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