Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-22 - ADMIN Resolution - City Council - 1994/02/22f f Resolution Number 94-22 Resolution Establishing a Deer Management Policy in St. Louis Park and Authorizing Implementation of , a Deer Management Program WHEREAS, an overabundance of White-tailed deer within the City boundaries of St. Louis Park has created a health, safety and welfare issue for residents and park users in and around Westwood Hills Environmental Education Center as well as in other areas of the community; WHEREAS, it is the City's desire to protect and preserve the Westwood Hills Environmental Education Center in accordance with its original intent and mission, to assist area residents in the preservation and protection of their property, to protect the health of City residents and to control and manage the community's deer population in the safest and most humane way; WHEREAS, the Deer Management Task Force created by the City Council in July, 1993 identified various deer management issues and provided recommendations for dealing with those issues in a final report which was received by the City Council on November 1, 1993; WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the original Deer Management Task Force recommendations, has carefully considered the views and opinions of community residents and other interested parties, and has thoroughly evaluated the options available for providing short term and long-term solutions to the City's deer population problems; WHEREAS, the City Council has found that implementation of the proposed recommendations contained in the Final Staff Report and Recommendations for a Deer Management Program in St. Louis Park dated February 7, 1994 as revised, will not result in any significant environmental effects; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of St. Louis Park does hereby adopt a policy for the on-going management of the deer population in St. Louis Park which is intended to provide for the health, safety and welfare of its residents and park users; protect and preserve the Westwood Hills Environmental Education Center in accordance with its original intent and mission; assist area residents in the protection and preservation of their property; protect the health of City residents; and to control and manage the community's deer population in the safest and most humane way. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, in order to fulfill the objectives of this policy, the City Council hereby authorizes implementation of the deer management program in accordance with the staff recommendations which are attached hereto and incorporated herein. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby expresses its gratitude to the concerned residents who worked so diligently in addressing this issue, and in particular to the volunteers who served on the City's Deer Management Task Force. Adopted by the City Council Febru y 1 ii Att t: City Clerk Revie ed for Administration: Man ger Mayor Approved as to form and execution: v City"Attorney Final Staff Report and Recommendations for a Deer Management Program in St. Louis Park Adopted with Resolution No. 94-22 Prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation February 7, 1994 Table of Contents Primary Objective 2 Background 2 - Deer in Minnesota 3 - Desired Deer Density 3 Problems of Deer overpopulation 4 - Nature Center 4 - Residents 4 - Deer 4 - Animal Rights Advocates 4 Review and Evaluation of Deer Population Management Options 5 - Population Reduction Methods • Trap and Transfer 6 • Sharpshoot Over Bait 7 • Trap and Shoot 8 • Public Hunt 9 - Post Reduction Methods • Contraception/Sterilization 10 • Fence and Feed 11 • Residential Feeding Ban 12 - Other Methods • No Action 13 Staff Recommendations 14-15 Deer Management in Other Communities 16 References 17 Appendix - Deer Management Task Force Report Al - A4 - Communications A5 - A7 1 FINAL STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN ST. LOUIS PARK PRIMARY OBJECTIVES The primary objectives of this recommended program are: 1. To provide for the health, safety and welfare of area residents and park users; 2. To protect and preserve the Westwood Hills Environmental Education Center in accordance with its original intent and mission; 3. To assist area residents in the protection and preservation of their property; 4. To control and manage the Community's highly valued deer population in the safest and most humane way. BACKGROUND In July of 1993, the St. Louis Park City Council authorized the creation of a Task Force to study the community's deer management issues. That Task Force was directed to complete their study by the end of October and to provide Council with a report which would identify the issues and provide recommendations for dealing with those issues. On November 1, 1993 the City Council received the final report and recommenda- tions from the Deer Management Task Force and directed staff to publicize the findings (a copy is included in the Appendix). A special public meeting was scheduled for later that month at the Westwood Hills Nature Center to provide a public forum where concerned residents could voice opinions about the Task Force recommendations. Approximately 160 people attended that meeting. On December 6, 1993, Council referred the matter to staff for further research and review. Staff was directed to prepare a comprehensive report in preparation for the February 7, 1994 Council meeting. During December and January, a number of interested parties were actively involved in discussions and research on a variety of options which could potentially alleviate the problems associated with the overpopulation of deer in and around the Westwood Hills Nature Center. The final recommendations included in this report are, in large part, the result of on-going efforts by various members of the community to agree on a plan which is in the best interests of the Nature Center, area residents and the community's highly valued wildlife. 2 WHITE TAIL DEER IN MINNESOTA White -tail deer are the most abundant large herbivore found in the United States. Their range extends from Canada and Alaska through Mexico, Central America, and into northern South America. The deer's prime habitat preference is a mosaic of fields and woods. They are adaptable for co -existence with human populations, and exhibit a high -rate of reproductive success within metropolitan areas. During the growing season, their diet consists of leafy, green vegetation. This includes the leaves of trees and shrubs along with row crops, wildflowers and other herbs. Their diet changes in the dormant season to browse, which includes the twigs and buds of deciduous trees and the green vegetation of coniferous trees. Two favorite winter -food conifers include white cedar and white pine. Studies indicate they can eat 614 different kinds of food and consume approximately 5% of their body weight daily. In very good habitat, a one-year old doe can reproduce by having one fawn. Older does will normally have twin fawns, and although not common, some does can produce triplets. Recent estimates place the number of deer in Minnesota at 1,200,000. The estimated 1,700 wolves in Minnesota take approximately 30,000 deer annually. Hunting accounts for approximately 200,000 deer taken annually. DESIRED DEER DENSITY All wildlife in Minnesota is governed by the State. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) monitors and regulates animal populations according to the guidelines set up by the department. Their recommended density of deer in a particular habitat, known as biological carrying capacity, is 15-25 deer per square mile (640 acres). Westwood Hills Nature Center comprises 150 acres; 60 acres being open water and surrounding cattail marsh. The remaining 90 acres (1/7 sq. mile) is suitable deer habitat. A helicopter survey in January, 1994 counted 36 deer within the Nature Center, with 15 more just south of the park in and around the Minneapolis Golf Club. Another factor in determining a desired deer density is cultural carrying capacity, the maximum number of deer that can co -exist compatibly with local human populations. This is much more difficult to measure in that different individuals have different sensitivities to the deer population. 3 PROBLEMS RESULTING FROM OVERPOPULATION Westwood Hills Nature Center: During the 1970's the City acquired the 150 acre site that now comprises the Westwood Hills Environmental Education Center. The intent of City officials was to preserve the site from future development, create a unique facility and provide an opportunity to conduct and encourage environmental education and stewardship. The original objective of the Nature Center was to "provide maximum opportunity to enjoy and study this site with a minimum amount of disruption while preserving the character of the site's habitats and their associated flora and fauna". The current overpopulation of deer within the Nature Center has resulted in browsing damage to native trees and shrubs, stunted regeneration of hardwood tree seedlings due to over -browsing, and a virtual elimination of wildflowers from the restored prairie and woodland areas. Selected deer browsing of native plants has favored the proliferation of Tess palatable non-native plants such as European Buckthorn. Wildflowers, ferns and shrubs that have been planted or seeded along the accessible wildflower trail have been eaten, slowing the development of interpretive stations for physically challenged individuals. In addition, the overpopulation of deer in the Nature Center has adversely affected other indigenous animal populations. With little or no plant understory, the populations of rabbits, ground -nesting or understory-nesting bird species, and small rodents are negatively impacted due to the lack of cover and food. This, in turn, adversely affects predator populations such as great -horned owls, red fox and sharp -shinned hawks. Red and grey squirrels are affected negatively by intense competition from deer for acorns. City Residents: St. Louis Park residents, particularly those in the area north of Minnetonka Boulevard and west of Texas Avenue, have expressed many concerns related to deer overpopulation. Numerous residents have experienced a Toss of vegetable gardens, perennial and annual flowers, ornamental shrubbery and damage to trees. In addition, there are safety concerns regarding deer/car collisions (or near misses) and the possibility of contracting Lyme Disease from ticks harbored by deer. Affected Deer: In an overpopulation situation, the deer are susceptible to a greater incidence of disease, starvation and poor health due to intense competition for food. In search of food, they will range farther from their home territory, increasing their chances of being involved in a deer/car collision. Animal Rights Advocates: The severity of problems related to an overpopulation of deer in and around the Nature Center has been questioned by various groups and individuals. A variety of options have been recommended for dealing with individual problems encountered by area residents, including: fencing, repellents, signage and public information programs. 4 REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF DEER POPULATION MANAGEMENT OPTIONS Population Reduction Methods Trap and Transfer Sharpshoot over Bait Trap and Shoot Public Hunt (pg. 6) (pg. 7) (pg. 8) (pg. 9) Post -Reduction Methods Contraception/Sterilization (pg. 10) Fence and Feed (pg. 11) Residential Feeding Ban (pg. 12) Other Methods No Action 5 (pg. 13) TRAP AND TRANSFER Population Reduction - Option 1 Description This option involves trapping deer and transferring them to another location. Deer traps would be constructed by City staff, located at specific sites, and baited with corn. After capture, deer would then be transported off-site to a new location. Reauirements Until recently, a permit from the DNR was required. However, as per a letter from the Commissioner of the DNR dated January 26, 1994, this methodology is no longer an option (see appendix). Cost Estimates Based on recent studies in Wisconsin, New Hampshire and California, St. Louis Park could anticipate costs of $400-$500 per deer. Impact on: Nature Center - the browsing pressure on the nature center vegetation would be immediately lessened, helping preserve the integrity of the site. If populations of deer were held at appropriate levels, eventual regeneration of understory vegetation would benefit other indigenous wildlife due to increased cover and food. Deer would still be visible by visitors. Residents - Fewer deer would be in the immediate area, lessening the occurrence of possible collisions with cars, ornamental vegetation being lost, and the possibility of contact with deer ticks. Deer - Deer are highly -stressed animals, and a certain mortality is expected in just the trapping and translocating process. Studies in California, New Mexico and Florida revealed that within 4-15 months after transfer, up to 85% of the deer had died. However, the remaining deer would have less competition among themselves for available food, contributing to overall better health and lessen the need to travel in search for food. Opinions/Positions: DNR - Will not issue permits for this activity; actually have received only one application to date. They do not see this as a desirable management option. Task Force - The majority of the task force did not see this as a viable option due to the stress and eventual high mortality of the deer, high-cost and labor intensiveness. City Staff - Although there is support for this option because it would reduce the population, Staff feels it is Tess humane than other options for the deer. There are questions as to how successful it would be to attract deer to a trap in the fall, and questions concerning the morality of sending suburban deer to a remote, northern location. Other - This option is not currently employed in any other community in Minnesota. Some members of F.A.T.E. (Friends of Animals and Their Environment) support this option, but only if the animals would be transferred to a safe haven. The Animal Humane Society does not support this option. 6 SHARPSHOOT OVER BAIT Population Reduction - Option 2 Description Sharpshooting over bait involves a trained individual using a rifle or shotgun to remove deer after dark from a baited site. The individual is usually in an elevated stand in close proximity to a site that has been baited with shelled corn. The individual is trained to only discharge their firearm within a limited area near the bait. The deer are field -dressed and then are turned over to a state Conservation Officer, usually located at Fort Snelling. The deer are then transfered to a processing plant, and the meat is then taken to local food shelves or to the VA Hospital. Requirements A permit from the DNR is required. The preferred time span covers mid-November through mid-March, when deer can be attracted to a baited site. If the sharpshooting would be done by individuals other than police officers, an amendment to the Discharge of a Firearm Within City Limits ordinance would also be required. Cost Estimates The cost of sharpshooting in Bloomington in 1991-92 averaged $68.23/deer. The DNR estimates a total cost including disposal of animals to exceed $100/deer. Impact on: Nature Center - The browsing pressure on the nature center vegetation would be immediately lessened, helping preserve the integrity of the site. If populations of deer were held at appropriate levels, eventual regeneration of understory vegetatioi would benefit other indigenous wildlife due to increased cover and food. Deer would still be visible by visitors. Residents - Fewer deer would be in the immediate area, lessening the occurrence of possible collisions with cars, ornamental vegetation being lost, and the possibility of contact with deer ticks. Neighbors may be affected by firearm noise. Deer - A number of the deer would die. The remaining deer would have less competition among themselves for available food, contributing to overall better health and lessening the need to travel in search for food. Opinions/Positions: DNR - Views this as a very effective deer management option. Task Force Position - On a vote of 6-2 in favor, the Task Force recommended the use of sharpshooting as the best deer population management option. Staff Position - Staff supports this option due to its history of effectiveness in other communities, safety, humane treatment of the deer, cost effectiveness, and public use of the animals. Other - This option is currently being employed in numerous areas throughout the state. F.A.T.E. supports this option only if it has been determined animals must be shot. 7 TRAP AND SHOOT Population Reduction - Option 3 Description This option involves trapping deer and shooting them while they are still trapped. City personnel would construct traps, bait them with corn, and check them once or twice a day. The animals would be field -dressed and transported to a state Conservation Officer, probably at Fort Snelling. The deer would then be processed, and the meat given to local food shelves or the VA Hospital. Requirements A permit from the DNR is required. The preferred time span covers mid-November through mid-March, when deer can be attracted to a baited site. If the sharpshooting would be done by individuals other than police officers, an amendment to the Discharge of a Firearm Within City Limits ordinance would also be required. Cost Estimates Traps can be constructed or purchased from a local supplier for $250.00 each. Based on the experience of the City of North Oaks, cost estimates on trapping, shooting, processing, and transporting range from $100-$150/deer, depending on whether a City building is available for processing. The cost for City police and park maintenance staff to perform this function would be comparable to the cost for sharpshooting. Impact on: Nature Center - The browsing pressure on the nature center vegetation would be immediately lessened, helping preserve the integrity of the site. If populations of deer were held at appropriate levels, eventual regeneration of understory vegetation would benefit other indigenous wildlife due to increased cover and food. Deer would still be visible by visitors. Residents - Fewer deer would be in the immediate area, lessening the occurrence of possible collisions with cars, ornamental vegetation being lost, and the possibility of contact with deer ticks. Neighbors may be affected by firearm noise. Deer - A number of the deer would die. The trapped deer would experience stress due to being confined. The remaining deer would have Tess competition among themselves for available food, contributing to overall better health and lessen the need to travel in search for food. Opinions/Positions: DNR - Viewed as an effective deer management option in smaller, confined areas where safety is a paramount concern. Task Force Position - The task force made no recommendation on this option in regards to the nature center. Staff Position - Although considered viable for controlling deer population in smaller public lands and possibly in residential areas, this option is viewed as unnecessary at Westwood. Other Positions - Currently used in North Oaks and soon in Edina. F.A.T.E. does not support this option due to the stress the animals endure in a trap. 8 PUBLIC HUNT Population reduction - Option 4 Description This option involves the use of private citizens hunting deer with bow/arrow, rifle or shotgun. The park would be closed to visitors during the removal. Check stations would be set up by City staff to record and tag the animals. The animals would be removed, processed, and utilized by the private citizens. Requirements A state hunting license is required and seasonal restrictions apply. A permit from the DNR is not required. A variance on the Discharge of a Firearm Within City Limits ordinance would be required. Cost Estimates Minimal costs would be associated with staffing the check points and park patrol. Impact Nature Center - the browsing pressure on the nature center vegetation would be immediately lessened, helping preserve the integrity of the site. If populations of deer were held at appropriate levels, eventual regeneration of understory vegetation would benefit other indigenous wildlife due to increased cover and food. Deer would still be visible by visitors. Residents - Fewer deer would be in the immediate area, lessening the occurrence of possible collisions with cars, ornamental vegetation being lost, and the possibility of contact with deer ticks. Neighbors may be affected by firearm noise. Deer - A number of the deer would die. The remaining deer would have less competition among themselves for available food, contributing to overall better health and lessen the need to travel in search for food. Opinions/Positions: DNR - Hunting is a viable deer population management option. Task Force Position - Due to the close proximity to residential areas, the task force opposed this option because of public safety. Staff Position - Staff also opposes this option because of the public safety issue. Other Positions - This option is currently employed in Bloomington and Plymouth. F.A.T.E. objects to this option, especially the use of bow/arrow. 9 CONTRACEPTION/STERILIZATION Post -reduction - Option 5 Description Immunocontraception involves administering a fertility agent to a female deer, blocking her reproductive ability. While research continues to gain new ground in this area, no fertility agent is presently approved by the federal government on free -ranging deer. Sterilization involves permanently altering the reproductive abilities of either male or female deer. Very little information exists on this method of population control in free -ranging deer. Reauirements Unknown at this time. Cost Estimates Unknown at this time. Impact If available, this method could maintain the population of the deer at desired population limits. The impact of a lower deer population has already been described in options 1-4. Opinions/Positions: DNR - No immunocontraceptive agent is federally approved at this time. Research is on-going in several locations in the U.S., and further research will be required to ascertain its applicability on free -ranging deer. Task Force Position - Due to its unavailability at this time, this option was not considered as an immediate tool in population management. Staff Position - In Tong -term planning, immunocontraception could be a very useful tool in maintaining the population of deer in the nature center at desired population limits. However, the method of tagging the deer to identify them is of concern. Other - This methodology is not currently used in Minnesota. F.A.T.E. supports this option in maintaining populations at certain levels. Dr. Allen Rutland of the Humane Society of the U.S. has stated that immunocontraception in free -ranging deer is at least 3 years away. 10 FENCE AND FEED Post -reduction - Option 6 Description This option involves confining deer in a fenced area and artificially feeding them. It takes approximately 4 bushels of corn to bring 1 deer through the winter. Requirements No permits are required for this activity. The present 6'- high fence bordering the nature center would need to be raised to either 8' or 10'. Fencing around the entrance to the park would need to be altered, or a type of cattle -guard installed in the roadway, to restrict the deer from leaving the park. Feeding troughs would need to be constructed and placed in several locations throughout the park. Cost Estimates Fencing costs vary from $5 to $9 per linear foot, depending on the condition of existing posts/footings and the removal of overgrown vegetation. Total cost estimates (including gate turnstiles): $35,000 - $65,000. Impact Although browse damage would not be eliminated, this method would help to maintain a desired population size and could help to reduce the Toss of residential ornamental plant materials. Opinions/Positions: DNR Position - The DNR had no regulations prohibiting the confinement of deer or artificially feeding them. Task Force Position - This option was not discussed by the task force. Staff - Staff is not opposed to this option as long as the original intent of the nature center and the integrity of the park's habitats would not be seriously jeopardized. It is staff's opinion that a desirable population (6-10 deer) would not require additional fencing. Other Positions - F.A.T.E. has no position, requires more information. 11 OTHER: BAN ON RESIDENTIAL FEEDING Post -reduction - Option 7 Description This option involves drafting an ordinance banning the artificial feeding of deer by city residents. Artificial feeding would be described as providing edible material (corn, hay, etc.) specifically for deer. The reasoning for this option is to stop encouraging deer into neighborhoods. Requirements City Council passage of an ordinance prohibiting deer feeding combined with the support of the police department to enforce the ordinance. Cost Estimates No costs are anticipated. Enforcement of the ordinance by city police would occur during regular shifts. Impact Nature Center - Without the supplemental feeding the deer are receiving outside of the nature center, the deer would depend more on the availability of food resources within the park. Residents - Potential conflicts arise between neighbors - those that want to see them in their yards and those that don't. The deer at this point are somewhat dependent and habituated to seeking food outside of the park. Residents could anticipate continued loss of ornamental plants unless the plants are protected from the deer. Eventually, if the deer are not finding any reliable food source among the neighborhoods, they will greatly curtail their dependence on these areas. Deer - Deer are adaptable and will learn to seek food resources in other areas. Opinions/Positions: DNR - generally does not advocate supplemental feeding programs for deer, but they do not have any restrictions against it. Task Force Position - The task force had no recommendation on this option. Staff Position - Staff supports this option in conjunction with a removal/reduction program initiated within the nature center. At other times of the year, staff supports this option because artificial feeding encourages deer into neighborhoods. Other Positions - This option is currently employed in Richfield and Bloomington with very limited success. F.A.T.E. supports this option. 12 NO ACTION - Option 8 Description This option involves taking no action to control the deer population. Requirements None. Cost Estimates The costs involved with this option would include replacement of lost vegetation (public and private) as well as incalculable costs for public and private containment measures. Immediate Impact Nature Center - This method would not address current overpopulation. The nature center's vegetation would still be adversely affected by overbrowsing. Other wildlife would be negatively impacted by Toss of understory vegetation. Residents - This method would not address current overpopulation. Residents could expect continued loss of ornamental plant materials, possible deer/car collisions, and possible contact with Lyme disease -carrying ticks. Visitors to the park could expect to regularly see deer. Deer - This method would not address current overpopulation. The deer would continue to experience intense competition for available food. Long Term Impact Nature Center - Virtual elimination of understory vegetation could result. No regeneration of hardwood or conifer tree species would be expected. A decline in other wildlife would result from lack of understory cover and deficient food sources. Original mission of the nature center would be compromised. Residents - Problems for local residents could be anticipated. Visitors to the center would encounter deer. Residents not presently experiencing difficulty with deer problems would find themselves dealing with this issue. Deer - Problems from inbreeding could result. Deer would migrate into additional residential areas in search for food, increasing their risk of a deer/car collision. Opinions/Positions: DNR - agrees with managing animal populations to desired levels. Task Force Position - The task force voted unanimously in favor of the City accepting responsibility in managing deer populations on public land. Staff Position - Staff supports a planned, Tong -range deer management plan where the proper balance between the biological carrying capacity of the park and the cultural carrying capacity of the residents is maintained. Other Positions - F.A.T.E. supports exploring every possible option before any animal is killed. 13 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN ON-GOING DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1. Population Reduction of Main Herd: The size of the deer herd in and around the Nature Center needs to be reduced from 51 (as counted in a recent aerial survey) to 6 - 10 as soon as possible. To achieve this objective, staff recommends the following: A. Since the City is unable to get a DNR permit to transfer the deer elsewhere, the use of trained and experienced St. Louis Park Police Officers as sharpshooters at baited sites which are isolated and secured within the boundaries of the Nature Center is the safest and most humane means to achieve herd reduction. B. The Nature Center will be secured and signs will be posted to ensure the highest possible level of public safety. C. City Maintenance staff will field dress the animals and transport them to a State Conservation Officer at Ft. Snelling. D. The animals will be professionally processed and all meat will be distributed to food shelves or other charitable organizations which serve needy families. 2. Population Maintenance of Main Herd: In order to maintain the herd size at the appropriate level (6 - 10) over the next 12 to 15 months, staff recommends the following: A. The City will contract with Hennepin Parks and/or the DNR on an annual basis to conduct a mid -winter aerial survey of the deer population throughout St. Louis Park. B. Once the herd size at the Nature Center has been reduced to an appropriate level (6 - 10), a viable method of immunocontraception will be used to retard herd growth once such technology is approved and available. C. If viable contraceptive technology is not available by November 1, 1995, then the sharpshooting method as described above will be utilized and will continue on an annual basis until such contraceptive technology is available. D. In order to discourage movement of the deer from the Nature Center into adjoining neighborhoods and to reduce over -browsing there, a supplemental feeding program is to be established, preferably in areas where the deer are most likely to be seen by Nature Center visitors. E. To reduce predation on other public and private properties in and around the Nature Center, an ordinance banning residential feeding throughout the City is to be adopted. 14 3. Deer Management in other Locations: To address problems associated with excessive deer populations in other locations throughout the community, staff recommends the following: A. The City will use data produced from the annual mid -winter aerial survey to determine the size of the deer population in other areas. B. On other public properties, the City is to implement the same population reduction and maintenance methods described above to achieve population levels not less than the DNR recommendation of 15-25 per square mile. C. On private properties throughout the community, the City will make arrangements at the property owner's expense to implement the same population reduction and maintenance methods as described above to achieve population levels not less than the DNR recommendation of 15-25 per square mile. 4. Other On-going Programs: In order to address concerns about funding, public education and program continuity, staff recommends the following: A. In order to help pay the additional costs that an on-going deer management program entails, the City will create a "Deer Fund" which will enable interested residents and citizens to contribute toward keeping the City's deer population controlled and well managed. Deer Fund contributors will be allowed to "earmark" this donation for specific programs if so desired. B. In the event that individual property owners need financial help to implement recommended procedures for reducing predation on their property, a request can be made to use Deer Fund monies. C. A comprehensive educational program will be developed by Parks and Recreation in conjunction with Community Education to keep the public informed on wildlife issues, with specific emphasis in the area of protecting private property from wildlife predation. D. The City staff will initiate contact with the DNR and neighboring municipalities in an attempt to develop a unified strategy for dealing with this regional issue, and to ensure that the wildlife management efforts of St. Louis Park are not in conflict with the policies and programs of surrounding communities. 15 DEER MANAGEMENT IN OTHER COMMUNITIES City of Bloomington - The Hyland Lake Park/Minnesota River Valley is in the third year of their deer population program. Hyland Park, operated by Hennepin Parks, utilizes sharpshooting over bait, removing 111 deer last year and 100 this year. The Minnesota River Valley, operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, utilizes sharpshooting and public hunting. Deer have been removed from portions of the river valley owned by the City through sharpshooting. All three areas combined have removed approximately 350 deer in each of the first two years of the program. City of Edina - City Council approved a reduction program in December 1993. Reduction of the deer herd will occur over the next 3 years, removing approximately 100 deer through sharpshooting over bait in the Braemar Golf Course and through trap and shooting in other residential areas. City of North Oaks - North Oaks has been removing deer for 10 years. Their program utilizes trap and shoot in the residential areas, and sharpshooting in the adjacent farm lots. They removed 190 deer last winter, and plan to remove 300 this winter. City of Plymouth - Administers a public archery hunt in the northwest quadrant of the City, which is comprised primarily of farm lots. Fifty deer were removed in both 1992 and 1993. A sharpshoot removal program is in process in the southwest corner of the City, an area of upper -bracket residential homes. The program plans to remove half of the 25-30 deer in this area. The deer were declared a public nuisance by the Public Safety Department. City of Golden Valley - In the process of evaluating a deer management program at this time. Their area of concern is the residential Tyrol Hills area. City of Minnetonka - Not actively pursuing deer population management. A videotape is available to residents which details how private property can be protected from deer. Have been conducting aerial deer counts over the past few years. The Cargill area is an area of concern. Two Minnetonka residents have called the Westwood Nature Center asking for information on how to get a management program started in their City. City of Eden Prairie - In the process of setting up a deer management program. A citizen's committee has been set up to study the issue. City of Richfield - The City has adopted an ordinance banning the feeding of deer. The Wood Lake Nature Center, operated by the City and approximately the same acreage as Westwood Nature Center, is the focal point of an increasing number of deer. 16 1 REFERENCES 1. Mark R. Ellingwood and Suzanne L. Caturano. An Evaluation of Deer Management Options. 1988. 2. Jay B. McAninch. Contraception in White -tail Deer, Status of Current Activities. Minnesota DNR memo, March 10, 1993 3. Beverly K. Bryant and William Ishmael. Movement and Mortality Patterns of Resident and Translocated Suburban White -tail Deer. Wildlife Conservation in Metropolitan Environments, 1991. 4. D.F. Neitzel and J.L.Jarnefeld and R.D. Sjogren. An Ixodes scapularis (Deer Tick) Distribution Study in the Minneapolis -St. Paul, Minnesota Area. Bulletin of the Society for Vector Ecology, June 1993. 5. Stephen B. Jones and David deCalesta and Shelby E. Chunko. Whitetails are Changing Our Woodlands. American Forests, November/December 1993. 6. John McArdle. Comments on DNR Fact Sheet Related To "Contraception in White- tail Deer: Status of Current Activities". Zoological Research Service. 7. Symposium Abstracts. Urban Deer Symposium, Urban Deer - A Manageable Resource? St. Louis, MO, December 1993. 8. City of Edina. Proposed Deer Population Management Plan. December 1993. 9. Hennepin Parks. Questions and Answers: Deer Management Plan For Hyland/Bush/Anderson Lakes Regional Park Reserve. November 1992. 10. Minnesota River Valley Deer Management Task Force. Final Report and Recommendations. June 1990. 11. Jay B. McAninch. Immunocontraception in Deer, Research Update. Minnesota DNR memo, January 6, 1994 12. St. Louis Park Deer Management Task Force. Final Report and Recommendations. November 1993. 17 SUMMARY CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DEER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE October 1993 HISTORY The process of forming a deer management task force for the City of St. Louis Park was initiated by the Parks and Recreation Department during the spring of 1993. This was a direct result of a combination of factors which were located in and around the Westwood Hills Nature Center. The number of phone calls from residents neighboring the center complaining about deer had been increasing steadily since 1991. Two deer/car collisions occured in the fall of 1992 along W. Franklin Avenue near the nature center entrance. Aerial helicopter surveys conducted by Hennepin Parks personnel in the winter of 1992 and 1993 indicated an overpopulation of deer within the nature center. An informal browse survey of the nature center's vegetation by Hennepin Parks staff indicated heavy to severe browse damage resulting from deer. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission was informed of all available information regarding deer management and the present status at the nature center during a meeting in May 1993. A recommendation from the Commission to establish a deer management task force was sent to the City Council study session in June 1993. The motion to authorize the creation of the task force was approved by the City Council in July 1993. An article in the August 4, 1993 St. Louis Park Sun -Sailor announced the formation of the task force and advertised for citizens interested in participating on the task force to contact the Naturalist/Manager at the nature center. Of the sixteen people that contacted the Naturalist/Manager, five were selected by the City Manager, Director of Parks and Recreation, and the Naturalist/Manager. In addition, the Manager of the Minneapolis Golf Club was invited to join the task force. Those appointed to the task force included the Chairperson of the Parks Advisory Commision, Animal Control staff person, and the Naturalist/Manager serving as coordinator. The Task Force held four meetings in August and September 1993. A representative from both the Department of Natural Resources and Hennepin Parks attended one meeting each to provide current information and expertise. A copy of the Minnesota River Valley Deer Mangement Task Force from June 1990 was given to each member and was used as a comprehensive manual. After studying and discussing the issue, final recommendations were established in early October 1993. The enclosed information packet includes the listing of task force members, background information that was utilized, meeting notes and final recommendations, and other information. A - 1 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DEER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS October 1, 1993 ISSUE The role of City government in managing deer populations on public land. RECOMMENDATION The committee recommends the City has the responsibility for actively managing deer populations on public land. ISSUE What methods should be used to manage deer populations on public land and what is the potential impact on dissenting neighbors. RECOMMENDATION The committee recommends the approval of a sharpshooting -removal program in the Westwood Hills Nature Center due to cost-effectiveness, humaneness, and safety. The trap/kill and trap/transfer methods were voted down due to high cost, unnecessary stress on the animal, and reluctance of the MN DNR to issue permits for transfering deer. The recommended number of deer in the nature center is 5-10; thus the program would be removing approximately 20-30 deer. The committee deferred recommending any method to manage deer populations on other public lands within St. Louis Park due to a lack of information on the deer populations in those areas. The committee recommends a strong educational program detailing the need for a removal program be instituted to the residents in a timely manner. ISSUE The role of City government in managing deer populations on private land. RECOMMENDATION The committee recommends the City does not have the responsibility for actively managing deer populations on private land at this time. Petitioning could occur if appropriate numbers from a specific area requesting relief. The committee recommends the City take an active role in developing educational materials available to residents and private landowners. ISSUE Should the City act now in controlling deer populations in this area, or should the City wait until a coalition of neigboring communities committed to the same goal is formed. RECOMMENDATIONS The committee recommends the City act now in implementing a deer management plan. The committee strongly favors the development of a deer management coalition of neighboring cities with the DNR providing technical assistance and overall coordination as required. -continued- A-2 City of St. Louis Park Deer Management Task Force Final Recommendations Page 2 ISSUE How should information from deer complaints received by telephone and deer/car collisions be handled and how will it be used in future decision making. RECOMMENDATION The committee recommends that information from deer complaints received by telephone and incidents of deer/car collisions be recorded by one specific location within the City departments, as specified by the City Manager. This is one of the sources of information necessary in assessing whether an overpopulation of deer exists in a specific area. The appointed department should be designated as being responsible for acting on such information. ISSUE Should the City perform a contracted helicopter aerial survey to count the population of deer. RECOMMENDATION The committee recommends the City perform an aerial survey of the entire city during the first two months of 1994 to form a baseline census of the deer population. In future years, just specific areas that have generated complaints or other problems could be surveyed. ISSUE What is the City's role in providing educational materials to residents which detail the resident's responsibility in protecting their property from deer. RECOMMENDATION The committee strongly recommends the City adopt an active educational program providing materials to residents that educate them on the current methods available in protecting their own property from deer. ISSUE Should a deer -feeding ban be instituted and enforced. RECOMMENDATION The committee has no recommendation on this issue. ISSUE Should a city-wide deer survey be implemented to residents to assess public opinion. RECOMMENDATION The committee felt that a city-wide deer survey assessing public opinion of deer would be useful at some point, as per City Council discretion. A-3 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DEER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE August 18, 1993 MEMBERS Roger Bordeau 3733 Oregon Avenue S., St. Louis Park 55426 - 935-9331 Jim Carlson 4343 Meadowbrook Blvd., St. Louis Park 55416 929-1917 Alicia Cohen 8900 Westmoreland, St. Louis Park 55426 541-4850 Doug Langefels, City of St. Louis Park 8300 W. Franklin Avenue, St. Louis Park 55426 924-2544 Joe Loma, Wildlife Management Services 5701 Sheridan Avenue S., Minneapolis 55410 926-9988 Jim Moffett 1820 Independance, St. Louis Park 55426 544-1333 Andy Peacock, Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 2659 Edgewood, St. Louis Park 55426 935-4448 Steve Pedersen, Minneapolis Golf Club 2001 Flag Avenue, St. Louis Park 55426 544-4471 Bill Wilson 8207 Westwood Hills Curve, St. Louis Park 55426 545-8368 SCHEDULED MEETINGS Wednesdays, August 18 September 1 September 15 September 29 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. All meetings are held in the City Hall 3rd floor Conference Room A-4 January 14, 1994 CITY OF J ST. LOUIS PARK Commissioner Rodney Sando Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Rd St. Paul MN 55155 Dear Commissioner Sando, On behalf of the St. Louis Park City Council, I am requesting an official clarification from the Department of Natural Resources on a proposal to trap and transfer free -ranging Whitetail Deer from St. Louis Park to an out -state location. This community is currently experiencing serious predation problems in and around the Westwood Hills Environmental Education Center as a direct result of an overabundant deer population. Though there appears to be a consensus on the severity of the problem, there has been some question as to the feasibility of various options for reducing the deer population to a desirable level. Local representatives of your department have informed the City that there is a policy in place governing the procedures for trapping and transferring deer. However, they have indicated that approval of any request for a permit to carry out a trap and transfer program would be very unlikely. In order for our Council members to carefully consider the feasibility of the population reduction options before them, the City of St. Louis Park would appreciate a direct and timely response to the following question: If the City Council were to officially request approval of a program to trap and transfer approximately 20 Whitetail Deer, would such a request be approved by the DNR? The City Council and members of City staff will be discussing this issue in detail on Monday, January 31, 1994. Your response prior to that date would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Charles W. Meyer City Manager cc: Roger N. Johnson, Regional Wildlife Manager Thomas Isley, Section of Wildlife Operations Manager Timothy Bremicker, Section of Wildlife, Chief A-5 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2290 Phone 612-924-2500 Fax. 612-924-2663 Pnnted on recycled paper STATE OF UV UVLSJ©�l:-,� DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55155-4037 OFFICE OF THE DNR INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (612) 296 6157 January 26, 1994 Charles W. Meyer, City Manager City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2290 Dear Mr. Meyer: RECEIVED FEB 2 1994 ADMINISTRATION CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK This is in response to your letter of January 14, 1994, asking whether the Department would grant a permit to trap and transfer deer from the City of St. Louis Park. We would not approve such a request. We are not aware of a suitable release site where acceptable populations of deer are not already present, where transplanted deer would have the prospect of living at least one year, and where transplanted deer would not cause future vegetative damage problems or liabilities. In addition, transplanted wild animals generally travel greater distances in unfamiliar territory making them more susceptible to car -deer -collisions or other mortality. In addition, our experience and that of other states has shown that the process of capturing and transferring wild deer is very stressful and has commonly resulted in injury or death of the deer. In short, it is our judgement that trap and transfer is not a feasible or acceptable deer management technique. Our staff will continue to work with you and the council to develop strategies for managing the city's deer population. Yoursuly, Ro ney W. Sando Commissioner cc: Roger Johnson, Regional Wildlife Manager Tom Isley, Wildlife Operations Manager Tim Bremicker, Chief, Section of Wildlife AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER A-6 CITY OF J ST. LOUIS PARK February 2, 1994 Dear Concerned Resident, The control and management of St. Louis Park's burgeoning deer population has been an issue of great concern to this community for quite some time. After carefully considering a wide variety of options and alternatives, the City Council intends to take action on a deer management plan at a meeting scheduled for Monday, February 7th at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. At that time the Council will be considering final recommendations of the City staff which include: • Reducing the size of the deer herd in and around the Nature Center from 51 (as counted in a recent aerial survey) to 6 - 10 as soon as possible. In light of a recent decision made by the DNR which eliminates the possibility of trapping live animals and transporting them to other locations, the staff recommends using professional sharp -shooters at baited sites in isolated and secured areas of the Nature Center as the safest and most humane means to achieve herd reduction. • Maintaining the herd size at an appropriate level (through use of contraception as a first choice when that technology is approved and available). • Providing supplemental feeding for deer within the boundaries of the Nature Center to reduce predation on private properties in the area and adopting an ordinance banning residential feeding on private property. • Instituting a comprehensive educational program to keep the public informed on wildlife issues, with specific emphasis on protecting private property from wildlife predation. • Coordinating efforts with neighboring communities in an attempt to ensure that the wildlife management efforts of St. Louis Park are not in conflict with the policies and programs of surrounding communities. Additional information regarding the proposed deer management plan is available for public review at the Parks and Recreation Office in City Hall. A summary of the issues addressed in the final staff report will be made available to all those present at the City Council meeting on February 7th. In the meantime, if you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel free to call me at 924-2540. Sincerely, 7 / Cristofer A Gears Director of Parks and Recreation A-7 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2290 Phone 612-924-2500 Fax 612-924-2663 Punted on recycled paper Deer Management Task Force - 1993 Roger Bordeau 3733 Oregon Ave. 935-9331 Jim Carlson 4343 Meadowbrook Blvd. 929-1917 Alicia Cohen 8900 Westmoreland Ln., 541-4850 Joe Loma Wildlife Mgmt. Services 5701 Sheridan Ave. So. Mpls. 55410 926-9988 Jim Moffett 1820 Independence Ave. 544-1333 Andy Peacock 2659 Edgewood 935-4448 Bill Wilson 8207 Westwood Hills Curve 545-8368 Doug Langefels, Naturalist/Manager, oversees this committee 924-2542