Dave Borneman Presentation Slides

Deer Management in Ann Arbor:

2014 - 2020

11/19/2020 www.a2gov.org

Dave Borneman

Natural Area Preservation Manager

Parks and Recreation Services

City of Ann Arbor, Michigan

www.a2gov.org

Background

“During the spring of 2014, City Council directed Ann Arbor's City Administrator to develop a deer management options report. The directive from Council arose as a result of residents reporting deer damaging landscaping and concerns about vehicle/deer collisions and deer-borne diseases.” -Resolution Concerning Park and Nature Area Closures

11/19/2020

Deer in 2014

Areas of Concern Addressed in City Administrator’s Report to City Council Regarding Deer Management:

• Deer Population?

• Deer Vehicle Crashes

• Health Concern

• City Parks

• City Cost


Deer in 2014




• Health Concern

• City Parks

• City Cost


Deer Vehicle Crashes 2011 2012 2013 2014

City of Ann Arbor Police 23 21 34 14 (thru July

only)

MTCF (All law

enforcement agencies)

42 45 50 Data not

available for

2014

Deer in 2014




• Health Concern

• City Parks

• City Cost to dispose of

deer carcasses ($6K)


www.a2gov.org

Chronic Wasting DiseaseMichigan DNR Map

Deer Tested Positive for Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) Since Detection of First Positive Free-ranging Deer

(May 2015)

Data through 2019

11/19/2020

Deer in 2014




• Health Concern

• City Parks – impacts to vegetation

• City Cost to dispose of deer carcasses ($6K/yr.)


Michigan Department of Natural Resources

The legal authority for the management of all wildlife species and populations in Michigan resides with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR).


www.a2gov.org

Deer Management in Other Cities

Other Cities/Organizations Management Practices as of 2014

City of East

Lansing

Only bans feeding deer.

City of Jackson

and Summit

Township

Contracts with a wildlife management company to cull the deer population

Meridian

Township

Meridian Township allowed hunting in 2011 and is continuing the program in

2014. Archery only; no firearms allowed.

Oakland County Oakland County Parks has conducted deer hunts since 1990. The public may

bow hunt during regular hunting season. In some parks they allow muzzle

loaders and shot guns and close the parks completely to the public.

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

First Deer Survey

• Aerial Survey March 6, 2015• 168 Deer Counted

• 80% of the deer counted were in or near the boundaries of Wards 1 and 2

• (Flyover deer-count results are not absolute or intended to be a comprehensive census of the entire deer population)

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org11/19/2020

First Deer Survey

www.a2gov.org

Partnerships??

• Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation

• The University of Michigan

• Humane Society of Huron Valley

• MDNR


Deer Management Survey: Ann Arbor Website


www.a2gov.org

Deer Management Survey

11/19/2020

48%

15%

37%

IN THE PAST THREE YEARS, HAVE YOU SEEN A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE OF DEER IN YOUR

NEIGHBORHOOD?

Definitely Not Sure No

www.a2gov.org


11/19/2020

No51.50%

Yes48.50%

Have your garden plants or landscape been damaged by deer?

No Yes

www.a2gov.org


40.50%

33.20%

22.80%

3.50%

Generally, which of the following best describes your feelings about deer in the City of Ann Arbor?

I enjoy seeing and having deer around

I enjoy seeing a few deer, but worry about the problems they may cause

I generally regard deer as a nuisance

I have no particular feelings about deer

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org


11/19/2020

24.30%

7.70%

63.30%

46.90%

43.80%

25.40%

45.40%

31%

40%

No Concerns

No concerns now, but somewhat worried about issue if deerpopulation continues to increase.

Deer/vehicle accidents.

Damage to landscape and garden plants.

Transmission of diseases. (e.g. Bovine Tuberculosis, LymeDisease, etc.)

Damage to rivers / streams by deer fecal material.

Damage to park ecosystems by over-browsing of native forageplants.

Decline in native species (songbirds, butterflies, etc.)

Decline in deer health due to overpopulation.

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00%

Which of the following concerns do you have about deer in the City of Ann Arbor? (Check all that apply)



Strongly Suport, 44.00%

Moderately Support, 12.80%

Do Not Support, 43.20%

Please indicate your level of support for using lethal methods such as hunting or sharpshooting to reduce the deer population:



Strongly Support, 19.70%



Research concludes that lethal removal measures are most effective for managing a deer population. Please indicate your level of support for firearm hunting within the State’s established regular deer hunting

season within the city.






Research concludes that lethal removal measures are most effective for managing a deer population. Please indicate your level of support for bow hunting within the State’s established regular deer hunting

season within the city.






Research concludes that lethal removal measures are most effective for managing a deer population. Please indicate your level of support for a sharpshooting program by skilled marksmen outside the State’s regular

deer hunting season (Jan. or Feb.) within



40%

33.60%

75.40%

81.20%

36.30%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Individual welfare ofdeer.

Cost of administering adeer management

program.

Proper management ofhunters / shooters.

Public safety Hunter / sharpshootersdamaging property.

What concerns would you have regarding a managed lethal removal of white-tailed deer within the City? (Check

all that apply)



Are there any other concerns you would have regarding a managed lethal

removal of white-tailed deer within the City? Please explain.

Sample of responses below:

I believe that lethal removal is the best

possible solution with an added bonus if the

meat was distributed to the less fortunate in

the community or programs that would

support them. Please let's get on with the

solution as soon as possible. This has gone

on far, far too long.






1) Well respected research concludes deer

culling is NOT effective in reducing deer

populations due to the rebound effect. 2) It is not

humane to use lethal methods and, of course,

not supported by the United States Humane

Society. 3) It is premature and violent to use

lethal methods before even trying non-lethal

methods.






Absolutely necessary as soon as possible.

Not only do we have issues with not being

able to use our property and I live in a

housing development, not the country, but

we have to watch the deer starve every

year. It's awful.






Lethal removal is neither humane nor effective. When you

remove an animal in an area with vegetation, adequate

resources, and residents who voluntarily or involuntarily

feed the deer, other deer will fill their places. Until the root of

the issue is resolved (ie. reduction of roadside vegetation,

prohibiting voluntary feeding of the deer) the issue will

continue.






I think I would start shooting the

sharp shooters if they started this in

Ann Arbor!


• Deer are a perceived problem

• They’re getting worse

• Council is getting pressured to do something

• The MDNR doesn’t permit any non-lethal

methods

• The only option seems to be some type of

lethal control, which only has lukewarm

support from the public

So, what to do?

www.a2gov.org11/19/2020

City Council

Directs City

Administrator to

Evaluate Deer

Management

Options

May 2014

$20,000

appropriated to

“Develop a

Community-

Endorsed Deer

Management Plan”

Aug 2014

City

Solicits

Proposals

Sept 2014

Deer

Mngmt

Survey

Dec 2014

Deer

Management

Public

Discussion

Meeting

Dec 2014

Aerial

Deer

Survey

Feb 2015

Deer

Management

Public

Discussion

Meeting 2

Feb 2015

Deer

Management

Public

Discussion

Meeting 3

April 2015

Recommendations

for Deer

Management in

Ann Arbor

May 2015

Resolution to

Establish a Deer

Management

Program within the

City of Ann Arbor

FOR WARDS 1 AND 2

FOR 4 YEARS

Aug 2015

Resolution Authorizing Cooperative

Service Agreement Between the City of

Ann Arbor and the US Dept. of Ag. -

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service, Wildlife Services (USDA-

APHIS) in the amount of $35,000.

Nov 2015

Request for a

MDNR permit

to cull Deer

Dec 2015

Deer

Management

Public

Discussion

Meeting 1

Dec 2014

Ann Arbor’s Deer Management Timeline from

Planning to the First Cull

www.a2gov.org

2016 Report• 63 Deer removed (out of a possible 100 deer permitted)

• Safety protocols were effective• No injuries

• 1,817 lbs. of venison donated to local food bank• Michigan Sportsmen Against Hunger paid for meat processing

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

2016 Report• Through numerous lawsuits, the City attorney

successfully defended the City’s legal authority to conduct a deer management program.

• Adjustments made according to resident feedback• Dog parks and Border-to-Border Trail remained open

• Parks open on weekends

• Reduced designated parks from 26 to 14

• Signage in 3 languages (English, Spanish, Mandarin)

• Deer management hotline and email notification service

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

2016 Report

11/19/2020

• Number of calls to police believed by the caller to be related to cull activities: 5

• (all unfounded or not in City of Ann Arbor jurisdiction)

• Number of incidents requiring police intervention to clear a closed park: 1

• Success!

• City staff continue to explore non-lethal options

www.a2gov.org

Aerial Deer Surveys

• Aerial Survey March 6, 2015• 168 Deer Counted

• Aerial Survey February 18, 2016• 202 Deer Counted (51 deer had already been culled)

• 80% of the deer counted were within or near the boundaries of Wards 1 and 2

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

Aerial Deer Surveys

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

Goals for 2017 Deer Management

• Include a lethal cull, a sterilization plan, and an educational component.

• Reduce the amount of time parks are closed

• Expand the number of parcels of public land that can be utilized for a lethal cull program

• Working closely with citizen groups to build support.

• Provide implementation plans to the community for reaction/feedback prior to actual implementation.

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

Switching Contractors

But USDA-APHIS doesn’t do sterilization, so for the 2017 effort, the city switched to White Buffalo Inc.

Council approved a contract for $153,940 for Combined Surgical Sterilization and Sharpshooting Management Services

11/19/2020

Camera Survey Methodologies

• Pictures were studied to determine:

• Ear tags• Number of does• Number of bucks• Number of fawns• Number of unidentifiable deer• Population estimates done with program

NOREMARK (White 1996), and methodologies described in: Jacobson et al. (1997), and the Lincoln-Petersen Estimator (LPE)(Curtis et al. 2009, Eberhardt 1969).

11/19/2020

Deer caught on a trail-cam in Ann Arbor. (Courtesy of White Buffalo Inc)

www.a2gov.org

Sterilization

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

Sterilization

• 4-year Research Permit from MDNR to sterilize 80 does

• Took place in neighborhoods where lethal deer removal could not occur, but darting the deer with a tranquilizer was possible

• Once darted, the deer were tracked until they were unconscious (typically just a few minutes), and then transported to a temporary surgical site where a veterinarian performed ovariectomies and administered long-acting antibiotics and pain relievers.

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

Sterilization

• Entire process was about 1 hour per deer from darting to release

• All sterilized deer were fitted with numbered ear tags, and one mature doe in each group was radio-collared to facilitate future program efforts. Treated deer were returned to a safe location close to the area where they were found and monitored until they recovered from anesthesia.

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

2017 Lethal Results

• Lethal program removed 96 deer (vs. 63 in 2016, and happened over a much shorter period)

• 2,521lbs. of venison was donated to a local food bank

• Over 80% of citizens surveyed considered park closures to be at an acceptable level

11/19/2020

2017 Sterilization Results

Sterilization Study Areas

• Sterilized 54 does

• 40 does sterilized in SSA• Estimated 90-95% of all does

• 14 does sterilized in NSA• Estimated 100% of all does

• ESA established in 2018 (but not used)

11/19/2020

Measuring Success

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

MSU Survey

• Michigan State University, Office for Survey Research

• Invitations to participate in survey mailed on postcards

• Unique passcode on each postcard• Ensured only selected participants could take survey

• Web survey accessible via URL or QR-Code

• 3 years of results from 2017-2019


www.a2gov.org

MSU Survey 2017

Measures of SuccessAs approved by City Council, the program included a number of target metrics by which the success of the program could be evaluated. These included, among other goals:• Community acceptance of deer management program -

when 75% of surveyed residents respond that the City's strategy of managing the deer population is acceptable.

• Community acceptance of herd impact - when 75% of surveyed residents respond that damage to their landscape or garden plants is at an acceptable level

• Acceptable level of park closures

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

MSU Survey 2017“Although you may have varying opinions about different specific

components of the City of Ann Arbor's deer management program (which includes lethal removal, nonlethal sterilization, and education about private property options such as fencing and gardening modifications), would you say the plan is acceptable or not acceptable overall?”

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

MSU Survey 2017

“Although you may have varying opinions about other specific aspects of the deer management program, would you say the amount of damage caused by deer to your landscape or garden plants on private lands over the past year was acceptable or not acceptable?”

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

MSU Survey 2017“In 2017, 11 out of 159 parks in the City of Ann Arbor were designated to be

temporarily closed for a period of two weeks in order to carry out the deer management program. Although you may have varying opinions about other specific aspects of the deer management program, would you say the level of park closures in 2017 was acceptable or not acceptable?”

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

MSU Survey 2017

“Which specific components of the City of Ann Arbor’s deer management plan do you find acceptable or not acceptable?”

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

Lessons Learned 2017

• Timing• Beginning activities at the end of January vs. the beginning

of January better enabled the City to communicate with AAPS, UM, and residents away for holidays

• The public greatly appreciated shortening the length of time parks were closed


www.a2gov.org


• Parks Monitoring• It was nice to have a city staff person actively monitoring

park entrances during cull.


www.a2gov.org


• Communications• Mailings to park neighbors – good. Expand next year.

• Deer management email and voice mail messages were far fewer than last year and very manageable, likely due to stakeholder engagement efforts.

• Try to communicate with running clubs in the area of closures as well as bicycling & dog owners, if possible.


www.a2gov.org


• Signage• Use “Attention” instead of

“Sharpshooters” at the top of signs posted outside parks.

• Place signs on taller posts so they are eye level.

• Make signs reflective for better night visibility.

• As needed, use a barrier at entrance point to physically stop people from entering.

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org


• Operations• Consider use of private property in future plans to

supplement parks and UM sites.

• Step-up anti-baiting enforcement.

• Close the area around sterilization operating room to ensure keep out protestors and ensure deer safety.


www.a2gov.org

Goals for 2018

• Educational Program & Public Right-of-Way Improvements

• Review the City’s “Fencing” ordinance and existing deer signage locations.

• Develop and publish an expanded deer education component to the City’s deer management website, including a deer resistant gardening campaign.

• Develop an interactive information/mapping tool.• Create and hold a public forum designed to address

questions related to the City’s deer management program.• Establish an on-going education program.

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

Goals for 2018

• Lethal Program• Permitted removals: 250

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

Goals for 2018

• Non-lethal (Sterilization) Program• Ensure sterilization of at least 95% of the does in the original

NSA and SSA (estimated additional 15-26 does).

• Sterilize at least 95% of the does in an additional zone (estimated additional 14-25), such that the total estimated sterilizations for all three zones are estimated to be 40.

• Mortality rate associated with sterilization less than 2%.

• Investigate with University of Michigan if they have any additional appropriate locations for sterilization.

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

2018 Results Overview

Lethal Removal

• 115 deer were lethally removed (permit allowed 250)• Challenges:

• Inability to access areas where deer are located (such as 1,000 foot restriction from public schools under federal law)

• Protestors.

• Success with private property operations

• Revised lower deer population estimates

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org


• Sterilization• 18 does were sterilized, bringing 2-year total to 72 of the 80

permitted by the MDNR special research permit

• SSA: >96% of does sterilized

• NSA: 70% of does sterilized (2017 estimate was 100%)

• ESA: unknown. Not used

• No deer mortalities

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org


• Deer Population Estimates Updated with New Data• Estimated 216 deer in wards 1 & 2

• Average of 20 deer/mi2 but varied from 6 deer/mi2 to 54 deer/mi2

• Highest concentration areas were in the SSA and the NW corner of the city near Skyline High School

• Suggests other areas in wards 1 & 2 are at maintenance levels

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

2019 Goals

• Lethal Program: • Remove up to 150 deer, depending on available locations,

weather and contractor recommendation.

• Sterilization (Non-lethal) Program: • Sterilize at least 95 - 98% of the female deer in the original

research areas #1, #2, #3 and a potential #4.

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

Legislation Prohibiting Sterilization of Michigan Deer

• 2018: Michigan State legislature considers whether or not to allow sterilization as an option for MDNR to have in circumstances where culling is not viable due to urban density and/or other reasons.

• Nov 5th, 2018• City of Ann Arbor receives research permit to continue deer

sterilizations for Nov - Dec 2018

• Dec 13th, 2018• Michigan passes bill to prohibit further deer sterilization

permits

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

Changes in 2019

• Permit only allowed for 8 additional does to be sterilized (to keep us at original permitted 80 does)

• Ability to operate within 1,000 feet of a school on private property

• Separation of sterilization efforts (Nov) from Lethal removal efforts (Jan)

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

2019 Results

• Lethal removal took place Jan 2nd through 20th and removed 112 deer out of a possible 150.

• One site needed to be eliminated from list due to consistent harassment by protesters

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

2019 Results

• Six deer were sterilized between Nov 28th and Nov 30th

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

2020 Goals

• Lethal Program: • Remove up to 150 deer, depending on available locations,

weather and contractor recommendation.

• Sterilization (Non-lethal) Program: • Sterilization program is suspended until the State Legislature

makes a determination on its legality.

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

2020 Results

• Lethal Removal• Jan 2nd through 22nd

• 109 removed

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

Deer Management Results Overview

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Deer Culled Deer Culled Deer Culled Deer Culled Deer Culled

63 96 115 112 109

Deer Sterilized Deer Sterilized Deer Sterilized Deer Sterilized Deer Sterilized

None 54 18 6 None

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

Population Survey Results2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Helicopter

Survey

Helicopter

Survey

Helicopter

Survey

Helicopter

Survey

Helicopter

Survey

Helicopter

Survey

168 202 315 (289 in city

limits)

276 (220 in city

limits)

298 (224 in city

limits)

214 (137 in city

limits)

Camera Survey

Population

Estimate for SSA

Camera Survey

Population

Estimate for SSA

Camera Survey

Population

Estimate for SSA

Camera Survey

Population

Estimate for SSA

Camera Survey

Population

Estimate for SSA

Camera Survey

Population

Estimate for SSA

NA NA 90 71 54 50

Population

Estimate

Population

Estimate

Population

Estimate wards

1 & 2

Population

Estimate wards

1 & 2

Population

Estimate wards

1 & 2

Population

Estimate wards

1 & 2

NA NA 450* 216 233 152

11/19/2020

* Different detection rate and correction factor used. Later this estimate was thought to be too high

Measuring Success

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

MSU Survey 2019

“Although you may have varying opinions about different specific components of the City of Ann Arbor's deer management program (which includes lethal removal, nonlethal sterilization, and education about private property options such as fencing and gardening modifications), would you say the plan is acceptable or not acceptable overall?”

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

MSU Survey 2019

“Although you may have varying opinions about other specific aspects of the deer management program, would you say the amount of damage caused by deer to your landscape or garden plants on private lands over the past year was acceptable or not acceptable?”

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

MSU Survey 2019

“In 2019, 10 out of 159 parks in the City of Ann Arbor were designated to be temporarily closed from January 2 through January 20 in order to carry out the deer management program. Although you may have varying opinions about other specific aspects of the deer management program, would you say the level of park closures in 2019 was acceptable or not acceptable?”

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

MSU Survey 2017


11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

MSU Survey 2018


11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

MSU Survey 2019

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

Monitoring Deer Impacts on Natural Vegetation in Ann Arbor

• November 2015– 2019

• Fenced and Unfenced Study Plots

• A Study of Red Oak Seedlings• Browse levels greater than 15% are

likely to reduce forest regeneration. (Blossey 2014)

• A Study of Wildflower Experimental Plantings

• A Study of Existing Trillium Plants

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

Oak Study: Species Selection

Why Red Oaks?• The species naturally occurs in all city natural areas assessed.

• Key Ann Arbor ecological community (oak/hickory forests) and important ecological functions

• Oak regeneration has been declining in much of Michigan and the northeastern U.S., concerning many forest scientists and conservation managers (Lee & Kost2008, Abrams 2003).

• Red oak is a species of intermediate deer preference—not the first and most nutritious food to be browsed by deer, so it doesn’t represent the most sensitive species (MI DNR), but not the last food either (Blossey 2014). Because this species is not highly preferred, it offers a somewhat conservative indicator.

• Nursery seedlings and acorns of Michigan genotype are readily available.

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

Oak Study: Fenced Control Plots

• Half of the 420 seedlings were fenced

• Fences exclude deer, but allow small mammals

• 18’ Diameter, 4’ tall cylinders made from 2”x4” welded wire mesh with 3’ posts

• Unfenced seedlings not marked with flags or tags deer could learn.

• Fences did not completely exclude deer• 13% of fenced seedlings had some amount of deer browse


www.a2gov.org

Oak Study: Seedlings

• Red oak seedlings 12-18”

• Bare-root

• Cold Stream Nursery in Free Soil, MI

• Some seedlings had some initial browse damage• Marked with water resistant paint

• Seedlings were paired by size and branching pattern• One seedling from each pair was control, one was

experimental

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

Oak Study: Monitoring

11/19/2020

Oak Study: How Much Browsing Did Deer Do? Year One

• Proportion of experimental red oak seedlings browsed by deer.

• The dotted red line indicates the 15% annual browse level above which forest regeneration is unlikely to succeed (Blossey2014).

11/19/2020

Oak Study: How Much Browsing Did Deer Do? Year Two

11/19/2020

Oak Study: How Much Browsing Did Deer Do? Year Three

• Sites shown in lighter colors had low seedling numbers and may not fully represent browse levels

11/19/2020

www.a2gov.org

Oak Study Conclusions

11/19/2020

Figure 3. Changes in deer browse

on red oak seedlings in Ann Arbor

natural areas, 2016–18.

Solid lines indicate natural areas

where deer have been managed.

Dotted lines are areas that have not

been managed. The red dashed line

indicates the 15% annual browse

level above which oak forest

regeneration is unlikely to succeed

(Blossey 2014).

Deer Management Budgets


Anti-Cull Factions

Though staff attempted to work with citizens to establish a deer management plan that was acceptable to most citizens, a vocal faction of anti-cull protesters interfered with deer management activities for several years


Ryan Stanton | The Ann Arbor News

Questions?

11/19/2020

Dave Borneman

[email protected]

Dave Borneman Presentation Slides

Documents

Transcript of Dave Borneman Presentation Slides