Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-02-01 CorrespondenceMarian Karr From: Srmartin20@aol .com Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 9:33 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Residents want support Mayor Lehman, I have a problem that I think you can help me with. I bought a house in Iowa City 4 years ago when I was in college. Buying a house when I was 19, didn't give me a lot of choices. Anyway I got a cute house on Douglass Street. From the beginning I was aware that there were unlawful happens going on at the Massage Studio at the end of the street. I never minded because they didn't bother me. Will now it's different. They are outside more and tonight I had my last bit of patients taken by them. I stopped at the stop sign at the end of the street and had dropped something. While looking for it a you know what started to yell at me, to quit looking at her. Other words were used that I don't want to repeat. If this kind of thing is going to continue on in my neighborhood, I will tolerate very little. Wouldn't you? I don't need to see those people and I will not waste a minute more having to hear them. I wonder are you aware of the studio and if so what is your intentions for those citizens. Please be honest with me, I just want to know if the need to move. Thank You, Sara 1-00 Marian Karr From: RYTSWl@aol.com Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 6:58 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Iowa's Impact: Mayor Lehman and City Council Please find emailed to you a profile I have a publication going into the Cedar Valley Catholic Schools in the month of February. The reason it is called impact is because 190 teachers will be using this information in their daily lesson plans I am looking for African Americans who have done something to have a positive impact in our community or race relations. Profiles will include but not limited to: education, business and community activity. Also included are whites who have done something positive in the community, for a person of color, legislation or just stood up for a cause. The candidates name does not have to be well know . Please fill out and return to me the following information as soon as possible.. Please limit all information to 1 page. If you know of others you would like included please forward to them the profile but, put your sign you name under reference so that I may contact you for verification if need be. You may copy this form for them to use for this publication. Thanks Ruby Weems Iowa's Impact Ruby Weems Post Office Box 461 Waterloo, Iowa 50703 Email: RYTSWI®aol.com Telephone: 319 234-2389 Name: Birth: (date/location) Death: (if applicable-date/location) Race: Sex: Family: Education: Incident that took place that has/had an impact in his/her life: Noted contribution/position: Quote to live by: People he/she has worked with in Civil Rights: (optional-some may not have had any active participation but have done something to assist person/purpose/goal/etc for a person, legislation, etc) Role model: (a person who had an impact on your personal growth) Name Race Sex: Why: Names of person/organizations that should be included in this publication and how to contact them. Contact person: (Who told you about this publication) Relationship to the person on profile: Telephone number: Email address: Address: Date: Copyright: 2000 Ruby Weems Dear Mayor Lehman, and h' s ~ ~e of y~ ~n! Plmg for ~e~ ~!! ~ ~ld ~s y~ on S~y, F~ 26 ~ S~y, F~ 27. ~ ~y~ we ~ke to f~e ~u~ ba ~ ~ ~y ~ off~ ~ o~ ~ you. ~~ time sl~ e a~le f~ ly ~ 9, 10 ~ 11 p.m. ~ M~ for S~y ~ ~ 8 ~m. ~ ~i~ ~ 6 p.m. ~e ~!eb~ phone b~ pmicipnts ~e n~ r~u~ ~ ~g ~y ~nimum doil~ a~ms. ~ey ~e ~k~ o~y to ~ve ~pro~ely 30 ~nut~ prior to t~ g~u!~ time for "phone ba ~ng" ~d ~en sit in a ~ c~ ~d ~ in~ng phone ~lls. Pl~ ~ve us a ~! or ~1 us to l~ us ~ow w~ch time wo~ ~ for y~. We ~u~e you to ~n~ us ~n ~ g~ your ~ choice of time slots. ~1 dollm m~ ~ the V~ Club of ~ Iowa M~n my in ~ Io~ to help ~ds i s~iM ~s. Pmj~ hclude Fo~ O~, 1~ ~ im~ive ~e ~s, ~sMne v~ T~ Pi~, Boys ~ ~ls Club md the !i~ g~ on. We ~pr~ate y~ ~p~n of~s wobble eveml Sincerely, Jeanine Penticoff Cassie Willis Alliant Energy KCRG-TV9 jeaninepenticoff~,a!liant-energy. com cassicw~fi~iowa.com (319) 3984130 (319) 368-8867 Marian Karr ~ From: agibbon@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 6:50 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Dear Council Members: Please support the efforts of the Steppin~ Up project at The University of Iowa and do whatever you can to encourage alternative events and discourage underage drinking. Your efforts will be appreciated by students, parents and the community. Thank you. UI Parent, Arlene Gibbon 634 Pine Ridge Road Coralville, IA 52241 oFBg Mayor and City Council Members 410 E. Washington St. Iowa C~ty, Iowa 522~0 Dea~ Mr. Lehman and Council Members: I am writing to express my opinion regarding the practice in Iowa City oF allowing bars to admit individuals who are under 2 l years of age, supposedly without the ability to obtain alcohol. When we enrolled our daughter at the University of Iowa lhis ye~, we were told about th~ alcohol policies and how the school works to prevent access by those who are underge. It has been a big disappointment to see how easily an 18 year old can drink in Iowa City. And much more so, it makes me ang~ to see the business owners s~rk thgir responsibility to obey the law in ~vor of increasing thgir revenue by making illegal sal~s. 1 absolutdy cannot believe that the bar owners are not aware of the alcohol being served ~o minors and that they do not willingly choose to pretend not to notice. Wherg is the moral character and integrity of these individuals~ It fools no one to say you can admit an I g year old to a bar, but not sere them liquor. While my daughter is not a major Frequenter of the bars, she has a roommate who tends to drink frequently and heavily and consequently she is subjected to the roommate's late ni~t bumping around in the room. Neither of these girls is 21 and should be unable to drink in a public establishment, but neither has had a problem getting se~ed. Cegainly, therg should be some enterprising individual in town who could open a facility with ente~ainment that would not include alcohol. Out of the 10,000 or so underage students in town, I would bet that a good number of them would be willing to pan with thdr money in exch~ge for alcohol-~ee fun. In my opinion, the real problem here, however, is a simple one of fight and wrong. ls it leg~ to sere alcohol to minors'? No. Does it happ~ng Yes. Is there an obligation on the pa~ ofthg sellers to be more vigqlant about obgying the lawg ~bsolulely. Will they accept that responsibilityg That is the question for your members to answer. I can only assure you thal iftherg is ever an incident w~ch results in harm to my daughter as a result of underage drinking, 1 will most definitely see to it that the provider is held ~lly responsible for their actions. 1 hope such a situation never happens, and ,ha~ the individuals concerned will ac~ appropriately b~for~ anyone is harmed. Thelma Hulka 372 65th Strget Willowbrook, I1. 60514 02-01-00 J 4g(6) Marian Karr From: C. McGuire [crncguire@dnsl .uiowa.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 9:32 AM To: council@iowaocity.org Subject: theater, library, etc Folks, I'm very upset at recent directions the City has been taking regarding the Englert Theater building as well as the IC public library. Englert: · The current thinking appears to be that this building has some sort of unique historical value and should be preserved. I disagree. Perhaps some have fond memories of intimate times watching movies with significant others. That's about as far as I can go with "historical value". It is in poor repair (as most buildings of that age are). It is also a single purpose architecture which limits it's utility. The Community Theater group does not represent most of the people in Iowa City. I object to City tax dollars being used to finance a speculative venture of this sort. In case of failure to pay, I do not want to be stuck with this albatross. There are certainly significant remodelling and maintenance issues associated with such an old structure which raises the probability of some sort of default in the future. Or at least more appeals from this group for help from the City. I do not think this building has any redeeming value as far as "downtown enhancement". Library: Access in/out of the IC public library is horrible. The area is too congested, and parking is expensive (if you can find it). Increasing that burden by expanding the existing facility is a poor use of money. I do not think providing "Public meeting rooms" ranks high on the list of library functions, which brings existing and future space requirement/utilization issues into question - expecially given the "prime" real estate expense of downtown property, and the ever-increasing congestion. I suggest that for 3 million dollars, the Sycamore Mall building would be a much better location (easy access, lots of parking, easy to remodel). The downtown location could be maintained as a smaller Satellite facility. I've heard rumors that the Library folks did not think the Sycamore location would work. One scenario I heard mentioned was the existing landlords would not offer ground floor space. This would be moot if the City owned the property (or a large part of it). I'd be very skeptical of other "can't do it" arguments. Revitilization: I'm tired of hearing about Downtown revitilization. The Ped mall and Iowa Ave are about as far as this should go. There is too much tendency on on the part of the Council too keep lumping more and more into this effort. I agree that a nice "downtown" should be a target, but.. · I believe we (the City) have equally (if not more) pressing revitilization issues to tackle in the East and Southeast sides of town (yes I live there). The Sycamore Mall and Pepperwood Mall areas are heading down hill quickly as are the surrounding neighborhoods. The continued practice of the City and County 1 encouraging urban sprawl in Iowa City will most definitely result in the further decline of older (existing) neighborhoods. As the property values in these areas stablize or decline they become attractive areas to locate more and more "social service" types of facilities and rentals which only drives the values down further. By encouraging rapid sprawl of new developments, you encourage abandonment of existing neighborhoods. This scenario is documented time after time in community after community across the country where room for expansion has been available. After all available spaces have been expanded into, some small focus eventually shifts back to fixing up older (neglected) neighborhoods. We should focus on avoiding this scenario. Conclusion: · The above issues dictate a lot more scrutiny of tax dollar uses (unless the City intends to raise taxes to the point that many residents can no longer afford to live in Iowa City)'. The water and waste plants are major expenses with very high priority, and they aren't paid for yet. We don't even have the final word on what these will ultimately cost, but it will be big. Prudence suggests a more pragmatic (less dreamy) approach to City planning/operations. Thanks. Charlie McGuire 1512 Tracy LN Iowa City 02-01-00 [ 4g(8) Marian Karr From: Judeminer@aol,com Sent: Friday, January 21,2000 10:16 AM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: feed back on City Council activities. 1) Thank you, City Council, for your decision NOT to ban a person from living in a van within the city limits. Good work! Ross Wilburn's comments were especially to the point. Any of us could have a traumatic period in our lives when we were unable to go through the expense/process of finding an apartment. What is then needed is time and knowledge of assistance that's out there to get things on track again ...... not banning, censure, etc. 2) Offer what support you can for keeping the Englert Theater as a community-owned arts center. I like a model of a cooperatively owned center ..... similar to the very successful New Pioneer Food Co-op in Iowa City, where all citizens are encouraged to pool their money, and then elect a board to help run the organization. 3) I would like to see policies enacted in the 2000's that would gradually eliminate all guns in our society. This includes guns for the shooting of animals ..... including the deer on our Penisula. We need to be able to seek solutions for every problem, at every level, in a non-violent way. It's hypocritical to tell kids at a high school to not settle their issues using guns, while at the same time ..... our government is supporting the bombing of another country to settle that dispute ..... or our city council is supporting the use of guns to clear out land for development ..... and on and on. We have to be consistent in what we teach our citizens, especially the children ..... and there are other methods of controlling a deer herd other than the terror to the animal of getting hit by a bullet. 150 years ago, there were settlers and policy makers in our country that considered native peoples a hindrance to development ..... and shooting these living beings if they refused to leave their land, was sanctioned by the law. Let's begin to form new solutions to our conflicts ...... no more shooting. Thank you for all the work you are doing for us, by serving on the Council. And thank you for reading my words. Iowa City is a great place to live, and you're going to make it even better! Judy Miner 713 S. 7th Ave. Iowa City 319-339-0280 e-mail: judeminer@aol.com 02-01-00 '~ ~ 4g(9) ~ To the Iowa City council, l~ JAN 18 2000 l~ Please consider using one of or both of the very large mostly lilly MANAll[il'S OFFICE empty buildings, that Iowa City calls shopping mails for a new library. As Iowa City slowly dies away I think it is important To start making some good spending decisions. Also please do not spend our money on a theater, that is up to The private sector to do. One more thing that you do that I think is totally wrong, is please stop competing in the housing market, you buy up all of the cheaper priced house's. And force those same people to go to Noah Liberty or Coralville to buy a house. We as a city should not be landlords. I have talked enough please consider these ideas as I am sure that there are a lot of people that feel the same way, but like me have Never sat down to write and let you know. Please let the entire council read this letter. Thank you for your time and consideration, Rod Kuenster 126 Glenn Dr. Iowa City POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 ,! JAN 2 4 2000 (319)356-5413 hnuary 13, 2600 Ernie Lehman, Mayor City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington SWeet Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Ernie: First, congratulations on your selection as Mayor. Your leadership of the Council over the past two years is greatly appreciated and we look forward to working with you in 2000 and 2001. As you know, the Iowa City PCRB will "sunset" in September of 2001, just before the next city elections. This means that the current members of the Council will decide whether the PCRB will continue to function beyond the sunset date. This will be a very important decision. the members of the PCRB would like to request a joint informal session with the entire Council as soon as your calendar will permit. The purpose of the meeting would be to review the purpose and goals of the PCRB, to give of summary of activities and accomplishments in 1999, and to discuss some issues of concern to the Board. We feel it would be helpful for Pat Farrant, our Vice Chairperson, and I to rneet with you and Steve Atkins to decide on a specific agenda for the joint meeting. If you agree, I will ask Sandy Bauer, our Administrative Assistant, to arrange a meeting time and place. The Board also discussed whether it would be helpful and appropriate for one or two members of the PCRB to meet informally with the three new Council members, individually or together, to bring them "up to speed" on the ordinance and PCRB procedures prior to the joint meeting. We would appreciate your opinion on this matter. I c~m be reached at work by phone (337-4158) or e-mail (jwatson@goodwillseiowa.org) or at home (337-9225 and watson.john@mcleodusa.net). We look forward to your reply. Sincerely, Board Chairperson Cc: Steve Atkins GROW TO ~! JAN 1 REACH ENVIRONMENTAL CITY 2:0,2"""0"PROJECT GREEN Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 January 12, 2000 Mayor Ernie Lehman Iowa City Council City Manager's Office Civic Center 410 East Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mayor and Council members, Project 6REEN strongly supports the Parks and Recreation budget request for a full-time Natural Areas Manager. The Parks and Recreation Department has already used the services of Russ Bennett of Natural Resources Consultants to implement natural areas in the Iowa City parklands on several occasions. They have established a good working relationship with him in the development of these appropriate treatments of these natural areas. As Iowa City parkland acres continue to expand, a natural areas manager is a necessary component in the wise care of Iowa City public areas. / Cordially, / Anne Hesse, Co-Chair Project GREEN / JAN g 1 2000 CITyMANAGER'S OFFICE z5 . z a,,- ncres  Iowa City, Iowa 52245 January 18, 2000 Iowa City Council 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Iowa City Councilman: Just want to let you know, incase you have not read the Iowa City Press Citizen, that the Airliner restaurant owned by Randy Larson is up Ibr sale. I understand the Iowa City Council is interested in buying old building when a seller sets the price so high that an interested buyer cannot come up with the money. With ninety (90) bars booze bars "' downtown, it is very necessary to keep this old building and take it off the tax rolls, while the city owns this property. Of coarse, you can always turn the old wore out Englert theatre into another booze bar or another museum too. 1 was of the understanding when the people of Iowa City voted Ibr City Council people, thcy wcrc supposcd to be rcprcscntativcs of the people of the whole iowa City. So if this is true, then why are not you interested in repairing the many streets that need repaired? Why are you not working to fill all the empty newer buildings with much needed businesses. Why do the people of Iowa City have to go to the very well organized C:oralvillc Io do a Iol ol'our business? I am not writing ab{}ul Coralridge Mall, as Ihis is not really mn( 'oralvillc. (~omparc Iowa C'ily wilh Coralvillc. I low many kinds of I)lI%lllt'Sst's (hi v(}ll I',ml lilISSl,I~ Ill IliaVii ('ilV IlUil ('{}flilVillC Ires in Iht'il cIIV'? II'lhc I':nl'.lctl owllcl cnnniil Iin~l il In;Vci Iol Ilwil In:lhh;ig. ihnt :s his inlil}lcnl If lhc Airliner cannot lind a buyer that is hss business. I suggest, as a taxpayer, yau, as representatives of the people, that you stay out of the realestate business and take care of the rest of the city. Sincerely, M~. Helen Ramer Marian Karr From: Joel Maxey [joel-maxey@uiowa.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 01,2000 2:49 PM To: COUNCIL@iowa-city.org Subject: Dogs in Hickory Hill Dear City Councilors, Not sure if this will reach you in time for your Feb 1 meeting. It is my understanding that dogs unleashed in Hickory Hill will be discussed at some point. My thoughts are as follows: I have been taking my dog to the park for over 2 years now. In that time I have never seen any truly "bad" behavior by any dog. In the hundreds of dogs I have seen in the last couple of years, only a couple were aggressive and that was only towards other dogs. Dogs that are walked off lease in the park are under voice control by their owners for the most part. Generally speaking the dogs are far more interested in other dogs or just being out and able to run that they are really not interested in other people at the park. In response to a remark made by Manager Atkins at the close of a recent council meeting I don't see what the problem is. If any of you are dog owners, I'm sure you understand the importance of exercise for a dog. Basically it is ( in my opinion ) one of the important factors in the dogs physical and mental health. Dogs who are fortunate enough to be walked off lease at the park get to run and play with other dogs. It is more exercise than even the most devoted owner could in most cases give. From what I can see the dog walkers are the principal users of the park in any event. The complaints can not possibly equal the number of people using the park to walk their dogs. Come out and see for yourself. Sure people go to the park on a nice day, but the dog walkers are there every day of the year. The dog walkers maintain the trails, not just spreading wood chips but clearing brush that grows into the trails as well as trees which come down in a storm. Certainly a city as progressive as Iowa City can realize the need for some sort of area to take a dog off the lead. Dog parks exist in other municipalities, how about here as well? Councilor O'Donnel's suggestion about Sturgis Park is a start, however that location is too small and inherently dangerous. There is an area of the current park which is virtually never used by anyone other than the dog people. That might work. And perhaps some sort of permit would generate needed funds which could in turn be funneled back into the park itself. Upgrading shelters, trails, whatever. Lastly may I suggest that the fine for having your dog off the leash is really ridiculously high. Something in keeping with the nature of the offense would be appreciated. And as far as that goes, would it be possible to issue a warning for a 1st offense? Ironically all of the folks who walk their dogs on the retractable leads which extend to 15 and 20 feet are also in violation of the leash ordinance which I believe states the leash must be no longer than 10 feet. I don't believe they are being ticketed. What the dog folks at Hickory Hill are after is some sort of compromise. Thanks for anything you can do to make it just that. Joel Maxey 1212 Rochester Ave Iowa City Iowa 52245 338 3257 The City Council recently authorized the killing of 360 deer, many more than the 275 cited before the fact as the city's "goal." Newspaper articles have also alluded to intentions to kill more deer in future years, and reported demands by De Nicola that the city revoke ordinances which outlaw the use of silencers and firearms wkhin two hundred yards of habitations, and extend future shooting to Hickory Hill and other areas protected to date. In response to these demands and other developments, I have prepared a packet of information about other alternatives, which I urge tt~e Council and the Deer Commission to consider. The Council's deer management resolutions for 1998 and 1999 also mandated non- lethal politics of citizen education, careful use of signs, and participation in contraception programs. In what follows, I will quote passages from these plans, and pose some questions about their implementation. In section one of the council's deer management plan of March, 1998 (resolution 98- 87), for example, the council decided that: 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 planrings, and other techniques. Education materials will be distributed with each new residents' packet and information broadcast regula~y on Government Cable Channel 4. The City of Iowa City will organize public information meetings regarding the methods of deer management listed herein. Have these things really been don8 How regularly? Has anyone in the Council chambers ever seen notices of such regular broadcasts and meetings? In section two, the council further mandated that The City of Iowa City will evaluate and, where appropriate, install or petition the State of Iowa or Johnson Conty 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/vehlde conflict, thoughtful consideration will be given to deer migratory paths as transportion improvement projects are approved by the City Council. I know that some reJlectors have indeed been installed, with good results. Has anyone seen new warning signs? Have recent and current plans for city roads aaually refieaed 'thoughtful consideration [o17 deer migratory paths ? Finally, and most tellingly, section seven of the plan mandated that: 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. I have recently spoken with Patrida McElroy, the Humane Society's deer research specialist. She was not aware of any expressions of interest in the Society ~ ~rts on the part of any representatives of Iowa City. To me, these contrasts between placatory phrases and lethal actions suggest that deer shooting, not deer management, was the City's first priority from the beginning. Of the $15,000 which the 1998 management plan allocated for a long-term deer management plan, what proportion was appropriated for education? Selective signing and study of deer pattems? Construction of new fences? Contraception studies? According to another passage, this time from the Deer Commission report for 1997- 98, "When available, contraception would be the preferred method of stabilizing the deer population in the Iowa City/Coralville community." The Humane Society has made substantial progress in the testing of a contraception they expect to re3mmend for general use soon. In the meantime, they are conducting field studies, with good results; Ms. McElroy told me the Society is indeed willing to send a representative to Iowa City to examine whether local conditions permit contraceptive testing and eventual use here. In this concrete sense, "the preferred method" is available now. In the context of other, more pressing debates about financial limitations, I also ask you also to reconsider tonight the cost of the brutal means of population-limitation the City chose to underwrite. Beyond the City's contractual payment to White Buffalo of $70,000 lay other less readily quantifiable costs, including unspecified forms of logistical support. May I guess that the City and other agencies spent $100,000 for ten days of slaughter? Does the Council really think such expenses were cost-effective, and intend to incur them again? In support of the poskion that no genuine social needs justify continued employment of sharpshooters, I have put together a packet of documents I hope you will consider. Florence Boos Peaceful Methods of Deer Control: February 2000 Supplementary Materials: 1 an informal memorandum in which Pat McElroy, wildl;fe specialist of the national Humane Society, outlined promking results of recent testing efforts; 2 "Lessons from the Urban Deer Battlefront: A Plea for Tolerance," an article by Alan Rutberg, staff biologist and principal investigator of contraceptive methods for the Humane Society of the United States (The national Humane Society's number is 301-258-3147); 3 a letter in which D. J. Schubert, biologist and consultant for the Fund for Animals, critiqued aspects of Iowa City's past deer management plan, proposed alternative measures, and offered to speak to members of the City Council (His phone number is 602-547-8537); 4 "Living With Deer," an article by Thomas Eveland; and 5 an editorial published in the Iowa City Gazette, and read at the Council meeting last January 18th. The following cities have adopted nonlethal methods for living with their deer.. Boulder, Colorado Deer killing is illegal in and near Boulder, a large university town in the foothills of the Rockies. Boulder's wildlife biologist is Carfie Richardson (303-441-3440). Hudson, Ohio The authorities in this exurb of Cleveland seriously considered lethal methods, but rejected them when they found that a majority of Hudson residents liked the presence of the deer. A successful driver-education campaign in the press and other, more routine precautions reduced accidents to a level the city found acceptable. The city's contact-person for its now-disbanded deer commission is Greg Janik, who has offered to talk with any council member who wishes to speak with him (330-650-2706). Highland Park, Illinois: An official of this suburb north of Chicago expressed distaste that authorities in any town might consider killing its deer. In a video-cassette the city has prepared, police officers and others explain in a panel discussion how the city's policies are implemented. (We have a copy of this cassette, and would be glad to make it available.) Florence and William Boos Pat McElroy, 07:15 PM 1/24/00 , Immunocontraception Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 19:15:13 -0500 From: "Pat McElroy" <PMcElroy@hsus.org> To: Florence-Boos@uiowa.edu Subject: Immunocontraception Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mail-hub2.weeg.uiowa.edu id SAA17610 Dear Ms. Booth: I hope this information is helpful. I apologize for taking a week to respond. I was at NIST most of last week workiRg on our immunocontraception project out there. Here is a brief update on the current status of research being conducted by The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) on deer immunocontraception. Our principal effort is focused on the development of the PZP, or porcine zona pellucida, immunocontraceptive vaccine. Currently, we have seven active field sites at which deer PZP studies are being carried out. The best known of these projects are the program at Fire Island National Seashore (FIIS) in New York and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) here in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Additional projects are located in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Ohio, and Washington State. The deer PZP research is focusing on three critical goals. First, we must develop a vaccine that will provide one to two years of contraception with a single shot. Second, we must find a vaccine formulation that uses an adjuvant (an immune-system booster) that is acceptable to the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (the current formulation, which incorporates Freund's Complete Adjuvant in the initial treatment, will not be approved by the FDA). Third, we need to determine whether PZP treatments can be used to stabilize and reduce deer populations, and if so, under what circumstances. As our studies progress, we are also examining potential consequences of PZP treatments to the survival, health, and behavior of treated animals, their fawns, and herdmates. We believe we are close to success in achieving the first two goals (although we must be cautious, since we have encountered unexpected technical difficulties in the past). A single treatment of PZP in FCA and PZP in timed-release pellets, administered by hand to deer in Washington State last autumn, appears to have maintained contraceptive levels of antibodies throughout the breeding season, although final results are not available. (This method has previously been used successfully as a one-treatment vaccine in domestic and wild horses.) We also have had good success in tests of two new adjuvants (to replace FCA}. The key study will begin this autumn (1999), when we will deliver the one-shot PZP-pellet preparation, with one of the new adjuvants, by dart rifle. We will know a year from now whether that effort was successful. If so, the vaccine will become easier to apply in the field and more acceptable to requlatory agencies. The achievement of the third goal, management use for population control, will be gradual, as we gain more experience applying PZP in the field. Since last autumn (1998), the FIIS study has been focusing almost entirely on management utility. There, we have been streamlining the system by which animals are treated, reducing reliance on deer monitors and eliminating the effort associated with identifying individual animals for treatment. We are also working with the National Park Service to reduce the amount of bait provided to attract deer to darting sites, and to locate those bait sites outside the communities to the extent possible. At NIST, which supports a more contained population than FIIS, we have substantially reduced fawn production at the population level, and we have seen a reduction in the total population occupying the site this year. THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES (HSUS) IMMUNOCONTRACEPTION SUBURBAN DEER POPULATIONS Deer PZP research is focusing on three critical goals. First, we must develop a vaccine that will provide one to two years of contraception with a single shot. Second, we must find a vaccine formulation that uses an adjuvant (an immune-system booster) that is acceptable to the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (the current formulation, which incorporates Freund's Complete Adjuvant in the initial treatment, will not be Printed for "Florence S. Boos" <florence-boos@uiowa.edu> i Pat McElroy, 07:15 PM 1/24/00 , Immunocontraception approved by the FDA). Third, we need to determine whether PZP treatments can be used to stabilize and reduce deer populations, and if so, under what circumstances. As our studies progress, we are also examining potential consequences of PZP treatments to the survival, health, and behavior of treated animals, their fawns, and herdmates. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT WILDLIFE IMMUNOCONTRACEPTION What is immunocontraception? Immunocontraception is a birth control method that uses the body's immune response to prevent pregnancy. Why is The HSUS sponsoring research in immunocontraception? The HSUS believes that immunocontraception may offer a humane, non-lethal solution to conflicts between people and wildlife in urban and suburban areas, and to local problems of animal overabundance. Immunocontraception may also help reduce the overproduction of captive exotic animals in zoos and elsewhere. What are the current objectives of immunocontraception research? We are currently working to improve the effectiveness, length of action, and ease of use of the vaccine. Additionally, we are developing field techniques and exploring the range of environments in which immunocontraception might prove a useful management tool. What is the immunocontraceptive vaccine made of? The vaccine that is being tested by The HSUS is called PZP, which stands for "porcine zona pellucida." PZP is a protein that occurs naturally in pig ovaries. How is PZP believed to prevent pregnancy? Zona pellucida (ZP) proteins surround the unfertilized eggs of all mammals. Sperm must attach to the ZP before they can fertilize the egg. When pig ZP (PZP) is injected into a female deer or other animal, her body produces antibodies to it. These antibodies attach to the female's ZP proteins, prevent sperm from attaching, and thereby block fertilization. How is PZP administered? PZP can be administered either through hand injection or by a dart fired from a dart rifle or blowgun. Two injections are generally given the initial year, with annual boosters thereafter. Where is PZP being tested on deer? A two-year study conducted by the Smithsonian Conservation and Research Center in Virginia was successfully completed in 1994. At Fire Island National Seashore in New York, deer have been treated since 1993, with more than 200 does treated in autumn 1998. At Fire Island, two or more consecutive years of PZP vaccinations reduced pregnancies in treated animals by 85-90%. Additional PZP field studies are being carried out at Sharon Woods Metro Park in Columbus, Ohio, the National Institute of Standards Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and other locations. On what other animals is PZP being tested? PzP has been tested for twelve years on wild horses at Assateague Island, Maryland, and has been used by the National Park Service to manage this herd since 1995. PZP is also being tested on wild horses in Nevada and Oregon in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management, and on captive animals of more than 90 species in 70 zoos and aquaria worldwide. Additionally, PZP is being administered: with the National Park Service to rule elk at Point Reyes National Seashore; with the U.S. Navy to buffalo on Guam; and with South Africa's Kruger National Park to elephants in Kruger National Park. Can I get an immunocontraception project started in my community? First, ask yourselves the following questions. Do we really have a deer overpopulation problem or is it just that some residents have a very low tolerance for deer and a reluctance to implement non-lethal methods to minimize deer/human conflicts? Will our local/county government and state wildlife agency approve an immunocontraception project? Do we have access to funding sources to start a project and keep it going? Interest in applying immunocontraception to solve local deer conflicts has grown enormously over the past few years. More than 200 locations in 27 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. We are working as hard as Printed for "Florence S. Boos" <florence-boos@uiowa.edu> 2 Pat McElroy, 07:15 PM 1/24/00 , Immunocontraception possible to improve and simplify the technology, so as to make widespread use of wildlife contraception a reality in the not-too-distant future. What additional information is there on the subject of immunocontraception? Although there are literally volumes of published literature concerning various aspects of immunocontraception, the following will provide good basic information for anyone interested in gaining a better understanding about the dynamics of immunocontraception. Case studies in wildlife immunocontraception: wild and feral equids and white-tailed deer. J. F. Kirkpatrick, J.W. Turner Jr., I.K.M. Liu, R. Fayrer-Hosken, and A. T. Rutberg. 1997. J. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 9, 105-10. Urban deer contraception: the seven stages of grief. Jay F. Kirkpatrick and John W. Turner, Jr. 1997. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25(2), 515-519. Urban Deer Fertility Control: Scientific, Social, and Political Issues. Jay F. Kirkpatrick and John W. Turner Jr. 1995. Northeast Wildlife, 52, 103-116. Wildlife Immunocontraception Magic Bullet or Pipe Dream?. Allen T. Rutberg. 1998. The Animals' Agenda, March/April, 15-17. Wildlife Fertility Control: Fact and Fancy. ZooMontana Science and Conservation Biology Center, P.O. Box 80905, Billings Montana, 59108-0905. 1999. I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Patricia C. McElroy Research Associate Wildlife and Habitat Protection The Humane Society of the United States pmcelroy@hsus.org Printed for "Florence S. Boos" <florence-boos@uiowa.edu> 3 24 April 1997 Allen T. Rutberg The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L St. N.W., Washington, DC 20037 (301) 258-3 147 (phone) (301) 258-3080 (fax) RH: A plea for tolerance ® Rutberg Lessons from the Urban Deer Battlefront: A Plea for Tolerance Allen T. Rutberg, The Humane Society of the United States, 2100 L Street N.W, Washington, DC 20037 Abstract: As human impacts spread across the landscape, more and more wildlife populations depend for their continued existence on human tolerance. This dependence is especially pronounced in urban and suburban environments, where wildlife species such as white-tailed deer (Odocotleus virgmianus) can thrive in close contact with people. Helping wildlife and people live together, by educating tile public about the value of wildness and wild animals and by developing and implementing non-lethal techniques for mitigating human-wildlife conflicts, is an important goal of the animal protection community. Because of the importance of human tolerance to preserving wildlife, we ask wildlife professionals to join this mission, even though that means de- emphasizing traditional management methods tbr controlling wildlife populations. Key words: contraception, deer, hunting, overpopulation, suburbs, tolerance Rutberg Page 2 For considerably over a billion years, populations of living creatures have experienced periods of high and low density, abundance and scarcity, wide and narrow distribution. Each species has to a greater or less extent influenced the biological community in which it lived. But the descriptive data alone tell us nothing about "overpopulation." The concept of overpopulation only acquires meaning when framed in terms of human values; nature doesn't care (Caughley 1981). With respect to white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in North America, overpopulation may be invoked for at least two sets of reasons. First, deer may be regarded as overpopulated when they cause direct harm or a perception of harm to human welfare, for example by damaging crops or ornamental plantings, colliding with cars, or (a!legedly) spreading Lyme disease. Here the influence of values is relatively transparent, and relates to human self- interest. But overpopulation may also be invoked when deer numbers cause changes in the biological world that some people consider undesirable, as when "herd productivity" diminishes, a significant fraction of the population becomes diseased or starves, browse lines appear and understorey vegetation disappears, or biodiversity is reduced. In these examples, people may variously diagnose overpopulation because they value deer as a resource to be harvested, value the prevention of animal suffering, value biodiversity, or simply prefer that a forest look a certain way. Although the link to values may be better hidden, the values will still be there (Decker et al. 1991, Rutberg 1997). Rutberg Page 3 An animal protection viewpoint of deer overpopulation The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) (the animal protection organization whose viewpoint I advance here), approaches deer overpopulation from two fundamental (and occasionally contradictory) premises. First, diverse and productive biological communities are good, whether in wilderness or in our own backyards. Second, animals (including wildlife) whose lives are strongly affected by human activities should be protected from needless suffering or death at the hands of humans. Consequently, we believe that deer do belong in suburban neighborhoods, but we may accept that deer are overpopulated if individual animals are suffering acutely as a result of high densities, or if, because of high densities, deer are seriously reducing the diversity and productivity of the natural communities in which they live. However, we do not necessarily consider to be symptoms of suffering the reduced fawning rates and smaller body size that may occur at high densities This view is more characteristic of a sustained yield, crop management approach to herd health than of an animal welfare approach. Likewise, we do not consider the mere demonstration of deer impacts on native plants to be a symptom of deer overpopulation; deer are wildlife, and eating is what wildlife does. The determining factor becomes the purpose of the land; deer densities and deer impacts that are unacceptable in an arboretum may be completely acceptable in a heavily disturbed urban park. Because human welfare must also be a concern, we can accept that deer are overpopulated at densities at which they seriously threaten public health and safety However, deer impacts that may be considered among the normal setbacks of everyday life, such as having the azaleas in one's front yard cropped by deer, do not lead us to a diagnosis of overpopulation. Our ultimate goal with respect to urban deer (and all urban wildlife) is to encourage Rutberg Page 4 tolerance and enjoyment of urban deer, and to help people accommodate their wild neighbors by helping to develop and implement techniques that reduce the impact of wildlife on people and vice versa. Urban deer conflicts I start with a cautionary admission. My involvement in urban deer conflicts is most often triggered by a phone call from a local animal activist who perceives an impending crisis in his or her community. Often, then serious community polarization has already occurred before I become involved. Communities that resolve deer concerns quietly I hear from infrequently, except in the form of straightforward requests for technical information on non-lethal conflict mitigation methods. Thus, my view of urban deer conflicts is skewed towards the most intense controversies. Nevertheless, my experience has yielded a fairly consistent picture of the evolution of severe urban deer controversies. The most disruptive controversies are triggered not by a general public concern, but by the concerns of influential property owners who are distressed about damage done by deer to ornamental plantings in their yards. These influential citizens complain to civic officials, who respond by delegating to someone -- a park commissioner, a citizen task force, a local wildlife biologist -- the task of doing a "study" of the deer issue. Political pressure from the concerned property owners tends to push the study in a specific direction, i.e., that "something must be done." As the study progresses, additional justifications -- o~en better justifications -- for "doing something" are developed. The number of deer-vehicle collisions in the community is tabulated, and ensuing damage and injury risks are estimated. Local parks are Rutberg Page 5 examined for "deer damage," and deer impacts on park ecology are postulated. Meanwhile, animal activists grow frustrated, and sometimes bitter. Some of the frustration is specifically value-related: many hold "live and let live" philosophies and, like The HSUS, believe that it is primarily the responsibility of people to accommodate to the wildlife that they have encouraged or forced to live as their neighbors. (The more extreme adherents of this view may hold strong non-interventionist, "let nature take its course," beliefs.) But offten, they also sense that all the studies, surveys, and task forces are nothing more than exercises designed to rationalize a decision that has already been reached on entirely political grounds -- a decision that inevitably involves killing deer. This suspicion is often reinforced by the weakness, tardiness, or absence of supporting data. For example, in one recent deer controversy, the "expert" assigned to speak at a public meeting about the impact of deer on the ecology of a state park for which a hutH was alreaa~.' platreed had first visited the park only four days before. He presented no actual data, and to my knowledge, there were none. It is little wonder that many activists thought that the justification was a meaningless public relations exercise. The deer haters On the extreme of the other side, there often emerges a group of people who I believe are accurately described as "deer haters." They are angry that deer have disrupted their lives, and call vociferously for the extermination of deer in the community (or at least in their backyards). The passion of the deer haters may be inspired by real harm done to them by deer, but not always, and certainly many people who have unpleasant encounters with deer do not respond this way. Rutberg Page 6 In my experience, what principally distinguish the deer haters from other advocates of active population management are ( 1 ) intolerance for the intrusion of nature and (2) a habit of controlling their surroundings and getting their way. Possessing a distinctly (but not uniquely) urban mentality, a deer hater habitually confronts problems by lifting the phone and demanding immediate, flawless service -- and letting the person on the other end of the phone know how he or she feels if it is not forthcoming. Thus, not only do they despise the deer, they often resent procedural and political obstacles to killing them, and become as frustrated and bitter as their animal activist counterparts as the study phase drags on. Although I've seen individual animal advocates say nastier things to state wildlife officials, the worst collective attack I've ever witnessed was, executed by a group of deer haters who were inflamed by an official who was simply trying to describe the state's recommended procedures for establishing a deer task force. In the worst deer controversies, the debate is dominated by the two embittered extremes, the animal advocates and the deer haters. To some extent, this is not surprising. For most people, deer rank low on the priority scale, well below the more immediate concerns of life such as completing a job assignment, fixing the leak in the roof, or keeping the kids away from drugs. Normal folks don't come to deer meetings often, and when they come they don't say much. As a result, public deer meetings can degenerate into shouting matches, name calling, and physical intimidation -- a level of anger, passion, and hatred that I continue to find both astonishing and appalling. Rutberg Page 7 The role of sport hunting The HSUS and many other animal protection groups oppose sport hunting. The HSUS believes that recreational killing of animals causes animal suffering and death for frivolous reasons, and therefore is morally wrong. Regardless of the ethical debate, however, I would argue that sport hunting will rarely if ever be an appropriate long-term solution to urban deer controversies. The debate over sport hunting diverts attention from the search for effective and sustainable solutions to urban deer conflicts, and undermines the effort to teach the urban public about the value ofwildlife. Fundamentally, urban deer control is not sport. The philosophical underpinning of sport hunting is the fair chase ethic (Posewitz 1994). However, the objective of urban deer population control by lethal methods is to reduce deer populations as efficiently and humanely as possible. The target is not supposed to have a sporting chance. In practice, "hunting" deer in urban environments consists of killing tame or human-habituated animals under carefully policed conditions in small parks or woodlots surrounded by houses and shopping malls and within earshot of commuter traffic. If, as defenders of hunting claim, the essence of sport hunting is the wilderness experience and the thrill of the chase, rather than the simple pleasure of killing animals, urban deer population control does not qualify. Thus, hunters who will participate voluntarily in urban deer control actions more than once will probably fall into three groups: those who will participate as a civic duty, those who participate to make a political statement about the value ot' hunting, and those who simply enjoy killing animals. In my view, neither of the first two groups will provide enough participants year after year to maintain a sustainable population control effort; and no one will want their backyards Rutberg Page 8 and neighborhood parks crawling with people from the third group. In the long run, most urban deer control -- lethal or non-lethal -- will require the participation of professionals, and many cases support this assertion (e.g., Hauber 1993, Stradtmann et al. 1995, Ver Steeg et al. 1995). Where public hunting is included as part of a control effort, it almost invariably is done primarily to provide a recreational opportunity, and must be supplemented by a professional effort in order to achieve community goals. The role of contraception Immunocontraception, specifically with pZP (porcine zona pellucida) or a recombinant ZP, is a highly promising tool for controlling urban deer populations (Turner et al. 1996; Kirkpatrick et at. 1997). Conceptually, it is extremely attractive to an urban public wary of guns and receptive to humane ideals. For The HSUS, immunocontraception is appealing both because we believe it will prove more humane than lethal methods and because of the role it can play in helping build public tolerance for and understanding of urban wildlife. Unfortunately, the current state of the technology lags behind the expectations of the public and especially of animal activists, who are quick to advocate its immediate use as an alternative to lethal control in many contexts. More unfortunately, the development of the technology and of the understanding of its real limitations have been slowed by exhausting political fights with state agencies, hunting groups, and local deer haters. Important and sound research projects have been unreasonably delayed and blocked by refusals of state agencies to grant permits, often under pressure from hunters and hunting groups. Deer haters have undermined community support for immunocontraception projects, arguing (often plausibly) that Rutberg Page 9 immunocontraception cannot bring populations down fast enough to suit community needs, but then revealing their deeper motivations by advocating transparently ineffective lethal programs. In spite of opposition, contraception research is progressing. Obviously, The HSUS will continue its effort to make immunocontraception highly effective and widely applicable. A plea for tolerance Fewer and fewer wildlife populations live in habitats relatively free of human influence. More and more of what wildlife remains lives in our backyards (literally and figuratively), farms, and urban and suburban parks. Consequently, the persistence of wild animals in our world depends increasingly on our ability to find ways to live with them. Some of the solutions may be technical (such as immunocontraception), but more important is the cultivation of tolerance for wildlife in the public at large. I strongly believe that everyone who values wildlife for whatever reason should work to educate the public about the value of wildlife, and the importance of creating a friendly environment for wildlife in their own neighborhoods. In a world where people and wild animals frequently come into contact, the deer hater is wildlife's worst enemy. People will make no space for wildlife if they view urban deer as vermin, refuse to change their own behavior to accommodate wildlife, and even take offense if you ask it of them. Deer haters may send money to save elephants or whales, but only because they never see these animals except on their own terms, on television, in zoos or aquaria, or neatly segregated on reservations such as wildlife refuges or national parks. But wildlife so conflned and so viewed is doomed. Hence, a warning to all wildlife professionals and sport hunters who value wildlife. In Rutberg Page 10 observing urban wildlife conflicts, I have more than once seen hunting advocates and professional wildlife managers, including state agency representatives, cultivate alliances with deer haters. I can only surmise that these alliances are part of an attempt to expand the constituency for lethal population control and sport hunting; certainly, the deer haters can be counted on to endorse lethal control. Regardless of your feelings about the effectiveness and ethics of lethal control and sport hunting resist the temptatiott to embrace the deer haters. They are not your friends. Rather, I encourage wildlife advocates of all stripes to join with animal protectionists and others to help raise the human threshold for what is considered wildlife "overpopulation." Encourage people to tolerate and take pleasure in the wildlife around their homes, and help to develop, study, and implement non-lethal techniques that make it easier for people and wildlife to live together. It is the best way, and the right way, to save wildlife. Literature cited Caughley, G. 1981. Overpopulation. Pages 7-19 itt P. A. Jewell and S, Holt, eds. Problems in management of locally abundant wild mammals. Academic Press, NY. Decker, D. J., R. E. Shanks, L. A. Nielsen, and G. R. Parsons. 1991. Ethical and scientific judgements in management: Beware of blurred distinctions. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 19:523-527. Hauber, J. 1993. White-tailed deer management in the Town of Irondequoit and Durand Eastman Park. N.Y.S. Dept. Env. Cons. 1 lpp. + append. Kirkpatrick, J. F., J. W. Turner Jr., I. K. M. Liu, R. Fayrer-Hosken, and A. T. Rutberg. 1997. Case studies in wildlife immunocontraception: wild and ferai equids and white-tailed deer. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 9: 105-110. Rutberg Page 11 Posewitz, J. 1994. Beyond fair chase: the ethic and tradition of hunting. Falcon Press, Helena, Mt. 118pp. Rutberg, A.T. 1997. The science of deer management: an animal welfare perspective. Pages 37-54 in W..l. McShea, H. B. Underwood, and J. H. Rappole, eds. The science of overabundance: deer ecology and population management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Stradtmann, M. L., J. B. MeAninch, E. P. Wiggers, and J. M. Parker. 1995. Police sharpshooting as a method to reduce urban deer populations. Pages 117-122 in J. B. MeAninch, ed., Urban deer: a manageable resource7 Proc. Of the 1993 Symposium of the North Central Section, The Wildlife Society. 175 pp. Turner, J. W. Jr., J. F. Kirkpatrick, and I. K. M. Liu. Effectiveness, reversibility, and serum antibody titers associated with immunocontraception in captive white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 60:45-51. Vet Steeg, J. M., J. H. Witham, and T. J. Beissel. 1953. Use ofbowhunting to control deer in a suburban park in Illinois. Pages 110-116 m J. B. MeAninch, ed., Urban deer: a manageable resource7 Proc. Of the 1993 Symposium of the North Central Section, The Wildlife Society. 175 pp. SCHUBERT & ASSOCIATES P.O. BOX I I 540 GLENDALE, AZ 853 I 8- 1540 TELEPHONE: (6C)2) 547-8537 TELEFAX: (~.02) 78~-88 I 7 May 14, 1999 BY TEl ,EFAX AND MAH, Ms. Lisa M. Mollenhauer Administrative Assistant to the City Manager City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 Dear Ms. Mollenhauer: On behalf of The Fund for Animals (The Fund) and the University of Iowa Animal Rjghts Coalition (UIARC), I submit the following comments on the 1998/99 Deer Management Plan for Iowa City, IA. The Fund understands that the Iowa City/Coralville Deer Management Committee (Committee) has reconvened to assess the effectiveness of its deer management strategies in 1998/99 and to provide direction for deer management in 1999/2000. As a threshold matter, it is critical that the Committee not be restricted when developing new deer management recommendations. While it certainly can and should consider the results of previous planning processes, it should not be beholden to any strategy contained in any past plan. It has recently come to the attention of The Fund and UIARC that some members of the Committee believe that the 35 deer per square mile management strategy is a legally binding standard which cannot be changed. Consequently these members intend to limit their analysis to how to kill deer to meet this standard instead of attempting to develop an updated, erealive, and innovative deer management plan. The Fund and UIARC do not believe that the 35 deer per square mile standard is legally binding. Rather, it is an arbitrary number which is not supported by any credible scientific evidence which was inserted into the 1998/99 deer management plan and adopted by the Iowa City City Council (Council). Even if this is a legally binding standard, if the planning process is to be meaningful then all aspects of the 1998/99 plan, including the 35 deer per square mile standard, must be subject to review and reform. To provide for such a meaningful process, the Council must immediately inform the Committee that no aspect of the current plan must be retained in future deer management recommendations. Conversely, if the Council intends to maintain the 35 deer per square mile standard then the entire planning process is useless and meaningless. The development of new strategies to kill deer to achieve this arbitrary standard fails to consider public concern over deer killing nor does it even begin to substantiate the alleged .need to kill deer. The Fund and UIARC oppose much of the 1998/99 deer management plan. While it supports public education and the installation of roadside reflectors to reduce deer/vehicle accidents these strategies appear to be secondary to deer killing. Despite this clear emphasis on killing, the management plan provides no compelling evidence to substantiate the need to kill deer. This lack of evidence was clearly reflected in the environmental documents prepared by the U.S. Department of Ag~culture/Wildlife Services this past year. While broad claims about deer/vehicle accidents, disease, and impacts to landscapes and natural vegetation were referenced in the USDA/WS documents there was virtually no site-specific data pertinent to Iowa City. Either this data was inadvertently left out of these analyses or, more than likely, the data is simply not available. Without solid and credible data a comprehensive, sensible, and humane deer management plan cannot be developed. Instead of attempting to develop alternative ways of killing deer, The Fund and UIARC encourage the Committee to develop comprehensive strategy to collect site specific data on deer impacts within the region or area of concern in order to improve management decisions in the future. In addition, the Committee should consider other factors which influence deer management decisions. The following is a summary of several factors which influence deer management decisions. I. Deer/Vehicle Accidents: An alleged increase in the number of deer/vehicle accidents is the primary justification provided for reducing the deer herd in Iowa City. Yet there are no site-specific deer/vehicle accident data available for Iowa City. To collect such data, a comprehensive reporting system must be established. First, a city department or office must be established as the collection point for such data. Second, the local police, sheriff, highway patrol, animal control authority, and the city, county, state, and federal road/highway departments must be requested to cooperate in this program. Third, an official form must be developed to obtain critical information about each deer/vehicle accident.~ This information should include the date, number of deer struck, time of accident, ~The same form should be used when animal control officers or road crews pick up dead deer along roadways/highways in and around Iowa City. Most of these deer were probably struck by an automobile but no report was made. While tonnation about the accident would not be known under these circumstances, information on the location of the carcass would be valuable in making future management recommendations. weather conditions (i.e., rain, snow, ice), speed limit, approximate speed of vehicle, location of accident, number of human injuries/deaths, and an estimate of the mount of dollar damage to the vehicle. Since many deer/vehicle accidents are reported to the police, the responding police agencies should consider modifying their accident reporting codes - if not already done - to include a specific category for deer vehicle accidents. This was done by the police department in Montgomery County, Maryland and substantially improved County data on deer/vehicle accidents. Even if specific reporting codes are created, it would be advisable to ensure that the officer responding to a deer/vehicle accident attempts to collect the additional data previously described. The collection of site-specific deer/vehicle accident data will improve management decisions, reduce unnecessary spending on deer management programs, and lead to a reduction in deer/vehicle accidents. First, by identifying where deer/vehicle accidents tend to occur, areas particularly susceptible to such accidents can be located. Management strategies (i.e., reflector systems, reducing speed limited, warning signs) can be implemented at the site-specific level to address the deer/vehicle accident rate. This information would also focus habitat manipulation projects (i.e., roadside clearing) to only those areas where there was a high risk of such accidents. Second, by identifying when deer/vehicle accidents occur, management strategies including public education plans can be geared toward reducing deer/vehicle accident rates during that time period. For example, if it is determined that most deer/vehicle accidents occur from October through December and at dawn and dusk, warning signs and speed limit reductions can be used only during those high risk times instead of being implemented on a permanent basis. Third, by identifying the circumstances (i.e., excess speed, wet roads) surrounding deer/vehicle accidents, educational efforts could be better targeted to address the causes of such accidents. In addition to installing a system to maximize reporting of deer/vehicle accidents, the Committee should evaluate or request that the City evaluate traffic volume patterns on those roads believed to represent a high risk for deer/vehicle collisions. It is frequently assumed that an increase in deer/vehicle accidents corresponds to an increase in the areas deer population. This neglects to consider the role oftraffc volume in increasing the deer/vehicle accident rate. An increase in traffic volume, for example, even if the deer population was stable or in decline could result in an increase in deer/vehicle accidents. An analysis of traffic volume in Montgomery County, Maryland (Attachment 1 ), for example, revealed an increase of traffic volume up to 400 percent on roads identified by the County Police as representing the highest risk for deer/vehicle accidents. This substantial increase in the traffic volume, therefore, may have been partly or wholly responsible for the increase in deer/vehicle accidents independent of any fluctuation in the deer population. If Iowa City or Johnson County has collected traffic volume estimates over the years, this data can be used to examine the change in traffic volume over time for comparison with the reported deer/vehicle accident rate. fflowa City is like most communities in this country, it has experienced increased growth in the number of residents resulting in the construction of more roads and an increase in traffic volume. fftraffc volume data is not available for Iowa City, the Committee should recommend that the City begin collecting such data to use in developing future deer management recommendations. In addition to data collection and analysis, the Committee should recommend to the Council that it use warning signs, speed limit restrictions, and reflector systems to address the risk of deer/vehicle accidents. The Council and City should be commended for its previous decision to incorporate reflector systems in areas of high risk for deer/vehicle accidents but encouraged to expand such programs to all areas of concern. It should also be emphasized that reflector systems only work if properly maintained. Warning signs should be used in high risk areas during high risk times to make drivers more aware of the need to be alert for deer while driving. Standard yellow and black warning signs are generally not effective for such purposes because drivers have become habituated to such signs. More elaborate signs incorporating a digital display, flashing lights, and/or graphics are more likely to attract a drivers attention possibly influencing his or her driving patterns. While reflectors and warning signs may be effective in reducing the number and fxequency of deer/vehicle accidents, speed limit reduction is the single most effective strategy. By enforcing a reduced speed limit in high risk areas at high risk times, drivers will have more time to react if a deer is observed on or near the roadway. Increased reaction time may provide the difference between hitting or avoiding the deer. While some drivers may complain about such a speed limit reduction, adding a few minutes to a commute time would appear to be a fair trade-offfor reducing the possibility of a deer/vehicle accident. Finally, it should be emphasized by the Committee and Council that the likelihood of a deer/vehicle accident, even if no precautionary measures are taken, is extremely remote. Indeed, the number of drivers hitting inanimate objects, including other cars, in Iowa City on a daily basis must be far in excess to the number of drivers striking deer. While deer/vehicle accidents will occur even when precautions are taken, such accidents are the exertion rather than the rule. 2. Deer Impacts to Ornamental Plants/Landscaping: Another ~equently used justification for killing deer is deer impacts to omamental plants/landscaping. Though there is anecdotal information about such impacts in Iowa City, there appears to be no site-specific data on the number of incidents/complaints, the location of such incidents/complaints, or the severity of such incidents. Such data are essential for the development of a sensible and comprehensive deer management plan. 4 The Committee should develop a strategy for collecting such information. Like the collection of deer/vehicle accident data, a single entity must be established to collect complaints from citizens about deer impacts to ornamentals/landscaping. A 1-800 number of other easily remembered number should be assigned to this agency or organization and must be publicized widely to ensure the public is aware of this reporting service. In addition to collecting reports of deer damage, properly trained agents can provide callers with alternative, non-lethal strategies for reducing conflicts and respond to other questions about deer. Additional information can be mailed to each caller as part of a public education campaign to increase public knowledge and tolerance for deer. The collection of such data not only provides a mechanism to educate and provide alternative deer management strategies to those directly affected by deer, but it also allows for the identification of deer/human conflict hot spots allowing nondethal deer management efforts to be better focused on actual conflict areas. The Committee should also recognize and emphasize that deer impacts to ornamentals/landscaping is not a widespread problem in Iowa City. Indeed, The Fund and U1ARC expect that a relatively low number of Iowa City residents have experienced deer damage to their ornamentals/landscaping, that most of the damage is minimal, and that a portion of these residents are willing to tolerate the damage in exchange for the opportunity to view deer near their homes. Moreover, even for those residents, if any, who experience a level of deer damage which they are unwilling to tolerate, alternative non-lethal strategies (i.e., netting, repellents, fencing, use of non-palatable ornamentals) can and should be used to reduce these impacts. 3. Deer Impact to Natural Vegetation: There is no credible evidence or data to suggest that deer in Iowa City are causing an adverse impact on natural vegetation in Iowa City. Nevertheless, in it Draft and Revised Environmental Assessments the U.S. Department of Agriculture identified potential adverse impacts of deer on natural vegetation and other species as justification for its ill-fated deer slaughter project. If, as is the case here, there is no evidence of adverse impacts to the natural ecosystem, this argument should not ',:e used to justify the lethal control of deer. Even if such data were available, The Fund and UIARC would strongly oppose initiating a lethal deer control program based on deer damage to natural vegetation or other species. There is no question that deer impact other species - both plant and animal. All animals, however, exert some influence or impact on their habitat. The question is whether the impact is unnatural, whether the impact if not addressed will substantially and adversely impact the long-term ecology of the area, and whether human intervention through lethal management will remedy the impact. The Fund and UIARC do not believe that circumstances exist which would meet these criteria. First, deer are a natural part oftnost ecosystems in North America. Fluctuations in deer populations can be natural or caused by human manipulation of the environment. Deer are one of many species who can prolif'erate in a human manipulated environment. The clearing of forests and the creation of edge habitat for development activities provide excellent habitat for deer. This has facilitated an increase in deer populati0n-~ in many areas. This increase is not unnatural but rather reflects the recolonization of deer into human manipulated environments. Any conflicts that result from such recolonization is a product of human caused impact and sprawl. Deer should not be subject to lethal control based on human caused changes to the environment and human intolerance to the consequences of such changes. As previously stated, deer, like other animals, impact their environment. Simply stated, deer eat plants. As a consequence, other species may be impacted. Such impacts are entirely natural. The severity of the impacts may vary depending on the size of the deer population which, in turn, is influenced by natural (i.e., climate, population fluctuations) and artificial (i.e., human caused, hunting strategies) factors. Though the reasons for the increase may be totally artificial, the deer are demonstrating an entirely natural response to the availability of suitable habitat by increasing their numbers to fully occupy their habitat. Moreover, the Fund and UIARC believe that deer are a dominant spedes in an ecosystem. In other words, because of their numbers and ecology, deer exert the greatest natural physical impact on the environment and the ecology of their habitat. As the dominant species, any impacts to the vegetative community or other animal species, including birds, are emirely natural and will cause beth positive and negative influences on other species who occupy the habitat. Second, the likelihood of a deer population causing long-term adverse ecological damage to an ecosystem is, at best, highly speculative. Nature is remarkably resilient and can rebound, in time, to the worst of natural or human caused catastrophes. Though deer impact their habitats, such impacts have little long-term implications to the ecology of the area. While a large deer population may, for example, restrict or prevent woody and herbaceous plant growth, eventually, without any intervention by humans the deer population will naturally decline through starvation, disease, or reduced productivity, reducing the impact on the habitat. While the public may have a negative visceral reaction to starvation or disease controlling deer populations, these factors are entirely natural and, unlike hunting, will strengthen rather than weaken the viability of the herd by removing the oldest, youngest, and weakest animals. Hunting is not a panacea for starvation or disease because even in areas where the hunting pressure is high, animals still succumb to starvation and disease. It is also not imperative that all deer in a herd be large and robust animals. While such animals may meet the common definition of healthy, such a scenario is not consistent with a dynamic, natural ecosystem. A deer herd consisting of smaller than average deer who appear to be matnourished may reflect a herd at, near, or above the carrying capacity of their range whose numbers will, without human intervention, begin to decline as a result of reduced productivity. Since successful production requires a great deal of energy, if an anirnal's energy reserves are limited, reproduction is usually reduced. While such a herd may not satisfy the common 6 definition of a healthy herd, this definition is an artificial situation which wildlife agencies attempt to accomplish through hunting. It does not reflect the circumstances affecting the survival of deer in a dynamic, natural ecosystem. While hunters and pro-hunting agencies attempt to convince the public that hunting creates healthier herds, since hunters tend to target the biggest and most impressive animals, hunted herds may, in actuality, be less vigorous and healthy than an unhunted herd. Even ira deer population was to remain high in an area for several decades, the long-term ecological health of the habitat is not likely to be adversely affected. Using the previous example, even if a deer population prevented woody vegetation regrowth for several decades, eventually, in time, the older trees will die from natural causes and will fall to the ground. This will permit sunlight to penetrate the forest floor and allow natural succession to begin. Over time the cycle will constantly repeat. More often than not, deer management is based less on biological and ecological concerns and more on the management prescription in a particular area. For example, deer management strategies will be different for areas managed for natural process vers~s areas managed for wild flowers. Since deer browsing may adversely affect the opportunities to see wild flowers, lethal deer control may be more likely under such a scenario. Management prescriptions, however, are imposed by agencies based presumably on the desires of their constituents. To achieve such prescriptions, frequently areas are managed for a snapshot in time so that everything in the ecosystem remains consistent with some desired standard. Such snapshot management, however, is entirely inconsistent with natural fluctuations and changes in an ecosystem. Ecosystems are constantly in a state of flux. The most significant impacts on ecosystems include natural factors, particularly climate, and human impacts. Drought, for example, can result in an enormous impact on the productivity, composition, and abundance of species in an ecosystem. The identification of a deer browse line in an area may reflect either an increasing deer population or a series of poor growing seasons possibly triggered by a temporary shift in the climate which has reduced vegetation productivity. As a result, with a reduction in the abundance of natural foods, a browse line may become more apparent as the deer strive to survive. While the browse line may cause some to be concerned, in reality it is the expected product of a naturally functioning ecosystem. In those limited circumstances where deer may adversely and significantly impact the ecology of an area, such as when deer may be exerting an excessive impact on an imperilled plant species, non-lethal alternatives are available to address these impacts. The construction of a deer- proof fence around these sensitive areas will provide complete protection to these species as long as the fence is maintained or until the plant species recovers to the point where such protection is no longer necessary. While those who swear by the lethal control of deer frequently attempt to justify their actions by using the alleged adverse impacts that deer have on an ecosystem, in reality, the long- term ecological implications of these impacts are insigm~cant. It is the lack of long-term implications of such impacts which should guide the Committee in making recommendations about deer management in Iowa City. Third, lethal deer control is an ineffective means of resolving deer/human conflicts. When subject to lethal control, deer increase their productivity. Consequemly, unless the lethal control program is intended to entirely eradicate the population, it will have to be repeated continuously. Moreover, lethal control will not address specific deer/human conflicts. Deer will continue to be involved in deer/vehicle accidents, they will continue to impact ornamentals/landscaping, and will otherwise continue to cort~iet with those residents who have not been educated on how to live peacefully with deer and/or who are intolerant of the species. A far more effective strategy to resolve human deer conflicts is to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program intended to increase tolerance for deer by increasing the public's knowledge about the ecology and behavior of deer and by providing non-lethal management tools to residents to reduce, prevent, or eliminate unacceptable deer/human conflicts. 4. Lyme Disease: The threat of Lyme disease transmission is frequently used by local, mate, and federal officials to sway public opinion in favor of a contentious and controversial deer management practice. In the Environmental Assessments prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, nine cases of Lyme disease were reported for Johnson County, IA yet no site specific information was provided for Iowa City. Moreover, no arterupt was made to determine if the confirmed Lyme diseases cases in Johnson County originated in the county or if the victims contracted the disease while visiting other parts of the country where the incidence of Lyme disease is known to be higher. The Fund and UIARC are unaware of credible data to verify that Lyme disease is prevalent in Johnson County or southeastern, Iowa. Even if it were, the relationship between the prevalence of Lyme disease and deer remains unclear. Since there are a number of species, including domestic animals, who can harbor the tick which carries Lyme disease, a large deer ?opulation does not neces~iy correspond to an increased threat of Lyme disease. Moreover, even if Lyme disease was prevalent in the area there are a number of preventative measures (i.e., removal of brush piles, cutting of lawns to a short height, removal of leaf piles, serf-inspection after outdoor activities, use of insect repellents, proper attire while recreating during high risk times) which the public can take to reduce the likelihood of~ntrac~t'ing the disease. According to recent news reports, an additional preventative measure which can be taken by those most concerned about the disease is a new vaccine which has been developed to prevent Lyme dim. Finally, the Committee should emphasize that the risk of contracting Lyme disease, even if no precautionary measures are taken, is extremely remote and that given the preventitive measures which are available there is no reason why anyone who is properly educated should contract this disease. Furthermore, given the remote risk of disease transmission, Lyme disease or the threat of Lyme disease transmission does not justify lethal deer control. 5. Deer Population Counts: Present day technologies do not permit us to precisely measure the size ofungulate populations. Several tools of variable accuracy have been developed to attempt to estimate the size of deer population including aerial surveys, ground surveys, and pellet counts. It has been suggested that the deer population in Iowa City has increased by 60 percent between 1997 and 1999 (See, "Deer Population in CR. up 25%, DNR Says," Cedar Rapids Gazette, March 25, 1999). While these data may indeed demonstrate that the population has increased, the Committee should not blindly accept these data without scrutirtizing the sampling methodology, the assumptions associated with the methodology, and the interpretation of the sampling results. For example, it is unclear ~'om the information published regarding the alleged increase in the deer population whether the sampling methodologies used in 1997 and 1999 were similar or different. If the methodologies were different then comparing the results to determine a trend in the population is inappropriate. Furthermore, if the Committee is genuinely interested in assessing the size and trend in the deer population, multiple censuses conducted over several years are necessary to collect sufficient data to provide such answers. Two censuses are not sufficient to determine the trend or identify natural fluctuations in the population. Moreover, all sampling methodologies include multiple assumptions which permit the collected data to be extrapolated to the entire population. These assumptions must be subject to sufficient scrutiny to ensure that they accurately reflect the environmental circumstances. Again, ~'om the information collected on this issue, the assumptions built into the sampling methodology cannot be identified or, in turn, verified. Finally, caution must be taken when interpreting sampling data. Of particular importance is a determination of how many of the deer identified during the surveys exist in those areas of Iowa City which are, for safety reasons, closed to hunting vers~s how many sampled deer actually were identified in areas outside of Iowa City where hunting is permitted. If it is assumed that all sampled deer fall within the non-hunting area when, in reality, a portion of the sampled animals were identified in areas open to hunting, this provides a false and misleading assessment of the deer population in the non-hunting area. A careful examination of the aerial sampling data, including a correlation of data points to hunted verses non-hunted areas, should be conducted in order to properly define, recognizing the limitations of the sampling methodologies, the number of deer in the urban areas within Iowa City. 6. Development: In urban settings, development is a critical factor in creating, expanding or increasing deer/human conflicts. Development in natural areas within and surrounding urban centers 9 destroys deer habitat forcing the animals to find additional suitable habitat. If development is ceased or limited to vacant lots within urban centers which are not occupied by deer, the deer population is provided an opportunity to stabiliz'~ in an area. Conversely, in are. as subject to increased development pressures, deer may be constantly on the move searching for new habitat increasing the potential for deer/vehicle collisions and forcing deer to use residential areas where they previously did not exist. The construction of new roads to access new developments or to ease traffic congestion can substantially increase the potential for deer/vehicle accidents if wildlife is not considered during road planning and construction. If deer and other wildlife are considered during the planning stages for such construction, deer migration corridors and movement patterns should be determined and used in identifying where the road should be built and how it should be constructed. By avoiding movement corridors and by providing underpasses to permit wildlife to cross the road when avoidance is impossible, the potential for deer/vehicle collisions can be reduced. Moreover, fencing along existing and new roads can be used to funnel wildlife towards underpasses where the animal can cross the road without posing any threat to drivers. The Committee should carefully consider the role of development in the management of. deer in Iowa City. The Fund and UIARC are convinced that the proposal to slaughter deer in the Peninsula section of the city last winter was intended to facilitate the planned construction of homes in that area. Considering the relatively low number of people and roads in the area as it presently exists, no credible argument could be made that deer/vehicle collisions or deer impacts to ornamentals/landscaping was a critical problem in that area. Consequently, there is no apparent justification for the deer kill except to facilitate the planned development in the area. Under no circumstances should lethal deer control be justified to facilitate development. Not only does this establish a dangerous precedent for the future management of other wildlife species which may conflict with humans (i.e., raccoons, skunks, geese) but it also is entirely ineffective in addressing deer/human conflicts. Even if deer were killed in the planned development area, in short order the remaining deer would repopulate the area possibly resulting in increased deer/human conflicts. A more appropriate strategy would be to design the development in a manner which would nxinimize deer/human conflicts (i.e., limit the size of the development, retain as much of the natural area as possible, minimize the construction of lawn areas, establish strict speed limits within the development, provide natural corridors to permit deer to move across or around the development, and emphasize the use of non-palatable species in landscaping) or, preferably, avoid developing the area altogether. Under no circumstances should the Committee approve any lethal deer control without first investigating the alleged need for such control. The Fund and UIAR, C believe that if the Committee subjects the proposal to kill deer in the peninsula area and other areas in Iowa City to appropriate investigation, it will determine that the basis for such proposals in lowa City are primarily to facilitate development. 10 Conclusion: Based on the foregoing evidence, The Fund and UIARC strongly urges the Committee not to recommend the killing of deer in Iowa City. Rather, in order to gain additional and site-specific information about deer in Iowa City, the Committee should recommend that a comprehensive strategy to collect information about deer/vehicle collisions, deer impacts to ornamentals /landscaping, and deer impact to natural vegetation be established in order to provide more credible data to substantiate deer management decisions made in the future. In addition, the Committee should develop a comprehensive public education campaign and a strategy for implementing the campaign in order to provide the residents of Iowa City with the most up to date information about deer and non-lethal strategies for reducing deer/human conflicts. The Fund and U1ARC strongly believe that deer/human conflicts in Iowa City, IA can be reduced, prevented, or eliminated through the development and implementation of a comprehensive non-lethal, humane deer management plan. Ultimately this plan, if properly developed and implemented will be far more effective and far less controversial than a plan relying on sharpshooting or other forms of lethal deer control. Thank you in advance for considering these comments. If you have any questions about these comments, please contact me at your convenience. D.J. Schubert Wildlife Biologist enclosure (by mail) co: Members of the Iowa City City Council 11 m-BVENG WIT DEER AUTHORED BY: Dr. Thomas Eveland Ecology Consultant This report is hardly a cure-all for every farmer, tree nursery owner. gardener, part-time landscaper. or orchard operator contending with white-tailed deer. Rather, it's a combination of ideas and recommendations that may help people more comfortably live with deer. Beyond the discussion of means of mitigating deer impacts, this document makes an implicit appeal for humans to exhibit greater tolerance for wildlife. Historically. people have routinely killed -- by shooting. trapping. or poisoning -- wildlife as a matter of convenience, as a way of dealing with a conflict. Such prejudice and intolerance for wildlife is, however. less acceptable today. The ethical challenge is to secure our convenience and our livelihoods and~to let wild animals live in peace. It is axiomatic that wild animals more deer may now inhabit the Io extinction, with only slightly -- in the course of their search for eastern half of the United States more than 100 individuals food, shelter, and other daily than at any time in Ihe past 150 surviving; for them, the key to needs -- will have an impact on years. survival is more habitat and less people. Chipmunks, for instance, Of course, manypeople are fond direct killing by poachers and are notorious for unearthing of deer, cherishing an opportunity automobiles. Like Florida's freshly planted bulbs. Squirrels to catch a glimpse of the gracefu'! diminutive deer subspecies, the find their way into partitions and creatures. Others, however, claim columbian deer, which inhabits attics. Field mice prefer the lower they are little more than the Pacific Northwest, is also a chambers of a household -- overgrown pests, browsing fcderally listed endangered species. eventually moving into basements. vegetation and crossing roads. But there is often more talk of And skunks and raccoons tip over Such polar views inspire the Ihe abundance of deer than of garbage cans to gain the goods. debate over deer management. their scarcily. The white-tailed Sometimes wildlife come in Specifically, while some people deer, for instance, which inhabits bigger, and seemingly more claim deer should receive all areas of the Rocky N!ountains, dangerous, packages. Yet people, protection, others claim they must numbers in excess of t5 million in many instances, have be hunled. individuals nationwide (including demonstrated a remarkable ability ' four million in Texas). There may to live with these animals. RANGE AND DFVERSITY be as many as five million mule Aidskins adjust to brown bears Deer are the smaller-sized, but deer, which mull around the and moose traveling through their the wider-ranging relatives of elk Rockies and other portions of the backyards at night. In Florida, and moose in the United Slates. western landscape. people have learned to have While moose 'inhabit the alligators safely removed from northernmost states of the U.S. A Q U E S T I O N O F swimming pools and transplanted (WA, OF;, ID, MT, ND, WY, CO, CONTROL unharmed back into area swamps MN, WL MI, NY, VT, NH, ME) One of the most controversial and rivers. And even in some and elk the western states (WA, issues within the field of wildlife housing developments In the OR, CA. NV, AZ., NM. CO, UT, management concerns deer P o c o n o M o u n t a i n s o f ID. MT. WY, ND, SD, NE, OK, hunting. People often confuse northeastern Pennsylvania, KS), deer inhabit every state issues when discussing deer residents live harmoniously with except Hawaii. From sitka deer in hunting in particular. While it is black bears, by doing such things Alaska to sika deer in Maryland, clear that deer can sustain an as placing their refuse in bear- from black-tailed deer in Oregon annual kill and not be severely proof garbage cans. to white-tailed deer in Iowa, and depleted. that is not the same as In between the squirrels and the from mule deer in Arizona to key saying that deer must be hunted. bears -- in size and abundance -- deer in Florida, deer, in slightly In fact, it is clear that many land is the white-tailed deer. varying sizes and colors, are areas across the United States -- Principally, because of wildlife America's widest ranging large varying in size and location -- management practices designed to mammal. maintain healthy deer herds, but increase deer numbers and land Some subspecies are. of course, no deer hunting. For instance, use practices that result in the less widenranging than others. the National ParkService--which creation of suitable deer habitat, The key deer. for instance. is close manages 80 million acres of !and the National Park Service -- which [actors, death by disease, extreme situations, but the surprising thing manages 80 million acres of !and heat or cold, parasite,s, prcdation, is how many parks containing deer -- generally operates with a no- or starvation. If some of those populations have no problem." hunting credo (except for some factors do not exert a significant There arc, however, select large land areas in Alaska). impact in a particular region (e.g. circumstances when deer do have Acadia, Shenandoah, Everglades, absence of prcdators), the other a visible impact on a forest Big Bend, Voyageurs, Rocky factors exert a proportionatcly community. Generally speaking, Mountain, Yellowstone, Glacier, grcatcr influence. the deer are not reducing plant Grand Canyon, and Sequoia arc Populations do not maintain biodiversity. but reducing plant just a few national parks where equilibrium, however, just by the biomass. Some noted ungulate dccr hunting is outlawed. deaths of individuals. Surviving ecologists point out that such Also, deer reside on hundreds of dccr also decrease their rate of impacts arc short term. Says Dr. smaller-sized areas, such as state reproduction under less than ideal Grabnero Caughley, "[ do not and city parks, where no dccr conditions. For instance, rather know of any systcm dislocated hunting is permitted. Such areas than produce twins or. triplets, permanently by a bout of occur in all regions of the country, does will produce a single. fawn or overpopulation. The phenomenon from the Pacific Northwest to the won't produce at all. This is temporary and its remission Southeast to the heart of the Mid- phenomenon is not exclusive to spontaneous. Most treatments of West. These land areas providc deer. Outside of Ycllowston'c overpopulation arc justified by a ample evidence that there is no Natural Park, where coyotes arc dire. prediction of what might have absolute biological need to have hunted, trapped, and poisoned, happened had the treatment been human hunters kill deer. females produce six to eight pups withheld. A more convincing .case Not surprisingly, deer densitics-- per liner. Inside Yc!lowstonc, would bc made by demonstrating as influenced by elimale, wherc they arc proleered, coyoles that the effects of untrcatcd vegetation, composition, forest produce two Io four pups per abundance is irreversible." maturity, and abundance of litter. [t's naturc's way of Thus, the question of deer predators- differ by region. For tightening thereproductivcfaucct. managcmcnt is not one of the instance, in Vermont, where the Dccr demonstrate some other biological carrying capacity, but of growing season is relatively short noteworthy reproductive strategies the cultural carrying capacity -- and winters can be severe, dccr to limit their numbers., 'John how many deer will people densities arc rather low: 10 deer Ozoga and Louis Vetroe of the. tolerate in their environment? Of per square mile on average (1990). Michigan Department of Natural course, this depends not so much In the West, especially west or the Resources point out that does will on the behavior of the dccr 20-inch rain line, watcr is more of bear more males than females in population, but on the options of a limiting factor, especially as it times or stress. This alteration of the human population. Two affects the vegetative community, normal sex ratios decreases the people, for instance, may view a and deer densities arc reproductive potential of the dccr caring a yew in the back'yard correspondingly low. In the mid- population: obviously, males do in an entirely different manner. Atlantic states, however, where not bear young. Thus, the fewer One person may be happy that his winters arc not severe, where the number of females in a or her backyard is providing food human suburbia creates "edge" population, the less rcproductivcly for a deer. Another person may habitat, and where few predators capable the population. be angered that "his' yew trec is exist, deer densities can be The point is, nature ultimately being aesthetically damaged by significant: more than 30 deer per regulates deer numbers. As slated deer browsing. Fundamentally. it square mile. in ~Vhite-TailedDeer~ianagement is a question of attitude, not Though deer densilies may be and Ecology, the bible of deer science. Ungulate ecologist relatively high in certain regions, managcment forwildlifemanagers, C. aughleysums up the controversy: it does not follow that hunting "Most wildlife biologists and 'Is containment of an eruption must be employed to limit deer managers can point to situations (dramatic rise in deer numbers) numbers. Ultimately, natural where deer populations have not necessary? That is a scienti~c regulating factors will limit deer been hunted yet do not fluctuate question and I interpret Ihc numbers in those regions as well. greatly nor cause damage to evidence available as implying that For instance, deer populations arc vegetation. Certainly deer reach it is seldom or never nccc.ssary. Is limited by a variety of decimation overpopulation in some park containment of an eruption 2 desirable? That is not a scientific to a significanl degree. Many varieties of plants that are more question. I can boast no people comfortably live In regions appealing than a dcer's regular qualifications that would make my highly populated by deer. These menu of native species, he or she opinion any more valuable than people maintain' beautiful is inviting trouble. those of my two immediate ornamentals and bountiful PalatabilRy studies indicate that neighbors, a garage mechanic on vegetable gardens and safely drive deer prefer certain ornamentals one side and an Air Vice-marshall rural roads. These people have over others. And, in at least some on the other." lcarncd to tolerate deer and to situations, certain ornamentals arc cope with the limited way in which not pre/erred by deer at all, DEER DIFFICULTIES they inconvenience our lives. Obviously, it would bca direct Just like any wild animal, deer benefit for homeowners to know will behave in ways Ihat UNDERSTANDING THE which ornamentals are preferred occasionallyinconveniencepeople. PROBLEMS by deer and which are not. A Expensive ornamental plants used An understanding of animal complete listing of these plants is to enhance the value of a home behavior will put you on the path provided later in this report. and to increase Ihe landscaping in resolving your problems. Keep Deer damage is basically aesthetic~ can be planted one day in mind that deer are seasonal. Garden damage, only to be severely browsed opportunistic feeders, capable of obviously, occurs in late spring, overnight by local deer. After utilizing hundreds of plant species summer, and early fall -- the long hours of work to produce a and incapable of recognizing growing season. However, the small vegetable crop, gardeners property boundaries. As such, any browsing of ornamental plants can have their broccoli, corn, new home that's built in prime around houses is almost solely a beets, carrots, and other deer habitat that also has winter problem. As such, vegetables eaten by deer. Still ornamental plants, a garden or homeowners only have to contend other people plant a few fruit other preferred deer foods will with troublesome deer and trees for the fruit as well as a eventually be invesligated and ornamenlal browsing from January hobby. These. too, can be heavily tested. If the deer like the through March in most areas of damaged by local deer in a short human-modified environment, the countqr. time. And. people who move Io they will establish a feeding From April through June, grass the country may not be pattern. .shoots and fresh leaves are accustomed to watching for deer A second reason why a new available for deer. At that time, while driving the roads. As a homeowner may experiencesevere deer seem to prefer these fresh reSult, deer-auto collisions can deer damage to his or her planting foods over most other plants, even occur. relates to the surrounding habitat. ornamemal species. However, if These concerns are ineradicable, For example, a mature forest 'is they do happen to wander into as long as we choose to allow not deer habitat. A forest one's garden, they will no doubt wildlife to live in our midst. In consisting of large trees, which sample some of the plants. It is some areas, these problems can shade the forest floor and deprive during this time that gardeners seem severe. In Pennsylvania, for young trees and shrubs of~ must take care, because once deer instance, vehicles slruck an lifegiving sunlight, offers little for identify your garden as a potential estimated 40,000 deer in 1990. deer. Deer are, however, attracted food source, they will return. Deer browsing of ornamentals to forest edges, where sunlight The least !roublesome time for around New York was estimated reaches the ground and which deer is July through September -- to cost homeowners hundreds of provides palatable and available a time when wildlife foods are thousands of dollars per year in plants for deer. Putting a house readily available. The deer are the mid 1980s. And, landowners or housing development in the often broken into groups of only a in certain parts of Rhode Island middle of a large expanse of few individuals, and does with have complained in recent years mature forest will create a fawns move less at this time. that growing simple vegetable favorable environment for deer, by Bucks also move infrcquendy, gardens is almost an impossibili~. creating much 'edge' habitat (see since their freshly sprouted velvet Even though these problems .agttre 1). antlers arc painfully delicale and appear to be on the increase. Another landscaper's concern is damaged easily when bumped there is no reason to think that the palatability of plants. When a against tree branches or olher such problems cannot be reduced homeowner unknowingly chooses structures. Thus, deer are 3 dispersed and their consumption is SOLUTIONS materials. Thee manufacturers not concentrated, spreading out There are a number of means to will no doubt have other fencing their impact. minimize, or eliminate nuisance designs available and will certainly By October, the bucks have deer impacu to your property. It share them with you upon request. polished the velvet from their now is important to understand, hardened antlers and are however, that the degree of KIWI FENCE SYSTEMS preparing for the autumn breeding success Of any preventative (412) 627-5640 season, known as the rut. Last measure will depend on a number RD 2 BOX 51 A spring's fawns arc feeding more on of factors. As such, the WAYNESBURG, PA 15370 vegetation instead of their homeowner must bear the mothcr's milk; this freedom from ultimate responsibility for bringing LIVE-WIRE PRODUCTS their young allows the does to deer or other animal-related (:207) 365-4438 begin preparation for the rut. The problems to a reasonable and BOX 307 rutting season, combined with the moral conclusion. SHERMAN MILLS, ME 04776 availability of mast (acorns, beechnuts, and other wild nuts), A. FENCING TECH FENCE makes the fall period also one of If you wish to have a vegetable (207) 327-1398 infrequent deer damage to garden in deer range, then you ADVANCED FARM SYSTEMS homeowners. should consider a fence. No other BOX 364 RFD By early winter, though, the device or strategy will provide BRADFORD, ME 04410 situation is quite different. Many such vegetation protection. When deer are physically drained from properly installed, a fence can be When deer are being chased or the rut and in search of nearly 1O0 percent effective in are running scared, they can iump increasingly sparse food supplies. eliminating deer impacts. an eight-foot high barrier. If the mast crop was light, most of providing long and lasting However, fences of shorter height the wild nuts may have already benefits. have proven successful in been eaten by deer, squirrels, A variety of fences are available preventing deer from entering raccoons. turkeys, grouse, or other on the market. Hardware stores, gardens. Deer will usually try to wild animals. Deer also gather hardware sections within larger either crawl under or squeeze into larger groups during winter. department stores, and through a wire fence before And, wild plants are dry and agriculture/animal feed stores are jumping over it. lea~ess and no doubt less just some of the places fencing Conditioning deer from the palatable. information and catalogs can be beginning is-much more effective Given these circumstances, it is found. When choosing a fence, then trying to stop deer from little wonder that deer can consider the topography of the entering a garden once they have sometimes cause severe damage to site, the animal species you are found it. A first time gardener o r n a m e n t a I s i nw i n t e r. excluding, and the overall size of should always incBrporate a well- Ornamental species, like holly the area. The following basic designed fence into the initial trees, rhododendrons and yews, fence designs and accompanying garden creation. This fence. if not may be the only available green. explanations were taken from Deer electrified, should also include leafy vegetation. And. since these Damage. Congo/in New York repellent bags or other deterrents plants are. succulent and easily Agriculture, published in 1983 by for the tirst year. Once deer learn obtained, they become a popular the Department of Agriculture to avoid this site and not consider food source for deer. and Markets with funding from it a feeding area, you should not Thus, for most homeowners, the the New York State Legislature. have problems in the future. winter months are the worst for These fences have been field However, if you are trying to deter deer damage. As such. repellents, tested and proven effective. deer from a garden after the fact. fencing. or other damage- However, if they do not fit into so to speak. you will have to go to prevention techniques need to be your garden site, then by all greater extremes. Breaking bad only temporary. By April, fresh means do not hesitate to modify habits is just as difficult for deer native vegetation will be available any of these de.signs or create your as it is for humans. again. and deer problems should own. The following is a list of dramatically decline at this t/me. some of the companies that B. NETtING produce fences, or fencing Along with fencing. there are a 4 number of companies that Conweb Corporation another under certain conditions. produce plastic netting. In some (800) 422-9123' One word of caution: when respects, stiff, plastic netting can Plastic Division- - reviewing a survey report, make be used effectively as a fence. 2640 Patton Rd. sure the testing was done under Primarily, though, netting material Roseville, MN 55113 field, rather than laboralory, can be used as a temporap/cover conditions. for ornamentals during critical Intomet Inc. If you own a few fruit trees times. For instance, most plastic (612) 541-9690 and/or small garden and wish to net`: are made for small fruit Irees, 2730 Nevada Ave. N. try repelloafs but are afraid of the such as dwarf cherries, orforberry Minneapolis, MN55427 chemicals, there are two non- bushes, like blueberries and chemical, non-commercial blackberries. Their purpose is to Wildlife Control Technology repellents that are available. prevent heavy berry or fruit (209) 294-0262 These are human hair and tankage raiding by birds. When draped 2501 N. Sunnyside Rd. (dried animal focal and sewage over or attached to poles Fresno, CA 93727 residues available as organic or engulfing the small tree or bush, natural fertilizers). Both of these these nets provide adequate C. REPELLENTS repellent,: are odor-based and can protection. Most repe!lents are designed to be applied either on the ground or In recent years, there has been be either put directly onto the hung in bags. Human hair can be an increasing use of these plastic plant or close to it. They are obtained at barber shops or local nets for deer control. Many designed to act in one of two beauly salons and should be homeowners drape them over ways; either as a repelling odor or placed in 1/8' or less mesh made large ornamental bushes during repelling taste. A few chemical from Vexar (Dupont) b~gs. winter months to deter deer from repellents may utilize both (These are commonly used in fruit browsing. They are inconspicuous strategies. and vegetable packaging and often and much more difficult to see It is important for all used around the house as onion or from a distance than fencing. homeowners considering chemical suet bags.) Add a few fistruts of They are also easily placed and repe!lent~ to assess both the hair to a mesh bag and simply removed. However, they do not product and the problem hang 25 to 35 inches above the prevent browsing, but rather situation. For example, many ground on a fruit tree or on a prevent severe overbrowsing of a chemical rcpe!!ents are not pole in the garden. Dry, tankage particular plant. The degree of recommended for garden use. can be put into a light clotIt, or success or failure of plastic netting Also, some repellents may contain cheesecloth bags (1/2 to I cup) is subject to a high number of cerlain chemicals that may 'burn' and hung in 'a similar way. variables. or in some way damage certain The results of using human hair species of ornamental plants. and tankage are inconsistent. P L A S T I C N E T T I N G Always read labels thoroughly and Some homeowners have used MANUFACTURERS do not hesitate to contact product them with impressive results and Almac Plastics, Inc. manufacturers for additional some have not been so lucky. (301) 485-9100 information. Their addresses and Such things as rainfall, humidity, 6311 Erdiman phone numbers should be on the wind, how often the bags are Baltimore, MD 21205-3585 repellent container. replaced, and even the deer If you contact a manufacturer of themselves will play a role in Green Valley Blueberry Farm a chemical rope!lent, be sure to determining the success of these (707) 887-7496 request any and all information two non-chemical repe!lcnts. 9345 Ross Station Rd. regarding the product. This In 1979, Penn State University Sebastapol, CA 95472 includes any surveys that may have conducted a deer repellent study been conducted comparing Ihe at their deer research facility. The Orchard Supply Co. of e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f o n e results from this study were Sacramento manufacturer's product against published in thcJournalofl4qldliJ'e (916) 446-7821 another. In recent years some Management,. Vol. 47(2): 1983, p. P.O. Box 956 testing has been done by certain 517. The dala listed under Sacramento, CA 95812 companies that clearly indicates ' D E E R R E P E L L E N T one repellent may be superior to GUIDELINES' on p- 7 of this document were taken from that Mexican mock orange Coreopsis (Coreopsis spp.) study and may aid you in your Mountain Mahogany Daffodils (narcissus spp.) search for an effective deer Natal plum Daylily (Hometoed!Its spp.) repellent. Oak Deer tongue fern Oleander English Ivy D. D E E R R E S I S T A N T Olive, Russian Fescuc grass (Festuca spp.) ORNAMENTALS Pine. Limber Fleabone, Daisy (Erigeron spp.) Few planLs are totally deer Pine, Pinon Foxglove (Digitalis spp.) resistant. Like humans, deer are Pitcher sage Gaillardia/Blanket~ower extremely adaptable animals and Pomegranate Golden, Banner can eat a whole variety of foods. Potenlilla/Cinquefoil Gumweed. Curly-cup However, there are a considerable Red-hot poker Harebell. mountain number of plants that deer do not Red-leaf or Japanese barberry Houndstongue necessarily prefer and may actually Redwood Hyacinth, Grape avoid if they have ample wild Rhododendron (Rhododendron leeland poppy foods available to them. The spp.) Iris (Iris spp.) following is a list of plants, mostly Sweet gum Lady Fern ornamental species. Ihat will make Shrubby cinquefoil Lavender your property less appealing to Walnut Lily (Lilturn spp.) local deer herds. Skunk brush Lily, Mariposa Wild lilac Lily of the Nile ,.- TREF_.S, SIIRUBS AND VINES Snowberry, W~tern Locoweed, Lambert's Apache plume Spanish lavender Lupine, Silver Australian fuchsia (Cotred spp.) Spicebush Manzanita or bearberry Bottle brush (Callistemona spp.) Spited, Bluemint Marguerite California Bay Rockrose (Cistus spp.) Marjoram California fuchsia Santolina (Santolina spp.) Milkweed Carolina jessamine Scotch broom Miner's Candle Catalina cherry Spruce, Blue Mullein Pink: rose campion Clematis (Clematis spp.) Spruce, Engelmann Myrtle Coralberry Star iasmine Naked Lady Lily Creeper. Virginia Onion, Nodding Current, Golden ,. FLOWERS, FERNS, IIERBS Oriental poppy Current, Wax AND GROUND COVERING Pasque flower Daphne (Daphne spp.) PLANTS Pearly Everlasting Dustry Miller Aaron's bear Peppermint Edible fig (Ficus spp.) Ageratum flossflower (Ageratum Rhubarb English lavender Spp-) Rock astor Euonymus (Spindle Tree) Algerian Ivy Sage, fringed Euryops (Euryops spp.) Aneomne (Anomone spp.) Salvia Fir, Douglas Bells of Ireland Santolind Goldenrod (Solidag0 spp.) Black-eyed Susan Scorpionweed Hackberry Bleeding Heart (Dicentra spp.) Sea pink Hawthorn Bracken (Pleridium spp.) Snowflake (Leucojum spp.) Hazelnut, beaked Blue Star Creeper Snow-on-the-mountain Holly (llex spp.) Calla Lily (Zantedeschia spp.) Spearmint Holly-Grape. Oregon Canterbury bell Stonecrop, Yellow Honeysuckle bush Carpet bugle Sulphur flower Ivy. English Chain fern (Woodwardia spp.) Sword fern (Nephrolepls spp.) Jasmine Chive. ornamental onion ( Allium Thyme Jerusalem cherry spp.) Trailing African daisy Juniper. Common (Juniperus spp.) Chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum Wake-robin (Trilllure spp.) Lead plant spp.) Wood fern (Dryopteris spp.) Maple Cone flower, Prairie Yarrow 6 Yucca (Yucca spp.) deer/auto collisions. People Zinnia (Zinnia spp.) simply become accustomed watching for wildlife Ionre Ihey DE:ER/AUTOCOLL[S[ONS become aware that they share Besides planting undesirable their environment together. ornamentals and fencing your garden, many people must learn to IN CONCLUSION watch for deer while driving. Learning to live with deer, as Deer have a habit of suddenly with most wildlife, does not appearing in one's headlights and necessarily require a lot of effort then freezing in the middle of the on our part. Knowing what road. Automobiles annually kill ornamental varieties of vegetation and injure tens of thousands of to plant, constructing proper deer. fencing around gardens, and Deer/auto accidents can be taking special precautions while reduced in most areas through a driving are simple, logical things three step method coordinated to do. And learning more about with local police. They arc: the species we share our world 1. The police keep records of all with will inevitably help us to deer seen crossing local highways understand these creatures more and those reported struck by fully and see them as companions vehicles. These data can be in the environment. 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 area's motorists nccd to bc 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 spee. d. high volume roadways. further measures can be taken in form of roadside fencing. Deer travel routes can be somewhat altered by large roadside fencing "' operations wi vai degrees of Deer Repellent Guidelines ' ' fleetors -- Repellent % Effectiveness Active Ingredienl Feather Meal 98,3 Ground chicken feather ro dside reflect t reflect Meat Meal 973 Tankage a light and create a barrier image to Deer Away/BGR 97.3 Purrascent egg solids Chaperons 89.2 Thiram deer -- have proven to discourage Chew-Nut 87.8 Theare deer crossing. H~nder 87.3 Ammonium Soaps of Higher Fally Acids Spotrete-F 8,5.6 Thirsts Peoplc who have spent time Hot Sauce 855 Capsstein traveling country roads appear to Gustofsan 42-S 85.3 Thirsts Blood Meal 70.0 BlOod strike fewer deer, and fewer other Magic CIrcle 67.4 Bone Tar Oil animals, also, than visiting or new Human Hair 58.1 Human hair trippingS drivers on the same roads. This Morn Bans 54.8 Napthalene Creosote 52,0 Creosote would indicate that experience · Other repeltentS were sested. However, mess were ore/the only ones to finish above 50% s~ed~veness. may bca major factor in reducing 7 Fj g~re 1 ~ ....... forest increase ava] l~le supplies ~d ~me deer attract~ts themselves. . ~ q 36' '1 I{,-CUUnI."IhIt'~ h~f h.~' d~'~.f ps~Ssuse On small ~ c,.nh ,k .m ~m.dl .~,':c.~Uu~ (]()- 15 ac~es) ~h~ru y~arly deer : 2 7 ~.' I.~txt' I~ I~,tv h~ nlc)d,..r.lld. A popular d~sign has been lilt .: New 14nn,~d,~ e 3. ~..~Hence which consisis oJ 2 ouler DEER ;' CROP ~,r~ nlI: 15 ,,~ches n,d 36 -'13 h~h~s. The wire 51DE ,-. ~, SIDE ,~,, ihd c~,}p ~.dc is I~lace, I al :~6 inchfs inside Ihe ouler wires ~5"~ :. ' nl a h~.~hl o(25-31) inches. The 2-dimensional aspeel :' 5' Ih~ h:nce coupled wilh the electric sh~k received by deer :' '; h~uChing the wares has proven tileolive in summer or under - , " ~.,llcr Co.dmons ~vJk'r~ deer pre~ures are low. On larger ~ ~' .~cr,'.~q~'~ ,)f un~k'r h,jh tl~er pressure. sotne deer will _ _ ~ -.-- . .... . jtltltjl ovt'r ~lf IJtr. ougJl ll~e barrier. thus crealing a polenlial · ~ - 30- --.- .-- MODIFIED DEER AND SMALL MAMMAL FENCE 36' I{ecoin,n,.'s,l,'d for low in moderal.~ deer pressure On small .~* ~ 27;-': A modificanon of Ihe 3*sirand [ence has been used where .~r control of raccoons. woodchucks and rabbits is also needed. DEER '~;" '~ CROP This fence consisis o( 2 outer ~.vites as described above .,~ ~IDE ]~ . ;:; SIDE with a. inner S-strand. :38- to 42-inch high [ence placed ~.~' n -'. 36 inches inside the outer wires. The 3 lower wires ot ~: .,' Ihe 5-s. and lence 3re spaced at 5- to G-inch tnlervals irom ,~'_ , ~- .~, so ~.:' II.: g~ot..I to a tn.'~.xi.tuni O[ ]8 inches. Ihe remaining 2 ':; ': wnes are pbced at. tO- to I2-inch infe~ak above the Ihird ~.:. .. ~ 5 - '~' wire. This [ence is eileclive in con~olling mulliple animal ~ problems on small [~ud. vegetable of small occhard and ' ' ~ ....... ~ vinuyn,d siles A,Jnin. whef¢~ exlensive acreages are involved or de~r pr,'ss-.~s are high. ~ more elaborate design wdl be rcquieed.' 60~', !- -; VEJFrlCAL ~ .~.VIRE FENCE 50~ ~ [(,.cnn,n.'nJ.'d h~r Io~. f. etlrXh~T,1l~ deer petssuet on sntal[ to t' Illsqh'l,~lL~ . ~ Vertical el~c:nc lenccs hnve be~n e!!ective on small and 4o~ ~: ,.eff.Qdh.q 3,:se~ts u:.l~r low Io moder01e deer pressule. :'. ~.~:f I:c.~l I,.nc,,s .~f,. ,j,'n,:rally s.nplQr to collslTucI and DEER * Ci{U!' u~u I~ss h,..:t:onlol ~pac,: il~8n the 2-dimensional lences. SIDE ~: SIDE Alfernali~ek'. under I.gh deer p~essure the vertical .. ~ h:nce 13cks :il,t ~. din~,.nsional des:gn le01ures wl~ich · ': di.fini~h ,.it,~ndy Ih~ htclinalion for de~r to inleracl with IhG 24;'~ hnn.:r 'lhe lower wne o[ vertical designs should be no ~- hiUher than 10 .:ches above Ihe ground. The remaining . .-: ~..,.~ shnuld b,. spnr,?d al .~- to 10-inch intervals Io the ~ ~' d,..~.,.,I h,..du I',,n,'v~ n~ l<~w ,~ ~ levi in h~ighl have ,. ~u, .l.,,,I ,.: qn dl id, ,s% wl.lu a husUht ol 7 feel has wo~ed ~; well nn In.Jet acleag,ts e'-~, '~Ianagement Policy" or Deer Massacre? In the first ten days of this month, "White Buffalo" sharpshooters led by Anthony De Nicola shot dead three hundred white-tailed deer in the meadows, forests and ravines of northem Iowa City. Grave questions may be raised about the nature, execution, geographical range and political history of these activities. Consider, first, DeNicola's modes of operation, and his demands for changes in existing laws. DeNicola has vaunted the meticulous care and quasi-surgical nature of the organlzation's preparations to shoot single bullets in safe trajectories from raised stands in trees. A quotation in a praiseful newspaper article acknowledged in passing, however, that his group's "most productive" methods in Iowa Cky had actually involved firing from pick-up trucks. In the aftermath of his massive shooting activities, De Nicola has also called for suspension of Iowa City laws that ban private use of silencers and shooting within two hundred yards of private residences. Four apparent skes for possible shooting were in fact located in the peninsula in trees somewhat less than two hundred yards from a nearby trailer COUrt. The acknowledged "geographical range" of White Buffalo's activities was also very wide, at least four square miles. DeNicola dearly sought to carry through his plans as quickly as possible, and seems to have obtained-among other thlngs-a very substantial extension of the field of operations outlined in Iowa City Council meetings last year, when the mayor firmly asserted that shooting would take place "only in the peninsula" (a remark that the Council administrative assistant later told us applied to public land only). In any event, DeNicola and his co-workers obtained permission from landowners to shoot extensively on private land, and ranged far beyond the peninsula, into the privately owned fields, pastures and ravines where much of the most rapid and "productive" shooting in fact took place. DeNicola also seems to have enjoyed intermittent but useful support from unidentified trucks, and helicopters and/or small planes, as he has elsewhere. These observations point to a very different mode of operation from the one White Buffalo presented to the public before the event: a safari-like scenario, in which animals in fields may have been spotted, herded and driven toward hunters in vehicles, who then shot them in large numbers (White Buffalo claimed to have killed fifty deer in one night). A brief drive around DeNicola's area of operations also suggests a number of ways in which "developmental" pressures may have motivated the former Iowa City Council to underwrite its controversial and disproportionately expensive sharpshooting program, far more than problems with hasta plants, fender-benders, insurance premiums and concern for undersized deer. Unused but newly constructed roads meander east from ACT and the Press-Citizen building, toward the proposed extension of Scott Boulevard (now a dirt road), and construction is fully underway in the peninsula, the largest remaining "undeveloped" area near downtown Iowa City. Deer had migrated to these areas from oncerural habitats in Coral Ridge/North Liberty, and their removal would help clear the way for more malls, condominia, suburban houses and whitecollar officeparks, as would cheeseparing of Hickory Hill Park. Suppose this view of the driving forces behind the former City Council's decisions is essentially correct. Suppose we are inexorably bulldozing the original habitat of Iowa City's deer. Is it 'humane', then, to kill them quickly, citing small size, for example, as evidence that they are 'starving'? "Putting animals out of their misery" is indeed a measure loving humans may take with their pets. But the deer of this area are not pets. They have, it is true, adapted to us to a rather impressive degree, as their ancestors adapted to other predators for thousands of generations. In periods of stress, they gave birth to fewer young, and their stature almost certainly dim;nlshed. Our own ancestors were, on average, six inches shorter and forty pounds lighter than we are. Would such departures from 'ideal' size and weight have justified a fictional Sentient Life Management Commission's decision to "put them out of their misery"? Other people have found other ways. Several towns in suburban or exurban settings- Hudson, Ohio, Highland Park, Illinois and Boulder, Colorado-decided to live with their deer, and their deer decided to live with them. The authorities in Hudson, for example, have planted foliage deer tend to avoid, studied accident patterns, posted signs, reflectors and warning-lights, and enforced speed limits more strictly in deer-crossing areas. Mother effective method, ironically, has been suggested by Anthony DeNicola himself. In his doctoral thesis (Purdue, 1996), he praised the efficacy of "a new biobullet delivery system to deliver contraceptive agents," and concluded that "[r]eproductive inhibitors show promise for use as a deer management option in small, isolated environ rnents ". It is DeNicola the scholar we should heed, not DeNicola the 'not-for-profit' sharpshooter. We call on the city to participate actively in government contraception studies, deploy non-lethal methods in future years, and kill no more of these lovely, gentle and harmless ~nlrn~ls. WilEam and Florence Boos