DEER - ATTACHMENT 1
DEER DISCUSSION ATTACHMENT 1 TO CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
STAFF REPORT AND MEMO FROM DEER COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 2009 REPORTS BELVEDERE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 9, 2009
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Felicia N. Wheaton, Associate Planner
Subject: Findings and recommendations of Deer Committee
Recommended Motion/Item Description
Review and discuss the findings of the Deer Committee and provide staff with direction with respect to the specific recommendations of the Committee.
Background
Black-tailed deer are a common sight in Belvedere, particularly on the Island. The deer feed on a variety of plants, traverse well-worn paths, and bed in pockets of dense vegetation. The total number of deer on the Island is unknown, although there is quantity enough to cause aggravation among many of our residents. The City received enough communications expressing concern about the deer to warrant the formation of a citizen committee to research the issues and investigate potential solutions.
The Deer Committee held seven public meetings from February to September of 2009. A community-wide questionnaire was conducted to gauge local concern about the issue. The questionnaire had an impressive 50 percent response rate. The majority of respondents resided on the Island and wished for more effort toward deer population control. Concerns ranged from yard damage to fear of personal injury. A summary of the questionnaire results is included in the City of Belvedere Deer Study (Attachment 3).
Findings
Representatives from the State Department of Fish and Game (DFG) advised the Deer Committee that the deer were a State resource that could not be proactively addressed without the advice and consent of DFG. DFG identified the four alternatives: Relocation, Sterilization, Depredation and Education. DFG indicated that relocation efforts were no longer supported by DFG and could not be considered a viable alternative. Further, DFG advised that sterilization programs had proven unreliable and would require extensive environmental review before such a program could be considered by DFG. Depredation, or hunting, was an option, but because of the urbanized area, DFG would still require extensive environmental review. Finally, DFG indicated that prior to issuing any individual property owner a depredation permit, the property owner must use any and all measures available to deter the deer (landscaping changes, fencmg, warning devices, etc.); and if these measures are unsuccessful, the property owner must identify
AGENDA ITEM NO. : 3 REPORTS BELVEDERE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 9, 2009 Pae 2 the specific deer causing the damage. DFG would then issue the permit for depredation for that animal only, and only with the approval of the local regulatory agency with respect to weapon laws.
Ultimately, the Committee findings showed the most appropriate approach to the City's deer situation is to provide more extensive education to the community. Deer control methods such as landscaping with deer-resistant plants, repellants and low-impact fencing will need to be embraced community-wide for the most effective results. The Deer Committee recommends that a consultant be hired to implement an education program, to respond to community concerns and to inform the community about available deer control methods.
The Deer Committee also recommends that the Planning Commission review current Design Review requirements for fences and gates and that they consider recommending ordinance amendments to allow a streamlined process for deer..,related fencing.
At the recommendation of the Deer Committee, City Staff is currently working on the following tasks:
1. Compiling a list of deer sightings by Staff; 2. Creating a database ofresident deer reports; and 3. Developing a consolidated deer information web page. The web page will contain educational information about deer, local laws, answers to health-related questions such as Lyme disease, links to deer-related City records (e.g., Deer Committee meeting packets and audio, correspondence, the Deer Study), and links to resources such as the Marin Humane Society and Marin Master Gardeners.
Members of the Deer Committee are to be congratulated for their efforts in searching for a solution to a complex problem with no easy resolution.
Fiscal Impact
At this time, the City has spent only the allocated funds for the Deer Committee efforts. However, an educational program will require additional funding to develop handouts and other educational materials. Furtber, it is the recommendation that the educational program be put together using an outside consultant so as not to overburden current staff resources.
As the Council reviews the recommendations of the Deer Committee and provides direction, those recommendations that involve additional financial commitment will be returned to the Council for budget approval.
Recommendation
Review and discuss the findings of the Deer Committee and provide staff with direction with respect to the specific recommendations of the Committee. REPORTS BELVEDERE CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 9, 2009 Pa e3
Attachments
1. Belvedere Deer Committee Participant Roster 2. Memorandum from Deer Committee, dated September 30, 2009 3. City of Belvedere Deer Study, June 2009 4. September 9, 2009, Deer Committee meeting minutes ATTACHMENT 1 BELVEDERE DEER COMMITTEE PARTICIPANT ROSTER
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
• John Telischak • Justin Faggioli Committee Chair Vice-Chair Golden Gate A venue Golden Gate A venue • Alix Fagersten • Halina Bak-Hughes Bayview A venue Bella Vista A venue • Bob McCaskill • Hugh Scott Crest Road Pine Avenue • Carolyn Hansen • Ingrid Weiss Golden Gate A venue Beach Road • Dave Bordon • Jeremy Fair Belvedere A venue Eucalyptus Road • DB Murray • Virginia Doyle Beach Road Tamalpais Circle • Gilbert Kirwin • Wyman Harris Golden Gate A venue Bella Vista A venue
STAFF
• George Rodericks • Captain Cindy Machado City Manager Director of Animal Services City of Belvedere Marin Humane Society grodericks({i),cityotbelvedere.org cmachado@marinhumanesoc iety .org (415) 435-3838 (415) 883-4621
• Felicia Wheaton • Jeff Dreier Associate Planner Senior Wildlife Ecologist City of Belvedere \VP~, Inc. fnwheaton(a)cityotbclvcderc.org [email protected] (415) 435-3838 (415) 454-8868 x151
Revised: November 3, 2009 ATTACHMENT 2
MEMORANDUM
To: Belvedere City Council
From: Deer Committee
Subject: Summary of Activities, Conclusions, Recommendations and Other Observations
Date: September 30, 2009
Activities
The Deer Committee was established by the City Council in late 2008 and has been active for approximately nine months. It was set up because of increasing concerns by Belvedere residents about deer within the community. Its purpose was to investigate deer-related issues in Belvedere and explore appropriate population management approaches if deemed necessary, desirable and/or feasible. We held our first meeting in January and have had monthly meetings ever since.
The Committee consists of 14 residents who were selected from approximately 25 applicants. A majority of the members live on the Island where the deer are a much bigger problem than elsewhere in Belvedere. Almost all members are long-time residents of Belvedere and have had first-hand experience with deer both in the present and from an historical perspective. The
Committee meetings have been very well attended by the members and there has been very active participation by members reflecting their interest and concern about deer. In addition to residents, there are several other Committee members, including City Manager
George Rodericks and Associate Planner Felicia Wheaton, representing the City; and Captain
Cindy Machado, Director of Animal Services, representing the Marin Humane Society. The City also retained a biologist and wildlife consultant, Jeff Dreier, of WRA. There has also been public participation at each meeting, which has involved residents who do not sit on the
Committee, as well as several wildlife organizations.
The Committee conducted an extensive deer survey, a copy of which is attached. We received
4 74 responses out of the approximately 1,000 surveys which were sent out. This is an extremely high return rate for a survey, again reflecting the high level of interest in the issue. We have also created an "Incident Report" so the City can track current and past deer incidents. There are approximately a dozen such incidents which have been reported, and they generally include human and deer interaction which were deemed to be either intimidating to humans or pets or potentially dangerous.
In order to get better informed on deer-related issues, the Committee invited a number of guest speakers which proved to be informative. They included Jeff Dreier of WRA, Cindy Machado of the Marin Humane Society, John Krause of the California Department of Fish and Game,
Michael Lasky- Chair of the Planning Commission, Matt Donlan of Bayside Nursery, Maggie
Sergio ofWildcare and Kevin Sadlier of Green Jeans Garden Supply. The Committee also reviewed literature available on the subject, including how other communities were dealing with their deer problems.
Belvedere City Council 2 9130109 WRA produced a final report entitled City of Belvedere Deer Study (June, 2009) a copy of which is attached. The Study includes the results of the deer survey as well.
The Committee believes that, given the limited resources it had available and the complexity of the deer issue, it was able to conduct a thorough and fair review of the deer issue in Belvedere and that further efforts by the Committee are unlikely to be very productive. The Committee is also frustrated by the regulatory hurdles and the political issues of dealing with deer, which greatly limit the available options to effectively deal with the problem.
Conclusions
• The deer survey produced very useful information about how residents view deer in
Belvedere:
+ Residents of Belvedere Island were the most concerned about deer with nearly
50% seeing them as a problem that needs to be addressed and another 23%
worried about their appropriateness on the Island.
+ Yard damage and vehicle collision seem to be the primary concerns of all
residents although potential personal injury, pet injury and extensive fencing are
also significant concerns and were discussed extensively by the Committee.
• Lyme disease, although a perceptual concern, is not an issue as scientific research
has confirmed that the species of tick that carries Lyme disease in California is
predominantly a parasite of small mammals and reptiles and, therefore, the
presence of deer does not increase the chances of contracting the disease.
Belvedere City Council 3 9130109 + A majority ofresponding residents (58%) would like to see the population of deer
decreased, and this percentage rises to 71 % on the Island where the prevalence of
deer is the highest.
• An overwhelming majority of Committee members felt that the deer population in
Belvedere, particul~rly on the Island, has increased significantly over the last 10 or 20
years.
• Although anecdotal, there seems to be an increase of deer in~idents involving
intimidation of humans and a fear of bodily injury or pet injury.
• The deer population of Belvedere is unknown and because of the terrain, private property
issues and the habits of deer, it is very difficult and expensive to determine with
accuracy.
• The California Department of Fish and Game has authority over deer and their
representatives have informed us that, at the present time, little or nothing can be done
without their permission with respect to controlling the deer population utilizing the
traditional methods of (1) depredation (hunting), (2) trap and translocation and (3)
immunocontraception. And they have indicated to us that they are unlikely to give the
City permission to control the population without significant research and findings which
must establish and document major damage. Furthermore, an EIR is likely to be required
which is expensive and time consuming.
• Belvedere is likely to be subject to considerable adverse publicity by animal rights groups
and related fri~nds of such organizations if attempts are made to control the deer
population utilizing the three traditional methods referenced above.
Belvedere City Council 4 9130109 • Therefore, only one of the four possible deer control methods listed below appears to be
feasible:
• Depredation -Nearly impossible for the City to get a permit from the Department
of Fish and Game to hunt or kill deer in an urban/suburban environment.
• Trap and Translocation - Very low survival rates make this an unattractive
alternative from the viewpoint of the Department of Fish and Game.
• Immunocontraception - Generally not very effective, difficult to administer and
potentially expensive, at least given the current medical technology.
• Deer Deterrent Methods - This is the most feasible of the deer control methods as
state permits and EIR's are not required. Methods include fencing, landscaping
with deer-resistant plants, repellants, and frightening and other control methods.
Mixed results have been reported from these methods except fencing. Fencing is
generally effective but it can be expensive and can adversely affect the Belvedere
ambiance.
Recommendations
• Deer Committee to stay in existence to monitor deer situation. Committee size may be
reduced and meetings scheduled semi-annually. Committee would be required to issue
an annual status report to the City on anything deer related.
• Staff to be tasked with the responsibility to follow up on the deer issue(s) to support the
mission of the Deer Committee.
• An education program to be put in place to educate the community about all the deer
related issues, findings and deterrents. Certain members of the Deer Committee are
Belvedere City Council 5 9130109 interested in participating ih the education program. City to provide the necessary
resources including retaining an educational consultant who would be responsible for
educating the community as well as conducting several community meetings. This is a
large task but it may produce some beneficial results.
• Planning Commission to review fencing and gating regulations to streamline obtaining
deer-related fencing permits and to recommend certain types of fencing that maintain and
enhance the ambiance and aesthetics of Belvedere rather than adversely affecting the
character of the community. The same streamline regulations would apply to the
installation of deer-related landscaping as well.
• Police, Public Works and Marin Humane Society to strictly enforce regulations
prohibiting intentional feeding of deer which is illegal in the state.
• Police, Public Works and Marin Humane Society to assist in recording deer sightings to
allow tracking/monitoring of deer population for comparative purposes.
• Remain open to consider, for possible future implementation, potentially creative
solutions to the immigration of deer into our community, such as installation of cattle
guard crossing to inhibit new deer from entering the community, and the installation of
"wildlife" cameras at several key Belvedere entrances and exits to track deer migration.
The City should also follow the immunocontraceptive progress being pursued by the
animal-related medical community.
• Add a Deer Information section to the City website to provide residents with relevant
deer information.
Belvedere City Council 6 9130109 "1
Other Observations
• The overwhelming majority of the Committee members is disappointed that there do
not appear to be any real feasible solutions to the deer problem other than fencing,
deer-resistant planting and deer deterrents which historically have only provided a
partial solution at best and can be expensive.
• A majority of the Committee members, as well as a number of concerned citizens,
share the concern that the deer in Belvedere represent "an accident that is waiting to
happen". Although based on the facts at hand it is difficult to be optimistic, it is
hoped that in the not too distant future, either the state will change its view toward
suburban deer or some other medical/technological breakthrough will become
available which will allow reasonable control of the deer population so that the stress
level between humans and deer in a suburban environment can be significantly
reduced. In the meantime, we have to utilize the limited deer management tools that
are available and educate the public accordingly.
Belvedere City Council 7 9130109 ATTACHMENT 3 BELVEDERE DEER COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 )>~TMINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Committee Cha'ir John Telischak, Justin Faggioli, Gilbert Kirwin, Hugh Scott, Carolyn Hansen, Ingrid Weiss, Halina Bak-Hughes, Alix Fagersten, Virginia Doyle, Robert McCaskill. Staff in attendance: City Manager George Rodericks, Associate Planner Felicia Wheaton and Marin Humane Society Captain Cindy Machado. MEMBERS ABSENT: Dave Bordon, DB Murray, Wyman Harris, Jeremy Fair. I. Chair Telischak called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Chair Telischak opened the public forum for items not on the agenda. Nancy Barbour, 81 Acacia, thanked the committee for all of the information that has been provided about deer. She agrees with Ingrid Weiss' letter. She would like to state that no one knows how many deer there are in Belvedere and where they migrate from. Spending money on this information seems incredibly wasteful. She refers to correspondence from Professor McCullough distributed at the first meeting. The professor stated that deer populations fluctuate over time for unknown causes. Spending money to reduce the deer population when it might decline on its own needs to be considered. His suggestion to use high school students to study the population is a good one. Lastly, there was an article in the New York Times on Sunday, September 6 regarding ticks. This is an excellent education opportunity for the committee to have an article written by an expert and published in The Ark Newspaper and possibly the Marin IJ. This approach would be inexpensive and uncontroversial. Also, she has been successfully using the deer repellent powder on her roses as suggested by Kevin Sadlier of Green Jeans Garden Supply. III. The Committee approved the July 14, 2009 meeting minutes by unanimous vote. IV. Scheduled Items A. Committee Chairman Report: Chair Telischak asked that the committee comment on a draft memorandum to the City Council. The memorandum is a summary of findings and recommendations by the committee.
Chair Telischak invited Committee Member McCaskill to correct the public record regarding donations to the city. Mr. McCaskill, a certified public accountant, clarified that contributions to a public agency are tax deductible as long as it is for public purposes. Chair Telischak reminded the committee that this information might be useful in the formation of a deer fund. B. Consultant Report: Chair Telischak noted that the WRA consultant was not able to attend this meeting. The final report speaks for itself and is the main work product of the committee. The report contains the results of the community questionnaire and the recommendations of the consultant. It will be presented to the City Council and it is a public document. C. Committee Discussion (Contraception, Relocation, Depredation, Education): Chair Telischak noted that there was an email from Jerry Fair supporting whatever was decided by the committee. Chair Telischak also noted that the New York Times article regarding Nantucket's deer problems had been copied and distributed. The article mentions a report to come out in the fall. He suggests that the committee should continue to monitor how other communities are dealing with the problem, if at all.
Committee Member Virginia Doyle responded to the New York Times article. She pointed out that the committee has learned that the deer species in Belvedere do not carry the ticks that host Lyme disease. The ticks that host Lyme disease are more like_ly. to: be fo.und on rodents and other small animals. Lyme disea~~ is not a problem and that }s. 'Y.OY ~duca,t,ion is so important. ' , , .. > ~ 'i !> 'I f ;,, ' : Chair Telischak responded that he thought it Was.interesting that despite the fact the deer population is causing health problems(in Nantucket), people there still feel that it is not necessary to do anything. , ,
Committee Member Hugh Scott commented .oIJ: Ii;igri~ Weiss' ·letter ,and Gil~ert Kirwin's le_tter. He stated that-tp~ City ha,s, b~!!n put on_;n9tic~ all<;l~he,~gre~S'Wi~h:Jhe .~oncept th?t fu~re .i!i smpe liability there. He is not an attorney, but he wonders ifthe committee has any concerns.
Chair Telischak asked Mr. Kirwin, who is ah attorney;to·comn1ent. Mr. Kirwin stated that the expr!!~sion he used wa~ "exn9sµr~ to liability.':.~e, b~li~y~~. t!l.el'e is liability <::xposure because there have been a number of p~opl~ answeriJ!g questiQprl?ii:¢.~ ,?n.<:11.etter writers who have expressed fear of bodily injury from deer)f,tbere were to be an uqfotfi.!na~e deer.a~a.c:~ on a person, the questi9n will be ,"9id the gove_111111eQtl:!Jen~ity,h~weq10tice of:a V3?!lX Committee Member Carolyn Hansen reminded the committee that there are people that are still very upset by this issue and they will be dissatisfied if th~re is no ilpmediate solution. The key is to educate the conimun'ity on why the ·committee cotild' hot act on a solution. Mrs. Doyle disagreed. She stated that the c9mmi~ee .h~s cmpe up wit.h a ~onderful solution which is to educate people on wpat they can do for them~elves: They can plant California natives. People have choices. Everyone wants to iower the number of deer and now we 'know how to do'it. The Marin Humane Society and WRA have explained how to do it and now all there is to do is foliow their sug~estions. Coinmittee Member Ingrid Weiss stated that during a recent home remodel her front garden was destroyed.by the cohstructibn proce'Ss·. She has since replarited h'e·r'urifenced garden'with a v·ariety of plants that the deer do not eat. She added that there are other pests, such as moles, that can be destru.ctive. She has be.en yery -successful with deterrents and it .~hoµ Id be recomized ~hat all garden mainten;ince is on-goiry.g. Citizen con~erns ·c~h be re.sponded. tQ p9sitively. Chair Telischak noted the difference. of ppirtiQn~. He stated ..that he was dis(!ppointed in the recent letter from \YildCare. It did not _r~flect !!fl understan~ing of the issues and the problems. It surprised him that the 'Jetter stated that: ohly a' few were conce'meH.,about. the deet wheri the questionnaire results ,showed 70 p~rcent ~f the Island 1residerits W:¢re ·concemed abbut the deer'popu!ation ~nd 50 percent wanted to see a r~duction'ifrtilc{deer populatibh .. 'He sa'.id'that the lett~r'mls~sed the facts. Marih Humane Society (MHS) Captain Cindy Machado noted that MHS was not consulted in the writing of the letter, even though they are mentioned in it. She believes their intentions are good and she would like ·10 see WildCare taRe a more proactive approach in assisting the residents to coexist with wildlife. 2 Chair Telischak took a vote whether or not to respond to the letter and the majority agreed to respond with a correction of facts. It was also suggested to attempt to maintain a partnership between the organization and the city. Chair Telischak would draft the letter and allow time for comment from the committee members. Chair Telischak distributed the draft memorandum to the City Council. He asked for input from the committee mernbers over the next couple of weeks. He emphasized that the draft was his interpretation of the committee status, and the group needs to adjust it so that the majority agrees \vi th \Vhat is said. The purpose of the memorandum is to update the Council on the findings of the committee. The memorandum would be accompanied by the report prepared by WRA and the results of the community questionnaire. The committee and staff discussed the draft memorandum and made suggestions for changes. Chair Telischak opened the public forum. Marsha Felton, 20 I Bayview, agreed that the population has increased over the years. She has lived in Belvedere since 1961 and the first deer she saw was in 1975. She said she had seen it coming out of the water, presumably from Angel Island. Chair Telischak closed the public forum. The committee unanimously agreed to authorize Chair Telischak to make changes to the draft memorandum. The revised draft memorandum would be redistributed to the committee by Belvedere staff. D. Chair Telischak thanked the committee for their work. He concluded that the committee would likely report their findings and recommendations at the November 9 City Council meeting. The deer committee meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. 3 DEER-ATTACHMENT 2 DEER DISCUSSION ATTACHMENT 2 TO CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DEER STUDY PREPARED BY WRA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT JUNE2009 City of Belvedere Deer Study BELVEDERE, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared For: City of Belvedere Deer Committee 450 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere, California 94920 Contact: Jeff Dreier [email protected] Date: June 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ...... 2 Black-tailed Deer Life History...... 2 Study Area ...... 3 Habitat...... 3 Deer Population ...... 3 Methods ...... 5 Questionnaire...... 5 Literature Review ...... 5 Results ...... 5 Questionnaire...... 5 Opinions Regarding Deer...... 5 Vehicle Damage...... 6 Property Damage ...... 6 Lyme Disease ...... 6 Deer Damage Control and Prevention Measures ...... 7 Literature Review ...... 7 Population Management Options...... 7 Depredation Permit ...... 8 Trap and Translocation ...... 9 Immunocontraception...... 9 Deer Deterrents...... 11 Fencing ...... 11 Landscaping With Deer-Resistant Plants...... 11 Repellants ...... 12 Frightening and Other Control Methods...... 12 Monitoring the Belvedere Deer Population ...... 13 References...... 14 APPENDIX A PUBLIC OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE Introduction Based on public concerns regarding increasing conflicts with deer and their behavior, the City of Belvedere established a Deer Committee. The purpose of the Committee was to further investigate the concerns voiced by individuals in the community, and to explore appropriate population management approaches if deemed necessary and/or desirable. WRA was contracted by the City of Belvedere to provide an outside source of information and analysis regarding deer biology and population management techniques. This report summarizes the results of a public opinion questionnaire and literature review, and presents deer population management approaches to be considered by the Belvedere Deer Committee. Black-tailed Deer Life History During most of the year Black-tailed Deer travel alone or in small groups. The social system consists of clans of females that are related to each other by maternal descent and bucks that are not related. Bucks assert their dominance by taking various threat postures and flailing their front hooves. Also, bucks of unequal size, particularly yearlings and two-year olds, often engage in protracted sparring matches during which they push their antlers together and twist their heads. These engagements are not fights and actually result in social bonding (BC Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks 2000). Deer communicate with the aid of scents or pheromones that come from several glands. In the weeks leading up to the late-summer through autumn mating (rutting) period, bucks increase their displays of dominance and indirect threats. A dominant buck typically circles a rival with deliberate steps, back arched, head low, and tail flicking. The subordinate buck frequently bolts away. Bucks also display dominance by violently thrashing the bushes with their antlers. During the rutting season between September and December, mature bucks of equal size engage in serious head-to-head fights. Bucks are capable of breeding as yearlings, but older, dominant bucks do most of the mating. Most does breed as yearlings and drop their first fawn on about their second birthday. Females advertise their receptiveness and tend to cluster around the largest bucks. Courtship consists of a tending bond in which a buck keeps other bucks away from the does until they mate or until another buck displaces him. Following the rut, bucks have lost weight and some have wounds or broken antlers, and they tend to hide and rest (BC Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks 2000). After a gestation period of six to seven months, fawns are born from late-April through June (Zeiner et al. 2006). At this time, the does drive away their offspring of the previous year and seek a secluded place to give birth. The white-spotted fawn relies on its coloration, lack of scent, and silence for protection. Does leave fawns hidden while they forage in the vicinity, returning occasionally to nurse them. Twin fawns are the rule, though young does often have only one, and triplets occur once in a while. Typically, does produce offspring throughout life, and more than 90 percent of them give birth every year. This is a prolific species which can double its population in a few years under favorable conditions. Normally, 45 to 70 percent of the fawns die, and few Black-tailed Deer live more than eight to ten years. Predation, starvation, and hunting are the main causes of death (BC Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks 2000). 2 Deer in urban areas usually become habituated to the presence of humans when they are exposed to predictable, non-negative encounters with humans (Happe 1982); however, when females have fawns, they instinctively become aggressive toward perceived threats. Black-tailed Deer/Mule Deer have been reported to be aggressive toward people and pets not only in Belvedere (Appendix A), but also in other communities (Urie 2008). Black-tailed Deer females are known to be aggressive in the defense of their young. Does will also respond to fawn distress calls even if it is not their fawn, and have been documented responding to the distress calls of White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) fawns (Lingle et al. 2005). Study Area The City of Belvedere is located adjacent to the southern portion of the Tiburon Peninsula in Marin County. The community consists of four areas: Belvedere Island, Lagoon, West Shore, and Corinthian Island. The majority of residents live on Belvedere Island. Habitat Dense residential development affording little or no tree or shrub cover is characteristic of the Lagoon, West Shore, and Corinthian Island areas of the City of Belvedere. Lagoon and West Shore lots are heavily fenced. Belvedere Island, although nearly completely developed, has larger residential lots providing space for trees, gardens, and other landscaping. This vegetation provides food and cover for deer throughout most of the year; landscaping water features and irrigation runoff provide surface water for deer. Deer require about three quarts of water per day (Zeiner et al. 2006) Possible supplemental feeding by a few residents could also provide another food source for deer (Feeding deer violates California Fish and Game Code 251.3 and Marin County Ordinance 8.04.226). Many residents of Belvedere Island have constructed fencing to exclude deer from their plantings. As this became more and more common over the years, deer likely began to focus their activities in areas where food and water were more accessible. Deer Population The number of Black-tailed Deer in Belvedere is unknown. The dense vegetation, development, and topography of the community contribute to conditions that make an accurate population count difficult, if not infeasible. All populations change in abundance through time. Most changes are just random fluctuations, increases or decreases varying about an average abundance. Depending on the scale of these variations, particularly over short time periods relative to the life span of an organism, populations may appear more or less stable. However, if the population size is observed closely, it will be seen to vary. If the trend is consistently upward, the species may become a pest. If a downward trend is maintained, the population will go extinct. The deer population in Belvedere is affected by resource availability, immigration, emigration, mortality, and reproduction. Rivalry for resources by members of a species intensifies as the population grows and becomes crowded. In Belvedere, food availability for deer has been gradually reduced as more and more physical barriers have been constructed to exclude deer from 3 landscaping. This has resulted in more deer being concentrated around unfenced lots, and may have resulted in deer starting to eat plants they previously avoided. Habituated deer also may have become more aggressive to people in the residential environment of Belvedere as they seek out food and water resources. Widespread evidence of deer movement, specifically well-worn deer trails, indicate that deer are regularly moving about Belvedere Island in search of food, water, and shelter. Reports of deer crossing Tiburon Boulevard indicate that immigration and emigration are occurring between the Tiburon Peninsula and Belvedere Island. Similarly, deer have been observed crossing Raccoon Strait between Angel Island and Belvedere Island. It is unknown to what degree immigration and emigration are affecting the Belvedere deer population, but this factor should be considered when evaluating population management measures. Deer within Belvedere do not experience predation. The primary causes of mortality likely include collisions with vehicles, injuries, starvation, and old age. Under natural conditions, normally 45 to 70 percent of the fawns die, and few Black-tailed Deer live more than eight to ten years. It is unknown what percentage of Belvedere fawns die, but few have been reported to the Marin Humane Society (MHS). Table 1 provides MHS data regarding numbers of dead deer reports in Belvedere. Table 1. Summary of Marin Humane Society deer data for the City of Belvedere (MHS 2009) Month 2007 2008 January No calls No calls February No calls No calls March No calls 1 dead young deer – 38 Lagoon Rd. 1 injured deer – 1 West Shore Rd. April 1 injured adult, ran off – 49 No calls Belvedere Ave. May No calls No calls June 1 sick fawn delivered to Wildcare 1 dead young adult – 7 Fern Dr. – 19 Belvedere Ave. 1 dead adult – 296 Beach Rd. 1 dead adult – 65 West Shore Rd. July 1 dead male – 18 Eucalyptus 1 dead fawn – 240 Bayview Ave. Ave. August No calls 1 injured young adult – 322 San Rafael Ave. 1 fawn trapped in fence – 440 Golden Gate Ave. 1 dead – 22 Golden Gate Ave. 1 dead – 322 San Rafael Ave September No calls 1 dead young adult – 111 Golden Gate Ave. October No calls 1 deer trapped in fence – 206 Bella Vista Rd. November 1 dead male – 22 Golden Gate 1 dead – Laurel and Bayview Ave. December 1 injured male, euthanized – 160 No calls Bella Vista Rd. Total deer 5 14 calls Dead 2 10 Injured or 2 4 Trapped Sick 1 0 4 The increase in reports of dead deer between 2007 and 2008 may reflect (1) that the deer population increased (either through immigration or increased fawn survival) with a corresponding increase in the number of deaths; or (2) that the deer population experienced increased mortality in response to a decrease in resource availability. Methods A questionnaire was developed to gather opinions and observations from the residents of Belvedere. A literature review was conducted by WRA to (1) identify other communities that reported deer issues and the methods employed to resolve those issues; and (2) the effectiveness of various population management approaches. Questionnaire To evaluate homeowners’ perceptions and attitudes toward deer and deer damage in Belvedere, an electronic and mail questionnaire (Appendix A) was developed and sent to each household in Belvedere (approximately 1,000 households). The questionnaire was modified from a survey of deer damage conducted by West (1998) in Blacksburg, Virginia. The questionnaire consisting of 28 questions addressed opinions, vehicle damage, other property damage, and deer damage control and prevention measures. The purpose of the questionnaire was to also determine where the deer population was perceived as an issue. Literature Review WRA conducted literature and internet searches in an effort to identify where similar situations occurred and how they were resolved. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service internet web sites were also searched for existing policies regarding deer management in urban areas. WRA also searched for information related to Lyme disease. Dr. Dale McCullough of the University of California, Berkeley was contacted regarding deer population monitoring in urban areas. Results Questionnaire Approximately 1,000 questionnaires were mailed by the City of Belvedere to its residents. A total of 474 responses were received, reflecting significant public interest in the urban deer issue. Respondents occasionally indicated more than one answer in some questions, or did not answer some questions at all. In most cases, the number of responses to a question does not match the number of questionnaires returned; however, the sample size is adequate to determine public opinion within the City of Belvedere. Sixty percent of the respondents live on Belvedere Island (Figure 1). Appendix A includes summaries of responses to each question. Some of the more relevant questions are summarized below. Opinions Regarding Deer Of the responses collected, 60 percent were from residents of Belvedere Island. When responses are totaled, the residents generally felt that deer were a problem that needed to be addressed; however, this was mainly the sentiment of Belvedere Island residents 5 Figure 1. Summary of Question 25. 25. What area of Belvedere do you live in? 15 16 29 Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore 130 Corinthian Unspecified 284 as Corinthian Island, West Shore, and Lagoon residents generally either had no opinion, enjoy having deer around, or feel that deer have aesthetic value; although, even in these areas of the City, a significant number of respondents “worry about their appropriateness”. Most Belvedere Island residents saw deer either daily or weekly, whereas residents of other areas reported seeing deer much less frequently. Most of the residents questioned have seen deer or evidence of deer on their properties, with the exception of Lagoon residents. Yard damage and vehicle collision seem to be the primary concerns of all residents, although potential personal injury, pet injury, Lyme disease, and extensive fencing are also significant concerns. Vehicle Damage Seven percent of the respondents reported that they had experienced a vehicle collision with a deer while driving in Belvedere. Property Damage Substantially more deer-related damage to plantings was reported on Belvedere Island than elsewhere, and the damage was generally considered moderate to severe. Most residents reported that deer damage was the same or higher in 2008 than in previous years, though many others did not know if there had been a change. Lyme Disease Lyme disease was not perceived as a significant potential issue by most residents of Belvedere. Lyme disease followed vehicle damage, yard damage, and personal injury as an area of most concern related to deer; on Belvedere Island, it ranked first in areas of least concern. The species of tick that carries Lyme disease in California is predominantly a parasite of small mammals and reptiles (UC IPM 2008). The presence of deer does not increase the chances of contracting the disease. 6 Deer Damage Control and Prevention Measures Residents from all areas seem to agree that the deer population should be managed to decrease populations (Figure 2); however, most residents (71 percent on Belvedere Island and 78 percent of the City as a whole) are willing to pay little to nothing for deer control and damage prevention. Figure 2. Summary of Question 24. 24. In your opinion, the deer population in Belvedere should be managed so that there will be: 300 200 100 an increased deer population Number of of Number Responses 0 no change Belvedere Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total a decreased deer population Island no opinion City Area Residents have primarily used landscaping methods and/or physical barriers to prevent deer damage, and they report that other methods used, such as repellants and frightening devices, have low effectiveness. Literature Review The literature review found several sources of information from around the United States. The majority of sources were related to management of White-tailed Deer in the eastern United States, and in communities that contained more open space than that found in Belvedere. The population management options discussed in this report were found to be consistently discussed by local governments that were managing or considering the management of deer populations in their communities. Population Management Options When addressing deer problems in Belvedere, the advantages and disadvantages of all available deer management techniques must be evaluated. It is likely that a combination of management techniques will be necessary to achieve desired results (DeNicola et al. 2000). Residents should be made aware that suburban deer management objectives are achievable, but they are often difficult and costly. Deer control measures require community input, as well as considerable long-term planning and commitment. It should also be noted that the depredation permit, trap and translocation, and contraception options described in this section are controversial and may not be authorized by the California Department of Fish and Game, who must approve any program to be implemented. 7 Depredation Permit The California Fish and Game Code classifies deer as game animals. CDFG has jurisdiction over deer and their management. If they are found damaging property or crops, land owners may request a depredation permit from the local game warden to shoot them, although this method is not generally recommended for problems around homes and gardens (UC IPM 2004). Depredation permits are issued on an individual property owner basis; however, they frequently come into conflict with local regulatory authority with respect to the discharge of a firearm. Most permits are issued in agricultural areas and rarely in urban areas (John Krause, CDFG biologist, pers. comm.). Traps and poisons of any kind are illegal and cannot be used. California Fish and Game Code Section 4181.5 includes the following: 4181.5. (a) Any owner or tenant of land or property that is being damaged or destroyed or is in immediate danger of being damaged or destroyed by deer may apply to the department for a permit to kill those deer. The department, upon satisfactory evidence of that damage or destruction, actual or immediately threatened, shall issue a revocable permit for the taking and disposition of those deer for a designated period not to exceed 60 days under regulations promulgated by the commission. (b) The regulations of the commission shall include provisions concerning the type of weapons to be used to kill the deer. The weapons shall be those that ensure humane killing, but the regulations of the commission shall provide for the use of a sufficient variety of weapons to permit the designation of particular types to be used in any particular locality commensurate with the need to protect persons and property. Firearms using .22-caliber rimfire cartridges may be used only when authorized by the director or his designee. No pistols shall be used. The caliber and type of weapon to be used by each permittee shall be specified in each permit by the issuing officer who shall take into consideration the location of the area, the necessity for clean kills, the safety factor, local firearms ordinances, and other factors that apply. Rifle ammunition used shall have expanding bullets; shotgun ammunition shall have only single slugs, or, if authorized by the department, 0 or 00 buckshot. Advantages of the depredation permit, if issued include the following: • May quickly reduce deer population Disadvantages of the depredation permit, if issued include: • “Lethal” – low public approval, highly controversial; likely to attract negative press coverage • City of Belvedere does not allow discharge of firearms • Permit not intended to be issued to individuals, not communities • Significant agency regulatory process, unlikely to be authorized • CDFG requires all other deer prevention methods to be attempted prior to depredation permit consideration • In the unlikely event that CDFG considers issuing a community permit, it is likely that CEQA document preparation by City of Belvedere (as lead agency) would be required • Significant safety concerns in dense urban area due to limited property access, and significantly reduced line-of-sight due to walls, fences, vegetation, and topography 8 • Because deer are immigrating to Belvedere from Tiburon Peninsula and Angel Island, a depredation permit would not be a long-term solution. Trap and Translocation Trap and translocation is another solution that is frequently considered when deer are an issue in urban areas. It can be a financial and logistical challenge, and generally results in poor survival of the relocated deer (Texas Parks and Wildlife 2008). CDFG was involved with two relocations where deer were monitored following release. At one confined area, Ardenwood Park in Alameda County, 29 deer were removed and relocated; one year later, at least 25 of them were verified dead, most by Mountain Lions (Felis concolor) (Mayer, et al. 1995). In the mid-1970’s, the Angel Island deer herd relocation occurred. An over-population of deer originally estimated at about 150 deer in the island State Park was 100 animals over the presumed upper carrying capacity of approximately 50 animals. CDFG captured and removed 203 animals from the island to Sonoma County. Telemetry sampling revealed that within a year, 90 percent of these animals were deceased, most within 3 months of relocation. Despite these extensive relocation efforts, a sufficient number of deer remained on the island to permit an increase in the island’s herd size to over 200 animals within 5 years in spite of an ongoing contraception program conducted by the San Francisco SPCA. Eventually, State Park rangers had to cull large numbers of deer from the island to obtain a viable balance of animals and habitat (Mayer, et al. 1995). CDFG does not consider trapping and translocation to be acceptable options for urban deer management, primarily due to survivability concerns (John Krause, CDFG Biologist, pers. comm.) Advantages of trapping and transferring deer to other areas include the following: • “Nonlethal” -- high public approval • No safety concerns Disadvantages of relocation include: • Costs of doing the job are extremely high • Significant agency regulatory process, CDFG very unlikely to authorize • Will likely require CEQA document preparation by City of Belvedere (probably as lead agency) with associated costs • Up to 90% mortality for deer, controversial based on previous attempts elsewhere; may result in negative press coverage • Because deer are immigrating to Belvedere from Tiburon Peninsula and Angel Island, a trap and translocation plan would not be a long-term solution. Immunocontraception Immunocontraception is a birth control method that uses the body’s immune system to prevent pregnancy. It is the most common method of inducing infertility in deer (Kilpatrick and LaBonte 2007). The optimal goal of immunocontraception would be to result in a pattern of exponential attrition that would eventually eliminate the deer problem. Most recent extensive experimentation has been conducted with White-tailed Deer in the eastern United States. The major drawbacks, in addition to the labor- 9 intensive aspect of application, is that current techniques cannot effectively administer a single inoculation restricting conception, and the process must be repeated at intervals. The process of marking each treated animal and then relocating them for a successful new treatment is beyond the staff capabilities of most wildlife agencies. An effort to use this approach at Coyote Hills Regional Park in Alameda County over a two-year period resulted in an expenditure of over $60,000 and minimal effective results (Elliot 1996). Turner et al. (1992) successfully used porcine zona pellucida (PZP) vaccine as an immunocontraceptive for White-tailed Deer. Their vaccine was delivered remotely via syringe-darts; however, multiple booster injections were required. This requirement limits the practicality of using this contraceptive vaccine in free-ranging deer populations. Recent advancements in research with PZP have included microencapsulation of the booster vaccinations so that only one vaccination per year is required; however, results to date have not been favorable (Turner et al. 1996). There are at least five published cases of field experiments in which PZP immunocontraception was applied to free-ranging White-tailed Deer populations (Warren 2000). Three of the studies concluded that PZP immunocontraception was time- consuming and costly (ranging from $802 to $1,100 per treated female) and that PZP immunocontraceptive vaccines ideally should be applied to isolated deer herds containing fewer than 100 females. The other two published field experiments on PZP immunocontraception were done using volunteers, so costs were much lower (less than $50 per treated female). One of the field experiments observed no decline in the deer population after five years of treating females with PZP vaccine. They concluded, “First, a population decline cannot be effectively achieved unless zero fertility is the population goal–and can only be achieved if every female of reproductive age is vaccinated.” (Warren 2000). A three-year study (1997-1999) evaluating the effectiveness of PZP was conducted by the Humane Society of the United States in cooperation with the Connecticut Wildlife Division and University of New Hampshire. The study demonstrated that, even with good access to a relatively small and isolated free-ranging deer population (about 30 females), an adequate number of female deer could not be successfully treated to limit population growth (Kilpatrick and LaBonte 2007). The advantages of immunocontraception include the following: • Nonlethal -- high public approval • Can be delivered remotely • Deactivates if orally ingested by non-target animal • Minimal safety concerns (except for hormone-based methods and lost darts) Disadvantages of immunocontraceptive techniques to reduce deer populations include: • Costs of training and doing the job can be very high; accuracy of remote delivery depends on equipment quality and user skill and experience • No commercial source of vaccine • Difficulty of vaccinating all females in dense residential environment • Increased regulatory bureaucracy: CDFG, FDA, and Humane Society involved; as of May 2007, no fertility control agents have been federally approved for commercial use on free-ranging deer populations in the United States; the work would likely have to be performed as an experimental research project 10 • Will likely require CEQA document preparation by City of Belvedere (as lead agency) with associated costs • Current contraceptive methods require boosters • Less than 100% effective, especially in free-roaming deer populations • Higher fawn survival of untreated females • Because deer are immigrating to Belvedere from Tiburon Peninsula and Angel Island, an immunocontraception plan would not be a long-term solution Deer Deterrents Fencing Fencing is an effective method used by many residents in Belvedere to exclude deer from their properties. However, other residents may perceive fence construction as a distraction from the aesthetics of their community. Other difficulties encountered with this option may include various rights-of-way that traverse the proposed fence line. In some cases, multiple ownership of proposed fence lines may also be an obstacle to fence construction. The advantages of fencing include the following: • Very effective in protecting plantings • Little or no cost to the City of Belvedere Disadvantages of fencing to reduce deer damage include: • Excluded deer concentrate in unfenced areas to forage and find shelter • Some residents find fencing to be an aesthetic issue • Initial costs for fencing materials and installation are substantial • Requires agreement and possible sharing of costs between adjacent landowners Landscaping With Deer-Resistant Plants Since deer can travel great distances to seek food and shelter, modifying their habitat to make it less desirable is usually impractical. Planting less-preferred plants or working as a community to plant them over large areas might be effective in reducing deer numbers in the area. Garden and landscape trees, shrubs, and vines often provide highly attractive browse, especially when new foliage is forming. Planting alternative attractive foods away from a garden will not prevent damage to more valued plants and may even make the whole area more attractive to deer (UC IPM 2004). Deer do have certain food aversions. Various factors can make a plant resistant to deer. For example, many of the most resistant plants, such as oleander, are poisonous. In addition, plant preferences may vary depending upon the time of year and location. This may explain why residents report some ornamentals resistant to deer and others find the same plant attractive to deer. The repellant qualities of plants to deer is also related to the availability of other food. If there is a surplus of attractive native forage, ornamental plantings may remain untouched. If the naturally occurring food supply is low, there will be increasing pressure to browse in residential gardens. Under conditions of extreme food shortage, few plant species will be totally resistant to deer. A large deer population 11 also increases competition for forage, with the result that plants normally unpalatable to deer may be eaten (UC IPM 2004). According to the Belvedere questionnaire results, the use of deer-resistant landscaping is widespread, but opinions regarding its effectiveness are varied. Some respondents indicate that the deer problem was completely eliminated, while others suggested that the use of deer-resistant plants was not effective. The advantages of landscaping with deer-resistant plants include the following: • Effective in protecting plantings in some cases • Little or no cost to the City of Belvedere Disadvantages of landscaping measures to reduce deer damage include: • Deer may concentrate in areas where more palatable plants are used • Not effective in some cases • When other plants are not available, some deer may still forage on the less palatable plants • Requires community-wide commitment to reduce availability of forage Repellants Numerous commercial deer repellants have been developed to prevent unwanted damage to commercial crops, residential gardens, and landscape plants. Unfortunately, the success of these substances in preventing deer damage has been limited. According to Belvedere questionnaire respondents, repellants were widely used but only moderately effective. The ability to deter deer browsing pressure on any particular plant by applying a repellant is dependent on deer densities and overall forage availability, plant species, and the amount of time passed since repellant application. Most successful attempts to deter deer with repellants typically occur with relatively low deer densities and frequently repeated repellant applications. It is important to note that total avoidance of repellants by deer is rare (Texas Parks and Wildlife 2008). The advantages of employing commercial deer repellants include the following: • Effective in protecting plantings in some cases • Little or no cost to the City of Belvedere Disadvantages of repellant use to reduce deer damage include: • Deer may concentrate in areas where repellents are not used • Varying degrees if effectiveness • Costly and labor intensive for landowners; require multiple applications • Requires community-wide commitment to reduce palatability of forage Frightening and Other Control Methods Noise-makers, motion-activated lights, silhouettes, and movement contraptions are often utilized in an attempt to repel deer. These techniques are mostly ineffective in Belvedere and elsewhere. Deer are extremely adaptable, and become habituated to these sights and sounds in a very short period of time. Furthermore, some of these 12 harassment techniques will have limited application within residential areas such as Belvedere where such loud noises are prohibited. Sprinklers with motion detectors that release a spray of water when activated have proven to be very effective against deer and other wildlife. This devise attaches to any standard garden hose. When it detects a deer’s movement or body heat it sprays a 3- second burst of water. If the animal returns, the unit automatically activates again (Yockey 2008). The advantages of employing frightening and harassment methods include the following: • Effective in scaring off deer in some cases • Little or no cost to the City of Belvedere Disadvantages of frightening and harassment measures to discourage deer presence include: • Deer may concentrate in areas where such measures are not used • Not effective in some cases; deer become habituated to measures • Noise-makers, and possibly motion-activated lights, are not feasible in an urban environment • Automatic systems do not discriminate between deer and people Monitoring the Belvedere Deer Population Whether deer management becomes the responsibility of the City of Belvedere or remains with the homeowner, it is important to develop measurable long-term goals and objectives as part of a comprehensive deer management plan before implementing deer control measures. Objectives based on deer abundance could be evaluated with indicators such as frequency of deer-car collisions, dead deer count, number of reported deer complaints, or predetermined reductions in landscape damage. Standard deer survey techniques, such as survey transects and spotlighting, are considered inappropriate for Belvedere due to limited property access, and significantly reduced line-of-sight due to walls, fences, vegetation, and topography. It should be understood that the total elimination of the problem (or the deer herd) is neither practical nor achievable in most cases. Rather, the goal should be related to the reduction of deer- human conflicts to an acceptable level (DeNicola et al. 2000). 13 References British Columbia (BC) Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 2000. Mule and Black- tailed Deer in British Columbia: Ecology, Conservation, and Management. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/muledeer.pdf Bush, M.B. 2000. Ecology of a Changing Planet. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. 498 pp. DeNicola, A.J., K.C. VerCauteren, P.D. Curtis, and S.E. Hygnstrom. 2000. Managing white-tailed deer in suburban environments – a technical guide. Cornell Cooperative Extension. 56 pp. Elliot, B. 1996. Challenges of managing urban black-tailed deer in northern Monterey County, California. 1996 Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 32:46-47. Happe, P.J. 1982. The Use of Suburban Habitats by Columbian Black-tailed Deer. Thesis submitted to Oregon State University. Lingle, S., S.M. Pellis, and W.F. Wilson. 2005. Interspecific variation in antipredator behaviour leads to differential vulnerability of mule deer and white-tailed deer fawns early in life. Journal of Animal Ecology. Vol. 74, No. 6. 1140-1149. Marin Humane Society. 2009. Deer call data presented to the City of Belvedere Deer Committee by Cindy Machado. Mayer, K.E., J.E. DiDonato, and D.R. McCullough. 1995. Urban deer management: two case studies. Pages 51-57 in J.B. AcAninch and L.P. Hansen, ed., Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proceedings of the Urban Deer symposium. 1993 Symposium of the North Central Section of the Wildlife Society. St. Louis, MO. Texas Parks and Wildlife. 2008. Deer management within Suburban Areas. http://texashuntfish.com/app/wildlife-resources/20571/Deer-management-Within- Suburban-Areas Turner, J. W., Jr., I. Liu, and J. Kirkpatrick. 1992. Remotely delivered immunocontraception in captive white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:154-157. Turner, J. W., Jr., J. F. Kirkpatrick, and I. K. M. Liu. 1996. Effectiveness, reversibility, and serum antibody titers associated with immunocontraception in captive white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:45-51. UC IPM. 2004. University of California IPM Online, Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program. http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn74117.html UC IPM. 2008. Lyme Disease in California. Pest Notes publication 7485. University of California IPM Online, Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program. Davis. 14 Urie, H. 2008. Officials warn of aggressive deer in Boulder: Six reports this week of run- ins with mothers protecting their fawns. http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/jun/25/officials-warn-aggressive-deer-boulder/ http://www.science.siu.edu/zoology/schauber/zool468/Printable%20Lectures/alternatives .pdf Warren, R. 2000. Overview of Fertility Control in Urban Deer Management. Pages 237-246 in Proceedings of the 2000 Annual Conference of the Society for Theriogenology, 2 December 2000, San Antonio, Texas, Society for Theriogenology, Nashville, Tennessee. West, B.C. 1998. Deer Damage in Virginia: Implications for Management. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Yockey, T.L. 2008. Making Your Landscape More Deer Repellant. http://www.northerngardening.com/deer.htm Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White. 2006. California's Wildlife, Volume I-III: Amphibians and Reptiles, Birds, Mammals. Mule Deer account. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. 15 APPENDIX A PUBLIC OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE Approximately 1,000 questionnaires were mailed by the City of Belvedere to its residents. A total of 474 responses were received, reflecting significant public interest in the urban deer issue. Respondents occasionally indicated more than one answer in some questions, or did not answer some questions at all. These situations are apparent when reviewing the responses. In most cases, the number of responses to a question does not match the number of questionnaires returned; however, the sample size is more than adequate to provide statistically sound results that in turn can be used to determine public opinion within the City of Belvedere. 16 1. How would you describe the value of deer in Belvedere? 1. How would you describe the value of deer in Belvedere? 200 180 160 140 Deer have aesthetic value, I enjoy seeing deer 120 I enjoy seeing deer, but worry about appropriateness 100 Deer are a problem and need to be addressed 80 No opinion 60 40 20 Number of Responses 0 Belvedere Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Island City Area Number of Responses Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Deer have aesthetic value, I enjoy seeing deer 72 43 11 6 18 150 I enjoy seeing deer, but worry about appropriateness 63 38 9 4 12 126 Deer are a problem and need to be addressed 130 26 6 5 22 189 No opinion 5 19 1 1 3 29 270 126 27 16 55 494 Percentages Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Deer have aesthetic value, I enjoy seeing deer 26.7 34.1 40.7 37.5 32.7 30.4 I enjoy seeing deer, but worry about appropriateness 23.3 30.2 33.3 25 21.8 25.5 Deer are a problem and need to be addressed 48.1 20.6 22.3 31.3 40 38.3 No opinion 1.9 15.1 3.7 6.2 5.5 5.8 100 100 100 100 100 100 2. Have you: 350 300 Seen deer on your property? 250 200 Seen evidence of deer on your property? 150 Seen deer foraging on your property? 100 50 Been confronted by deer on your property you deemed dangerous? Number of Responses of Number 0 Belvedere Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Never seen deer on or near your property? Island City Area 2. Have you: Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Seen deer on your property? 207 35 14 9 43 308 Seen evidence of deer on your property? 144 20 13 7 35 219 Seen deer foraging on your property? 191 14 13 5 28 251 Been confronted by deer on your property you deemed dangerous? 71 8 1 3 16 99 Never seen deer on or near your property? 20 75 2 4 4 105 3. Have you had incidents with deer elsewhere in the community? 300 250 200 Yes 150 No 100 50 0 Number of Responses of Number Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total City Area Number of Responses Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Yes 141 48 7 8 35 239 No 98 67 18 7 19 209 Total 239 115 25 15 54 448 Percentage Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Yes 59 41.7 28 53.3 64.8 53.3 No 41 58.3 72 46.7 35.2 46.7 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 4. About how often do you see deer or new evidence of deer on your property? 150 100 50 Daily Weekly 0 Monthly Number of Responses Number Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Rarely City Area Never Number of Responses Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Daily 71 4 3 1 12 91 Weekly 105 11 10 4 12 142 Monthly 28 17 7 3 7 62 Rarely 34 22 3 4 10 73 Never 21 66 4 3 8 102 Total 259 120 27 15 49 470 Percentage Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Daily 27.4 3.3 11.1 6.6 24.5 19.4 Weekly 40.5 9.2 37 26.7 24.5 30.2 Monthly 10.8 14.2 25.9 20 14.3 13.2 Rarely 13.1 18.3 11.1 26.7 20.4 15.5 Never 8.2 55 14.9 20 16.3 21.7 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 5. Please rate your primary concerns about deer from 1 to 5; 1=greatest concern, 5=least concern 5a. Belvedere Island Primary Concerns: 1=greatest concern, 5=least concern 100 80 1 60 2 3 Rating 40 4 20 5 0 deer-car lyme disease damage to yard personal injury pet injury from extensive no concerns collision transmission plantings from deer deer fencing in Belvedere Concern Rating BELVEDERE ISLAND 12345 deer-car collision 76 39 44 14 26 lyme disease transmission 38 20 28 22 64 damage to yard plantings 89 35 34 17 23 personal injury from deer 39 21 24 25 54 pet injury from deer 34 20 26 20 59 extensive fencing in Belvedere 32 24 31 19 37 no concerns 22 5. Please rate your primary concerns about deer from 1 to 5; 1=greatest concern, 5=least concern 5b. Lagoon Primary Concerns: 1=greatest concern, 5=least concern 60 50 1 40 2 30 3 Rating 20 4 10 5 0 deer-car lyme disease damage to yard personal injury pet injury from extensive no concerns collision transmission plantings from deer deer fencing in Belvedere Concern Rating LAGOON 1 2 3 4 5 deer-car collision 51 14 13 7 15 lyme disease transmission 12 8 11 10 28 damage to yard plantings 21 8 12 4 23 personal injury from deer 12 1 7 12 34 pet injury from deer 10 3 11 6 41 extensive fencing in Belvedere 11 5 16 9 14 no concerns 21 5. Please rate your primary concerns about deer from 1 to 5; 1=greatest concern, 5=least concern 5c. West Shore Primary Concerns: 1=greatest concern, 5=least concern 10 8 6 4 Rating 1 2 2 0 deer-car lyme disease damage to yard personal injury pet injury from extensive no concerns 3 collision transmission plantings from deer deer fencing in 4 Belvedere 5 Concern WEST SHORE 1 2 3 4 5 deer-car collision 8 1 2 0 5 lyme disease transmission 4 1 3 0 9 damage to yard plantings 8 1 1 2 3 personal injury from deer 2 0 1 2 8 pet injury from deer 1 0 1 1 9 extensive fencing in Belvedere 2 1 3 3 5 no concerns 5 5. Please rate your primary concerns about deer from 1 to 5; 1=greatest concern, 5=least concern 5d. Corinthian Primary Concerns: 1=greatest concern, 5=least concern 9 8 7 1 6 2 5 4 3 Rating 3 4 2 5 1 0 deer-car collision lyme disease damage to yard personal injury pet injury from extensive no concerns transmission plantings from deer deer fencing in Belvedere Concern CORINTHIAN 1 2 3 4 5 deer-car collision 8 0 1 2 1 lyme disease transmission 0 1 3 1 4 damage to yard plantings 2 4 1 1 2 personal injury from deer 0 0 1 2 5 pet injury from deer 0 1 3 0 4 extensive fencing in Belvedere 2 1 0 1 2 no concerns 3 6. Do you walk your dog on- or off-leash? 300 250 200 On leash 150 Off leash 100 Not applicable 50 Number of Responses 0 Belvedere Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Island City Area Number of Responses Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total On leash 86 35 11 8 17 157 Off leash 26 13 2 3 3 47 Not applicable 145 79 15 7 34 280 Total 257 127 28 18 54 484 Percentage Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total On leash 33.5 27.6 39.3 44.4 31.5 32.4 Off leash 10.1 10.2 7.1 16.7 5.5 9.7 Not applicable 56.4 62.2 53.6 38.9 63 57.9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 7. Have you or your pet ever been injured by a deer in Belvedere? 500 400 300 Yes 200 No 100 Number of Responses of Number 0 Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total City Area Number of Responses Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Yes 10 0 0 0 2 12 No 208 110 21 14 47 400 Total 218 110 21 14 49 412 Percentage Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Yes 4.6 0 0 0 4.1 2.9 No 95.4 100 100 100 95.9 97.1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 8. Have you experienced a vehicle collision with a deer while driving in Belvedere? 500 400 300 Yes 200 No 100 0 Number of Responses of Number Belvedere Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Island City Area Number of Responses Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Yes 18 8 1 3 2 32 No 227 112 24 13 49 425 Total 245 120 25 16 51 457 Percentage Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Yes 7.3 6.7 4 18.8 3.9 7 No 92.7 93.3 96 81.2 96.1 93 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 9. Do you know of anyone who has experienced a vehicle collision with a deer while driving in Belvedere?? 400 300 Yes 200 No Number of 100 Responses 0 Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total City Area Number of Responses Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Yes 48 20 3 4 9 84 No 180 90 20 12 39 341 Total 228 110 23 16 48 425 Percentage Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Yes 21 18.2 13 25 18.8 19.8 No 79 81.8 87 75 81.2 80.2 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 10. Which of the following types of plantings do you maintain on your property in Belvedere? 500 400 shrubs woody ornamentals 300 flower/vegetable garders 200 fruit trees ground cover 100 other 0 Number of Responses of Number Belvedere Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Island City Area 10. Which of the following types of plantings do you maintain on your property in Belvedere? Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total shrubs 226 99 22 12 42 401 woody ornamentals 131 42 12 7 28 220 flower/vegetable garders 191 82 17 8 33 331 fruit trees 128 51 8 6 23 216 ground cover 194 76 17 10 34 331 other 24 9 3 2 15 53 11a. (Belvedere Island) Of the plant types on your property, have any been damaged by deer? If so, rate from 1 to 5: 1=greatest damage, 5=least damage 120 100 shrubs 80 woody ornamentals 60 flower/vegetable gardens 40 fruit trees Number of ground cover Responses 20 0 12345 Rating Rating BELVEDERE ISLAND 12345 shrubs 48 35 12 9 20 woody ornamentals 21 11 15 8 21 flower/vegetable gardens 106 10 12 3 9 fruit trees 24 10 6 6 21 ground cover 30 21 16 3 24 11b. (Lagoon) Of the plant types on your property, have any been damaged by deer? If so, rate from 1 to 5: 1=greatest damage, 5=least damage 16 14 12 shrubs 10 woody ornamentals 8 flower/vegetable gardens 6 fruit trees ground cover 4 2 Number of Responses 0 12345 Rating Rating LAGOON 1 2 3 4 5 shrubs 1 3 4 2 15 woody ornamentals 1 1 1 2 12 flower/vegetable gardens 13 0 2 1 10 fruit trees 3 0 1 0 14 ground cover 2 2 2 1 12 11c. (Corinthian) Of the plant types on your property, have any been damaged by deer? If so, rate from 1 to 5: 1=greatest damage, 5=least damage 3.5 3 2.5 shrubs 2 woody ornamentals flower/vegetable gardens 1.5 fruit trees 1 ground cover 0.5 Number of responses of Number 0 12345 Rating Rating CORINTHIAN 1 2 3 4 5 shrubs 2 1 1 0 1 woody ornamentals 0 0 0 1 1 flower/vegetable gardens 0 3 0 0 2 fruit trees 1 0 0 0 2 ground cover 0 0 2 1 1 11d. (West Shore) Of the plant types on your property, have any been damaged by deer? If so, rate from 1 to 5: 1=greatest damage, 5=least damage 10 8 shrubs 6 woody ornamentals flower/vegetable garders 4 fruit trees ground cover Number of Responses 2 0 12345 Rating Rating WEST SHORE 1 2 3 4 5 shrubs 2 1 1 0 4 woody ornamentals 0 1 0 1 2 flower/vegetable garders 8 0 1 0 1 fruit trees 0 1 0 1 1 ground cover 1 0 2 0 3 12. Provide an estimate of the value of yard plantings, gardens, or fencing on your property that were damaged by deer in 2008 100 80 0 $1 to 99 60 $100 to 499 $500 to 999 40 $1,000 to 4,999 $5,000 to 9,999 20 >$10,000 Number of Responses of Number 0 Belvedere Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Island City Area Number of Responses Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total 0304265184 $1 to 99 12 3 4 2 1 22 $100 to 499 39 4 4 1 0 48 $500 to 999 19 0 0 1 0 20 $1,000 to 4,999 30 5 1 0 0 36 $5,000 to 9,999 6 0 0 0 0 6 >$10,000 6 0 0 0 0 6 Total 142 54 15 9 2 222 Percentage Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total 0 21.1 77.8 40 55.6 50 37.8 $1 to 99 8.5 5.6 26.7 22.2 50 9.9 $100 to 499 27.5 7.3 26.7 11.1 0 21.6 $500 to 999 13.4 0 0 11.1 0 9.1 $1,000 to 4,999 21.1 9.3 6.6 0 0 16.2 $5,000 to 9,999 4.2 0 0 0 0 2.7 >$10,000 4.2 0 0 0 0 2.7 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 13. Did you report any deer-related property damage to any official? 250 200 150 Yes No 100 Number of Responses of Number 50 0 Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified City Area Number of Responses Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Yes 11 0 1 0 2 14 No 203 94 23 13 43 376 Total 214 94 24 13 45 390 Percentage Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Yes 5.1 0 4.2 0 4.4 3.6 No 94.9 100 95.8 100 95.6 96.4 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 14. Which methods were used to determine that damage to plantings was caused by deer? 250 200 saw deer causing damage on-site evidence 150 way in which plants were damaged 100 reports from neighbors or friends advice from professionals 50 other Number of Responses of Number 0 Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total City Area Number of Responses Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total saw deer causing damage 154 13 6 5 18 196 on-site evidence 130 14 6 4 20 174 way in which plants were damaged 127 23 12 6 27 195 reports from neighbors or friends 30 6 3 4 6 49 advice from professionals 41 2 1 0 10 54 other 1 3 0 1 6 11 Total 483 61 28 20 87 679 Percentage Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total saw deer causing damage 31.9 21.3 21.4 25 20.7 28.9 on-site evidence 26.9 23 21.4 20 23 25.6 way in which plants were damaged 26.3 37.7 42.9 30 31 28.7 reports from neighbors or friends 6.2 9.8 10.7 20 6.9 7.3 advice from professionals 8.5 3.3 3.6 0 11.5 7.9 other 0.2 4.9 0 5 6.9 1.6 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 15. How would you rate the damage, if any, caused by deer during 2008? 120 100 no damage 80 low damage 60 moderate damage 40 severe damage no opinion 20 0 Number of Responses Number Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total City Area Number of Responses Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total no damage 38 51 7 6 8 110 low damage 50 21 6 2 15 94 moderate damage 83 4 7 3 10 107 severe damage 56 4 2 1 10 73 no opinion 10 27 3 2 7 49 Total 237 107 25 14 50 433 Percentage Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total no damage 16 47.7 28 42.9 16 25.4 low damage 21.1 19.7 24 14.3 30 21.7 moderate damage 35.1 3.7 28 21.4 20 24.7 severe damage 23.6 3.7 8 7.1 20 16.9 no opinion 4.2 25.2 12 14.3 14 11.3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 16. How much damage would you be willing to tolerate in the future? 200 150 no damage low damage 100 moderate damage severe damage 50 no opinion Number of Responses of Number 0 Belvedere Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Island City Area Number of Responses Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total no damage 88 24 2 4 14 132 low damage 106 33 12 6 16 173 moderate damage 29 14 7 2 12 64 severe damage 1 3 1 0 2 7 no opinion 15 32 2 2 6 57 Total 239 106 24 14 50 433 Percentage Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total no damage 36.8 22.6 8.3 28.6 28 30.5 low damage 44.4 31.1 50 42.8 32 40 moderate damage 12.1 13.2 29.2 14.3 24 14.7 severe damage 0.4 2.9 4.2 0 4 1.6 no opinion 6.3 30.2 8.3 14.3 12 13.2 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 17. How would you compare damage during 2008 with last 5 years? 140 120 100 much higher little higher 80 same 60 little less much less 40 don't know 20 Number of responses Number 0 Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total City Area Number of Responses Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total much higher 76 5 4 1 12 98 little higher 39 5 0 1 6 51 same 64 28 7 3 13 115 little less 9 2 3 0 3 17 much less 9 1 1 1 1 13 don't know 28 51 7 7 17 110 Total 225 92 22 13 52 404 Percentage Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total much higher 33.8 5.4 18.2 7.7 23.1 24.3 little higher 17.4 5.4 0 7.7 11.5 12.6 same 28.4 30.4 31.8 23.1 25 28.5 little less 4 2.2 13.7 0 5.8 4.2 much less 4 1.2 4.5 7.7 1.9 3.2 don't know 12.4 55.4 31.8 53.8 32.7 27.2 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 18. How much would you be willing to pay each year for deer damage control or prevention on your property? 250 200 nothing 150 small amount 100 moderate amount whatever it takes 50 Number of Responses of Number 0 Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total City Area Number of Responses Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total nothing 95 78 12 7 27 219 small amount 63 19 6 5 13 106 moderate amount 45 6 4 0 7 62 whatever it takes 19 5 0 1 3 28 Total 222 108 22 13 50 415 Percentage Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total nothing 42.8 72.2 54.5 53.8 54 52.8 small amount 28.3 17.6 27.3 38.5 26 25.5 moderate amount 20.3 5.6 18.2 0 14 14.9 whatever it takes 8.6 4.6 0 7.7 6 6.8 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 19. In 2008, did you use any methods to try to prevent deer from causing damage to your plantings? 250 200 150 Yes 100 No 50 Number of Responses of Number 0 Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total City Area Number of Responses Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Yes 160 13 12 5 20 210 No 65 91 13 9 27 205 Total 225 104 25 14 47 415 Percentage Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Yes 71.1 12.5 48 35.7 42.6 50.6 No 28.9 87.5 52 64.3 57.4 49.4 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 20. Provide an estimate of the cost of methods you used to try to prevent deer from causing damage to your plantings during 2008 100 0 80 $1 to 99 60 $100 to 499 $500 to 999 40 $1,000 to 4,999 20 $5,000 to 9,999 >$10,000 0 Number of Responses Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total City Area Number of Responses Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total 0393145180 $1 to 99 25 4 5 2 0 36 $100 to 499 29 1 2 1 0 33 $500 to 999 20 2 0 0 1 23 $1,000 to 4,999 20 2 0 1 0 23 $5,000 to 9,999 6 0 0 0 0 6 >$10,000 7 0 0 0 0 7 Total 146 40 11 9 2 208 Percentage Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total 0 26.7 77.5 36.4 55.6 50 38.5 $1 to 99 17.1 10 45.4 22.2 0 17.3 $100 to 499 19.9 2.5 18.2 11.1 0 15.9 $500 to 999 13.7 5 0 0 50 11 $1,000 to 4,999 13.7 5 0 11.1 0 11 $5,000 to 9,999 4.1 0 0 0 0 2.9 >$10,000 4.8 0 0 0 0 3.4 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 21. Which method or methods did you use? 200 150 physical barriers repellents frightening 100 dogs landscaping 50 other Number of Responses 0 Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total City Area Number of Responses Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total physical barriers 128 17 7 3 20 175 repellents 97 9 10 4 12 132 frightening 51 1 2 1 11 66 dogs 25 6 1 0 7 39 landscaping 108 13 11 4 14 150 other 2 0 0 0 10 12 Total 411 46 31 12 74 574 Percentage Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total physical barriers 31.1 37 22.6 25 27 30.5 repellents 23.6 19.6 32.3 33.3 16.2 23 frightening 12.4 2.1 6.5 8.4 14.9 11.5 dogs 6.1 13 3.1 0 9.5 6.8 landscaping 26.3 28.3 35.5 33.3 18.9 26.1 other 0.5 0 0 0 13.5 2.1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 22. How would you rate the effectiveness of the method or methods you used? 100 80 problem completely eliminated 60 successful but not eliminated 40 limited success no effect 20 0 Number of Responses Number Belvedere Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Island City Area Number of Responses Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total problem completely eliminated 38 15 4 1 7 65 successful but not eliminated 64 5 4 1 9 83 limited success 68 8 7 2 3 88 no effect 30 5 1 3 8 47 Total 200 33 16 7 27 283 Percentage Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total problem completely eliminated 19 45.5 25 14.3 25.9 23 successful but not eliminated 32 15.2 25 14.3 33.3 29.3 limited success 34 24.1 43.8 28.5 11.1 31.1 no effect 15 15.2 6.2 42.9 29.7 16.6 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 23a. (Belvedere) In general, how would you rate the effectiveness of the following deer control measures? 1=most effective, 5=least effective 140 120 1 100 2 80 3 60 40 4 20 5 0 Number of Responses of Number physical repellents frightening dogs landscaping other barriers Measure Rating BELVEDERE 1 2 3 4 5 physical barriers 126 19 10 4 20 repellents 7 22 23 29 44 frightening 7 15 13 18 45 dogs 13 20 21 11 31 landscaping 45 29 21 17 29 other 2 1 0 0 0 23b. (Lagoon) In general, how would you rate the effectiveness of the following deer control measures? 1=most effective, 5=least effective 35 30 1 25 2 20 3 15 4 10 5 5 Number of Responses of Number 0 physical barriers repellents frightening dogs landscaping other Measure Rating LAGOON 1 2 3 4 5 physical barriers 33 5 7 3 2 repellents 0 7 8 8 7 frightening 4 1 7 2 12 dogs 12 8 6 7 3 landscaping 15 11 7 0 4 other 1 0 0 0 0 23c. (West Shore) In general, how would you rate the effectiveness of the following deer control measures? 1=most effective, 5=least effective 8 7 6 1 5 2 4 3 3 4 2 5 1 Number of Responses 0 physical barriers repellents frightening dogs landscaping other Measure Rating WEST SHORE 1 2 3 4 5 physical barriers 7 0 2 0 2 repellents 1 2 3 2 3 frightening 0 0 1 2 2 dogs 0 1 1 0 3 landscaping 4 3 3 0 0 other 0 0 0 0 0 23d. (Corinthian) In general, how would you rate the effectiveness of the following deer control measures? 1=most effective, 5=least effective 3.5 3 1 2.5 2 2 3 1.5 4 1 5 0.5 Number of Responses of Number 0 physical barriers repellents frightening dogs landscaping other Measure Rating CORINTHIAN 1 2 3 4 5 physical barriers 3 1 0 0 0 repellents 0 0 0 3 0 frightening 1 0 0 0 1 dogs 1 1 1 0 0 landscaping 0 1 1 1 0 other 0 0 0 0 0 24. In your opinion, the deer population in Belvedere should be managed so that there will be: 300 250 an increased deer population 200 no change 150 a decreased deer population 100 no opinion 50 0 Number of Responses Belvedere Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Island City Area Number of Responses Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total an increased deer population 5 1 1 0 5 12 no change 44 32 8 7 9 100 a decreased deer population 171 45 11 6 25 258 no opinion 20 39 4 2 7 72 Total 240 117 24 15 46 442 Percentage Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total an increased deer population 2.1 0.9 4.2 0 10.9 2.7 no change 18.3 27.3 33.3 46.7 19.6 22.6 a decreased deer population 71.3 38.5 45.8 40 54.3 58.4 no opinion 8.3 33.3 16.7 13.3 15.2 16.3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 25. What area of Belvedere do you live in? 15 16 29 Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore 130 Corinthian Unspecified 284 Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total 284 130 29 16 15 474 59.90% 27.40% 6.10% 3.40% 3.20% 100.00% 27. Would you be willing to voluntarily assist in a census study to estimate the deer population and distribution in Belvedere? 300 250 200 Yes 150 No 100 50 0 Number of Responses of Number Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total City Area Number of Responses Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Yes 109 15 7 5 13 149 No 105 86 14 7 27 239 Total 214 101 21 12 40 388 Percentage Belvedere Island Lagoon West Shore Corinthian Unspecified Total Yes 50.9 14.9 33.3 41.7 32.5 38.4 No 49.1 85.1 66.7 58.3 67.5 61.6 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 DEER-ATTACHMENT 3 DEER DISCUSSION ATTACHMENT 3 TO CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT INFORMATION RE: STERILIZATION PROJECT IN NEW YORK http://nyti.ms/14wkoL3 N.Y. / REGION By LISA W. FODERARO JULY 5, 2013 HASTINGS-ON-HUDSON, N.Y. — When Mayor Peter Swiderski took office, he vowed to fulfill a campaign promise to do something about the deer, which are seemingly everywhere in this Hudson River village. Hunting them was impractical in such a densely populated place. Another proposed method, “captive bolt,” which is used to stun or kill animals in slaughterhouses, was met with outrage in some corners. Soon, an e-mail with a doctored photograph of the mayor wearing a Hitler mustache started circulating, bearing the name Buck van Deer. The deer would have to be lured with bait and netted before they could be killed with a captive bolt. “I realized there would be a public outcry every year and sabotage would be easy,” Mayor Swiderski said. “It only takes a few people with vials of coyote urine to drive the deer away.” Now this bedroom community about four miles north of the Bronx border, known for its progressive politics and crunchy-granola culture, has settled on a less violent approach: birth control. In an experiment to be undertaken with assistance from Tufts University’s Center for Animals and Public Policy, Hastings hopes to become the first suburb in the United States to control deer through immunocontraception, using the animal’s own immune system to prevent it from fertilizing offspring. “It’s brilliant,” said Dr. Allen T. Rutberg, the center’s director, referring to the contraceptive vaccine, whose main ingredient, porcine zona pellucida, is extracted from pigs’ ovaries and prevents pregnancy. “It works on a lot of animals, even elephants.” 1 of 3 Hastings-on-Hudson and nearby communities in Westchester County struggle with some of the highest deer populations in New York. State officials rely on hunters to control the deer, but hunting with firearms is prohibited in Westchester because of the large human population. In 2011, there were 16 car collisions involving deer in Hastings alone. Mr. Swiderski contracted Lyme disease, transmitted by the deer tick, as did his wife and child, and he has heard of scores of residents treated for Lyme. Deer can be seen languidly walking through the village, and they have expanded their palates, moving from longtime favorites like tulips to previously shunned plants like impatiens; the bottom of the village’s 100-acre wood is now mostly barren. Dr. Rutberg, whose center is part of Tufts’ Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, has researched deer contraception for years. To date, his work has focused on self-contained areas, like Fire Island in New York and the fenced-in campus of the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Maryland. He has achieved reductions in population of 50 percent over five years. While Hastings is hemmed in by the Hudson River and the Saw Mill River Parkway, deer can easily head south from Dobbs Ferry or north from Yonkers, communities that are likewise overrun. “Hastings will be challenging,” Dr. Rutberg said. “From a research perspective, islands make good subjects because you have some control over what goes on there. But if we really want to see if it will work in contexts where it matters, then we need more open communities, and Hastings will be the first one. The success of the project will depend at least as much on the deer as on us.” Hastings, which measures about two square miles, is believed to be home to as many as 70 to 120 deer. Biologists and federal officials say that a maximum of 5 to 15 deer per square mile is tolerable. Some studies indicate that female deer can live their whole lives within a quarter-mile of where they were born. “It’s likely that 90 percent of the females we inject will be local,” Dr. Rutberg said. That would bode well for the Hastings project, which could be undermined by a sudden influx of deer from other towns. In May, Dr. Rutberg and Mayor Swiderski met with officials from the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation to discuss the use of contraception. “They are skeptical,” Mr. Swiderski said. “They think migration will overwhelm the program unless it’s a closed system.” But Dr. Rutberg plans to submit an application to the department within a month; the program could begin in the winter. Dr. Rutberg said the deer would be tranquilized, tagged and 2 of 3 injected with the vaccine once every two years. More than 50 residents have volunteered to help with the effort. Some will track the movement of deer in their neighborhoods, recording their frequency and herd size. Others will put out potted plants — perhaps oak seedlings and hostas — to see if their consumption by deer declines after the program gets under way. Still others, like Eve Martin, a local veterinarian, are willing to help with the actual injections. The program is estimated to cost $30,000 for the first two years. An animal rights group has already donated $12,000 to the effort, and Mr. Swiderski is confident that the village can raise the rest. “Hastings has a strong character of nonviolence,” he said. “With captive bolt, there would have been a polarizing battle every year that wouldn’t have done the village any good.” “Deer have entered our backyards and essentially become unruly guests,” Dr. Rutberg said. “We are bound by suburban rules in dealing with them, and violence is not how we deal with neighbors we don’t like.” A version of this article appears in print on July 6, 2013, on page A14 of the New York edition with the headline: A Kinder, Gentler Way To Thin the Deer Herd. © 2015 The New York Times Company 3 of 3 Press Release For immediate release: February 21, 2014 Hastings-on-Hudson To Launch Deer Immunocontraception Experiment The Village of Hastings-on-Hudson is working with The Humane Society of the United States and researchers from the Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University on a five-year project that seeks to control the area’s white-tailed deer population with the use of a PZP (porcine zona pellucida) immunocontraceptive vaccine. With financial support from In Defense of Animals, the project will use this humane and non-lethal vaccine in an effort to substantially lower the birth rates of local does and eventually bring down the population of white-tailed deer. The experiment will begin March 3rd, 2014. While prior research with the PZP has been carried out on islands or contained areas, this will be the first effort of this sort in a suburban community in this country. Hastings-on-Hudson has examined a range of population-control approaches and decided to pursue immunocontraception as a non-lethal and sustainable method of reducing the herd, which has grown considerably in recent years to untenable levels. The increase in deer has resulted in the destruction of the understory in parks, damage to private gardens, and vehicular accidents. The Village has worked with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to define the experiment and the DEC issued a “Permit to Collect or Possess” authorizing the study, in December 2013. The protocol has also been reviewed and authorized by the Tufts University/Tufts Medical Center Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Under the approved protocols, during the winters of 2014 and 2015, approximately 60 female deer will be captured via chemical immobilization delivered via darts. They will be ear-tagged, blood- sampled for pregnancy testing, and administered an initial treatment of PZP. The darting will be carried out by highly trained professionals from the HSUS over a four-week period. Treated deer will be monitored for fawns to determine vaccine effectiveness and longevity for two to three years after initial treatment. All controlled substances and other drugs necessary for capturing and handling deer will be handled and used under veterinary supervision. If the number of white-tailed deer are substantially reduced over the next five years, the Village will move to a regular protocol in which professionals would dart the deer directly with the PZP agent. For further information, please contact: HUMANE SOCIETY US TUFTS UNIVERSITY HASTINGS-ON-HUDSON Stephanie Boyles Griffin, Rushmie Nofsinger Peter Swiderski Senior Director Associate Director of Public Mayor Wildlife Response, Innovations & Village of Hastings-on-Hudson Relations Services 914-755-0014 The Humane Society of the Cummings School of Veterinary [email protected] United States Medicine, Tufts University 301-258-3147 [email protected] (508) 839-7910 VILLAGE OF HASTINGS-ON-HUDSON IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ DEER IMMUNOCONTRACEPTION PROJECT TO OCCUR DURING MARCH Fellow residents, During the month of March, we will begin the deer immunocontraception study in Hastings. This is a study that will examine whether immunocontraception can effectively control and bring down our deer population over time. This letter describes how this will affect you and what you might see as it unfolds around the village and near your home. This effort will consist of two trained Humane Society professionals (their names are Rick and Kayla) who will be darting deer with anesthetics in various parks in town, include Hillside. The deer will be sedated by the drugs and then be injected with the actual immunocontraceptive drug, have their ears tagged, and then released. We are going to ask that anyone walking their dogs in the Hillside park strictly obey the leash laws during the month of March: during the duration of this study, we do not want the dogs spooking the deer or interfering in the darting. Leash laws will be immediately enforced (no warnings). 1) Feeding The Humane Society professionals deploy a barrel-like device filled with corn that will automatically dispense the feed at certain times during the day. This device will be unmistakable should you encounter it. The feeder will quickly habituate the deer, who are quite hungry by this point in the winter, to congregate for feeding. Please do not disturb the feeders and please keep your pets away from them as their scent may discourage the deer. 2) Restricted Park access On those days when the darting will actually happen, we will restrict access to those parts of Hillside where the darting will occur. There will be clearly marked yellow tape and signs and possibly volunteers, village employees, or police officers who will be waving off dog walkers and the curious. Please respect the tape and the restricted access. The entire park will not be off limits. This may be for a couple of hours or it may be for much of the day. It will depend upon the success we are having in that location. 3) Darting The darting professionals will wait until they have a clean shot at a still deer when the dart will hit the flank of the deer. This typically happens at a distance of 25-35 feet. Upon impact, the dart will discharge the anesthetic into the deer and remain imbedded in the deer because of barbs in the dart needle. The deer will typically bolt at this point, and may run some distance from the site of the darting. The professionals will not pursue the deer for several minutes as they will want to give the anesthetic five or ten minutes to take effect. If the deer is out of sight, the Humane Society professionals will use a radio receiver to home in on the radio beacon that is a part of the dart still imbedded in the deer. If you see a man or woman in an orange reflective vest walking through the woods or down the street holding such a device over their head, you will know what you are looking at. Very occasionally, the dart may become dislodged. While the Humane Society professionals will do their level best to retrieve the dart, on the off chance that they don't but that you encounter it, please do not touch it but instead, call the police (478-2344) and they will vector someone in to retrieve it. 4) Deer treatment The deer will eventually become sedated and lie down. This may be in the woods, and it also may be (depending upon how far the deer ran) even in your front or backyard. Deer, while sedated, are not predictable animals. PLEASE DO NOT APPROACH THE ANIMAL. It may not be fully sedated, may rise up and startle. If you do not have the Humane Society professional within sight, please phone the police and report what you have found (478-2344). The Humane Society professional will be there in a matter of minutes to process the deer. The professionals will tag both ears with very large and visible tags, carry out some measurements, and then inject the deer with the immunocontraceptive. The Humane Society professional will remain near the site until the deer is conscious and ambulatory. At no point in this process should you approach the team: they are working and the deer may come to unexpectedly. 5) Deer release The deer will amble off with its new ear-tags and hopefully not calve new fawns in the subsequent two years. It may decide to lie down a little later and sleep off the anesthetic. Do not worry about the deer: that is normal and it will be fine. This study will progress through the full month of March. You're likely to encounter Rick or Kayla throughout the month in their orange vests, possibly carrying darting gear or their radio antennas. They'll be pleased to explain what they are up to. Remember that they have a job to do and please allow them the time to do it. Their primary concern is your safety, and they will let deer walk by if they think there is any remote risk to resident or wayward pet. But we want their effort to be successful and ask that you respect the yellow tape and signs, respect requests to remain at a distance, keep your distance from deer (even if they look sedated) and keep your dog on a leash. The website (hastingsgov.org) has more information if you want to read more about the project. You may email me at the email below if you have questions or ask Rick or Kayla if you encounter them. Sincerely, Peter Swiderski Mayor [email protected] Jane Lerner, [email protected] 11:26 a.m. EDT October 10, 2015 The village's birth-control experiment could lead to a new way to control the burgeoning population. HASTINGS-ON-HUDSON Deer are still very much at home in the village, chomping through vegetable gardens and munching on azaleas — but there are some early signs that there might be fewer of them. The community is getting ready to start the third year of a five-year experiment to reduce its deer population through the use of birth control on local does. As other communities struggle to decide if they will allow hunting (/story/news/local/westchester/2015/10/01/no-deer-hunting-rye-marshlands-yet/73140266/)to thin their deer herds, the Hastings approach is an experiment that could lead to a new way to control the burgeoning population. Buy Photo Over the past two years, researchers from the Humane Society of the United States have tagged 30 or so does and injected them with a contraceptive vaccine that renders them infertile (/story/news/local/westchester (Photo: File photo by Frank Becerra /greenburgh/2014/03/17/deer-birth-control-hastings/6533257/) for at least two years. Researchers from the Jr./The Journal News) Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University in Massachusetts are also involved in the project. Buy Photo Hastings-on-Hudson village Trustee Dan Lemons in his backyard. Lemons is involved in the village's five-year experiment to reduce its deer ranks through the use of birth control on does. The project is in its third year. Lemons uses fencing to keep deer out of his yard. (Photo: Seth Harrison/The Journal News) Eight deer were treated in 2014 and 21 this past spring, village Trustee Dan Lemons said. It's too early in their reproductive cycles to see the impact of treating the 21 this year. But Stephanie Boyles Griffin, a wildlife biologist and senior director of innovative wildlife management with the Humane Society, estimates that sterilizing eight does the year before resulted in at least seven fewer yearlings in the village now. One of the sterilized deer was killed but the others are still in the area and, as far as researchers can tell, did not reproduce. Does often give birth to twins or triplets, increasing the impact of treating each animal. Researchers hope to prevent the births of at least 27 deer this year and another 27 the following year. There are some 100 to 120 deer in the 2.9-square-mile village. “Right now, more deer are being born every year than are dying,” Griffin said. “The goal is to have a lower birth rate than attrition rate.” It's been a community effort. Hastings High School students knocked on doors and helped secure permission from over 300 homeowners for researchers to follow deer onto their property so they could be shot with a dart full of an anesthetic. Residents are asked to enter deer sightings onto a map (http://www.hastingsgov.org/Pages/HastingsNY_WebDocs/deer/deer)maintained by the village. While the animals are under anesthesia, they are marked with a numbered tag attached to an ear. Females are treated with an immunocontraceptive vaccine called porcine zona pellucida or PZP for short. The program cost $13,724 in 2015, with much of that covering a one-time cost for field cameras, according to the village. “It’s too early to know for sure what kind of effect it’s had,” said Lemons, who has helped led the community effort to track deer. “We still have to filter through all of the data.” But he said no one is expecting a quick fix. It took years of planting suburban lawns and gardens, destroying natural habitats and eliminating predators, to allow the deer population to grow, he said. "A solution is years in the making," Lemons said. " I don’t think we are going to see reliable impacts for at least five years, if not 10 years." Read or Share this story: http://lohud.us/1Lmnyb4