HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-09-25 Public hearing NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of
Iowa City will hold a meeting for public discussion
on the 25" day of September 2001, in the Civic
Center Harvat Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, at
7:00 p.m. in consideration of the following item:
1. Resolution approving the iowa City Winter
2001-2002 Deer Management Plan.
Persons interested in expressing their views
concerning said item, either verbally or in wdting,
will be given the opportunity to be heard at the
above-mentioned time and place. Pdor to the
discussion, the following document is available for
review at the City Clerk's Office: Report of the
2001-2002 Iowa City Deer Task Force.
MARlAN K KARR, CITY CLERK
uJnql!AA
JaoqJapueA
qeJd
IlauuoC],O
uewqa-1
Jauue>l
uo!dweqC)
:.I. NqSeV :S:SAVN :SqAV
:e JaVA a~a4~ lies IIoJ uodn pue 'pes`dope eq uop, nloseEI
aN] /~q pepuooes pue ,~q peAOUU Se~A ~,1
eo!J:JO s,/~euJoT1V ~!C) H~:t'10 A_L. IO
~q pe^oJddV
~OAVLAJ
'000~ ' jo ,(ep ' s!4] pe^ojdde pue pessed
's!lqnd aq3` o~, ,,I]u!ssedsej3` ou,,/(3,!0 eqs` jo seeJe s!lqnd u!elJes I]u!Jelsep
pue leuuosJad eie~jdojddB 5u~SBSue 'o~ peHw, iou lnq 'Su~pnlou~ 'uBId p~Bs ~uewaldw~
o1 ~esseoau suo~oe lie aHe$ o~ pe]sej~p pus pezpoq]ne ~qeJe4 s~ Ja~eue~ ~0 e4~
pue ueld ~uamaeeue~ JeeQ ~O0~-LO0~ peqoe~e eq] ]dope o~ ]seje]u~ o,qnd eq1 u~ s( ~ $eq3
'V~OI '~iI0 V~OI JO 310NRO0 ~10 3HL A8 QSA~OSS~ LI 38 '3~OJS~SHI '~ON
· ueld mje)
-6uol eqi ql~ ~uo~Jeq u~ s] LO0~-O00~ JoJ ueld lue~eeeue~ Jeep peqoe~e aqi 'SVS~SH~
pue '.ueld ]ue~eeeue~ Jeep mJa]-euol e paSdope seq ~1~0 e~ol Jo ~]~0 eq~ 'S~SH~
pue '.~alqoJd s~ql eAIoseJ oi spoqie~ }saq eqi us suo~lepuemmooej epem pUB ~0 e~ol
u~ malqojd uo(lelndod Jeep eql pe~eEAaj XlqSnoJoq] seq eoJoj ~sel JeeQ eqi 'S~SH~
pue :Xi~O e~ol jo
s}~l e$ejo~ eq} u(q$~ sJoleJedo elo~qaA Jo~o~ pue 'sjeu~o Xpedojd '$uemuoj(Aua eq$ Jo~
uo~ioelojd pue jeHej pepeeu ap~AoJd o~ peue~sep s~ leql ueld lue~eSeuem Jeap e ]ue~eldm~
pue dolaAep o] ue~e$ eq ~sn~ sde~s ]eql peu~e]ap seq X$~O e~ol jo ~0 eq] 'SVS~SH~
pue '.suo~ido ]ue~eeeue~
pue uo~lelndod pjeq Jeap jo ~pn~s e pe$onpuoo seq X]~O e~ol jo X$~O eql 'SVS~SH~
'oN uo~]nlose~
A~I3 VMOI ~Od NVqd ~N]~]DVNV~ ~3O ~00~-~00~
3H~ SNIAO~ddV NOI~fi]OS~
I ~0-~-60 I
REPORT OF THE 2001-2002
Iowa City Deer Task Force
~i~.,
2001-2002 Plan (found on page 4) approved by the Deer Task Force on September 10, 2001 &~;-~i~l~.
and the Iowa City City Council on City Manager's Office
410 E Washington Street
iowa City, IA 52240
(319) 356-5010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEER TASK FORCE ................................................................................................................................................................1
LONG-TERM DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................................................................................2
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................................3
2001-2002 DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN .............................................................................................................................4
DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF DEER TO BE KILLED IN 2001-2002 ...................................................................... 5
Population Surveys .............................................................................................................................................................5
DNR Projections .................................................................................................................................................................6
Recommended Number of Deer to Kill ..................................................................................................................' .............7
SUMMARY OF POPULATION MANAGEMENT OPTIONS THE TASK FORCE CONSIDERED ................................. 7
No Lethal Action .................................................................................................................................................................7
Control of Deer Reproduction via Contraception and Sterilization ...................................................................................8
Trap (or Dart) and Relocate ...............................................................................................................................................8
Bow Hunting .......................................................................................................................................................................9
Trap and Kill ....................................................................................................................................................................10
Sharpshooting ...................................................................................................................................................................10
TRAFFIC SAFETY ISSUES ................................................................................................................................................12
Deer- Vehicle Accident Statistics .......................................................................................................................................12
Reflectors ..........................................................................................................................................................................12
Traffic Speeds ...................................................................................................................................................................12
EDUCATION AND OTHER NONLETHAL INITIATIVES FOR IMPROVED HUMAN-DEER COEXISTENCE ........ 13
Completed and Current Projects ......................................................................................................................................13
Ideas for Future Consideration ........................................................................................................................................14
HISTORY OF DEER MANAGEMENT IN IOWA CITY - 1997-2001 .............................................................................. 15
1997-1998 .............................................................................................................................................................................15
1998-1999 .............................................................................................................................................................................15
1999-2000 .............................................................................................................................................................................16
2000-2001 .............................................................................................................................................................................16
COMMONLY-ASKED QUESTIONS AND TASK FORCE ANSWERS .......................................................................... 18
ATTACHMENT A - DNR PROJECTED NUMBER OF DEER TO BE REMOVED ...................................................... 22
ATTACHMENT B - WHITE BUFFALO SUMMARY REPORT ..................................................................................... 24
DEER TASK FORCE
Members
Pat Farrant (Chair)
Janet Ashman
Linda Dykstra
Paul Emerson
Harold Goff
Lezlie Hall
Steve I-lendrix
Nancy Menning
Pete Sidwell
Responsibilities
To annually recommend to the City Council a Deer Management Plan that meets the goals of the Long-
Term Deer Management Plan. To that end, members should review data (population count, deer-
vehicle accidents, reflector effectiveness, previously-implemented population control programs, herd
health), review current and recommend future educational tools, review and consider all non-lethal and
lethal management methods, and recommend appropriate action.
The members of the 2001-2002 Iowa City Deer Task Force acknowledge that
we are not wildlife specialists, traffic engineers, mathematicians, or politicians,
but rather citizens who have come together to address an important matter
facing our community. We developed this plan after researching options for
deer management, considering documented evidence, gathering information
about other communities in comparable situations, receiving advice from the
Iowa Department of Natural Resources, listening to the opinions and
experience of fellow citizens, and exploring our perceptions of the kind of plan
likely to be both accepted by and effective for the community. We believe it is
unlikely that every component of any deer management plan would be
accepted by every member of the Task Force or every resident of Iowa City.
This plan is a compromise, the product of our attempt to understand and
respect many different voices.
City of Iowa City Advisors Department of Natural Resource Advisors
Ron Fort Tim Dorr
Misha Goodman Jim Jansen
Lisa Mollenhauer Willie Suchy
Tim Thompson
Joe Wilkinson
LONG-TERM DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN
1. The City of Iowa City will develop an educational program that will provide residents with information on
deer habits and guidelines for limiting localized deer damage through the use of screening, alternative
plantings, and other techniques. The City's comprehensive management plan will be included.
Educational materials will be distributed through a variety of methods including public informational
meetings, pamphlets, and government television programs.
2. The City of Iowa City will evaluate the need for and, where appropriate, install or petition the State or
County to install on roadways under their jurisdiction warning signs and/or reflectors that may reduce
the likelihood of vehicle-deer accidents. The City will prepare annual reports on effectiveness of deer
reflectors. In addition, thoughtful consideration will be given to deer migratory paths as transportation
improvement projects are approved by the City Council.
3. In order to prevent irreparable damage to the ecosystems in Iowa City and to prevent significant injury
or damage to persons or property, the City Council has set the maximum deer population density to be
thirty-five (35) per square mile per City-designated management district. Actual numbers are to be
collected via helicopter count.
4. In order to implement its long-term population goal of thirty-five (35) deer per square mile per
management district, the City of Iowa City formally requests that the Natural Resource Commission
approve a rule establishing a special deer population management area for Iowa City to the following
conditions, limitations, and procedures:
a. The special deer management area is defined as all public and private land in Iowa City as
designated by the City Council of Iowa City.
b. The City is allowed to kill as many deer as the City determines necessary to reach its desired goal.
Killing may occur between September 1 and February 28.
(1) The City is allowed to utilize sharpshooting with centerfire rifles for the lethal removal of deer.
Bait may be used to attract deer to the sites. The City shall determine locations, training, and
all other conditions for the sharpshooting activities. The City shall also comply with all
applicable state laws.
(2) The City is allowed to utilize City personnel to use baited traps to capture and kill deer in
locations determined by the City Council.
(3) All deer killed by sharpshooting and/or trapping operations are to be processed for human
consumption and distributed free of charge. Processing lockers participating in the plan will be
allowed to keep and utilize the deer hide.
(4)No licenses will be required for the City and no fees will be charged.
c. The City will initially utilize sharpshooting over bait and trap-and-kill to reduce the number of deer in
each management district to the goal of 35 deer per square mile. By the end of the initial reduction
plan, it is projected that the deer population will be to a level that requires maintenance rather than
aggressive reduction. The City will strongly encourage use of non-lethal methods to maintain deer
numbers but recognizes that killing of deer may be necessary to maintain the population goal.
5. The Deer Task Force will convene each spring to review educational material, deer population numbers
(current and projected), management options. and to recommend methods to kill deer. Any or all legal
lethal methods available (currently consisting of sharpshooting, trap-and-kill, and bow and arrow
hunting) may be utilized after the initial reduction plan if the method(s) meet the following criteria: 1)
public safety, 2) community acceptance, 3) effectiveness in maintaining the desired number of deer.
6. Task Force recommendations must be approved by the City Council following public hearing prior to
initiation of City management plans. Annual plans approved by the Council will be forwarded to the
Department of Natural Resources and, if necessary, the Natural Resource Commission for authorization
to implement.
03~05~98 Approved by Deer Management Committee
03/10/98 Approved by City Council
06/26/01 Affirmed by Deer Task Force
07/09/01 Affirmed by City Council
2
INTRODUCTION
The members of the 2001-2002 Iowa City Deer Task Force affirm our concurrence with the goals of the
City's Long-Term Deer Management Plan. We agree that deer management within the city limits is a
necessary duty of the City to maintain the health of the herd, to prevent irreparable damage to plant and
animal life in the ecosystems of the natural areas in the City, to protect citizen safety and welfare, and to
prevent major deer damage to public and private property. Because managing deer-human-ecosystem
interaction is an ongoing process, each year the City must gather information and evaluate the outcomes of
the implementation of the long-term plan.
As have previous committees, we value the presence of deer in the city limits and are recommending a
number of ways to encourage citizens to become better educated about ways to coexist with deer. We do
not recommend total elimination of deer in the city limits. But it is clear that the number of deer in some
areas may endanger human lives because of deedvehicle accidents, cause destruction of landscaping and
yard plantings, and further disrupt already altered ecosystems.
Natural habitat for many types of wildlife in the Iowa City area is being continuously reduced as previously
rural land is developed for housing and commercial purposes. In a natural setting, the size of a deer
population depends on food sources, predators, hunting, and wildlife management practices. Inside the city
limits, deer have an abundant supply of food and no natural predators. Starvation and disease will have little
effect on the deer poputation. For these reasons, by unanimous agreement, the Task Force determined it is
necessary to kill deer during the winter of 2001-2002.
We concluded, after careful review of lethal and nonlethal management options, the most preferable means
to reduce the size of the herd is by killing via sharpshooting. To arrive at this consensus, we considered the
costs, legality, risks to humans, and hurnaneness of each method of killing. For purposes of this discussion,
we agreed that a death that is instantaneous and therefore, presumably painless, is humane.
We also agreed the City should pursue a number of other nonlethal methods, discussed in subsequent
sections of this report.
3
2001-2002 DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN
It is the unanimous recommendation of the 2001-2002 Iowa City Deer Task Force that the City Council of
Iowa City resolve that the City Manager is authorized and directed to implement the 2001-2002 Deer
Management Plan, including the following elements:
1. The City will continue to assemble resources that provide residents with information on deer and offer
guidelines for limiting localized deer damage through the use of repellents, screening, alternative
plantings, and other techniques. Educational materials will be available at the Civic Center and Public
Library, and on City Channel 4 and the City web site (www.icgov.org). A video on deer-traffic issues will
be produced. The City should also actively pursue a number of other feasible nonlethal deer
management activities the Committee will recommend.
2. The City will continue to maintain appropriate warning signs and reflectors designed to reduce the
likelihood of vehicle-deer accidents. To further minimize deer-vehicle conflict, Council will direct staff to
consult with a qualified professional to evaluate feasibility of passageways (tunnels) under roads in
planning and designs for transportation improvement projects. The City will also investigate the
availability of federal funds for including such passageways in eligible transportation projects.
3. The Task Force will work with City Planning staff to establish effective procedures for timely
assessment of the impact of annexations and potential development on wildlife.
4. The City will actively work with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to fully understand and
support their efforts to control the deer population for which the DNR is responsible and which affects
the health, safety, and welfare of Iowa City residents.
5. The City of Iowa City will continue to attempt to identify an appropriate agency to assess the feasibility
of a deer contraception pilot project or program in Iowa City.
6. The City will immediately apply for permits from the DNR to implement a plan to kill no more than 325
deer within the Iowa City corporate limits, by sharpshooting, during the winter of 2001-2002.
a. To enhance understanding of deer reproductive rates, in cooperation with the DNR, the
sharpshooting agency, and meat processors, the City will allow reproductive necropsies to be
performed on deer killed.
b. The City will fully comply with all state law governing the killing of deer, exercise great caution and
observe all possible safety measures during the sharpshoot, assure use of the most humane
methods available, and arrange for free distribution of processed deer meat.
7. The City will investigate the possibility of permitting regulated hunting in selected undeveloped areas
within the city limits, with permission of landowners and in compliance with all applicable DNR
regulations.
8. The City will continue to compile data for deer management, including but not limited to information
about vehicle-deer accidents, citizen comments, and an annual helicopter deer count.
9. The Task Force will evaluate the effectiveness of this Deer Management Plan during the summer of
2002. A repod will be filed with the DNR.
Approved by the Deer Task Force September 10, 2001, by a vote of 6-0 (3 absent).
Approved by the Iowa City City Council on ,2001, by a vote of __ __
4
DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF DEER TO BE KILLED IN 2001-2002
For deer management purposes, the most commonly-accepted number of deer an urban setting can sustain
is 20 to 25 per square mile. Based on recommendations from the DNR and review of management plans
from other communities, the 1997 Deer Management Committee established the following guidelines for the
City's long-range management plan:
0-24 deer/square mile: Educate residents about living with deer.
25-34 deer/square mile: Review on an area-by-area basis. Educational material may be
recommended or killing methods implemented depending on the
management area, number of complaints, and/or evidence of types of
damage.
35+ deer/square mile: Reduction must be implemented. At this level, deer pose threat to the
ecosystem.
Since deer populations generally tend to increase by approximately 30% each year, approximately 30% of a
given population must die or be killed annually if that population level is to remain stable. The number of
deer being recommended for killing in various areas within Iowa City takes into consideration the number of
square miles in each area and allows for 35 deer per square mile. For example, the Hickory Hill/ACT area
consists of 2 square miles, so up to 70 deer could conceivably live there without causing widespread
damage to that ecosystem.
Population Surveys
To estimate as accurately as possible the number of deer in the city limits, the City has conducted four
helicopter surveys (January of 1997, 1999, 2000 and March 2001 ).
Chart 1. Summary of Population Surveys
1-31 Deer/ 1-19 Deer/ 1-24 Deer/ 31t7 Deer/
Area Description Dist Acres Sq. 1997 Sq. 1999 Sq. Killed 2000 Sq. Killed 2001 Sq.
Mile Deer Mile Deer Mile Deer Mile Deer Mile
W of Dubuque St/N of 140 I 230 0,360 NA NA NA NA 15 NA NA 2 6 17
Peninsula 2/3 590 0,922 69 75 154 '167 208 81 88 74 33 30
Dubuque St to Dodge St 4/5 780 1.219 78 64 90 74 57 99 8t 123 39 32
Dubuque St to Hwy I 6 560 0875 37 42 60 99 -- 74 85 --- 64 73
(N Of 1-80)
HickoryHill/ACT 7 1280 2.000 65 33 127 64 102 140 70 122 38 19
SE Iowa City 10 720 1.125 NA NA NA NA -- 7 6 -- 9 8
IowaRiver(S) 11/12 720 1.125 11 10 15 13 -- 48 43 19 42 37
Finkbine (U of I) 16 370 0578 6 10 31 54 -- 48 83 -- 24 42
Willow Creek 17 280 0.438 3 7 0 0 -- 4 9 -- 0 0
Manville Heights 20 500 0781 NA NA NA NA -- 6 8 -- 3 4
6030 9.423 269 38 477 67 382 507 56 340 258 27
7.157 ml 7.187 mi 9.063 mi 9.423 mi
(shade = areas where sharpshooting occurred)
Between 1997 and 1999 - 77% increase in areas counted.
Between 1999 and 2000 - 4% increase in areas counted.
Between 2000 and 2001 - 50% decrease in areas counted.
* 03/17/01 - 99 deer were counted in "East Clear Creek," an area that includes properties under several
jurisdictions (Iowa City, Coralville, and The University of Iowa) [1.39 sq. mi. with 71 deer per square mile.]
5
Deer count conditions were as follows:
January 31, 1997
Surveyors: Tim Thompson and Dale Garner (DNR)
Navigator: Ron Fort (Iowa City Police Depadment)
Conditions: Temperature 45 degrees F, wind 15 to 30 mph SW, sky clear and sunny, snow cover
5" and melting
Technique: Parallel back-and-forth flight pattern by management district, counting only deer
actually viewed (no estimations)
Results: 269 total deer
January 19, 1999
Surveyors: Tim Thompson and Dennis Proctor (DNR)
Navigator: Lisa Mollenhauer (City Manager's Office)
Conditions: Temperature 28 degrees F, wind 3-7 mph W, sky clear and sunny, snow cover 1-2"
new snow on top of 10" old snow
Technique: Parallel back-and-forth flight pattern by management district, counting only deer
actually viewed (no estimations)
Results: 477 total deer
January 24, 2000
Surveyors: Tim Thompson and Bruce Freeman (Coralville Police)
Navigator: Lisa MoIlenhauer (City Manager's Office)
Conditions: Temperature -2 warming to 25 degrees F, wind 10 mph S, sky clear and sunny, snow
cover 1" new snow 0n top of 6" old snow
Technique: Parallel back-and-forth flight pattern by management district, counting only deer
actually viewed (no estimations)
Results: 507 total deer
March 17, 2001
Surveyors: Tim Thompson and Bruce Freeman (Coralville Police)
Navigator: Bill Clarahan (Coralville Police)
Conditions: Temperature 20-25 degrees F, wind still, sky clear and sunny, snow cover 8" new
Snow
Technique: Parallel back-and°forth flight pattern by management district, counting only deer
actually viewed (no estimations)
Results: 258 total deer in Iowa City (with an additional 99 in East Clear Creek)
DNR Projections
In April, 2001, the Task Force requested that the DNR provide a projection of the number of deer that must
be killed in 2001-2002 to continue the progress being made toward the goal of 35 deer per square mile by
area established by the Long-Term Deer Management Plan. In making such projections, the DNR typically
assumes 30 deer per square mile to allow some flexibility so areas are not constantly stressed with the
maximum number of deer. The recommendations the DNR provided (see Attachment A) indicate the
number of does to be killed. In an urban management program, it is typical that one buck is killed for every
three does killed.
Recommended Number of Deer to Kill
Based on the 2001 helicopter population survey and the projections provided by the DNR, the Task Force
developed the following killing guidelines for winter 2001-2002:
Chart 2. Recommendations
Area Area # Does to Kill Deer to Kill*
Peninsula 2 & 3 20 27
Dubuque St to Dodge St 4 & 5 ! ................25 33
Dubuque St to Hwy 1 (Nof 1-80) 6 80 106
Hickory Hill/ACT 7 10 13
Iowa River South 11 & 12 30 40
East Clear Creek --- 80 106
Total 245 325*
* Note: "Deer to Kill" is the total number (based on DNR projections) of deer that must be killed
to reach the level of 30 deer per square mile in one year. It is not the "goal" for number of
deer to be killed during Winter 2001-2002, but rather the maximum number.
We computed these numbers by increasing the DNR recommendations for numbers of does to be killed
(245) by approximately 33% (80) to account for the number of bucks that typically are killed in the process
of killing the recommended number ef does. It is important to keep in mind that these are estimates, not
precise figures.
The East Clear Creek and Dubuque Street to Hwy I (District 6) areas include properties under the
jurisdictions of Iowa City as well as properties under neighboring jurisdictions (Coralville, The University of
Iowa, and Johnson County). Under this plan, sharpshooting activities will occur only within the Iowa City
corporate limits. The Task Force recognizes that attainment and maintenance of population goals in these
areas will require cooperation among these jurisdictions. The Task Force affirms its desire and willingness
to coordinate our activities with those of other jurisdictions.
Reduction of the herd to the level established in the Long-Term Deer Management Plan will be an ongoing
activity, and its complexities require constant evaluation. The Council relies on the Task Force for the
information needed each year to make decisions regarding management of the herd. But, even with aerial
counts, no one can determine exactly how many deer are inside the City limits or how many will survive and
reproduce after each year's count. Survival variables include weather, traffic speed and volume, available
forage, disease, reproductive rates, the success of killing activity by area, the degree of harassment by
activists and others during shoots, development of land, deer movement, and willingness of residents to
allow deer to be killed on their property.
We recommend that, as it was last year, deer meat be processed and distributed free of charge. If
requested, reproductive necropsies should be conducted to increase our knowledge of the deer herd.
SUMMARY OF POPULATION MANAGEMENT OPTIONS THE TASK FORCE
CONSIDERED
No Lethal Action
The Task Force considered the option of recommending that no specific lethal action be taken this year
to continue management of the deer population in Iowa City. After discussing a wide range of issues,
listening to citizen comments, studying the effects of the 2000-2001 sharpshoot, and considering the
impact of nonlethal activities that have been undertaken during the past several years, the Task Force
rejected inaction as a management method.
7
Control of Deer Reproduction via Contraception and Sterilization
Most studies of the effectiveness of contraceptives with deer have been conducted on populations living
in enclosed or confined areas, not with free-ranging deer. Because of drug safety issues, the FDA has
not yet approved the use of immunocontraceptives on free-ranging deer. The Task Force reaffirms its
interest in the progress and results of tests using immunocontraception and recommends the City
continue to investigate the feasibility of a pilot project in our area.
The Task Force has also agreed to research the possibility of deer population control through
sterilization and release programs that are similar to techniques being used to humanely manage
colonies of feral cats.
Trap (or Dart) and Relocate
The Task Force assumed the use of a box trap.
Is it humane?
A properly-constructed trap is unlikely to injure deer. If the trap is checked with sufficient frequency,
the trapped animal is unlikely to suffer significant trauma from its stay in the trap.
To minimize trauma in transport, trapped animals must not be held for long prior to transport. Even
with prompt transpod, experience with trap and relocate methods suggests that a 4% mortality rate
is to be expected during transport, 26% delayed mortality due to stress induced by the experience,
and between 58% and 85% mortality in the following months. At this time, trap and relocation of
deer cannot be considered humane.
Is it safe?
Properly managed box traps pose very little risk to people.
Is it effective?
No, considering the high mortality rate of transported deer and the fact that few sites in the Midwest
have the combination of adequate habitat, low deer population, and willing human stewards this
method requires. This method is selective; if only does are to be relocated, bucks caught in a trap
may be easily released.
Dart and relocate was considered briefly. We find no distinction between trapping and darting when
relocation is the goal, since the results of relocation are the same, and conclude trap/dart and
relocate is not effective.
What does it cost?
The cost depends on trap placement and deer population. Frequency of trap monitoring adds
uncertainty. In the late 1990s, North Oaks, Minnesota reported a cost per deer capture of $131.
Urban trapping for live release has been reported to cost, per deer, $113 in Wisconsin and $800 in
Long Island. Total costs, including transport, have been repoded in the $300 to $1,000 range.
Highland Park, IL, reported a cost of $3,074 per deer to relocate 20 deer. Eight months after
transport. 11 of the 20 were reported dead. Frequent trips with small numbers of deer are more
humane but more expensive.
The cost of trapping by dad is comparable to the cost of sharpshooting.
Is it legal?
The Iowa DNR does not recommend trap and relocate for deer, although it is currently used for
dealing with waterfowl and small animals. Relocation of wild deer to private ownership is not
currently legal in Iowa.
8
Task Fome Conclusion
The Task Force does not view trap and relocate as an option because of high mortality, the possible
high cost, and lack of areas to relocate deer.
Bow Hunting
Suggested regulations for bow hunting in urban areas assume the hunter shoots from a fixed stand,
waiting there until the deer comes to the hunter. Stalking or driving deer is not permitted. While the use
of elevated stands is common, it is not required.
The Task Force assumed the imposition of strict hunter education and certification standards such as
have been adopted in Waterloo/Cedar Falls and Coralville in addition to regulations governing hunter
behavior. Such standards address some of the more severe criticisms of the humaneness and
effectiveness of bow hunting.
Is it humane?
Bow hunting rarely leads to instantaneous death. Estimates by hunters indicate that bow hunting
cripples more animals than gun hunting. A crippling injury is defined as one which does not kill, and
after which the hunter fails to find and kill the injured animal.
The Waterloo/Cedar Falls and Dubuque experiences suggest a significant degree of success.
Recent studies appear to confirm the belief that crippling rates from bow hunting in relatively
cramped settings such as those encountered in urban deer management are indeed lower than the
crippling rates repoded for bow hunting in general.
The only scientific studies the Task Force found to review were conducted by bow-hunting
advocacy groups or funded by archery-related industries.
Is it safe?
Evidence indicates that urban bow hunts pose very little risk to people. No evidence of injury to
humans appears in any of the programs reviewed.
Is it effective?
It can be, assuming that sufficient numbers of hunters are willing to comply with the additional
regulations governing hunting within city limits. In a recent year, hunters killed 74 deer inside
Dubuque city limits and an additional 98 in the area surrounding the city. However, in areas where
killing of large numbers of deer is recommended, bow and arrow hunting alone would be ineffective
in reducing the population.
Bow hunting is moderately selective. The hunting season is before the bucks shed their antlers, so
gender is fairly easy to determine. Hunting traditions place a high value on killing older bucks--the
so-called trophy bucks with large, many-branched antlers. This is of little use if population control is
the goal. If bow hunting is to be used as an effective component of a population control plan,
hunters must be induced to kill does.
What does it cost?
The costs of a DNR-administered hunt are largely borne by the individual hunters who, through
license fees, pay for the cost of regulating the hunt. These costs are partially offset by the value of
the meat taken. DNR generally relies on individual hunters to police other hunters. The cost to the
City would be minimal.
Is it legal?
Yes, according to State law. However, the City of Iowa City prohibits bow hunting within the City
limits.
9
Task Force Conclusion
The Task Force does not recommend bow hunting as an option for killing in the 2001-2002 Iowa
City Deer Management Plan. Some members view bow hunting as inhumane. In addition, some
members do not regard Iowa City's deer management as a recreational activity or sport for hunters
and do not wish to encourage such a concept. The Task Force recognizes, however, that bow
hunting is a potential legal option, and some members have voiced interest in a bow hunting
component in Iowa City's management plan. Efforts will be made during the winter of 2001-2002 to
receive Iowa City resident feedback on the incorporation of bow hunting into future Iowa City deer
management plans.
Trap and Kill
The Task Force assumed the use of a baited box trap or modified clover trap. Trapping is typically
done in mid to late winter. Deer are killed by gunshot to the head; deer meat so acquired is suitable for
human consumption.
Is it humane?
If a trap is properly constructed and checked frequently, deer are unlikely to suffer significant
trauma while in it. The killing methods assumed are instantaneous and therefore humane.
is it safe?
Properly managed box traps pose very little risk to people.
Is it effective?
Yes, but only to remove small numbers of deer. As with trapping and relocation, this method is
selective. Deer may be released if they are not of the desired age and sex. Dart and kill was briefly
considered. The cost of darting is approximately the same as sharpshooting; meat from daded
animals is not considered fit for human consumption.
What does it cost?
Costs depend on trap placement, deer population, and weather conditions. The sometimes-
complicated Iogistics of regular trap monitoring add complexity to this method. In the late 1990s,
North Oaks, MN, reported a cost per deer capture of $131, not including carcass disposal or
processing. Minnetonka, MN, reported total costs of $209-$214 per deer, including meat
processing.
Is it legal?
The DNR has authorized use of box traps for the killing of deer in Iowa City.
Task Force Conclusion
The Task Force does not recommend use of trap and kill. With the high number of deer
recommended to be killed, the costs and staff time associated with trap and kill would not justify the
number of deer killed.
Sharpshooting
Sharpshooting has been used in many residential areas and parks to control deer populations and has
been the kill method recommended by the Task Force and approved by the City Council over the past
four years. A brief period of sharpshooting was performed in January of 1999 by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), before a lawsuit halted the project. To conduct the sharpshoot approved for 1999-
2000 and 2000-2001, the City contracted with the firm of White Buffalo, Inc.
High-powered rifles are the weapon of choice for sharpshooting. Sound suppression devices were
used by the USDA in 1999 and by White Buffalo, Inc. staff in 2001 but not by White Buffalo, Inc. staff in
2000 because, at the time, it was illegal for a private person to possess a suppressed weapon in the
State of Iowa. As of July 1, 2000, suppressors could be used in Iowa by a person shooting a deer
10
pursuant to a state-approved deer management plan, if the person has a valid federal permit for the
device. Also effective July 1, 2000, a shooter need only get permission of the owner or tenant to
discharge a firearm during a sanctioned sharpshoot if the shooter is within 50 yards of an inhabited
structure. The prior law prohibited the discharge of a firearm anywhere within 200 yards without
permission. The City requested the legislature make these two changes to the Iowa Code in order to
facilitate future sharpshooting in more developed areas.
In a professional sharpshoot, shooting sites are selected based on safety and access to deer. An
appropriate site includes an orientation relative to the bait station so that shooting occurs from an
elevated location (e.g., a tree stand or from the top of a ridge), which directs the bullet in a downward
trajectory. Site preparation, consisting of clearing underbrush and pre-baiting, lasts for several weeks.
Shooters typically work at night using adificial light.
Is it humane?
A high-powered rifle can cause instantaneous death; from this point of view, no method of killing is
more humane. Of all weapons for killing at a distance, high-powered rifles are the least likely to
inflict an inhumane wound, one that cripples, or kills slowly. The likelihood of such injuries is
reduced even more by using trained sharpshooters and a bait station to attract and hold deer for the
kill.
Is it safe?
All evidence indicates that urban sharpshooting poses little risk to people. No evidence of injury to
people or property was reported in any of the programs we reviewed.
Is it effective?
Assuming there is appropriate access, yes. Studies have shown, and DNR advisors concurred, that
sharpshooting is more effective at reducing larger numbers of deer than bow and arrow hunting.
What does it cost?
The City contracted with the USDA in 1998, and the USDA killed 22 deer at a cost of $3,850.
Ruzicka's Locker charged $35 per deer to field dress and process the meat into 5 Ib packages.
In 1999, the City contracted with the private firm of White Buffalo, Inc. White Buffalo, Inc. killed 360
deer. Costs incurred were approximately $72,000, including $69,300 to White Buffalo, Inc. for labor
and reimbursable expenses, and about $2,500 for supplies and other expenses (e.g. housing, bait).
Ruzicka's Locker charged $45 per deer to field dress and process the meat into 1 Ib and 5 Ib
packages. The Salvation Army received Community Development Block Grant funding to help
defray processing and storage costs.
In 2000, the City again contracted with White Buffalo, Inc. White Buffalo, Inc. killed 342 deer.
Costs incurred were approximately $109,400, including $96,400 for labor and reimbursable
expenses and about $13,000 for supplies and other expenses (e.g. housing, bait). Ruzicka's
Locker charged $50 per deer to field dress and process the meat into 1 Ib and 5 Ib packages. The
Salvation Army again served as the main distributor to individuals and agencies.
Is it legal?
This method involves night shooting over bait, with lights and high-powered rifles. The DNR has
approved sharpshooting as a method authorized for the City of Iowa City. The City must petition
the Natural Resource Commission each year to be eligible to utilize sharpshooting. To assist deer
management programs, the Iowa legislature amended the Code in spring 2000 to allow
sharpshooters to use devices to decrease the sound and to permit shooting within 50 yards of an
inhabited structure, with the owner's permission.
Task Force Conclusion
The Task Force recommends sharpshooting as the most effective, efficient, and humane method to
continue to make progress toward the population goals established in the Long-Term Deer
11
Management Plan. The Task Force recommends White Buffalo, Inc. be engaged this year to
conduct the sharpshoot.
All public grounds should be assessed for safe and appropriate shooting sites. Private properties
should be allowed as sharpshooting sites with the permission of land owners and occupants and in
conformance with all laws, regulations, and safety concerns. The contractor engaged to conduct
the sharpshoot must arrange with property owners and occupants for use of their land.
TRAFFIC SAFETYISSUES
DeePVehicle Accident Statistics
The Iowa City Police Department is responsible for collecting deer-vehicle accident information. The
Depadment prepares maps showing locations and dates of accidents reported from 1996 to the present.
They are available for review at the City Manager's Office.
The deer-vehicle accident reporting process has improved beginning with the 1999 report. Each accident is
assigned a reference number and the date, time, location, property damage amount, and miscellaneous
comments are included. Accident victims are mailed a questionnaire to return to the City indicating
information such as age of driver, weather conditions, speed. etc. to better our understanding of deer-
vehicle accidents.
Chad3. Deer-Vehicle Accidents 1996-2000
Number Number in Reflector
Reported~ $ Damage Estimate2 Areas3
1996 15 N/A 2
1997 31 $32,505 7
1998 50 $58,870 4
i 1999 103 $116,273 i 26
i .............................
i 2000 80 $110,833 i 25
~ Includes deer reported dead along madways (vehicle left scene of accident).
2 Damage estimates by police staff, not certified repair personnel. Estimates over $1,000 require claimant
and police to file special state report.
3 Time of accident and position and maintenance of reflectors influence effectiveness.
Reflectors
Reflectors were installed on Dubuque Street (38 posts) in September 1994 and N. Dodge Street (152 posts)
in spring 1997. Construction began on N. Dodge Street in summer 1998, temporarily displacing many
reflectors. Additional reflectors were added to N. Dodge and Dubuque Streets, and a new system installed
on Rochester Avenue in spring 2000. Effectiveness of reflectors is yet to be determined. It is important to
keep in mind they are designed to work only when vehicle lights are in use. They also require diligent
regular maintenance.
Traffic Speeds
In a meeting with the Task Force in 2000, Jeff Davidson (City Assistant Planning & Community
Development Assistant Director and JCCOG Transportation Planner) explained the speed a motorist travels
is primarily a function of comfort level, not of the posted speed limit. Eighty-fifth percentlie speeds are
measured; 85th percentlie indicates the general comfort level of drivers and is generally used for determining
appropriate speed limits. Speed limits should be set so there is compliance by most motorists; otherwise,
they create an enforcement problem for police. Artificially low speed limits are not only difficult to enforce,
they may also create general disrespect for speed limits, including those in areas where lower limits may be
particularly appropriate.
On Dubuque Street, the average speed was 39.5 miles per hour in the 35 mph zone; the 85th percentlie
speeds were 42 mph. On Rochester Avenue, two locations were studied. On the eastern portion, 85th
12
percentlie speeds were 33 mph. Further west, 85th percentlie speeds were 42 mph. As a result, the City
concluded that the current limits are appropriately set at 35 mph.
In light of this information, we concluded that reducing limits below 35 mph would not reduce actual driving
speeds. It should be noted that we found no studies that relate the incidence of deer-vehicle accidents and
vehicle speed (for speeds in the 25 to 45 mph range).
In 1999 and 2000, the City mounted a defensive driving campaign during October and November, when
deer-vehicle accidents are more frequent. Media releases prompted articles, display ads were run, and a
sequencer on City Channel 4 warned drivers to be alert.
Recommendations: Because of the high number of deer-vehicle accidents, the Task Force recommends
the City:
· Continue to assess the desirability of installing additional reflectors in high-incidence areas. Since
maintenance of the reflectors is essential to their effectiveness, the Task Force is pleased the City has
agreed to commit resources to reflector maintenance and asks that this support be continued.
· Continue to monitor developments in the area of road signage so Iowa City regularly uses the most up-
to-date and innovative signage technologies on the market.
· Agree to thoroughly assess, during design and planning phases of new road and road improvement
projects, the impact these projects may have on deer migratory paths and, if appropriate, to include
passageways under roads for deer in such projects.
EDUCATION AND OTHER NONLETHAL INITIATIVES FOR IMPROVED HUMAN-DEER
COEXISTENCE
Completed and Current Projects
The City has undertaken a number of steps toward nonlethal management:
· Requested the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to consider Iowa City as a deer
contraception test site.
· Began a series of Deer Issues Listening Sessions at which residents can convey to Task Force
members and each other their opinions about and experience with Iowa City's deer. These sessions
were taped for broadcast on the City Channel. Topic for Winter 2001-2002: management options.
· Began updating the brochure explaining Iowa City's approach to deer management and
emphasizing methods to help residents devise strategies for living with deer.
· Utilized the City's website and City Channel 4 for disseminating information. The Task Force
recommends continued expansion of both forums.
· ' · Participated in classroom discussions, presentations, and radio cell-in programs.
· Installed additional reflectors as well as five warning signs. Upgraded warning signs with the
highest quality of reflective material available. The City will continue maintenance of these systems.
· Worked with media on defensive driving campaign during high deer/vehicle accident incidence time
of year,
· Completed a consultant-assessment of impact of N. Dodge Street improvements on deer. An
under-passageway is being considered.
· Made available for checkout and began broadcast of "Whitetails at the Crossroads," a deer
management educational video.
· Began planning for production of a video on deer-traffic issues.
· Plan to host seminars on gardening, landscaping, and wildlife (joint project with IC Landscaping).
· Plan to provide information, etc., at Parade of Homes, Project GREEN and business fairs, Chamber
office.
13
HISTORY OF DEER MANAGEMENT IN IOWA CITY - 1997-2001
1997-1998
In response to citizen complaints, in 1997 the City Council established a Deer Management Committee to
recommend a management plan. Council appointed members representing the following interests: Iowa City
staff, Iowa City/Coralville Animal Shelter, Iowa City Police Department, hunters, Project GREEN, residents
of areas heavily populated with deer, residents of areas not heavily populated with deer, animal protection,
science/nature/biology, Iowa Wildlife Federation. City of Coralville staff, residents of Coralville, and Johnson
County Board of Supervisors.
The Committee divided the Iowa City/Coralville community into twenty Deer Management Areas, using
natural and constructed barriers as lines of division and taking into consideration the ability to implement
management techniques in each area.
After reviewing the size of the deer population, numbers of deer-vehicle accidents, the deer management
plans of other communities, comments from citizens, and advice from the DNR, the Committee
recommended and Council approved a multi-component management plan. The plan consisted of initiating
an education program, using reflectors and warning signs, consideration of deer when
constructing/renovating aderial streets, and the killing of 180 deer by sharpshooting over bait and by trap
and kill.
To arrive at consensus about killing methods, we considered the costs, legality, risks to humans, and
humaneness of each method of killing. For purposes of our discussion, we defined a humane death as one
that is instantaneous and painless.
For deer management purposes, the most commonly accepted number of deer an urban setting can sustain
is 20 to 25 per square mile. Based on recommendations from the DNR and review of management plans
from other communities, the 1997 Deer Management Committee established the following guidelines for the
City's long-range management plan:
0-24 deedsquare mile: Educate residents about living with deer.
25-34 deedsquare mile: Review on an area-by-area basis. Educational material may be
recommended or killing methods implemented depending on the
management area, number of complaints, and/or evidence of types of
damage.
35+ deedsquare mile: Reduction must be implemented. At this level, deer pose threat to the
ecosystem.
Upon reviewing the 1997-1998 plan, the DNR rejected sharpshooting as an option for urban deer
management. But after making a comprehensive assessment of Iowa City's situation, DNR officials
concurred that bow and arrow hunting (a kill method that would be permissible) would not be an effective
method to reduce the herd according to our guidelines. Staff recommended and, on February 12, 1998, the
Natural Resource Commission approved, Iowa City's request to sharpshoot deer. City officials worked with
legislators to amend the State of Iowa Code to allow the use of artificial light over bait for the purpose of
urban deer management. There was not enough time remaining in the season to initiate a sharpshooting
program for 1997-1998; however, a permit was authorized for September 1, 1998, through February 28,
1999.
1998-1999
On October 21, 1998, the Deer Management Committee resubmitted the original plan to the City Council for
approval, setting the number of deer to be killed at 240, as a result of increases in the size of the deer herd.
Council approved the plan on December 1. The City contracted with the USDA to conduct the sharpshoot.
In the south Peninsula area, 19 deer (8 adult does, 6 fawn does, and 5 fawn males) were shot on January
20, and 3 deer (1 adult doe and 2 fawn males) were shot on January 21, 1999. All adult does were
pregnant. On January 20, one deer was shot and dropped, but ran off and was not recovered.
15
A group of local animal rights activists backed by national groups filed a request in federal court for an
injunction against the USDA, thereby halting shooting activity until a federal judge could review the points of
contention. The request for injunctive relief alleged that the USDA had failed to meet federal procedural
requirements before the sharpshoot. The window of shooting authorization expired before mediation
eventually settled the litigation.
1999-2000
The 1999-2000 Deer Management Committee met from April 21 through August 16, 1999, formulating a
plan similar to the first two and increasing the number of deer to be killed to no more than 733. The
Committee examined the credentials of three agencies that submitted proposals to conduct the sharpshoot.
The Committee recommended and the City agreed that the sharpshooting contract should be awarded to
White Buffalo, Inc., of Hamden, Connecticut.
The 1999-2000 sharpshoot included a preliminary kill of 11 deer on November 9 to coordinate Iogistics.
Extensive preparation of 29 bait sites took place between December 12 and 31.
Between January 1 and January 11, White Buffalo, Inc. killed 349 deer by sharpshooting [215 females
(60%) and 145 males (40%)/65 (18%) had visible antlers and 295 deer (82%) were antlerless. Including
the 11 killed in November, 360 deer were killed and transpoded to Ruzicka's Locker in Solon for processing
and packaging. Graduate students from Coe College performed reproductive autopsies and collected blood
samples to test for evidence of Lyme disease. Blood analyses revealed the incidence of Lyme antibodies in
the samples studied was consistent with the statewide average of 5 percent.
Deer meat was distributed to local residents by the Salvation Army. ApproximateIy 6,600 pounds were
distributed to 1,574 households (4,331 individuals), the Free Lunch Program (Wesley House), the SE Linn
Community Food Reservoir (for Johnson County families), churches and community groups, and the
Salvation Army Evening Meal Program. Crisis Center distribution is not included in the distribution figures.
Qualifications for receiving meat included: Johnson County resident, collect meat only once a month,
choose either but not both the Salvation Army or the Crisis Center as preferred pick-up location, and five
pounds per family/one pound per individual. Recipes were provided with the meat.
The City initiated an educational program, including display ads in local newspapers, the use of City
Channel 4 to convey high risk periods for deer-vehicle collisions, a brochure discussing Iowa City deer
issues and suggesting ways to coexist with deer, and a deer management video broadcast on City Channel
4 and available for checkout at the public library.
Additional Streiter reflectors were added to the N. Dubuque Street and N. Dodge Street systems, and a new
system was installed on Rochester Avenue. Deer warning signs manufactured with improved reflective
material were placed at the beginning of the reflector systems along each traffic lane. In March, the City's
website launched a deer information page including frequently asked questions, a listing of deer resistant
planrings, a map indicating deer-vehicle accidents for 1999, and a public comment board. Content of the
website will be expanded as the program progresses.
After assessing the local situation, White Buffalo staff did not recommend Iowa City as a potential site for a
contraceptive study at this time. The City requested a similar analysis and recommendation from HSUS.
2000-2001
The 2000-2001 Deer Management Committee met from June 19 through August 30, formulating a plan
similar to the first three and increasing the number of deer to be killed to no more than 500. The Committee
reviewed criteria on recommendation of a sharpshooting contractor. White Buffalo, Inc. had established
contacts with property owners and performed the shoot in 1999-2000 as they indicated. Committee
members felt comfortable with the manner in which they conducted their operation. Therefore, the
Committee recommended and the City Council agreed that the sharpshooting contract should be awarded
to White Buffalo, Inc., of Hamden, Connecticut. (See Attachment B for White Buffalo, Inc. Summary)
Extensive preparation of 36 bait sites took place between November 27 and December 11.
Sharpshooting took place between December 12 and December 22 and resumed again January 7 through
January 18. During those periods, White Buffalo, inc. killed 340 deer by sharpshooting. When using the
16
"first opportunity" approach, the killing demographics are usually representative of the population as a
whole. A total of 204 females (60%) and 136 males (40%) were killed. Seventy-six deer (22%) had visible
antlers, whereas 264 deer (78%) were antlerless. Sixty male fawns were included in the antlerless
grouping. Students from Coe College performed reproductive autopsies and collected blood samples to test
for evidence of Lyme disease. Results from those studies are not yet available.
Deer meat was distributed to local residents by the Salvation Army. Approximately 15,000 pounds were
distributed to 3,104 households, the Free Lunch Program (Wesley House), the SE Linn Community Food
Reservoir (for Johnson County families), churches and community groups, and the Salvation Army Evening
Meal Program. Resipes were provided with the meat.
The City continued an educational program. including display ads in local newspapers, the use of City
Channel 4 to convey high risk periods for deer-vehicle collisions, an area on the City's web site containing
deer issues and suggesting ways to coexist with deer, and a deer management video broadcast on City
Channel 4 and available for checkout at the public library.
The Streiter reflectors were maintained.
After assessing the local situation, White Buffalo staff again did not recommend Iowa City as a potential site
for a contraceptive study at this time. The City continues to await a response from HSUS.
17
COMMONLY-ASKED QUESTIONS AND TASK FORCE ANSWERS
Don't I have the right to enjoy the deer in my neighborhood or the park I visit?
Absolutely yes! It has never been the intent of the Task Force to eradicate iowa City's deer herd.
I don't understand the discussion of a deer no-feed policy. if we can have bird feeders, why can°t we
feed cracked corn to deer in the backyard?
Our desire to observe wildlife and to know they are present in our surroundings is understandable.
However, the well-being of wild creatures is best maintained by watching from a distance and not by
attempting to entice them to our immediate living area. Even bird feeders can have undesirable
consequences if placement or poor maintenance alters migration timing, spreads disease, or causes an
irabalance in species distribution. Given the large deer population in Iowa City, supplemental feeding is
an invitation to negative deer-human interactions that further promote the call for lethal deer removal.
Deer movement to and from a supplemental feeding site or salt block frequently involves street crossings
and consequent automobile accidents. Concentration of deer at a feeding site caases increased browse
damage, soil erosion, and excrement in the feeding area and on neighboring properties. Given their
varied diet, it is wrong to assume deer will eat only the corn and ignore vegetation in the area. Routine
backyard feedings alter deer behavior patterns such that they no longer fear humans.
With repeated invitations to human surroundings, deer that should otherwise be shy and dispersed away
from humans spend their time looking for handouts and tasty plantings in more densely developed areas.
The desire to feed and view deer up-dose should be tempered by the realization that this activity is a
primary cause for deer-human conflicts. You can be assured that the deer will ulflmately be the loser in
these conflicts. A good general reference is Living with Wildlife, by the California Center for Wildlife; a
Sierra Club Book, 1994. The book is available at the Iowa City Public Library.
Why do we need to kill deer? Can't you recommend only nonlethal methods of managing the deer
to prevent human-deer conflict and let nature take its course?
Fortunately, nonlethal methods can assist in minimizing human-deer conflict; however, these methods
appear to be less effective as the deer population increases. Unfortunately, nonlethal methods do
nothing to stop the deer herd from increasing. What most experts--including those in animal welfare-tell
us is if we allow nature to take its course, deer typically die from disease, starvation, cold weather, or
stress. While such causes may be "natural," the Task Force did not view them as acceptable or humane
as a means of population control in an urban setting. Unfortunately, in an urban setting, traffic accidents
are the most common "natural" cause of deer death.
What gives you the right to kill them?
Deer in the State of Iowa do not belong to individual cities or residents. Rather, the State of Iowa has
title and ownership of deer pursuant to Section 481A.2, Code of Iowa (1999). In order to kill deer, the
City of Iowa City is required to obtain permission from the State of Iowa through the Natural Resource
Commission.
How can you justify the killing of deer without conducting scientific studies in Iowa City?
This is a topic the Task Force discussed in length. Results of scientific studies conducted in other areas
of Iowa, including Kent Park and the Coralville Reservoir, confirm the environmental impact of large
numbers of deer. We did not believe we would "create new science" in Iowa City; it has been clear from
the studies of other areas that results are consistent throughout the Midwest. Deer living in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Illinois, and Missouri eat approximately the same amount and types of vegetation as deer in
iowa City.
18
If no population control methods were implemented, what would likely occur to other plant and
animal life in the city?
The effect of deer on other plant and animal life depends greatly on the number of deer present and the
length of time numbers stay at a given level. Although at even low levels (10-20 deer/sq. mi.), the effects
on species composition of the plant and animal communities are measurable, they are quickty reversed
when deer levels are reduced. At high levels (25 or more deer/sq. mi.). the effects over the short-term
are likely reversible; over the long term, however, many native plant species will be eliminated locally,
and they will not likely reestablish even if deer numbers are reduced. In addition, animals, both
vertebrate and invertebrate, that depend on those plants will be driven locally extinct. The result is a
species-poor community consisting only of a few plants, often non-native, that are avoided by deer
because of their thorns or distastefulness. For example, the area behind the Mayflower Apartments
contained a full complement of spring flora species 25 years ago, but today nearly all non-woody
vegetation between ground level and approximately 6 to 8 feet above ground has been eliminated.
If you include killing as a part of deer management, aren't you going to have to kill deer every year?
The Task Force recognizes that deer will probably need to be killed each year, particularly the first
several years. A harsh winter, disease, or other factor may affect the number of deer to kill.
ff you kill deer, won't the remaining does just start having more fawns?
When a deer population is decreased, there is a more abundant food supply for those remaining. In
areas where deer have been underfed, such an increased food supply leads to a higher birth rate. But
this is not typical of Iowa, which has one of the highest deer reproductive rates in the nation. Seventy
percent of first-year fawns become pregnant; each year, most adult does have twins and 10 percent
have triplets. Iowa City's abundant natural and planted vegetation provides ample nutrients to sustain
such a birth rate. It is doubtful that killing deer here will lead to a significant increase in the birth rate.
Why don't you provide more educational programs and materials?
It appears the most cost-effective method of educating the public is to respond to citizen requests for
information by providing items such as a brochure. Information from the 2001-2002 plan will be available
on the City's website. The Task Force is committed to regularly recommend and develop new
educational materials and resources. We also encourage all those interested in educating the public
about ways to live with deer to do so. This effort does not necessarily have to be organized through the
City.
Can't the peninsula be preserved to provide a refuge for the deer in Iowa City?
No. Deer frequently swim across the Iowa River and cross the highways to feed in other areas of town.
Creating a safe haven for deer there would require fencing the peninsula and would eventually lead to
destruction of all vegetation there.
Are you killing deer on the peninsula because of the planned development?
The City purchased portions of the peninsula in 1995 for $2,000,000, using general funds ($1.3m) and
HUD Supplemental CDBG Flood Relief Funds ($.7m). The lower peninsula, situated in the floodplain, is
already designed as both a natural woodland, prairie, and wetland park as well as a well field for the
City's water supply.
To reimburse the general fund, the 70-acre upper peninsula has been sold to a developer. The
Peninsula neighborhood is intended to provide a well-designed and environmentally sensitive
development in the special setting of land overlooking a natural park and the Iowa River. The goals of
the project are to provide housing for a variety of types of households and people, to show how different
housing types can be proximate to each other and succeed through careful design, to complete an urban
neighborhood in an infill site, and to provide a model of an alternative to conventional subdivisions for the
development community in Iowa City.
The recommendation to kill deer on the peninsula was made without reference to planned development
and, according to City staff, the planned development was made without reference to the deer. The
19
peninsula was one of the most appropriate areas to implement the reduction program because it has the
highest number of deer per square mile and it provides several natural sites for sharpshooting.
Why aren't you recommending that bow and arrow hunting be included in the plan, particularly
since it is cheaper than hiring sharpshooters?
A majority of members believe that sharpshooting is the most humane and effective lethal method of
reducing Iowa City's large deer herd. The Task Force does not recommend bow hunting as an option for
killing in the 2001-2002 Iowa City Deer Management Plan. Some members view bow hunting as
inhumane. In addition, some members do not regard Iowa City's deer management as a recreational
activity or sport for hunters and do not wish to encourage such a concept. The Task Force recognizes,
however, that bow hunting is a potential legal option, and some members have voiced interest in a bow
hunting component in Iowa City's management plan. Efforts will be made during the winter of 2001-
2002 to receive Iowa City resident feedback on the incorporation of bow hunting into future Iowa City
deer management plans. We recognize that costs are minimal with bow hunting but believe the
community finds sharpshooting a more acceptable method than bowhunting for killing deer for
management purposes.
Is sharpshooting safe?
There is substantial evidence that sharpshooting is safe when appropriate regulations and procedures
are followed. The 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 sharpshoots were conducted without any breaches of
safety procedures and, in looking at other communities where sharpshooting has been utilized, we have
heard no reports of injury or property damage.
Won't I hear the sound of gunshots again this year?
Possibly. As of July 1, 2000, suppressors can be used in Iowa by a person shooting a deer pursuant to a
state-approved deer management plan, if the person has a valid federal permit for the device. The
agency recommended for 2001-2002 is authorized to use sound suppressors that will reduce some of
the noise associated with firing of a weapon.
What happens if sharpshooting activity frightens deer and they run across a busy street or the
interstate, get hit by a vehicle, and someone gets huff?
Deer-vehicle accidents are already occurring. Sharpshooting activity on the peninsula, for example, was
carried out at substantial distance from roadways. The use of suppressors further reduces the likelihood
that many deer will startle and run. Most sharpshooting will occur in late evening and early morning
hours, when traffic volumes are lower.
Why do you think killing deer is an appropriate response to the complaints of residents whose
gardens and ornamental plants are being eaten?
Many of the people who have submitted comments in the past said they did not notice substantial
damage to ornamental and garden plants until recently, as the deer population increased. Residents in
areas of 0-25 deer per square mile are not complaining that their plants are being eaten. But those in
areas with 70 deer per square mile are telling us deer are eating through plastic fencing and consuming
plants thought to be toxic or very undesirable to deer. A single deer may consume seven pounds of
vegetation a day, so it is obvious how the impact of deer is magnified as their numbers increase.
How have other communities handled deer management?
Programs for deer management vary widely. Communities we contacted in Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, and New York have tried a variety of methods:
· City officials implementing a plan without citizen input.
· City officials appointing a citizens' task force to review options and recommend a plan.
· Leaving the issue of killing deer up to the citizens via a non-binding referendum (it is interesting to
note the residents voted to kill deer and the Council ultimately decided not to kill deer.)
· Use of bow hunting only (both extremely regulated and nearly unregulated restrictions).
· Use of sharpshooting only (local law enforcement, federal agents, or private contractors).
· Use of a combination of methods to kill deer (bow hunting and sharpshooting).
20
The Task Force did not locate one community in which deer were not killed and the population stabilized
or decreased naturally. One community in Illinois represented that they did not kill deer and were no
longer having a "deer problem;" however, the surrounding communities were actively managing deer
using an annual kill.
When considering methods of killing deer, the Task Force has been guided by three criteria: public
safety, community acceptance, and effectiveness in maintaining the desired number of deer. These
criteria governed our choice of sharpshooting. Other communities in Iowa have utilized bow hunting as
the killing method. Iowa City is the first community in Iowa to receive authorization from the State to
sharpshoot.
21
ATTACHMENT A - DNR Projected Number of Deer to be Removed
by Willie Suchy
Wildlife Biologist, IDNR
The simulations developed here are based upon the number of deer observed during the
helicopters surveys conducted since 1997. The simulations assume that about 60% of the initial
number counted were does and about 1/3 of the does were fawns. The annual cycle begins with
dispersal and reproduction. Then the number of deer present after normal mortality through the
end of December are calculated. Removals occur during January and February and are additive
to normal mortality. Then the cycle repeats. Multiple simulations are made for each area to find a
model that best "fits" the observed aerial counts.
Table 1 lists the estimated number of does that need to be removed to reach (or maintain) the
objective of less than 30 deer per square mile in 1 year. The simulations "fit" the counts observed
on all areas reasonably well if the productivity data from the statewide model is used (See Fig 1).
This is the same estimate of productivity that has been used the past 2 years to make the
proiections,
Table 1, The number of deer that would need to be removed this year to reduce (or keep) the
simulated populations below the goal of 30 deer / square mile. The number in parenthesis is a
"higher" estimate based upon a more liberal estimate of the aerial deer counts for 2001.
Deer Goal Deer Number of
sighted (30 deer killed in does to Purpose of
Area District Sq. Miles in 2001 per sq. mile) 2001 remove removals
W of Dubuque & N of 1-80 I 0.36 6 11 2 NA (107) Maintenance
Peninsula 2&3 0.92 33 28 74 20 Maintenance
Dubuque Street to 4&5 1.22 39 37 123 25 Maintenance
Dodge Street
Dubuque to Hwy 1 6 0.88 64 26 0 80 (110) Reduction
North of 1-80
Hickory Hill/ACT 7 2.00 38 60 122 10 Maintenance
Iowa River (South) 11&12 1.13 42 34 19 30 Maintenance
Clear Creek East 1.39 99 42 0 60 (110) Reduction
Total 7,90 321 237 340 245 (300)
In those areas where deer were killed in the last 2 years (Districts 2-5, 7, 11 and 12)
populations are at or near the goal of 30 deer per square mile. The recommended removals are
needed simply to maintain populations at that level for next year. The simulations indicate that if
no removals are made this winter the number of deer in these areas would increase to above the
goal of 30 deer per square mile by this winter. A continued maintenance removal is essential to
keep numbers from quickly returning to previous levels.
Because there are were no aerial counts of District 1 prior to 2001 there is no way to
determine how well the simulations fit the counts. The estimate of 10 does to be removed should
be considered as a starting point.
The simulations also indicate that 80 to 110 does need to be killed in each of the 2 areas
(District 6 and Clear Creek East) where no removals have taken place in the past 2 years. The
range in the estimated number that need to be removed (80 at the lower end and 110 at the upper
end) are a result of the variation observed in the aerial counts. Counts in 2001 declined in these
areas after sharp increases in 2000. If the observed decline was real then the lower number would
22
be adequate to lower deer numbers. If the aerial counts were lower due to the fact that they were
conducted later during the winter and some does had moved out of the area then the larger
number of does may be need to be removed. The simulations will be updated as more information
is gathered.
Figure 1. Results of simulation of deer numbers in districts 2 and 3 (the Peninsula) using
productivity from Kent Park model where doe fawns produce 0.95 fawns and adults 1.83 fawns.
The simulation indicates the projected population with annual "maintenance" removals.
^ - - - Simulation
/ \
/
/ \ · Aerial Counts
I \
/ ......... Goal
100 - \
e,
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
23
ATTACHMENT B - WHITE BUFFALO SUMMARY REPORT
SUMMARY REPORT
2000-2001 Deer Management Program
Iowa City, Iowa
by
White Buffalo, Inc.
Site Description
Iowa City contains a matrix of suburban/commercial development, agricultural fields, parks and open
grasslands. As a result of no legal hunting opportunities and fertile soils, the deer population had increased
to a level incompatible with some land uses and human activities. Although deer physical condition was not
an issue, there was concern regarding numerous deer/vehicle collisions and damage to garden and
landscape plantings. As part of the 2000/2001 comprehensive deer management program under the
authorization of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources this is the second consecutive year in which an
aggressive population reduction program was implemented.
Deer Mana~lement Proclram Overview
Initial site preparation and prebaiting were conducted from 27 November 2000 - 11 December 2000. Deer
removal activities began on 12 December 2000 and continued through 22 December. Operations resumed
again 7 January 2001 and were completed 18 January 2001. During the 23-day removal period, 21 days of
fieldwork were required to achieve the harvest of 340 deer.
Field Methods
We followed the operations protocol outlined in the contract and changes agreed to verbally prior to the
onset of site preparations. Thirty-six bait sites were selected throughout the area of operation. Bait sites
were shut down during the program as productivity declined. Four sites, 2 of which were in Manville
Heights, were never used because they showed no sign of deer activity during the pre-bait phase. Two
additional sites were determined inaccessible because of snow accumulations.
Deer were shot on a first opportunity basis. This means that deer were shot only when, 1 ) a safe opportunity
presented itself, and 2) maximal harvest efficiency would be achieved. Most of the harvested deer were
within 40 yards of the shooter. Carcasses were then tagged and delivered to Ruzicka's Meats for
processing and data collection.
Harvest Democlraphics
The entire data set generated from harvested deer is represented in the spreadsheet entitled "iowa City
Harvest By Tag Number: December 12, 2000-January 18, 2001." When using the "first opportunity"
approach, the harvest demographics are usually representative of the population as a whole. We harvested
204 females (60%) and 136 males (40%). Seventy-six deer (22%) had visible antlers, whereas 264 deer
(78%) were antlerless. Sixty male fawns were included in the antlerless harvest.
The overall harvest demographics are summarized in Table 1. One hundred and thirty-one (39%) fawns, 46
(13%} yearlings, and 163 (48%) adults were harvested.
Table 1. Age class and sex distribution of deer harvested in Iowa City, Iowa from 12-22 December 2000
and 7-18 January 2001.
AGE # MALE (%) # FEMALE (%) # COMBINED
Fawn 60 (18%) 71 (21%) 131 (39%)
1.5 24 (7%) 22 (6%) 46 (13%)
Adult 52 (15%) 111 (33%) 163 (48%)
Harvest by Deer Manaqement Zone
To allow for a more comprehensive population management program, we summarized all the harvest data
by management zone (Table 2) relative to the zones of deer concentration identified by the City's 2000
aerial snow count. Zone 1 covered the City's new water treatment facility property, north of Route 80 and
west of Dubuque Street. Zone 2 was delineated on the west and south by the Iowa River, on the east by
Dubuque Street and on the north by Route 80. Zone 3 was located east of Dubuque Street, south of Route
24
80 and northwest of Dodge Street. Zone 4 included land southeast of Dodge Street, nodh of Rochester
Avenue and west of Scott Boulevard; and Zone 5 covered the area east of the Iowa City airport, south of
Route 6 and west of Sycamore Road. In total, the program was conducted in 5 square miles of the city.
The most productive sites were within Zones 3 and 4, where 123 and 122 deer were culled respectively
(72% of the total harvest).
Table 2. Age class and sex distribution of deer harvested by management zone (bait sites) in Iowa City,
Iowa from 12-23 December 2000 and 7-18 January 2001.
ZONE 1 (n = 2)
MALE FEMALE
AGE NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT
Fawn 2 100%
1.5
Adult
ZONE 2 (n_ = 74)
MALE FEMALE
AGE NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT
Fawn 12 16 10 14
1.5 5 7 8 11
Adult 11 15 28 37
ZONE 3. (_n = 123)
MALE FEMALE
AGE NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT
Fawn 25 20 28 23
1.5 6 5 6 5
Adu It 16 13 42 34
ZONE 4 (n = 122)
MALE FEMALE
AGE NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT
Fawn 21 17 28 23
1.5 11 9 8 6
Adult 19 16 35 29
ZONE 5 (n = 19)
MALE FEMALE
AGE NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT
Fawn 3 16 3 16
1.5 2 10
Adult 5 26 6 32
All of the sites were used as stand sites. Due to heavy snow accumulations most of the designated vehicle
sites were inaccessible, and therefore never used. Fourteen deer (4%) were shot from a vehicle and 328
(96%) were shot from a stand. All sites denoted as "'S" (stand) in the spreadsheet entitled "Iowa City
Harvest By Tag Number: December 12, 2000-January 18, 2001" were utilized during the "sit and shoot"
period of 1530-2000 hrs. All sites designated as "'V" were approached via vehicle between 1900 and 1100
hr.
Discussion
Approximately twice as many adult females were harvested as adult males. This is likely representative of
the Iowa City deer population as the harvest demographics are very similar to last years.
We summarized the harvest data by Deer Management Zone so comparisons of harvest data to past and
future helicopter snow counts can be conducted and future harvest eftotis can be refined. Areas nodh of 1-
80 proximate to Route I and those between Route 6 and Melrose Avenue should be considered in
upcoming years.
25
An aerial helicopter snow count was conducted on 9 January 2001 in the zones where the reduction
program was being implemented (Table 3). A total of 272 deer were counted. One hundred thirty deer
were harvested after the count, resulting in 142 deer remaining at the culmination of the program. Using the
census technique selected, a >80% detection rate will be achieved. With this correction factor,
approximately 178 deer remain in the 5 square mile management zone. Therefore, the objective of 30-35
deer/square mile has been achieved after 2 years.
Table 3. Aerial snow count data
NUMBER SUBSEQUENT
ZONE COUNTED HARVEST REMAINING
1 6 0 6
2 43 28 15
3 74 29 45
4 128 60 68
5 21 13 8
Total 272 130 142
Overall herd health was based on whole body weights, fetal counts and yearling antler beam diameters. Dr.
Harlo Hadow of Coe College, Cedar Rapids, Iowa collected these data. Deer sampled were determined to
be in generally good health. Table 4 summarizes the pregnancy status of female deer harvested after 19
December. Seventy-six percent (76%) of the yearling and older does sampled had multiple fetuses and
6.7% were not pregnant. Eighty-four percent (84%) of female fawns were not obviously pregnant. Some of
these animals may have conceived late in the season and these pregnancies may not have been detectable
because of the time of removal.
Table 4. Pregnancy status of female deer harvested (n = 148) in Iowa City, Iowa from 19-22 December
2000 and 7-18 January 2001.
NOT
AGE PREGNANT SINGLE TWINS TRIPLETS
Fawn 49 7 2 0
Adult 6 16 60 8
Future Program Adjustments
We recommend that the city seriously consider passing a feeding ban (see Feeding Ban section for an
example). Now that deer densities have been significantly reduced the impacts of residents feeding deer
will become more serious. There is the potential to compromise our ability to maintain deer densities in
some areas. Minimally, it will cost the city thousands of dollars because of added time to remove deer from
the community.
Feasibility of Manaqement with Anti-fertility Aclents
We have had the opportunity to work within the city limits on the deer management program for two years
and witness deer behavior, density, and distribution. When considering the limited fertility control technology
available today, we continue to conclude that deer management/research with anti-fertility agents is not
practical nor feasible at this time. The lack of isolated habitats for which contraceptive technology is still
constrained are not present in Iowa City.
Acknowledqments
We would like to thank Lisa Mollenhauer of the City of Iowa City, Lt. Ron Fort, Iowa City Police Depadment,
Iowa City Fire Department personnel, Jeff Ruzicka and his crew and Dr. Harlo Hadow and his students, and
all the participating landowners for their cooperation and support.
26
Iowa City Deer Harvest by Tag Number December 12, 2000 -January 18, 2001
Tag # Bait Site Date Sex Age StandNehicle
C 362369 4 12-Dec M Y S
C 362370 5 12-Dec F A S
C 362371 5 12-Dec M F S
C 362372 5 12-Dec F Y S
C 362373 5 12-Dec F A S
C 362374 5 12-Dec M Y S
C 362375 5 12-Dec F Y S
C 362376 5 12-Dec F A S
C 362378 5 12-Dec F A S
C 362379 5 12-Dec M F S
C 362380 5 12-Dec M A S
C 362381 25 12-Dec F A S
C 362382 25 12-Dec M F S
C 362426 25 12-Dec F A S
C 362427 25 12-Dec F A S
C 362428 25 12-Dec M F S
C 362429 25 12-Dec M F S
C 362430 25 12-Dec F A S
C 362431 25 12-Dec F A S
C 362419 D&S P 12-Dec F A V
C 362420 D&S P 12-Dec F F V
C 362421 D&S P 12-Dec M A V
C 362422 D&S P 12-Dec M A V
C 362423 D&S P 12-Dec F A V
C 362424 1 12-Dec M A S
C 362425 1 12-Dec M F S
C 362377 23 13-Dec F A S
C 362383 23 13-Dec F Y S
C 362384 23 13-Dec F A S
C 362385 23 13-Dec F A S
C 362386 23 13-Dec M Y S
C 382387 11 13-Dec M F S
C 362388 11 13-Dec F A S
C 362389 11 13-Dec F F S
C 362390 11 13-Dec F F S
C 362391 11 13-Dec F F S
C 362392 11 13-Dec F A S
C 362393 11 13-Dec F A S
C 362394 11 13-Dec M F S
C 362395 11 13-Dec F F S
C 362396 11 13-Dec F A S
C 362397 11 13-Dec F A S
C 362398 3 13-Dec F A S
C 362399 3 13-Dec F A S
C 362400 3 13-Dec F A S
C 362401 18 14-Dec M A S
C 362402 t8 14-Dec F F S
C 362403 18 14-Dec M F S
C 362404 18 14-Dec M Y S
C 362405 18 14-Dec M Y S
C 362406 17 14-Dec M A S
C 362407 17 14-Dec M F S
C 362408 17 14-Dec F Y S
C 362409 18 14-Dec F A S
C 362410 17 14-Dec M F S
27
C 362411 17 14oDec M A S
C 362412 27 14oDec F F S
C 362413 27 14-Dec F A S
C 362414 27 14-Dec F F S
C 362415 27 14-Dec F A S
C 362416 16 14-Dec M A S
C 362417 16 14-Dec M Y S
C 362418 16 14-Dec F A S
C 362432 16 14-Dec M F S
C 362433 16 14-Dec F A S
C 362434 16 14-Dec F A S
C 362435 16 14-Dec M A S
C 362436 16 14-Dec F F S
C 362437 4 15-Dec F A S
C 362438 4 15-Dec F A S
C 362439 3 15-Dec F A S
C 362440 3 15-Dec F F S
C 362441 14 17-Dec F A S
C 362442 14 17-Dec M A S
C 362443 14 17-Dec M A S
C 362444 14 17~Dec F A S
C 362446 14 17-Dec F F S
C 362449 14 17-Dec F A S
C 362445 12 17-Dec M F S
C 362447 12 17-Dec M A S
C 362448 12 17-Dec M F S
C 362452 12 17-Dec M F S
C 362453 12 17-Dec M A S
C 362454 12 17-Dec F A S
C 362455 12 17-Dec F A S
C 362450 13 17-Dec M Y S
C 362451 13 17-Dec M Y S
C 362457 8 18-Dec M A S
C 362458 9 18-Dec F A S
C 362456 10 18-Dec F A S
C 362459 10 18-Dec M F S
C 362460 10 18-Dec F F S
C 362461 10 18-Dec F F S
C 362463 10 18-Dec F Y S
C 362464 10 18-Dec M F S
C 362462 7 18-Dec F A S
C 362465 7 18-Dec M F S
C 362466 7 18-Dec M A S
C 362467 7 18-Dec M F S
C 362468 7 18-Dec F A S
C 362469 7 18-Dec M F S
C 362470 7 18-Dec M F S
C 362471 7 18-Dec F A S
C 362472 7 18-Dec M F S
C 362473 7 18-Dec F F S
C 362474 7 18-Dec F A S
C 362475 7 18-Dec M F S
C 362476 7 18-Dec F A S
C 362477 7 18-Dec F F S
C 362478 7 18-Dec F A S
C 362479 7 18-Dec F A S
C 362481 7 18-Dec F F S
C 362482 7 18-Dec F A S
C 362480 4 19-Dec F A S
C 362483 4 19-Dec F Y S
28
C 362484 26 19-Dec F A S
C 362485 26 19-Dec F A S
C 362486 26 19-Dec F A S
C 362487 26 19-Dec F Y S
C 362488 26 19-Dec F A S
C 362489 26 19-Dec F F S
C 362490 26 19-Dec F F S
C 362491 26 19-Dec F F S
C 362492 26 19-Dec F A S
C 362493 26 19oDec F F S
C 362494 25 19-Dec F A S
C 362495 25 19-Dec M F S
C 362496 25 19-Dec F A S
C 362497 25 19-Dec F A S
C 362498 25 19-Dec F F S
C 362499 30 20-Dec F F S
C 362500 30 20-Dec F F S
C 362501 32 20-Dec M Y S
C 362502 32 20-Dec M F S
C 362503 32 20-Dec M A S
C 362504 32 20-Dec M A S
C 362505 32 20-Dec M A S
C 362506 32 20-Dec M F S
C 362507 24 20-Dec F A S
C 362508 24 20-Dec F F S
C 362509 24 20-Dec F A S
C 362510 23 20-Dec M A S
C 362511 23 20-Dec M A S
C 362512 23 20-Dec M A S
C 362513 23 20-Dec M F S
C 362514 2 21-Dec M Y S
C 362515 7 21-Dec M A S
C 362516 7 21-Dec M A S
C 362517 7 21-Dec M F S
C 362518 7 21-Dec M A S
C 362519 5 21-Dec M Y S
C 362520 5 21-Dec M F S
C 362521 5 21-Dec F A S
C 362522 5 21-Dec M A S
C 362523 5 21-Dec M A S
C 362524 18 22-Dec M Y S
C 362525 18 22-Dec F Y S
C 362526 18 22-Dec M Y S
C 362527 18 22-Dec M Y S
C 362528 18 22-Dec F F S
C 362529 21 22-Dec M A S
C 362530 21 22-Dec F Y S
C 362531 21 22-Dec F F S
C 362532 21 22-Dec M F S
C 362533 21 22-Dec M F S
C 362534 21 22-Dec M F S
C 362535 21 22-Dec M Y S
C 362536 21 22-Dec F F S
C 362537 D&S P 22-Dec F Y V
C 362538 I 22-Dec M A S
C 362539 1 22-De¢ F A S
C 362540 1 22-Dec M F S
C 362541 1 22-Dec F F S
C 362542 1 22-Dec F A S
C 362543 I 22-Dec M F S
29
C 362544 D&S P 22-Dec F Y V
C 362545 20 7-Jan M F S
C 362546 20 7-Jan M F S
C 362547 20 7-Jan F A S
C 362548 20 7-Jan F F S
C 362549 20 7-Jan M A S
C 362550 20 7-Jan F A S
C 362551 20 7-Jan F A S
C 362552 20 7-Jan F A S
C 362553 26 7-Jan M Y S
C 362554 26 7-Jan F F S
C 362555 25 7-Jan M F S
C 362556 25 7-Jan F A S
C 362557 25 7-Jan F F S
C 362558 25 7-Jan M F S
C 362559 25 7-Jan F F S
C 362560 33 8-Jan F F S
C 362561 33 8-Jan F A S
C 362562 33 8-Jan F Y S
C 362563 33 8-Jan F A S
C 362564 33 8-Jan F A S
C 362565 33 8-Jan F A S
C 362566 33 8oJan F A S
C 362567 33 8-Jan M F S
C 362568 33 8-Jan M A S
C 362569 33 8-Jan M A S
C 362570 14 8-Jan F A S
C 362571 14 8-Jan M F S
C 362572 14 8-Jan F F S
C 362573 14 8-Jan F F S
C 362574 1 8-Jan F Y S
C 362575 1 8-Jan F F S
C 362576 1 8-Jan F A S
C 362577 1 8-Jan M A S
C 362578 1 8-Jan M A S
C 362579 4 9-Jan F F S
C 362580 4 9-Jan F A S
C 362581 4 9-Jan M F S
C 362582 4 9-Jan F F S
C 362583 4 9-Jan F F S
C 362584 4 9-Jan F Y S
C 362585 4 9-Jan F A S
C 362586 4 9~an F F S
C 362587 4 9-Jan M F S
C 362588 4 9-Jan F A S
C 362589 4 9-Jan F A S
C 362590 4 9-Jan M A S
C 362591 23 9-Jan M A S
C 362592 23 9-Jan M A S
C 362593 23 9-Jan F F S
C 362594 23 9-Jan M A S
C 362595 32 9-Jan F A S
C 362596 32 9-Jan M A S
C 362597 32 9-Jan F A S
C 362598 32 9-Jan F A S
C 362599 32 9-Jan M A S
C 362600 32 9-Jan M F S
C 362601 D&S P 9-Jan F A V
C 362602 10 10-Jan F A S
C 362603 10 10-Jan F Y S
30
C 362604 10 10-Jan M Y S
C 362605 7 10-Jan F A S
C 362606 7 10-Jan F A S
C 362607 7 10-Jan F F S
C 362608 7 10-Jan M A S
C 362609 35 10-Jan F A S
C 362610 35 10-Jan M A S
C 362611 21 11-Jan F A S
C 362612 21 11-Jan F A S
C 362613 21 11-Jan M F S
C 362614 21 11-Jan F F S
C 362615 21 11-Jan M F S
C 362616 16 11-Jan F F S
C 362617 16 11-Jan F A S
C 362618 16 11-Jan M A S
C 362619 16 11-Jan F F S
C 362620 16 11-Jan F A S
C 362621 16 11-Jan M Y S
C 362622 16 11-Jan M F S
C 362623 16 11-Jan F F S
C 362625 26 11-Jan F A S
C 362626 26 11-Jan F Y S
C 362624 35 12-Jan F A S
C 362627 35 12-Jan F A S
C 362628 35 12-Jan F F S
C 362629 35 12-Jan F F S
C 362630 35 12-Jan F F S
C 362631 35 12-Jan M F S
C 362632 35 12-Jan M Y S
C 362633 35 12-Jan F F S
C 362634 35 12-Jan M F S
C 362635 35 12-Jan M F S
C 362636 35 12-Jan F F S
C 362637 35 12-Jan M F S
C 362638 32 12-Jan M Y S
C 362639 32 12-Jan F A S
C 362640 32 12-Jan F F S
C 362641 32 12-Jan F A S
C 362642 32 12-Jan F F S
C 362643 11 12-Jan M A S
C 362644 11 12-Jan M Y S
C 362645 11 12-Jan M A S
C 362646 11 12-Jan F F S
C 362647 11 12-Jan M Y S
C 362648 11 12-Jan F F S
C 362649 11 12-Jan M A S
C 362650 11 12-Jan F F S
C 362651 6 13-Jan F Y S
C 362652 6 13-Jan F A S
C 362653 6 13-Jan M A S
C 362654 6 13-Jan M F S
C 362655 6 13-Jan M Y S
C 362656 6 13-Jan F A S
C 362657 23 13-Jan F F S
C 362658 23 13-Jan F A S
C 362659 25 15-Jan F A S
C 362660 25 15-Jan F F S
C 362661 25 15-Jan F F S
C 362662 25 15-Jan M F S
C 362663 5 15-Jan F A S
31
C 362664 5 15~Jan M F S
C 362665 5 15-Jan M A S
C 362666 5 15-Jan M F S
C 362667 5 15-Jan F F S
C 362668 5 15-Jan F A S
C 362669 5 15-Jan F A S
C 362670 5 15-Jan F F S
C 362671 5 15-Jan F A S
C 362672 26 15-Jan M A S
C 362673 26 15-Jan M F S
C 362674 8 16-Jan M A S
C 362675 8 16-Jan M Y S
C 362676 10 16-Jan M F S
C 362677 10 16-Jan M F S
C 362678 10 16-Jan M A S
C 362679 20 16-Jan F F S
C 362680 20 16-Jan F F S
C 362681 20 16-Jan F Y S
C 362682 33 17-Jan F F S
C 362683 33 17-Jan F A S
C 362684 33 17-Jan F A S
C 362685 33 17-Jan F F S
C 362686 32 17-Jan F F S
C 362687 32 17-Jan F A S
C 362688 D&S A 17-Jan F Y V
C 362689 D&S A 17-Jan F A V
C 362690 D&S A 17-Jan F A V
C 362691 D&S A 17-Jan F A V
C 362692 D&S A 17-Jan F F V
C 362693 D&S A 17-Jan F F V
C 362694 8 18-Jan M Y S
C 362695 36 18-Jan F A S
C 362696 36 18-Jan M Y S
C 362697 36 18-Jan M F S
C 362698 36 18-Jan F A S
C 362699 36 18-Jan M A S
C 362700 34 18-Jan F Y S
C 362701 34 18-Jan M F S
C 362702 34 18-Jan F A S
C 362703 34 18-Jan M F S
C 362704 34 18-Jan M A S
C 362705 34 18-Jan F F S
C 362706 34 18-Jan F F S
C 362707 34 18-Jan F A S
C 362708 34 18-Jan F F S
32
Feeding Ban Ordinance Language
AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE INTENTIONAL FEEDING OF DEER AND THE INTENTIONAL
DESTRUCTION OF OR INTERFERENCE WITH AUTHORIZED BAIT STATIONS AND AMENDING
CHAPTER 13 OF THE "CODE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY, 1968."
WHEREAS, the Township of Princeton is concerned with the significant impact of the growth of the
white-tailed deer population inhabiting the Princeton community, including deer/vehicle collisions, Lyme
disease, the reduction and/or elimination of native plant materials and habitat for other wild animals and the
erosion of stream banks, and damage to ornamental planrings within said community; and
WHEREAS, P.L, 2000, c.46 authorizes municipalities and the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife
to develop and implement site specific community based deer management plans; and
WHEREAS, as pad of a comprehensive wildlife management plan, the Township has developed such a
community based deer management plan, which plan allows the use of bait stations by authorized agents of
the Township acting pursuant to an approved community based deer management plan; and
WHEREAS, the Township has endorsed an application to the Division of Fish and Wildlife for
designation of a special deer management area and approval of said community based deer management
plan; and
WHEREAS, the feeding of deer has been shown to increase the concentration of deer in the area of
feeding, thereby increasing the likelihood of deedvehicle collisions in the vicinity, increasing the local
number of nymphal deer ticks, and increasing damage to vegetation and landscaping nearby, and is
therefore counterproductive to the Township's goals of reducing the local deer population within the
municipality and its impact on the community; and
WHEREAS, the feeding of deer can be detrimental to the overall health and well-being of the deer; and
WHEREAS, the Township Committee, as it moves forward with its community based deer management
plan, wishes to prohibit the purposeful or knowing feeding of deer through ground-level feeding stations, salt
licks, or other established and permanent means by which to feed the deer, unless established by an
authorized agent of the Township acting pursuant an approved community based deer management plan or
by a hunter acting pursuant to a valid hunting license in order to hunt deer; and
WHEREAS, the Township Committee further wishes to prohibit the purposeful or knowing destruction of
or interference with any such authorized bait stations established by agents of the Township acting pursuant
to an approved community based deer management plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Township Committee of the Township of Princeton, as
follows:
1. Chapter 13 of the "Code of the Township of Princeton, New Jersey, 1968", which establishes
miscellaneous offenses within said Township, is amended by adding thereto the following NEW sections 13-
2, 13-3, and 13-4, which shall read as follows:
Sec. 13-2. Feeding of deer prohibited.
No person shall purposely or knowingly feed, cause to be fed, or provide food through ground-feeding
stations, salt licks or other established mechanisms to feed wild white-tail deer in said township, on lands
either publicly or privately owned, except that nothing in this section shall apply to (1) any agent of the
township authorized to implement an alternative control method set forth in any approved community based
deer management plan and possessing a special deer management permit issued by the New Jersey
Division of Fish and Wildlife in accordance with the provisions of P.L. 2000, c.46, or (2) any hunter engaging
in baiting for the purpose of hunting pursuant to a valid hunting license issued in accordance with the
provisions of Title 23 of the New Jersey Revised Statutes.
Sec. 13-3, Contaminating, destroying, or interfering with authorized bait stations prohibited.
No person shall purposely or knowingly contaminate, destroy, or interfere with, or purposely or knowingly
cause to be contaminated or destroyed, any ground-feeding station. salt lick or other established
mechanism to bait wild white-tail deer in said township, provided such bait station is created or used solely
by (1) an agent of the township authorized to implement an alternative control method set forth in any
approved community based deer management plan and possessing a special deer management permit
issued by the New Jersey Division ef Fish and Wildlife in accordance with the provisions of P.L. 2000, c.46,
or (2) a hunter engaging in baiting for the purpose of hunting pursuant to a valid hunting license issued in
accordance with the provisions of Tit~e 23 of the New Jersey Revised Statutes. The provisions of this
section shall apply on aH lands located in the township either publicly or privately owned.
Sec. 13-4. Penalties.
Any person violating the provisions of sections 13-2 or 13-3 shall be subject to the general penalties
provision of section 1-6 of this code.
2. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days following its passage and publication, as provided for by law.
33
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND
ESTIMATED COST FOR
HICKORY HILL TRAIL PROJECT
1N THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF IOWA ~,~d
CITY, IOWA, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED
PERsoNs: ·
Public notice is hereby given that the City Council ~
of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will conduct a public
hearing on plans, specifications, form of contract
and estimated cost for the construction of the
Hickory Hill Trail Project in said City at 7:00 p.m.
on the 11 th day of September, 2001, said meeting to
be held in the Council Chambers in the Civic Center
in said City, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the
next meeting of the City Council thereafter as
posted by the City Clerk.
Said plans, specifications, form of contract and
estimated cost are now on file in the office of the
city Clerk in the Civic Center in Iowa City, Iowa,
and may be inspected by any interested persons.
Any interested persons may appear at said
meeting of the City Council for the purpose of
making objections to and comments conceming said
plans, specifications, contract or the cost of making
said improvement.
This notice is given by order of the City Council
of the City of Iowa City, Iowa and as provided by
law.
MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
PH-1