Waterloo approved a variance in its city code to allow a controlled hunt for the 1996 and 1997 seasons. The existing Cedar Falls ordinance allows bowhunting for deer within the city limits. For More Information This is a summary. For more information contact: Black Hawk County Deer Task Force Hartman Reserve Nature Center 657 Reserve Drive Cedar Falls, Iowa 50613 319-277-2187 e-mail: Hartman~cedamet.org I-rrrP://www. cedamet.org/hartman~ #7 ~..\ In~g~e~4,PM3 Special Deer Management Zone - Progress Rcport 96-97 7 City of iowa City I EMORAND[JM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: City Council Lisa Handsaker and Misha Goodman-Herbst October 14, 1997 Deer Management Plan If approved by the Council, the Winter 1997/1998 Iowa City Deer Management Plan to utilize sharpshooting and trap and kill must be forwarded to the State of Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for administrative policy amendment. The only method currently allowed by the DNR (the entity which is entrusted with the welfare of all deer in Iowa) for urban deer management is bow and arrow hunting. The following information will provide you with some background on the decision of the Deer Management Committee to recommend sharpshooting and trap and kill for the City of Iowa City. When approached in late 1996 with the City Manager's concern regarding the number of citizen deer complaints the City was receiving, the DNR recommended formation of a citizen task force to determine the best plan for Iowa City. The Council established a committee possessing a variety of opinions on the issue of deer management. The Committee spent five months thoroughly reviewing information and devised, what members believe to be, a plan that will be effective and representative of citizen expectations and desires for deer management. First and foremost it was important to the Committee to keep the interest of the animal in mind and to use lethal reduction as a last resort. The DNR has encouraged other communities in Iowa to utilize bow and arrow hunting to manage urban deer. While the Committee recognized that archery may be effective under appropriate circumstances, members preferred sharpshooting and trap and kill over bow and arrow hunting for the Iowa City/Coralville community for the following reasons: It has been determined that deer have a greater chance of dying quicker with sharpshooting than bow and arrow. The humaneness of the method to be recommended was a significant issue with many Committee members. The DNR advisors did not think the degree of humaneness would be a reason to amend the current policy on deer management. Members concluded that Iowa City/Coralville is a community which prides itself on concern for animals, and how quickly the deer die would be an important, if not the most important, issue with the citizens - just as it was for Committee members. The DNR is responsible for wildlife management and it recognizes deer hunting as a management tool and a recreational activity - one which provides a significant contribution to Iowa's economy. There is a concern on behalf of the DNR that allowing sharpshooting as an alternative method for urban deer management could eventually threaten the use of bow'and arrow hunting as a recreational activity. The Committee determined it was not an objective of our urban deer management to provide an opportunity for sport hunters within the City limits. Whether or not the Committee's objection to recreational hunting as a means to manage urban deer accurately represents the citizenry can only be confirmed 'with a comprehensive Iowa City/Coralville %~Vinter 1997/t998 Deer/v~anagement Plan illli d ' Jan Ashman Charlie Duffy Pat Farrant Loren Forbes Ron Fort Dave Froschauer Misha Goodman-Herbst Lisa Handsaker Steve Hendrix Doug Jones Scott Larson Bud Louis Judy Rhodes Nancy Seiberling Tim Dorr Willy Suchy Tim Thompson Joe Wilkinson The 1997 Iowa City/Coralville Deer Management Committee would like to thank the City Council of Iowa City for appointing a group of individuals with a wide array of views concerning management of deer, the Department of Natural Resource advisors who patiently assisted us with our process, and the citizens who provided valuable feedback. Contact: City Manager's Office, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5010 Winter 1997/1998 Deer Management Plan 2 10/17/97 The 1997 Iowa City/Coralville Deer Management Committee has determined that deer management within the corporate limits is a necessary duty of the City to ensure that the health of the herd is maintained and that plant and other animal life which make up the ecosystems of the natural areas in the City are not irreparably damaged or destroyed, and to ensure the safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the City and prevent major damage to their property by deer. The Committee recognizes that deer management is an ongoing process which must be continued from year to year. The City must establish sound methods for gathering information and evaluating its efforts. The Committee affirms the value of the presence of deer as a natural resource within the City limits and encourages individuals to become better educated to ways of living with deer. It is also clear that the size of the herd in numerous parts of the community is reaching levels which endanger the lives of the inhabitants (from deer/vehicles accidents), increases the destruction of plantings in people's yards, and ultimately disrupts the ecosystem in the area. After careful review of management issues, the Committee sees no viable option but to kill members of the herd to reduce their numbers to a level which is tolerable to the community. Citizen complaints to the City of Iowa City regarding deer have increased markedly over the last couple of years. In response, the City Council directed staff to investigate how to approach deer management. City staff contacted local Department of Natural Resource representatives who advised a helicopter count be performed to determine deer population within the urban areas of Iowa City/Coralville. POPULATION COUNT On January 31, 1997, Tim Thompson (Iowa Department of Natural Resources) and Ron Fort (Iowa City Police Department) performed a helicopter count of the Iowa City/Coralville area. The following conditions existed: temperature 45 degrees F, wind 15 to 30 mph SW, sky clear and sunny, snow cover 5 inches and melting. A total of 538 deer were viewed and counted. FORMATION OF THE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE After review of the helicopter count results, the Iowa City City Council acted upon the recommendation from the DNR that a task force be assembled consisting of a wide range of representation. Council appointed members from the following factions: City of Iowa City staff, Iowa City/Coralville Animal Shelter, Iowa City Police Department, Project Green, resident living in area heavily populated with deer, resident living in area not heavily populated with deer, animal rights, Johnson County Humane Society, science/nature/biology, Iowa Wildlife Federation, City of Coralville, resident of Coralville, and Johnson County Board of Supervisors. The Deer Management Committee first convened on May 1, 1997. The group generally met every two weeks. First meetings consisted of the DNR relaying information regarding deer habits, habitat, and breeding patterns, along with knowledge gained from similar task force groups from other cities in Iowa, Illinois, and Minnesota. The Committee agreed upon definitions for "cultural carrying capacity," "biological carrying capacity," and "ecological carrying capacity." They also discussed and agreed upon a definition of "humane" as it pertains to the killing of deer. The Iowa City/Coralville Committee appointed subcommittees to review information on living with deer and on reducing the size of herds as a management technique. Winter '1997/1998 Deer Management Plan 3 10/17/97 REVIEW OF OPTIONS The Committee established that there is plenty of information available for dissemination to educate the community about living with deer. There are also numerous vehicles for disseminating the information including brochures, City News inserts, public panel discussions, and television access. The more difficult task was to determine acceptable methods for herd reduction. The following options were considered in detail: Do Nothing This is the default option, however it does not involve preserving the status quo. Iowa's deer herd was almost exterminated 100 years ago; only in the last few decades have the numbers begun to grow rapidly; humans have yet to feel the full impact of deer in the distinctly unnatural habitat provided by our urban fringe areas. Is it humane? This depends on the deer and human populations. When both are high, deer interactions with people are more likely to cause the deer to panic and injure themselves, sometimes fatally. It is hard to judge this to be humane. When deer populations approach the single-species biological carrying capacity of the habitat, probably well in excess of 100 deer per square mile in Iowa, epidemic disease among deer becomes a serious threat. This does not appear to be humane. An adequately fed deer herd will have an annual birth rate of 50 to 90 fawns per hundred deer. In the steady state, the death rate will match this. In an urban area with no natural predation, the question must be asked if accidents (mostly deer/vehicle collisions) and disease are humane. The Committee recognized that outright starvation is unlikely in the Iowa City/Coralville community. Is it safe? Deer-vehicle collisions are not safe, but are becoming a familiar risk. The use of deer reflectors (costing over $8,000 per mile) along roads appears to be useful in reducing the rate of nighttime deer/vehicle collisions. Although results with the use of reflectors may vary, accidents involving deer in the area of Dubuque Street in Iowa City equipped with reflectors has decreased by 98%. Is it effective? No. The deer population will eventually reach an equilibrium at very high numbers. Under stress, deer fertility declines and infant mortality increases until eventually, they balance. The ultimate deer population density for our area will most likely exceed the highest densities currently found in any part of Iowa City, approximately 5 to 10 times the population densities recommended for our area. What does it cost? Wildlife carcass removal within the City is the City's responsibility; costs (staff time, vehicle use, equipment, etc.) are between $110 and $150 per deer carcass. Costs to property owners for fencing and other control measures should not be ignored, nor should costs associated with damage to landscaping. In addition, high deer populations are likely to severely reduce the habitat available to other wildlife that is currently found within Iowa City. Winter 1997/1998 Deer Management Plan 4 10/17/97 Is it legal? Yes. Committee Conclusion The Committee does not believe "do nothing" is an option for the Iowa City/Coralville community as the conflict between humans/deer and ecosystem/deer will continue to increase as deer population grows. Contraception The Committee assumed the use of hormone injections or immunocontraceptives (porcine zona pellucida [PZP]): both methods have been proven to be effective on captive deer. Implantable lifetime contraceptives, and oral contraceptives that could be administered by means of drugged bait are research subjects. Surgical sterilization is, in theory, an option, but it is extremely expensive. is it humane? Injections by drugged dart have been used on a wide variety of wildlife and appear to cause only brief discomfort. The contraceptives that have been tested lengthen the doe's breeding season by up to two months, leading to an extended rutting season. In our cold northern winters, this could lead to increased mortality among males. Occasional contraceptive failures lead to late summer births; late-born fawns rarely survive the winter. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is currently sponsoring at least eight test projects nationwide and has received inquires from over 150 communities and groups. The use of contraception, if it could be effective and safe, is potentially the most humane way to control herd size. Is it safe? Any drug injected in free-ranging animals that are subject to hunting and later human consumption poses safety questions. These questions have not been answered for the birth control drugs under consideration, although there is good reason to believe that PZP poses minimal risks. Is it effective? Simulation studies done for the deer herd at Kent Park suggest that 60% of the does in a herd must receive effective contraceptives in order to stabilize that herd, assuming that hunting pressures outside the park remain unchanged. Herd reduction requires even greater coverage. The most widely used drugs must be administered to each doe twice per season, although single-dose methods are being studied. Controlled doses require record keeping for each deer, something that is impossible in free-ranging herds. What does it cost? A veterinarian who is an expert marksman is typically required if drugs are to be injected into deer using darts fired from a shotgun. Typically, a bait station is established and the veterinarian shoots from a blind or stand of some kind. Thus, the costs will be comparable to sharpshooting over bait, plus the costs of drugs and record keeping. Costs would double if two doses per doe must be administered. Is it legal? Because of drug safety issues, FDA approval has yet to be given for general use of immunocontraceptives on free-ranging deer. Winter 1997/1998 Deer Management Plan 5 10/17/97 Committee Conclusion The Committee believes participation in a study is worth pursuing and have been in contact with HSUS deer specialist Allen Rutberg. When available, contraception would be the preferred method of stabilizing the deer population in the Iowa City/Coralville community. Trap and Relocate The Committee assumed the use of a box trap; the cost of trapping with dart guns and drugs is largely comparable the cost of sharpshooting. Is it humane? A properly constructed trap is unlikely to injure the deer. If the trap is checked with sufficient frequency, the trapped animal is unlikely to suffer significant trauma from the 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. In sum, while well-intentioned, it is difficult to describe relocation of deer as humane; for this reason, the HSUS opposes trapping and relocation of deer. Is it safe? Properly managed box traps pose very little risk to people. Is it effective? Yes, assuming that an appropriate release site can be located. This is not easy, as few sites in the Midwest have the combination of ade. quate habitat, low deer population and willing human stewards that this method requires. This method is selective; if only does are to be relocated, bucks caught in a trap may be easily released. What does it cost? The cost depends on trap placement and deer population. Frequency of trap monitoring and other duties the monitors may have adds uncertainty. North Oaks, Minnesota reports a cost per deer capture of $131. Urban trapping for live release has been reported to cost between $113 and $800 in Wisconsin and Long Island, respectively; total costs including transport have been reported in the $300 to $1,000 range. Frequent trips with small numbers of deer are more humane but more expensive. Is it legal? Currently, the Iowa DNR does not recommend this method for deer, but it is routinely used for dealing with waterfowl and small animals. Committee Conclusion The Committee does not view trap and relocate as an option due to the high mortality rate and the unavailability of areas to relocate deer. Winter 1997/1998 Deer Management Plan 6 10/17197 Bow Hunting Suggested regulations for bow hunting in urban areas assume that the hunter shoots from a fixed stand, waiting there until the deer comes to the hunter. Stalking or driving deer is not recommended. While the use of elevated stands is common, it is not required. The Committee assumed the imposition of strict hunter education and certification standards such as have been adopted in Waterloo in addition to similar regulations governing hunter behavior. These have a demonstrated track record of directly addressing some of the more severe criticisms of the humaneness and effectiveness of bow hunting. Without these, the Committee's judgment of bow hunting would be harsher. Some Committee members reject bow hunting under any circumstance. 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 experience suggests a significant degree of success. Recent studies appear to confirm the notion that crippling rates from bow hunting in relatively cramped settings such as are encountered in fringe area urban deer management are indeed lower than the crippling rates reported for bow hunting in general. All studies the Committee reviewed were conducted by bow-hunting advocacy groups or funded by archery-related industries. Is it safe? Safe bow hunting requires open spaces, on the order of 8 to 10 acres per hunter, a requirement that precludes bow hunting in developed areas, even where lot sizes are large by urban standards. A hunter shooting from the center of a square 8 acre parcel will be 100 yards from any point on the perimeter; typically, the hunter will not shoot at targets over 25 yards away. The additional 75 yards make it likely that any deer that are killed will die before leaving the area. State of Iowa Code ~N81A.124 requires the consent of the owner of the property on which a hunter hunts and the consent of the owner or tenant of any inhabited structure within 200 yards. It is not obvious that this applies to bow hunting (the law refers to discharging firearms or shooting game), but Waterloo's bow-hunting regulations have adopted this 200 yard figure and in addition prohibit hunting from a stand nearer than 25 yards to a public trail. Is it effective? Yes, assuming that sufficient numbers of hunters are willing to comply with the additional regulations governing hunting in the city. 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 and 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. Winter 1997/1998 Deer Management Plan 7 10/17/97 What does it cost? The costs of a DRN-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. If the City were to administer its own archery reduction program, the Committee assumed the City would put into place strict administration and law enforcement policing of hunter activity due to the urban setting. Is it legal? Yes, currently bow hunting is the only method of urban deer population control allowed by the Iowa DNR. Bow hunting may indeed be legal within undeveloped areas in Iowa City, and there is evidence that some areas within the. City limits are hunted fairly intensively. Bow hunting has had only minimal effect on the rate of deer population growth because hunters generally hunt only bucks, unless specific hunting regulations force the hunting of does. Committee Conclusion The Committee does not recommend bow hunting as an option for Iowa City for reasons related both to humane concerns and issues of hunt control. The Committee also concluded that the main reason to chose bow and arrow hunting over sharpshooting would be to provide a recreational activity or sport for hunters. The Committee does not regard this as a goal of deer management within the Iowa City/Coralville urban area. Trap and Kill The Committee assumes the use of a baited box trap or modified clover trap. Trapping is typically done in mid to late winter. The Committee assumed that trapped animals will be killed by a gunshot to the head. Deer meat acquired by this method of slaughter is suitable for human consumption. Is it humane? A properly constructed trap is unlikely to injure the deer, and if the trap is checked with sufficient frequency, the trapped animal is unlikely to suffer significant trauma from the stay in the trap. The killing methods assumed are instantaneous and therefore humane. Is it safe? Properly managed box traps pose very little risk to people. This method is the only lethal method of deer population control safe enough to use in fully developed urban settings. Is it effective? Yes, although the experience in North Oaks and Minnetonka, Minnesota suggests that it may not be sufficient, by itself, to control a large herd. As with trapping and relocation, this method is selective. Deer may be released if they are not of the desired age and sex. What does it cost? The cost per deer trapped depends on trap placement, deer population, and weather conditions. The frequency of trap monitoring and the possibility that those who monitor the Winter 1997/1998 Deer Management Plan 8 10/17/97 traps may have other duties between visits to the trap adds complexity. North Oaks, Minnesota reports a cost per deer capture of $131. The cost of carcass disposal or butchering must be considered; the Ruzickas Locker in Solon has agreed to charge $35 to grind process a non-field dressed deer to 5-pound packages. Minnetonka, Minnesota has reported total costs of $209-$214 per deer, including meat processing. Is it legal? Currently, the Iowa DNR does not allow this method. Committee Conclusion The Committee recommends trap and kill as an option to supplement sharpshooting over bait in areas where sharpshooting is not feasible. Sharpshooting The Committee assumed the use of trained sharpshooters, most likely law enforcement officers, shooting high-powered rifles over bait from a blind or other set position at night with the use of spotlights, typically in mid to late winter so the deer are hungry and easily attracted by bait. The bait must be approximately 50 yards from the sharpshooter to allow accurate shooting without the deer sensing a human presence. Deer meat taken this way is suitable for human consumption. Sharpshooters who have been involved in such work report that it is extremely unpleasant with none of the elements of hunting, and no sense of sportsmanship or of giving the deer a fair chance. Is it humane? A high-powered rifle can cause instantaneous death; from the point of view of the individual deer, 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? The safety of this method depends on the range selected, as defined by the location of the bait station and shooting station. The safest ranges are those that position the shooter and bait so that bullets are directed into the ground. Safe ranges are unlikely to be available in built-up areas. Is it effective? Assuming that there is an appropriate range, yes. This is the method of choice for urban deer population control in Illinois and in some Minnesota and Wisconsin communities. Deer age and sex can be hard to determine at a distance at night, particularly in the winter after the antlers have been shed. Other communities utilizing sharpshooting, however, have determined sex selection to not be a prohibiting factor. Studies have shown, and DNR advisors concurred, that sharpshooting is more effective at reducing larger numbers of deer than bow and arrow hunting, the only currently allowed method in Iowa. The DNR indicated a large percentage of the deer population must be eliminated from the Iowa City/Coralville herd the first few years. Winter 1997/1998 Deer Management Plan 9 10/17/97 What does it cost? The cost per deer killed depends on many variables but is dominated by the wage paid to the sharpshooters. Bloomington, Minnesota has reported average costs of $183-$194 per deer in 1993. Costs as high as $260 have been reported in the Chicago metro area. A report from Wisconsin estimates $74 per deer (excluding processing). The cost of carcass disposal or butchering must be considered; the Ruzickas Locker in Solon has agreed to charge $35 to grind process a non-field dressed deer to 5-pound packages. Local law enforcement officers who would be independently-contracted to shoot have expressed interest in charging a rate of $50 per deer rather than an hourly wage. Is it legal? This method involves night shooting, over bait, with lights and high-powered rifles. The Iowa DNR does not currently allow hunters to use any of these methods. The DNR must amend administrative policy in order to authorize sharpshooting for urban deer management. Committee Conclusion The Committee recommends sharpshooting as the most effective, efficient, and humane method for reducing the Iowa City/Coralville deer population. MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS The Committee divided the Iowa City/Coralville community into twenty distinct Deer Management Districts. The districts were determined based on natural/man-made barriers along with the ability to implement management techniques in each District. CARRYING CAPACITY/RECOMMENDATIONS The Committee agreed to the following deer population carrying capacity and recommendations. 0-24 deedsquare mile Recommend educational material on living with deer. A brochure should be designed to answer citizen questions and encourage an attitude of living with deer. A resource library of printed materials should be established so people would have easy access to information. The Committee also accumulated a large number of resources for City use. 25-34 deer/square mile Review on a complaint-by-complaint basis. Educational material may be recommended or reduction methods could be implemented depending on the management area, number of complaints, and/or types of damage. 35+ deedsquare mile Reduction must be implemented. At this level, deer pose threat to the ecosystem. Timely announcements (utilizing City public information distribution methods such as City News, Government Channel 4 and media releases) advising the community on the approved plan and actual implementation information are necessary. Review of the twenty Deer Management Districts indicates that four warrant methods for educating citizens on "living with deer" and seven warrant some killing of deer. Winter 1997/1998 Deer Management Plan 10 10/17/97 It is the unanimous decision of the 1997 iowa City/Coralville Deer Management Committee that the Iowa City City Council resolve that the City Manager is authorized and directed to implement the Winter 1997/1998 Deer Management Plan for the, that shall include the following elements: The City of Iowa City will develop a comprehensive educational program that will provide Iowa City residents with information on deer seasonal habits and guidelines for limiting localized deer damage through the use of repellents, screening, alternative plantings, and other techniques. Educational materials will be distributed with each new residents' packet and information broadcast regularly on Government Cable Channel 4. The City of Iowa City will organize public information meetings regarding the methods of deer management listed herein. The City of Iowa City will evaluate and, where appropriate, install or petition the State of Iowa or Johnson County to install on roadways under their jurisdiction, warning signs and/or reflectors that may reduce the likelihood of vehicle/deer accidents. In addition, to minimize deer/vehicle conflict, thoughtful consideration will be given to deer migratory paths as transportation improvement projects are approved by the City Council. The City of Iowa City will actively work with the State of Iowa Department of Natural Resources to fully understand and strongly support their efforts to control the deer population for which that agency is responsible and which affects the health, safety, and welfare of Iowa City residents. The City of Iowa City will immediately apply for permits from the State of Iowa Department of Natural Resources to implement the plan to kill 109 does within the Iowa City corporate limits utilizing sharpshooting and trap and kill during the winter of 1997/1998. The specific areas for reduction are to be Management Districts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 15. A map defining the Management Districts is attached. The City of Iowa City will fully comply with all rules and regulations promulgated by the iowa Department of Natural Resources governing killing of deer, will exercise great caution and safety in implementing the program, will utilize the most humane methods available, and will ensure the deer meat is processed for distribution to agencies involved in feeding the hungry and the homeless. A program of public education about the management plan will be implemented to ensure that the public is aware of this activity and of safety measures. 6. The City of Iowa City will appropriate the sum of $15,000 to implement the Deer Management Plan outlined in this Resolution for the period through February 28, 1998. 7. The City of Iowa City will pursue a study in cooperation with the Humane Society of the United States of the feasibility of deer immunocontraception within its corporate limits. The City of Iowa City will compile data on deer management including but not limited to vehicle/deer accident information, citizen complaints, and an annual helicopter count. In addition, the City Council will convene a meeting of the Iowa City/Coralville Deer Management Committee in the Spring of 1998 to review and recommend options for the period of October 1, 1998, through March 1, 1999. The City of Iowa City will conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of this Deer Management Plan at the City Council Formal Meeting no later than April 30, 1998. A report will be filed with the State of Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Winter 1997/1998 Deer Management Plan 11 10/17/97 - ........... ...... GLOSSARY .... ............. ...... BIOLOGICAL CARRYING CAPACITY: Biological or single-species carrying capacity is the number of animals of a particular species that a given range can support. CULTURAL CARRYING CAPACITY: Number of animals of a particular species that can co-exist compatibly with human populations that have been encouraged to employ all non-lethal options to deter conflict with the animal population. ECOLOGICAL CARRYING CAPACITY: Number of animals of a particular species that a given range can support without that species driving other species out of that range. HUMANE: Marked by compassion, kindness, mercy, and/or consideration for animals. MODIFIED CLOVER TRAP: A trap consisting of mesh sides and a metal frame used to detain an animal. STEPHENSON BOX TRAP: A trap of sturdy wood construction, 10' long, 4' wide, and 4' high, used to detain an animal. Winter 1997/1998 Deer Management Plan 12 10/17/97 Projcvtod Number of Deer to be Removed by willic Suchy Wildlife Biologist, IDlqR Population sfinulations can bc uscd to predict the rcspogse of a polmlafion to proposed management actions. A model requires basic assumptions about the productivity, survival and egress of deer into and out of the area und~ ~sidcra~ion. The ass~,m.ntions used for thcsc simulations are listed in the Appendix and have been used at Kent Park with acccptablc rcsults. In ' gcaeral, deer in urban areas such as Iowa City have hi2h survival ratcs, high mtcs of productivity and si~vniflenmt moveanent into and out ofthe. se areas. The simulaficas d~elopvd h~ am based up0nthe number of deer observed daring the hclicop~s ~ conduot~ in lanua~y, 1997. The simul~tio~ assum~ that about 60% of the number counted were, does and about 1/3 of the does were fawns. Dispersal and then reproduction occur and the number of deer present aRcr normal mortality through the c~d o£ Demurabet are calodatod. Reinovals oc~tr during January and Febtomy and ar~ additive to noxmal mortality. Table I is a stunmary ofthe results era gimulaiion nm for units 4&5. Removal of 25 do~s and 15 bucks were simulated for 3 years and then no doer w~re removed for 3 yca~. ~ 3 years the deer population will be below the goal of30/square ntile. However nearly 50% ofthe does in the population will nod to be removed in the final year. This level of removal will be difficult to achieve. A(~ 2 y~lrs number will be well above the goal and r~aovals will need to be initiated The above projections can be severely in ea-or ifthe initial number (the helicopter surveys) are significantly biased. Since the count~ are best vi~I as a minimum number preset, a highc, r number of removals will likely be nc~xled to reach the desired goals. Additionally, since those counts are based upon counts for only 1 year, there is no way to ~aluatc how consistcarly dcx~r use these axeas. Since the size of the management unit~ dvtnod are roughly the same siz~ as a deer's area.of use (home range) numbers could change dramatically if dc~r simply shift from one unit to Table 2 is a conservative estimate of the number of deer that need to be removed in each of the management units. Manegumout units 6 and 15 do not ali~ort with the ae~4al survey boundaries. The number of removals listed are the number that n~ed to be i'ai~oved for the area surveye~ not just the area within tlm unit. I assunmd that about 65% of removals will by does which is sunilar to the rcsults reported in Illinois and Minnesota. Removal efforts should target doc~ and could logically cease when the desired ntunber of does is rcraov~ in a unit. In a pra~ical sense, ternovals shotfid probably continue if the amount of effort to remove doer is still reasonable. I believe that it will be difficult to r~move 40 to 50% of the does in any one year. If thin prove~ to be the case, then remov~ds will nod io be made cwcny year to ke~'p the number of deer below the desired level. Tt~l~ 1. Simld~ted de~r mlmbe~ foz zon~ 4 and $ in I~ Cid/, 8imlfi~ions uz: t~ic ~'~ivil amt l~l~cli~ zates and the ~movaI ~ 25 doe~ ~ch year for 3 yearn and no removals for $ years. Y~ 1997 1998 1999 20O0 2001 2002 20O3 Post-wi~ter Numbers Deer Removed D~ ~ ~c~ C~ T~ C~ ~ ~m~d ~7 31 78 2~ 3~% I~ 33% 41 -I3% 30 -3% 71 -~ 25 38% I5 ~4% 27 -34% 26 -13% 53 -25% 25 48% 15 10 ~3% 17 -3~% 27 4~% 0 0% 0 14 4~A 19 ~2% 33 22% 0 0% 0 20 43% 22 16% . 42 27% 0 0% 0 0% 28 ~% 28 27% 56 33% Table 2. The number ofik~ that would needto bc moved in each of the next 3 years to keep the reduce s/mnlated populations to less than 30 / square mile. Managemont De~ Sighted Area District in 1997 P~ninsula 28r3 69 Dulmqu~/o 4&5 78 Dodge Street I-Itckery ~ 7 65 Clear Creek a 15 98 North ofI80 a 6 37 Total $o (3o) 5o 0o) 50 00) 19 (I2) 19 (12) ~9 02) 19'6 (109)176 (109) 1'76 (109) a- area sueteyed d~notmstch management unit, ~,~,tes ofreamvaI for area sin, rayed b - number i~ l~mmtlmia i~ the nanbet ofdoea that nc~ to Im r~mved Appendix I. Assumptions used in simulations. 1. Annual survival raton Doe fawns - 73% Does (1.5+) - 93% · Buck fawns - 73% Bucks (1.5+)- 88% 2. Reproductive rates Doe fawns - 0.95 fawns/doe Does (1.5+) - 1.83 fawns/doe 3. Removals - Baseline simulation has no removals 4. Emigration . 25% of doe fawns emigrate from area 42% of buck fawns emigrate from area S. No density dependent changes in any rates. 6. All ~emoval$ would be additive to normal mortality TOTAL P. 04 Council Member Ku bby introduced the following Resolution entitled "RESOLUTION DIRECTING SALE OF $5,540,000 ESSENTIAL CORPORATE PURPOSE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS," and moved its adoption. Council Member Thornberry seconded the motion to adopt. The roll was called and the vote was, AYES: Novick, Thornberry, Vanderhoef, Baker, Kubb¥, Lehman, Norton NAYS: None Whereupon, the Mayor declared the following Resolution duly adopted: Resolution No. 97-368 RESOLUTION DIRECTING SALE OF $5,540,000 ESSENTIAL CORPORATE PURPOSE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS WHEREAS, pursuant to notice as required by law, bids have been received at public sale for the bonds described as follows and the best bid received is determined to be the following: $5,540,000 ESSENTIAL CORPORATE PURPOSE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS: Bidder: Harris Trust the terms of said bid being: Purchase Price: Net Interest Rate: Net Interest Cost: of Chicago 5,484,659.00 5.051 $ 3,008,149.85 -4- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: Section 1. That the bid for the bonds as above set out is hereby determined to be the best and most favorable bid received and, said bonds are hereby awarded based on said bid. Section 2. That the statement of information for bond bidders and the form of contract for the sale of said bonds are hereby approved and the Mayor and Clerk are authorized to execute the same on behalf of the City. Section 3. That the notice of the sale of the bonds heretofore given and all acts of the Clerk done in furtherance of the sale of said bonds are hereby ratified and approved. PASSED AND APPROVED, this 21st day of October ,1997. Mayor ATTEST: PGOODRIC\109447\I\10714044 -5- OFFICIAL BID FORM Members of the City Council Iowa City, Iowa Sale Date: October 21, 1997 Members of the Council: For the principal amount of $5,540,000 General Obligation Bonds, legally issued and as described in the Official Terms of Offering, we will pay $~.. 0tt~/ffo.._~ ~ (not less than $5,484,600) plus accrued interest on the total principal of $5,540,000 to date of delivery, provided the Bonds bear the following interest rates (in non-descending order): Year Amount 1999 $290,000 2000 275,000 2001 275,000 2002 275,000 2003 275,000 2004 275,000 2005 275,000 2006 300,000 2007 300,000 2008 300,000 Interest Rate .r~-% Interest Year Amount Rate 2009 $300,000 ~/~_~% 2OlO 300,000 q5 % 2Oll 300,000 % 2012 300,000 2013 300,000 ~.U % 2014 300,000 2015 300,000 2016 300,000 2017 300,000 The Bonds mature on June I, in each of the years as indicated above and interest is payable June 1, 1998, and semiannually thereafter on June 1 and December 1 of each year. In making this offer, we accept the terms and conditions as defmed in the Official Terms of Offering published in the Official Statement dated October 8, 1997. All blank spaces of this offer are intentional and are not to be construed as an omission. Our good faith deposit in the amount of $55,400 has been or will be submitted in accordance with the Official Terms of Offering. NOT PART OF THIS BID: Explanatory Note: According to our computation, this bid involves the following:~ Net In/terest Co~ Net Interest Rate Respectfully submitted, Account Manager Cattle r,. Neal, V±ce l~res:i. dent: (A list of account members is on the reverse side of this proposal.) The foregoing offer is hereby accepted by and on behalf of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, this 21" day of October, 1997. (Title) (Title) 10720797 15:$4 '~312 683 6107 P&INEWEBBER CHG0 ~001/001 OFFICIAL BID FORM Members of the City Council Iowa City, Iowa Sale Date: October 21, t997 of the Council: For ~fie principal mount of $5,540~00. ~e,nejAal.~,Ohl~ i~on Bonds. legally issued and ~s described in the Official Terms of Offering, we will pay $~. '~//~f~/"d'~-~.... (n!',t l~ss than $~A84,~00) plus accrued intere$£ on the total pHnclp~] ~¢ ~5~54fl,OOfl tn date n¢ cl~.l~very~l~mV~Clecl/he l Iond.~ hear the f~llowi~g/nte,~t rates (in non-descending Year Amount 1999 $290.000 2000 275,000 2001 275,000 2002 275,0O0 2003 275,000 2004 275,000 200~ 27~,000 2006 300,000 2007 300~000 2008 ~00,000 order): ~. '.~°/o z Intere~ Ye~,r ~mouat t~ :2009 $300,000 % ~00.000 ~00,000 .~_~_.__% S00,000 201 ~ 300,000 2016 300,000 201 ? 300,000 The Bonds mature on June 1, ~ each of the years as gdicatcd above and interes~ is payable June 1, 1998, and ~emiatmually thereafter on June 1 at~d December 1 oreact, year. In making thi~ offer, we accept the term; and conditions as de/ined in fae Official Terms of Offering published in the Official Statement dated october 8, 1997. All bla~lc spa0~s of this offer are intentional and are not to be cormtreed ~ an omi,~ion. Oar good f~ith deposit in th~ em,unt of $$5,400 has boon or will bc ~ubmittod in accordance with the Official Terms of Offerhg. NOT PART OF THIS BID; Respect£,,lly submitted, Explanatory Note: According to our computation, this bid/nvolves the ~ollowhlg: ,~ Net Interest Cost Ne~ Interest Rate ~cuunt Manager list of account t~/~mbers is proporal.) is an the reverse side of The foregoing offer is hereby accepted by and on b~half of the City of Iowa City. Iowa, thie 2I~ day. of October, 1997. (Title) (Title) OFFICIAL BID FORM Members of the City Council Iowa City, Iowa Sale Date: October 21, 1997 Members of the Council: For the principal amount of $5,540,000 General Obli_~ation Bonds, legally issued and as described in the Official Terms of Offering, we will pay $ ~P/~/~ r~'~ (not less than $5,484,600) plus accrued interest on the total principal of $5,540,000 to date of deliver3/, provided the Bonds bear the following interest rates (in non-descending order): Interest Interest Year Amount Rate Year Amount Rate 1999 $290,000 ~',&~ 2009 $300,000 2000 275,000 2010 300,000 ~'2,~ % 2001 275,000 ~t_.~% 2011 300,000 2002 275,000 __~_~.~.% 2012 300,000 .~,,/,~'% 2003 275,000 ~% 2013 300,000 2004 275,000 ~fS/.~°A 2014 300,000 ~oA 2005 275,000 ~% 2015 300,000 2006 300,000 ~:h_~/° 2016 300,000 2007 300,000 2017 300,000 ,-~-~-~% 2008 300,000 The Bonds mature on June 1, in each of the years as indicated above and interest is payable June 1, 1998, and semiannually thereafter on June 1 and December 1 of each year. In making this offer, we accept the terms and conditions as defined in the Official Terms of Offering published in the Official Statement dated October 8, 1997. All blank spaces of this offer are intentional and are not to be construed as an omission. Our good faith deposit in the amount of $55,400 has been or will be submitted in accordance with the Official Terms of Offering. NOT PART OF THIS BID: Explanatory Note: According to our computation, this bid involves the following: ~ Net Interest Cost Net Interest Rate Respectfully submitted, (A list of account members is on the reverse side of this proposal.) The foregoing offer is hereby accepted by and on behalf of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, this 2Pt day of October, 1997. (Title) (Title) 0¢T-17-97 FRI 10:26 AM P, 04 .OFFiCrAL BID FORNI M~mbers of The City Council Iowa City, Iowa Sale Date: October 2], 1997 Mem~rs of the Council: For the principal amount of $5,5,~0,Q00 G~aeral Okligaxion Bonds, legally issued and as desgibed in the Officia! principal of $5~540,000 to date of"~livery~provtdec/"'~he Bonds bear th~ following inwrost rates (in non-descending order): l~r~t Int~reg Y~._.~La.r Am0uat Ra__~ Y,m__.L Amount 2~2 275,~ % 2012 300.0~ ~',~~ 2~3 275,000 2013 ~00,0~ 2005 275,~0 ~% 2015 3~.~0 ~.~. 2007 3~,~ ,~% 2017 300,0~ ~., ~.% The Bonds mature on June 1, in eoah of the y~u-s a~ indioated above 0red inter~z is payable June 1, 1998, and somiallnual]y thereafter on Jtme I and December 1 of each year. lrt making thi~ offer, we accept the tenns and couditiom as deftnod tu the Official Terms of Off, ring published ~ the Official Statement dated Ontobet 8, 1997. All blank spaces of this offer are intelltional and are not to be construed as an omission. Our good faith deposit in the amount of $$5,400 has been or will be submiRed in accordance with the Official Terms of Offering. NOT PART OF T~S BID: Respectfully submitted, IExplanawry Note: A~ord~g to our compu~ion, {this bid involves the following: ~.~) Net Interest Rate PipeF Jaffray, Inc. ~ccount Manager ........ (A list of account meml~s is on thg~'everse side of · is propo~l.) The foregoing offer is h~r~by accepted by and on behalf or,he City of Iowa CRy~ Iowa, this 2I" day of October, 1997. REPORT OF BIDS City of Iowa City Johnson County, Iowa $5,540,000 General Obligation Bonds Tuesday, October 21, 1997 TO: Iowa City Council Members and Administration FROM: David Dirks EVENSEN DODGE, INC. SUBJECT: $5,540,000 General Obligation Bonds Today, Tuesday, October 21, 1997, the sealed bids tabulated below were received, opened and reviewed. The bids reflect and are indicative of the current conditions in the tax-exempt market. BIDDER ADDRESS $NIC (%)NIR Harris Trust Chicago $3,008,149.85 5.051 Paine Webber Chicago $3,021,845.20 5.0747 First of America Chicago $3,039,033.75 5.1036 Piper Jaffray Minneapolis $3,044,317.29 5.1124 WE RECOMMEND AWARD TO: Harris Trust of Chicago Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to the City of Iowa City. We are available to answer any questions you may have on this or any other issue in the future. 100 Court Avenue, Suite 215 Des Moines, IA 50309 515/282-6138 NOTICE OF BOND SALE /© Time and Place of Sealed Bids: Sealed bids for the sale of bonds of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will be received at the office of the Fi- nance Director in the City of Iowa City, Iowa (the "Issuer") at 11:00 o'clock A.M., on the 21st day of October 1997. The bids will then be publicly opened and referred for action to the meeting of the City Council as stated be- low. Sale and Award: The sale and award of the bonds will be held at the Council Chambers, Civic Center, 410 East Washington Street at a meeting of the City Council on the above date at 7:00 o'clock P.M. The Bonds: The bonds to be offered are the following: ESSENTIAL CORPORATE PURPOSE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, in the amount of 85,540,000, to be dated November 1, 1997 (the "Bonds"). Official Statement: The Issuer has issued an Official Statement of information pertaining to the Bonds to be offered, including a statement of the Terms of Offering and an Official Bid Form, which is incorporated by reference as a part of this notice. The Official Statement may be obtained by request addressed to the Fi- nance Director, Civic Center, 410 E. Washing- ton Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240, Telephone: (319) 356-5052; orthe City's Financial Consul- tant, Evensen Dodge, Inc., 601 2nd Avenue South, Suite 5100, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Telephone: (612) 338-3535. Terms of Offerin.q: All bids shall be in confor- mity with and the sale shall be in accord with the Terms of Offering as set forth in the Offi- cial Statement. Legal Opinion: The bonds will be sold subject to the opinion of Ahlers, Cooney, Dorweiler, Haynie, Smith & Allbee, P.C., Attorneys of Des Moines, Iowa, as to the legality and their opin- ion will be furnished together with the printed bonds without cost to the purchaser and all bids will be so conditioned. Except to the ex- tent necessary to issue theirs opinion as to the legality of the bonds, the attorneys will not examine or review or express any opinion with respect to the accuracy or completeness of documents, materials or statements made or furnished in connection with the sale, issuance or marketing of the bonds. The opinion will be printed on the back of the bonds. Rights Reserved: The right is reserved to reject any or all bids, and to waive any irregu- larities as deemed to be in the best interests of the public. By order of the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa. City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, Iowa -(End of Notice) finadm\bondsale,wp5 Prepared by: Jeff Davidson, Transportation Planner, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5252 RESOLUTION NO. 97-369 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST THE FY98 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS FOR THE PROVISION OF TRANSIT SERVICE WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS. WHEREAS, Chapter 28E, Code of Iowa (1997), provides, in substance, that any power which may be exercised by a public agency of this state may be exercised jointly with another public agency having such power, and WHEREAS, it is in the mutual interest of the City of Iowa City and the City of University Heights to encourage the use of public transit by residents of University Heights, and WHEREAS, the parties have negotiated a contract for transit service in FY98 at a rate of $27,060. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: The FY98 agreement between the City of Iowa City and the City of University Heights for transit service is hereby approved, and the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute and the City Clerk to attest same on behalf of the City of Iowa City. 2. The City Clerk is directed to file a copy of said agreement with the Secretary of the State of Iowa and the Johnson County Recorder, as required by Iowa Code, Section 28E Passed and approved this 21st day of October ,1997. It was moved by Norton adopted, and upon roll call there were: MAYOR City Attorney's Office and seconded by AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Vanderhoef the Resolution be Baker Kubby Lehman Norton Novick Thornberry Vanderhoef Prepared by: Jeff Davidson, Transportation Planner, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5252 FY98 28E AGREEMENT FOR TRANSIT SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA AND THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, IOWA This agreement is made and entered into this ~T~ day of ~~.~ ,1997, by and between the City of Iowa City, Iowa and the City of University Heights, Iowa, both municipal corporations. WHEREAS, Chapter 28E of the Code of Iowa provides, in substance, that any power which may be exercised by a public agency of the state may be exercised jointly with another public agency having such power, and WHEREAS, it is in the mutual interest of the parties to encourage the use of public transit by residents of Iowa City and University Heights. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the City of Iowa City and the City of University Heights, as follows: I. Scope of Services The City of Iowa City shall provide public transit service to the City of University Heights. Iowa City shall determine the scheduling of buses, the mutes, and the location of bus stops within University Heights. It is agreed that residents of University Heights will obtain the same level of transit service as residents of Iowa City who are served by the same routes. II. Duration The term of this agreement shall commence July 1, 1997, and continue through and including June 30, 1998. On the mutual agreement of the parties, this agreement may be extended for a one-year renewal term commencing July 1, 1998, through and including June 30, 1999. IlL Termination This agreement may be terminated upon thirty calendar days written notice by either party. IV. Compensation The City of University Heights agrees to pay $27,060 for the provision of public transit service as herein described during FY98. Payment shall be made in twelve monthly payments of $2,255 each, to be received by the City of Iowa City on or before the 15th of each month. V. Chapter 28E, Code of Iowa In accordance with Chapter 28E of the Code of Iowa, this agreement shall be filed with the Secretary of the State of Iowa and the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa. CITY OF IOWA CITY By: Naomi Attest: J.(.Novicl~/Mayor Ci~er'~¢~,,..~ ~. ;;~,~2 /~roved by: Office~.~ City Attorney's CITY OF UNIVE't ,_,ITY HEIGHTS By: Donald S. Swanson, Mayor Attest: Pat. Burke, City Clerk STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ."~ / ~ day of l-} ~o ~,,.,,-- 19 ¢'7 before me, .~,~A,-,~¢ ~¢~ , a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared Naomi J. Novick and Marian K. Kerr, 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 (Omline~.¢) (Resolution) No. 9?- :.3~, ¢ passed by the City Council, on the ,,~/ ~" day of '~¢.,~,/,~_¢ , 19 ¢ '7 , and that Naomi J. Novick and Marian K. Kerr acknowledged 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. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ~ ~ day of ~'~.¢,,,~L~.~c , 19~9 , before me, · ~ ~,~..,,,.(.,,.. ~_.. ,'"%~ t. ~,-/~ , a,Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared Donald S. Swanson and Pat Bl~k~, 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 University Heights, 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 ~ntained in (Eh~dina~co) (Resolution) No. ':f?-*7 passed by the City Council, on the el, ~'- day of 'J',~c.~,,,..~-,-- , 19 ~'o , and that Donald S. Swanson and Pat B~(rke' acknowledged 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. o~uLlic~in aCnd~or the tara : MY COMMI&~ION EXPIRES jccogtp/a gl/2 8e-icuh .doc RESOLUTION NO. 97- 7 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST THE FY98 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS FOR THE PROVISION OF TRANSIT SERVICE WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS. WHEREAS, Chapter 28E, Code of Iowa (1997), provides, in substance, that any power which may be exercised by a public agency of this state may be exercised jointly with another public agency having such power, and WHEREAS, it is in the mutual interest of the City of Iowa City and the City of University Heights to encourage the use of public transit by residents of University Heights, and WHEREAS, the parties have negotiated a contract for transit service in FY98 at a rate of $27,060. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, IOWA, THAT: 1. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign and the City Clerk to attest the FY98 28E Agreement between the City of University Heights and the City of Iowa City for transit service. It was moved by /V~.c,r.,¢(v,, and seconded by adopted, and upon roll call there were: the Resolution be AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Passed and approved this <:~'" day of From Jacobson Jones Martin Yarbrough ,1997. Mayor Donald S. Swanson City Clerk Pat Birk PAUL D. PATE SECRETARY OF STAT}] DECEMBER 26, 1997 HOOVER BUILDING STATE OF IOWA DES MOINES, IOWA 50319 TEL (515) 281-5204 FAX (515) 242-5953 MARIAN K. KARR CITY OF IOWA CITY, CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 410 E WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CITY, IA. 52240-1826 RE: Filing of 28E Agreement between the CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA and the THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS Dear Ms. KARR: We have received the above described agreement which you have submitted to this office for filing, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 28E, Code of Iowa. You may consider the same filed as of DECEMBER 26, 1997. Sincerely, Paul D. Pate Secretary of State PDP/mdb Enclosures Prepared by: Craig Standish, Controller, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5085 RESOLUTION NO. 97-370 RESOLUTION CERTIFYING UNPAID CLEAN-UP OF PROPERTY CHARGES TO JOHNSON COUNTY FOR COLLECTION IN THE SAME MANNER AS A PROPERTY TAX. WHEREAS, Sections 364.12 and 364.22 of the Code of Iowa provides that the City Council may certify unpaid clean-up of property charges to Johnson County, for collection in the same manner as a property tax; and WHEREAS, there exist unpaid clean-up of property charges for the owners and properties, and in the amounts specified in Exhibit A, attached to this Resolution and by this reference made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the property owners have received a written notice of the date and time for the City Council's consideration of this resolution, at which time the property owners may appear before the Council and be heard concerning the unpaid charges. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: That the City Clerk is hereby authorized to certify to Johnson County, Iowa, for collection in the same manner as a property tax, unpaid clean-up of property charges, as stated in Exhibit A attached. Passed and approved this 21st dayof October ,1997. ATTEST: CITY CLERK ann/ar/cleanup.doc MAYOR City Attorney's Office Resolution No. 97-370 Page 2 It was moved by Thornberry and seconded by adopted, and upon roll call there were: Nnrton AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X X X X X X the Resolution be Baker Kubby Lehman Norton Novick ThornberrY/ Vanderhoef EXHIBIT A CLEAN-UP OF PROPERTY Sections 6-1-2a, 6-14a, b, City Code & Section 364.12 (3) and Section 364.22, Code of Iowa (1997) PROPERTY OWNER: Estate of Bernard Yeggy PROPERTY OWNER'S ADDRESS: 834 St. Anne's Drive, Iowa City, IA 52245 PROPERTY: 834 St. Anne's Drive, Iowa City, IA 52245 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 20 Conway's SD Sec. 3-79-6, Exc. W 4' thereof PARCEL NUMBER: 63568001 CHARGES: Property clean-up - $927.93 PROPERTY OWNER: Hubert Yeggy PROPERTY OWNER'S ADDRESS: 1525 Prairie du Chien Road, Iowa City, IA 52245. PROPERTY: St. Anne's Drive LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 21 Conway's SD Sec. 3-79-6 & W 4' of Lot 20 thereof PARCEL NUMBER: 63569001 CHARGES: Property Clean-up - $3082.56 City of iowa City MEMORANDUM To: The Honorable Mayor Naomi Novick and Members of the City Council From: Dennis Mitchell, Assistant City Attorney ~ Date: October 21, 1997 Re: Resolution Certifying Clean-up Costs re Hubert Yeggy I am writing this memorandum in response to Dean Spina's letter dated October 20, 1997. On August 23, 1995, Hubert Yeggy was found guilty of allowing junk and salvage materials to be collected and to remain on his property at 828 St. Anne's Drive in violation of Section 6-1-2A, City Code. Mr. Yeggy was assessed a civil fine in the amount of $150.00 plus court costs. In addition, the magistrate judge ordered Mr. Yeggy to correct and cease the violation no later than August 31, 1995. In the event Mr. Yeggy failed to do so, the Order further authorized the City "to correct the violation and assess the costs to Defendant." Section 364.22, Code of Iowa (1995) authorizes cities to issue civil penalties known as municipal infractions. In addition to authorizing the imposition of a civil penalty against a defendant, Section 364.22(9) also empowers courts to "[a]uthorize the city to abate or correct the violation" and to "[o]rder that the city's costs for abatement or correction of the violation be entered as a personal judgment against the defendant or assessed against the property where the violation occurred, or both." The statute goes on to state that a magistrate judge has jurisdiction to assess the costs of abating or correcting a violation in an amount which does not exceed the jurisdictional amount for small claims court. The jurisdictional amount for small claims court as of August 23, 1995 was $4,000.00. The amount it cost the City to clean up the junk and salvage materials at 828 St. Anne's Drive on November 6 and 7, 1995 was $3,082.56. All of the items removed from 828 St. Anne's Driveon November 6 and 7, 1995 pursuant to the court order entered on August 23, 1995 were taken to the landfill. The landfill would have treated these items in the same manner as any other items delivered to the landfill. Although it is possible that some of the items may have been sold as scrap metal, it costs the City more to dispose of water heaters and appliances than the City charges for disposing of such items at the landfill. As Mr. Spina points out, City of Iowa City ordinances define "junk and salvage materials" as "any discarded or salvaged building material or fixtures; any obsolete or inoperable machinery, or parts thereof; scrap iron or steel." Mr. Spina appears to be arguing that some of the items removed from 828 St. Anne's Drive on November 6 and 7, 1995 were usable, and thus the City should have allowed these items to remain upon the property. However, parts from cars, machinery, and buildings are salvaged precisely because such parts are still usable. Salvaged building materials, machinery parts, inoperable machinery, etc. still fall within the definition of "junk and salvage materials," regardless of whether they are usable. 2 The City is within its legal rights in assessing the costs of the clean-up against Mr. Yeggy's property. Mr. Yeggy was ordered to remove the junk and salvage materials by August 31, 1995. He chose to disobey the court's order. The court's order furthered authorized the City to correct the violation and assess the costs against Mr. Yeggy if he failed to remove the junk and salvage materials. There is no requirement that the 'City request a court hearing on the amount of the assessment. Mr. Yeggy chose to incur those costs by forcing the City to remove the junk and salvage materials. In addition to the power granted courts under Section 364.22 to authorize cities to abate a nuisance and assess the costs against a defendant found guilty of a municipal infraction, Section 364.12, Code of Iowa, also authorizes cities to require the abatement of a nuisance. If the property owner does not abate the nuisance as required, the City may do so and assess the costs against the property for collection in the same manner as a property tax. I should also note that a reference to Section 364.22 was inadvertently omitted from the Resolution and has been added. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney Stephen Atkins, City Manager Maclan Karr, City Clerk Dean Spina, Attorney for Hubert Yeggy F. JAMES BRADLEY BYRON G. RILEY MICHAEL K. DENNEY PATRICK M. COURTNEY DONALD G. THOMPSON KELLY R. BALER GREGORY J. SEYFER DEAN A. SPINA JOSEPH E. SCHMALL BRADLEY G. HART WILLIAM J. NEPPL October 20, 1997 BRADLEY & RILEY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS FIRST CORPORATE PLACE 100 FIRST STREET S.W. P.O. BOX 2804 CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA 52406~2804 TELEPHONE: (319) 363-0101 FAX: (319) 363-9824 WILLIAM T. McCARTAN MICHELE M. BUSSE JAY R. ANDREWS MAUREEN G. KENNEY VERNON P. SQUIRES PAUL D. BURNS LANCE R. STAKER COUNSEL: MELISSA WEETS ANDERSON BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 1-800-353-2665 Mayor and City Council City of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Iowa City, IA 52240 VIA FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL RE: Proceeding to Impose a Lien Upon Property Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: Our firm has been engaged by Hubert Yeggy. In 1995 the City obtained a judicial victory that Hubert Yeggy, in case 1067, allowed "junk or salvage materials to be collected and remain upon exterior of property." The charge was thus limited to "junk or salvage materials" as defined in the City's ordinance. As defined the charge was limited to "discarded or salvage building material or fixture; any obsolete or inoperable machinery, or parts thereof; scrap iron or steel." Notwithstanding the limited scope of 'the action and the judicial decision that the City procured, the City removed property not covered by the judicial decision. Property that was clearly usable and not within the ordinance, such as chains, post hole digger and tractor mower, was taken 'from the Yeggy family under color of law. A complete list of the property removed is set forth on the enclosed Exhibit. Now the City seeks to assess the cost of the cleanup and impose a lien on property. The City seeks to create a !ien for items that were not part of abatement of the "municipal infraction" (e.g., police escort). Has the credited against the "costs" those revenues received by 'the City from the "sale" of property removed from Lot 217 If there are sale proceeds it would be wrong to claim more than the city is entitled to receive. The steps toward establishing a new lien by the City Council 'for the 1995 clean up are, in my opinion, illegal. The City Council is being asked to use powers under Iowa Code Sections 364.12 -- 364.13B. Those sections provide for a special assessment pursuant to the procedures under chapter 384. The special assessment law only applies when the City has conducted the proceedings to establish a nuisance. In this case the City did not conduct any proceedings. Rather the City took the matter to court and asked the court for a judicial ruling and an order allowing it to do the clean up. Under separate law, Iowa Code section 364.22, the court in a municipal infraction case can impose the cost of abatement as a judgment h\WPDATA\SPINA\17262434.31 8 10/20/97 BRADLEY & RILEY, P.C. Mayor and City Council Page 2 October 20, 1997 against the defendant or an assessment against the property. (There is a limit to the jurisdiction of the district associate judges). Clearly a hearing would be required before the court can impose a liem The wrongful taking of property that was neither junk or salvage material is properly a matter for the court (either as a defense or as a separate action for damages). On behalf of Hubert Yeggy, I respectfully request that the City Council reject the resolution proposing to establish a lien on his property for the costs of the 1995 "clean-up" (or more aptly stated, "clean-out." To fail to do so wili result in the City Council personally participating in this travesty of justice. Very truly yours, BRADLEY & RILEY, P.C. Dean A. Spina CC: Hubert Yeggy City Attorney P.S. I am unable to appear at the City Council meeting on October 21, 1997, as I am traveling out of state on that date. h\WPDATA\SPINA\17262434.318 10/20/97 Prepared by: Controller, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-3." RESOLUTION TO JOHNSON PROPERTY TAX. RESOLUTION NO. ~lG UNPAID CLEAN-UP OF FOR COLLECTION IN THE SAME CHARGES AS A WHEREAS, Section 364.12 of the clean-up of property charges to tax; and )de of Iowa provides that County, for collection Council may certify unpaid same manner as a property WHEREAS, there exist unpaid clean-up the amounts specified in Exhibit A, attacht hereof; and to this for the owners and properties, and in and by this reference made a part WHEREAS, the Council finds that the and time for the City Council's consideration of may appear before the Council and be heard have received a written notice of the date resolution, at which time the property owners ;rning the unpaid charges. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED IOWA: COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, That the City Clerk is hereby authori; same manner as a property tax, attached. to certify to )aid clean-up of ~nson County, Iowa, for collection in the )perty charges, as stated in Exhibit A Passed and approved this day of ,1997. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY Office ann~dcleanup.doc EXHIBIT A CLEAN-UP OF Sections 6-1-2a, 6-1-4a, b, City & Section 364.12 (3), Code of Iowa PROPERTY Estate of Bernard Yeggy PROPERTY 834 St. Anne's Drive, PROPERTY: 834 St. Drive, Iowa City, IA 52245 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Conway's SD Sec. 3-79- PARCEL NUMBER: 63568001 CHARGES: Property Clean-up - .93 PROPERTY OWNER: Hubert Yeggy PROPERTY OWNER'S ADDRESS: 1525 PROPERTY: St. Anne's Drive LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 21 PARCEL NUMBER: 63569001 CHARGES: PropertyClean-up City, IA 52245 Exc. W 4' thereof du Chien Road, Iowa City, IA 52245. 3-79-6 & W 4' of Lot 20 thereof