Public Engagement Workshops May 31 st and June 1 st , 2011 Hosted by - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Iroquoia Heights Conservation Area White-tailed Deer Management Strategy Public Engagement Workshops May 31st and June 1st, 2011

Hosted by Hamilton Conservation Authority and the Deer Management Advisory Committee (DMAC)

Presentation Outline

• Why do we need a Deer

Management Plan?

– Issues and Concerns – Local Context – Findings to Date – Lessons from Elsewhere

• Role of Hamilton Conservation

Authority (HCA)

• Role of DMAC

– Formation of DMAC – Education of DMAC – Actions to Date

• Draft Management Options
• Public Process and Next Steps

Why do we need a Deer Management Plan?

• 1. Numerous issues related to deer in and around Iroquoia

Heights Conservation Area (ICHA) have been raised by staff, neighbours and visitors over the past several years.

– Road safety, vehicle strikes – Impacts on the natural environment – Damage to personal property (gardens, shrubs, lawns) – Deer feeding by neighbours and visitors – Unusual deer behaviour (lack of fear, aggression) – Concern about dog-deer interactions – Potential health concerns re. lyme disease

Why do we need a Deer Management Plan?

• 2. Iroquoia Heights

has become an “island” of green surrounded by development and cut off from adjacent natural areas by highways.

Why do we need a Deer Management Plan?

• 3. Recent research has provided evidence of relatively high

deer densities in Iroquoia Heights.

– 2009 aerial deer surveys in Ancaster

• 0.35 deer / hectare in Dundas Valley
• 1.21 deer / hectare in Iroquoia Heights
• MNR generally considers ~0.12 deer / hectare “ecological carrying

capacity” for southern Ontario rural areas

– Evidence of extensive vegetation damage related to deer browsing

• Browse lines, “hedging”, consumption of less favoured plants

– Seemingly high local incidence of deer-vehicle incidents

• Some deer crossing “hot spots” identified

Preliminary Findings: Evidence of Vegetation Damage

Browse lines Tree Mortality Eaten sumac bark “Hedging”

Preliminary Findings: Deer Strike and Carcass Removal Data

2003 - 2009

Why do we need a Deer Management Plan?

• 4. Best practices from elsewhere in North America indicate

that a plan that combines a number of actions and strategies, and is based on local data as well as input from the local community, is the most effective long-term solution.

– Strategy for Preventing Deer-Human Conflicts in Southern Ontario (OMNR 2008) – Deer Management in Montgomery County, Maryland (1995 – present) – City of London Deer Management Plan (2011) – Rondeau Provincial Park Deer Management (1998 – present)

It is recognized that conflict cannot be eliminated, but appropriate management can be effective at preventing many conflicts from occurring and mitigating the severity of their impacts. Effective conflict resolution will take time, and a variety of approaches will be needed to address all of the issues. OMNR 2008

Role of Hamilton Conservation Authority (HCA)

• Created a multi-stakeholder Deer Management Advisory

Committee (DMAC) in December 2009

– Providing support and input to this committee

• Providing ongoing support for collection and analysis of

research data related to the deer in Iroquoia Heights

• Ensuring the process is open and the local community and

broader public are given opportunities to provide input

• Will review and approve the Management Plan

Role of the Deer Management Advisory Committee (DMAC)

• DMAC Membership – a multi-stakeholder committee

representing local, provincial, and national interests

• DMAC Goal – “to provide recommendations to the HCA

Board of Directors on the most effective method(s) to address the deer population at Iroquoia Heights Conservation Area based on area-specific conditions, characteristics, and constraints”.

DMAC Membership

– Ancaster Horticultural Society – Animal Alliance of Canada – Citizens of Ancaster – City of Hamilton – Conserver Society of Hamilton and District – Hamilton Conservation Authority – Hamilton Naturalists’ Club – Haudenosaunee Confederacy (committee resource) – Iroquoia Bruce Trail Club – Ministry of Natural Resources (committee resource) – Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters – Royal Botanical Gardens – Six Nations of the Grand River

DMAC Education Process

• 1. Sharing of information, best practices from elsewhere, and

perspectives among committee members

• 2. Guest Speakers / Presentations

– Ministry of Natural Resources: Ancaster Wintering Deer Survey 2009; Vehicular Strike Data; Hunting and Enforcement – Hamilton Conservation Authority: Iroquoia Heights Deer Monitoring Program – York University: Long-term Impacts of High Deer Densities of Deer on Forest Ecosystems – Ministry of Health and Long-term Care: Lyme Disease in Ontario – Haudenosaunee Confederacy: History and Value of White-tailed Deer in the Haudenosaunee Tradition – International Fund for Animal Welfare: Alternative Considerations in Urban Deer Management – University of Toronto: Natural History of Forests and their Evolution

DMAC Accomplishments to Date

• Development of and agreement on preliminary management
• bjectives
• Consensus on some of the preliminary actions supporting

these objectives

– need for public education and outreach – importance of minimizing deer-vehicle interactions – need for more data collection

• Some preliminary actions underway

– collection and analysis of deer strike data – collection of vegetation data; exclosure studies – development and circulation of community survey

Iroquoia Height Community Survey Results

174 responses (45% response rate) Anecdotal evidence of relatively high local deer concentrations

• 96% indicated they see deer in their community
• 38% see them frequently on their own property

– 18% typically observe 5 to 10 deer on their own property – 8% typically observing more than 10 deer on their own property

Local evidence of mixed responses to deer

• 47% like to see deer, but not on their property
• 40% like to see deer, and have them on their property

Local issues around deer-human and deer-pet conflicts

• 49% expressed concern about automobile collisions with deer
• 7% observed deer-pet conflicts

– all reports of dogs chasing deer – one report of a dog killing a deer

Preliminary Management Options Being Considered by DMAC

OPTION RATIONALE

• 1. Monitor deer populations and their

impacts on local natural vegetation Collect more local information to inform decision making

• 2. Explore opportunities for safe eco-

passage routes around Iroquoia Heights, and traffic safety programs Facilitate local deer movements between natural areas, and minimize incidence of deer-vehicle conflicts

• 3. Educate local community about

deer and preventing human-deer conflicts Improve understanding of appropriate practices and options (e.g., fencing, “deer-repellent” plants in gardens)

• 4. Support an anti deer feeding bylaw

and enforcement program Protect deer from damage to health, false sense of food security, and domestication by humans

Preliminary Management Options Being Considered by DMAC

OPTION RATIONALE

• 5. Exclude deer from ecologically

sensitive parts of Iroquoia Heights, and rare species habitat Stop and reverse decline in ecosystem health and biodiversity in certain areas; comply with Endangered Species Act (2007)

• 6. Explore feasibility of herd

reduction through non-lethal means such as female deer fertility controls Reduce local deer population to restore ecological balance and minimize human-deer conflicts

• 7. Develop protocol for perpetual care
• f IHCA deer population with

Haudenosaunee Confederacy Reduce local deer population to restore ecological balance and minimize human-deer conflicts

Other Management Options Not Currently Being Considered by DMAC

OPTION RATIONALE

• A. Do Nothing

Allow “nature” to take its course

• B. Ministry of Natural Resources deer

capture and relocation Reduce the local deer population, at least temporarily

• C. Ministry of Natural Resources

controlled cull Reduce the local deer population

• D. Establishment of formal deer

feeding stations May take pressure off of natural vegetation OTHER OPTIONS? WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU!

Public Process and Next Steps

• May 31 and June 1 – Public Meetings
• June 15 and 29 – regular DMAC meetings

– Finalize Public Meeting Input Summary – Finalize Actions and Recommendations for draft DMAC report

• July / August – development of DMAC final report
• Fall 2011 - final meeting(s) of DMAC to finalize report;

submission to Conservation Areas Advisory Board

• Fall 2011 – final report submission to HCA Board of

Directors for approval

THANK YOU

“ Effectiveness of prevention and management strategies is dependent on implementation of a variety of practical solutions through collaboration and discussion among stakeholders .” OMNR 2008 We look forward to hearing from you and collaborating with you this evening