Deer Management in the Village of
Cayuga Heights, New York:
March
1999
HDRU Series No 99-1
Prepared by:
Lisa C. Chase, William F. Siemer and Daniel J. Decker
Human Dimensions Research Unit
Department of Natural Resources
Cornell University
This publication is part of a series of reports resulting from investigations dealing with public issues in the management of wildlife, fish, and other natural resources. The Human Dimensions Research Unit (HDRU) in the Department of Natural Resources at Cornell University is a nationally-recognized leader in the study of the economic and social values of wildlife, fish, and other natural resources and the application of such information in management planning and policy. A list of HDRU publications may be obtained by writing to the Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Fernow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, or by accessing our World Wide Web site at: http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/hdru/
INTRODUCTION
White-tailed deer numbers have increased in many suburban areas
of New York over the last 20 years. The Village of Cayuga Heights
has witnessed such deer population growth, and residents are experiencing
the problems as well as the benefits of living in close proximity
to deer.
This study was developed to assist wildlife managers and residents
in their deliberations about how to manage deer in suburban areas.
At issue are not only the technical aspects of wildlife population
control, but also regard for socially acceptable solutions and
management of conflicts between stakeholders with diverse viewpoints.
This study focuses on the human dimensions of deer management
in suburban communities, including determining stakeholder preferences
for input and involvement in management.
STUDY PURPOSE
The overall goal of this study is to help improve decision making
in wildlife management through better design of public involvement
strategies. The objectives of the study include:
1. gaining a greater understanding of specific suburban wildlife management situations through systematic analysis;
2. identifying and describing important characteristics of stakeholders that should be considered in the design of public involvement processes; and
3. selecting public input and involvement techniques for specific
situations; e.g., decisions about when a survey, a public meeting,
or a task force should be used.
The objectives above, which relate to information needs expressed
by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
staff, will be addressed more fully in a final report. That report
will contain more extensive analysis as well as interpretation
of findings. It will be available later in 1999. Deer management
in Cayuga Heights is one of two case studies that comprise the
overall study.
This report of preliminary results is intended to provide the
Village of Cayuga Heights with information about the experiences
residents in the community have had with deer, attitudes toward
deer and deer management, and preferences for stakeholder involvement
in deer management decisions. We hope that this report will inform
discussion about how best to approach management of deer in the
community.
We developed a questionnaire to assess residents' views about
deer management and citizen participation in management decision
making. The questionnaire was designed to provide the following
information about study participants: demographic characteristics;
interests, concerns and attitudes toward deer and deer management;
wildlife-related values; opinions about who should be making deer
management decisions; opinions about citizen involvement in deer
management decisions; and preferences for personal involvement
in deer management decisions. This information yields a useful
situation analysis, a basis for planning subsequent actions to
address deer management in the village.
We obtained access to a listing of 851 residential properties
in the Village of Cayuga Heights through the Tompkins County Office
of Real Property Tax Assessment. All properties identified were
single and two family year-round residences in Cayuga Heights.
Residents of apartments and homeowner associations (e.g., Kendal
at Ithaca) could not be clearly identified from the property tax
roles, and they were not included in the sample.
Approximately 100 of the properties we identified were owned by
someone who lived at another address (some of those people lived
elsewhere in the village; some lived outside the village) or they
were owned by a corporation or institution (e.g., bank, realtor,
university). Because we had no information that would allow us
to determine who lived on those properties or whether the residence
was occupied, we did not sample from these. We randomly selected
550 resident property owners from the residual list.
Our survey was implemented during November and December, 1998.
We sent questionnaires to 550 Cayuga Heights property owners.
Nonrespondents received up to three additional mailings. Three
questionnaires were undeliverable. Four-hundred forty-two members
of the sample returned questionnaires before the cut-off date
of December 20, 1998. Seven additional questionnaires were returned
too late to be included in the analysis. We did not include in
the analysis three respondents who said they were not village
residents and one respondent who was not a homeowner. This resulted
in a total of 438 usable responses. The response rate, adjusted
for undeliverable questionnaires and non-residents, was 81%.
Given this high level of response and our intended use of the
data, we did not conduct a follow-up study to assess the possible
bias of omitting those who did not respond to the survey.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this section we report results of the survey of resident property
owners conducted in Cayuga Heights at the end of 1998. For comparison,
results of a survey of residents of Tompkins County conducted
in 1990 are presented where applicable.
Characteristics of Respondents
Slightly more than half of respondents (56%) were female. The
average age of respondents was 60 years. Respondents had lived
in Cayuga Heights for 19 years on average. As a group, respondents
represented education and income categories above the average
for Tompkins County. The majority of respondents (66%) reported
having completed post graduate education. Average household income
fell within the category $75,000 - $100,000.
Interests in Deer
The majority of resident property owners expressed no interest
in hunting, feeding, or photographing deer (Table 1). The community
appeared to be split with regard to interest in viewing deer.
Approximately one-third of residents reported that they were
not at all interested in watching deer near their home or seeing
deer in Cayuga Heights, but one-quarter to one-third expressed
considerable interest in viewing deer in these locations. A majority
of respondents expressed moderate to strong interest in learning
more about deer management in Cayuga Heights, and one-third were
very interested in providing input to decisions about deer management.
Comparison to the 1990 Tompkins County data suggests that resident
property owners of Cayuga Heights held less interest in deer-related
recreation (e.g., hunting, viewing, photographing, or feeding
deer) than was characteristic of the population of Tompkins County
as a whole in 1990.
Concerns about Deer
The majority of respondents were moderately to very concerned
about a variety of problems associated with deer in suburban areas
(Table 2). Deer-car collisions and damage to landscape plants
and flower gardens topped the list of concerns. Majorities of
respondents also expressed high levels of concern about exposure
to Lyme disease and damage to vegetable gardens. Respondents
expressed less concern about deer threatening or harming pets
or people.
Respondents' concerns about deer seemed to reflect the types of
problems they had experienced. Eighty-eight percent reported
that they had personally experienced deer-related problems. Over
80% had experienced deer damage to flower gardens or trees and
shrubs in their yards (Table 3). About 25% had been personally
affected by a deer-auto accident. Few respondents reported personal
experience with Lyme disease or aggressive deer behavior.
Attitudes toward Deer
A majority (54%) of respondents reported that they enjoy the
presence of deer, but worry about deer-related problems. One-third
(34%) reported that they do not enjoy the presence of deer and
regard them as nuisances. Few respondents (11%) enjoyed the presence
of deer without worrying about problems deer may cause (Table
4).
In contrast, 36% of 1990 Tompkins County residents enjoyed the
presence of deer without worry. Fifty-four percent enjoyed the
presence of deer but worried about problems deer may cause. Only
3% did not enjoy the presence of deer and regarded the animals
as nuisances. It is unclear if the difference in attitudes found
between the two studies is due to a change in the number of deer
and related problems, different levels of tolerance to damage,
or other factors.
Preferences for the Deer Population Size
Over 80% of respondents indicated that they would like the numbers
of deer in Cayuga Heights to decrease, and a majority would like
a large decrease (Table 5). Only 3% preferred an increase, while
12% preferred no change in the deer population size. In contrast,
almost half of 1990 Tompkins County residents wanted the deer
population to stay the same size, and only 37% preferred a population
decrease.
Acceptability of Management Actions
Resident property owners were presented with a list of actions
that individuals, communities, or agencies might take to manage
deer (Table 6). These were presented as hypothetical examples,
to gain a first impression of the classes of actions residents
might consider favorably or unfavorably. It is likely that many
residents had little information about the relative costs and
consequences of all the management options presented to them.
As a community deliberates about deer management, residents of
that community may gain knowledge of costs or benefits that change
their attitudes about the acceptability of various management
options.
Respondents regarded deer reproduction control as the most acceptable
management action to reduce population levels. Trapping and moving
deer to another area was also acceptable to a majority of respondents.
Lethal control methods were less acceptable. The most acceptable
lethal control method-archery sharpshooters killing deer at bait
sites-was acceptable to one-third of respondents while the majority
found it to be unacceptable.
According to DEC and Cornell University deer biologists, reducing
the size of the deer population using reproductive control is
not feasible because it is still in the experimental stage; its
viability as a management tool is being studied and more definitive
assessments are expected in the future. Trapping and moving deer
to another area is not feasible for a few reasons: trapping of
deer is prohibited by state law, mortality rates among relocated
deer are high, and there is no place to move the deer. Of the
management tools currently available to reduce the size of the
deer population, deer biologists generally believe that lethal
control methods are the most effective and cost-efficient option.
Survey results indicate that 80% of residents would like to see
a decrease in the deer population, yet the most effective means
of achieving that goal-lethal population control methods-do not
seem to be preferred in Cayuga Heights. Reconciling residents'
desire for a smaller deer herd with their apparent lack of acceptance
of viable population control methods will be a challenge for Cayuga
Heights residents and DEC deer biologists.
Involvement of Stakeholders in Decisions
Almost all respondents (98%) believed residents should have opportunities
for input in deer management decisions (Table 7). However, respondents
were divided over how those opportunities for input should be
structured. The least popular options were two extremes-no input
from citizens (favored by 2%) and no input from the DEC (favored
by 3%). Clearly, combined input by both the DEC and citizens
was preferred. The most popular option (favored by 35%) was to
involve citizens at every step and allow citizens to make final
decisions while the DEC only supplied necessary scientific data.
Three other options allowing for lower levels of stakeholder
involvement and greater DEC control were favored by 60%, with
support decreasing as the level of stakeholder involvement decreased.
Final Decisions about Deer Management
Respondents were divided on the issue of who should make final
decisions about deer management in the village (Table 8). Two-thirds
believed residents of Cayuga Heights or elected officials in the
village should make final decisions, with 31% preferring a majority
of residents, 20% preferring the village mayor and trustees, and
17% preferring a committee of citizens representing a variety
of interests in Cayuga Heights (such as a task force). Twenty-four
percent believed the DEC should make final decisions.
Respondents' preferences for local control notwithstanding, the
legal authority and responsibility to manage wildlife throughout
New York State currently rests with the Department of Environmental
Conservation. The DEC may work with stakeholder representatives
and rely on stakeholder input to inform decisions about deer management,
but authority rests with the state wildlife agency. County, village,
or city officials may be among the stakeholders represented in
decisions. However, local government officials do not have the
legal authority to implement deer management decisions without
the approval of the DEC, and in any case the range of actions
that can be taken have some limitations stipulated by law.
The survey conducted in Cayuga Heights was not designed to inform
respondents of these or other legal and administrative considerations.
We have no way of knowing how many respondents had such information
before voicing their preferences about who should make final decisions
about deer management. Conveying information about the legal
and administrative environment in which deer management decisions
are made will be an important aspect of any future efforts to
create informed public dialogue about deer management decisions
in the Village of Cayuga Heights.
Influence of Stakeholders on Decisions
A majority of respondents believed that homeowners in the village
who experience damage to ornamental plants and gardens should
have a great deal of influence on deer management decisions in
Cayuga Heights (Table 9). Respondents also felt DEC wildlife
managers, local farmers, motorists, local businesses negatively
impacted by deer, residents concerned with animal welfare, and
residents who enjoy deer should have substantial levels of influence.
Majorities of respondents thought deer hunters, village visitors,
and citizens of New York State who are not village residents should
have no influence on deer management decisions in the village.
Methods for Gaining Input from Stakeholders
The most popular methods of public involvement were ones that
allowed for face-to-face communication, debate, and deliberation
(Table 10). The most popular was meetings open to all. Majorities
of respondents also supported a committee representing a variety
of interests and surveys as ways to involve stakeholders and gather
input. Fewer respondents supported meetings open to select groups
or invited individuals, perhaps showing concern that a process
should be open, inclusive and representative. Less than 1 percent
believed that no public input should be used, reiterating respondents'
desire for stakeholder involvement evident in other responses
to this survey (e.g., Table 7).
Wildlife management agencies often use multiple techniques to
gather public input on management issues. The finding that Cayuga
Heights residents favor a variety of input methods suggests that
a multi-faceted approach to public input would be helpful in this
situation.
Levels of Personal Involvement Preferred by Respondents
Over half of respondents had made their opinions about deer in
Cayuga Heights known in recent years, most by discussing deer
with friends and neighbors (96%). Only 5% had contacted the DEC,
although 19% had contacted a local or state government official
and 17% had attended a public meeting on deer.
Many respondents expressed a willingness to devote their personal
time to help make decisions about deer management (Table 11).
Only 18% responded that they would not be willing to devote any
time at all. Over one-quarter (26%) expressed a willingness to
devote one hour per month while 19% were willing to spend one
hour per year. Eleven percent were willing to devote one hour
per week and 6% would devote more than one hour per week. A few
respondents (1%) wrote in the space provided for comments that
they would be willing to devote whatever it took-as much time
as was needed to help resolve deer management issues in the village.
Although many respondents were willing to help with deer management
decisions, the amount of time individuals were willing to commit
varied greatly. Providing multiple methods for involvement with
varying time commitments can allow different residents opportunities
to participate in their preferred ways. For example, residents
only willing to devote one hour per year might attend an educational
forum once, while the small percentage who were willing to devote
as much time as necessary could be involved through a task force
or other time-intensive process that demands great commitment.
A strategy that includes multiple methods for stakeholder input
and involvement can satisfy residents' interests in participating
in a variety of ways.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Most resident property owners in the Village of Cayuga Heights:
_ have been personally affected by
deer-related problems;
_ desire a reduction in the deer population
in Cayuga Heights;
_ do not prefer lethal methods to control
deer populations;
_ believe residents should have a voice
in deer management decisions;
_ are divided over how the decision-making
process should be organized and which methods for gathering public
input are best; and
_ are willing to devote time to help
make decisions about deer management in their community, however
the amount of time individuals are willing to commit varies greatly.
To satisfy stakeholders with different preferences for participation
in deer management decisions, we recommend that DEC and the village
work together to design a public involvement process that provides
multiple opportunities for stakeholder education, input, and deliberation.
A multi-faceted process would allow individuals to become involved
in ways compatible with their levels of interest and time constraints.
Education about management actions combined with deliberation
of alternatives may help village residents to reconcile differing
perspectives on deer management in their community.
NEXT STEPS
In the coming months, we will complete a final report containing
more extensive analysis of the data as well as interpretation
and discussion of findings. In the meantime, we hope that this
report of preliminary results contributes to informed discussion
of how best to manage deer in the Village of Cayuga Heights.
We welcome feedback on this report and our study in general, and
we look forward to continued collaboration with residents of Cayuga
Heights and DEC staff as we work toward a common goal-improved
management of deer in suburban communities.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation for supporting this study. In particular,
we extend thanks to Jim Farquhar, Ann Harrison, Mark Lowery, George
Mattfeld, Dave Nelson, and Dave Riehlman for providing guidance
throughout all phases of the study, from its inception through
its implementation.
Many members of Cornell University's Human Dimensions
Research Unit in the Department of Natural Resources contributed
to this study. Tom Brown, Barb Knuth, Bruce Lauber and Tania
Schusler were particularly helpful, providing insightful comments
and assistance with implementation of the survey.
We would like to thank the residents of Cayuga Heights
who participated in this study, and especially the Cayuga Heights
Deer Committee for providing background on the situation and reviewing
the questionnaire.
Funding for this project was provided by the New York Federal
Aid in Wildlife Restoration Grant WE-173-G, Job 146-III-3b.
Table 1. Interests in deer in Cayuga Heights.
| |||||||
Deer-related interests | Mean(2) |
|
| know | |||
|
Learning more about deer management in Cayuga Heights. | |||||||
| Providing input for decisions about deer management in Cayuga Heights. | |||||||
| Participating in decisions about deer management in Cayuga Heights. | |||||||
| Watching deer near your home. | |||||||
| Seeing deer in Cayuga Heights. | |||||||
| Photographing deer. | |||||||
| Feeding deer near your home. |
| ||||||
| Hunting deer. | |||||||
Table 2. Concerns about deer in Cayuga Heights.
|
| |||||||
Deer-related concerns | Mean(2) |
|
| ||||
| Deer-auto accidents. | |||||||
| Deer damage to trees and shrubs in yards. |
| ||||||
| Deer damage to flower gardens. | |||||||
| Lyme disease. | |||||||
| Deer damage to vegetable gardens. |
| ||||||
| Deer damage to trees and vegetation in natural areas. | |||||||
| Deer threatening or harming people. | |||||||
| Deer threatening or harming pets. | |||||||
2: 1 = Not at all concerned, 5 = Very concerned. | |||||||
Table 3. Experience with deer-related problems
in Cayuga Heights.
Deer-related problems | |||||||
Deer damage to flower gardens. | |||||||
| Deer damage to trees and shrubs in yards. | |||||||
| Deer damage to vegetable gardens. | |||||||
| Deer damage to trees and vegetation in natural areas. | |||||||
| Deer-auto accidents. | |||||||
| Deer threatening or harming pets. | |||||||
| Deer threatening or harming people. | |||||||
| Lyme disease. | |||||||
Table 4. Attitudes toward deer in Cayuga Heights
(or Tompkins County).
| ||
Attitude statement |
|
Tompkins Co. 1990 |
I enjoy the presence of deer, AND I do not worry about problems deer may cause. | ||
| I enjoy the presence of deer, BUT I worry about problems deer may cause. | ||
| I do not enjoy the presence of deer and regard them as nuisances. | ||
| I have no feelings about deer in Cayuga Heights (or Tompkins County). | ||
Table 5. Preference for deer population size
in Cayuga Heights (or Tompkins County).
| |||||||
Change in population size |
|
Tompkins Co. 1990 | |||||
Large decrease. |
|||||||
| Moderate decrease. | |||||||
| Slight decrease. | |||||||
| No change. | |||||||
| Slight increase. | |||||||
| Moderate increase. | |||||||
| Large increase. | |||||||
| Don't know. | |||||||
Table 6. Acceptability of management actions
in Cayuga Heights.
|
| |||||||
Deer management actions | Mean(2) |
|
| ||||
|
Sterilize deer or use contraception (birth control) for deer. | |||||||
| Promote use of ornamental plants on private property that deer are less likely to eat. | |||||||
| Trap deer and move them to another area. | |||||||
| Use chemical repellents to keep deer away from plants. |
| ||||||
| Educate people about how to live with deer, such as educating drivers about how to avoid deer on the road. | |||||||
| Use fences to keep deer away from property. | |||||||
| Use archery sharpshooters to kill deer at bait sites and donate the deer meat to food banks. |
| ||||||
| Restrict development to preserve habitat for deer. | |||||||
2: 1 = Not at all acceptable, 5 = Very acceptable. | |||||||
Table 6. Acceptability of management actions in
Cayuga Heights (continued).
|
| |||||||
Deer management actions | Mean(2) |
|
| ||||
| Use firearms sharpshooters to kill deer at bait sites and donate the deer meat to food banks. |
| ||||||
| Allow regulated archery hunting by licensed hunters to control the deer population. | |||||||
| Drug, capture and kill deer by lethal injection. | |||||||
| Allow landowners to permit bowhunters to kill nuisance deer on their property. |
| ||||||
| Let nature take its course without human interference from now on. | |||||||
| Allow regulated firearms hunting by licensed hunters to control the deer population. | |||||||
| Reintroduce natural predators of deer. | |||||||
2: 1 = Not at all acceptable, 5 = Very acceptable. | |||||||
Table 7. Preferred level of public involvement
in deer management decisions in Cayuga Heights.
Level of public involvement in decisions |
|
All planning and decision making should be done by wildlife managers with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) without citizen input. | |
| All planning and decision making should be done by wildlife managers with the DEC, and the DEC should take into account the views of citizens who make an effort to contact the DEC. | |
| The DEC should be sure to obtain the views of a wide variety of citizens and then plan and make decisions using the earlier input. | |
| Citizens should be given opportunities for participation at every step, but the DEC should make the final decisions. | |
| Citizens should be involved at every step and should make the final decisions with the DEC only supplying necessary scientific data. | |
| Citizens should be involved at every step and should make the final decisions without any DEC involvement. |
Table 8. Opinions about who should make final decisions about
deer management in Cayuga Heights.
Group |
| ||||||
A majority vote of citizens living in Cayuga Heights. | |||||||
| Wildlife managers with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). | |||||||
| The village Mayor and Trustees. | |||||||
| A committee of citizens representing a variety of interests in Cayuga Heights. | |||||||
| Other. | |||||||
| Elected officials in state government. | |||||||
Table 9. Preferred level of influence on decisions
about deer management in Cayuga Heights.
|
| |||||||
Group | Mean(2) |
|
| ||||
|
Homeowners in the village who experience damage to trees and gardens. | |||||||
| Local farmers who experience damage to crops and orchards. | |||||||
| Wildlife managers with the DEC. | |||||||
| Motorists who deal with deer-auto accidents. | |||||||
| Local businesses that experience damage from deer, such as golf courses. |
| ||||||
| Residents of the village who are concerned with animal welfare. | |||||||
| Residents of the village who enjoy deer. | |||||||
| Local deer hunters. | |||||||
| Visitors to the village who enjoy deer. | |||||||
| Citizens of the state who are not village residents. | |||||||
2: 1 = No influence, 5 = Great deal of influence. | |||||||
Table 10. Opinions about what methods should
be used to gather public input for decisions about deer management
in Cayuga Heights.
Method of public input |
| ||||||
Meetings open to all. | |||||||
Committee of citizens representing a variety of interests who work together to resolve differences. | |||||||
Scientific telephone and mail surveys. | |||||||
Unsolicited letters or telephone calls from citizens. | |||||||
Meetings open to select groups and invited individuals. | |||||||
No public input should be used. | |||||||
Table 11. Amount of time that residents of Cayuga Heights
were personally willing to devote to help make decisions about
deer management in their community.
Amount of time |
| ||||||
No time. | |||||||
One hour per year. | |||||||
One hour per month. | |||||||
One hour per week. | |||||||
More than one hour per week. | |||||||
Other. | |||||||
Don't know. | |||||||