With due respect to the residents that are concerned enough
with matters to question our city officials, an answer that is always appreciated
is ‘I don’t know enough about it but I will find out’. I learned the information below when I was researching the white-tail deer. It was not, however, my
intention to dilute the deer topic with questioning how the role of the ODNR
could have been misinterpreted, it just happened that way.
The deer population was addressed during the Mayoral
Candidate debate in October. Mayor Sutherland stated reasons why the city could
not attempt to reduce the ever growing deer population. With controversial
aspects of culling still being discussed, and in the event Bay should ever
consider a deer management program, I wanted more information. Of the things I
learned, some were in contrast to what was presented by the Mayor. My confusion
led me to communicate with the Department of Wildlife Management Supervisor at
the ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resources) for clarification. He was able to elaborate and his answers didn’t
mirror my understanding from the debate. Furthermore, no one from the City of
Bay Village has spoken to the ODNR Wildlife Manager to discuss the deer
population in our town. The only Bay people he has spoken to have been a few
residents.
Debate Question: Are you looking for a joint effort with our
sister cities on deer, bird reduction?
Mayor Sutherland stated she had been talking to the City of
Avon Lake, and to be very honest, regarding this issue, this is actually the
jurisdiction of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. They are the ones who
can permit a city or metro parks to cull the herd. Certain population
parameters have to be met and “according to the ODNR unfortunately the City of
Bay Village does not meet them”. She stated further, just to give us an idea,
the number of accidents we may end up with in a year - 10 accidents max of
vehicle versus deer compared to the City of Solon with 85 to 125. She summed it
all up with “and that is how the ODNR judges the population.”
ODNR: There is no
population parameter or deer vehicle accident standard to be met to begin a deer
management program. In fact, a city does not have to involve the ODNR to
develop most programs. The decision to cull is left to the city. A deer
management program, individual to each city, is brought into play and written
by the city, not the ODNR. Each program is specific to the city and the
problems it faces and the goals it wishes to attain. The ODNR provides the
guidance and technical assistance to help make informed decisions and to help a
city reach their goals.
If hunting is the culling method, the ODNR has the
jurisdiction to enforce statewide hunting regulations and policies. The ODNR
can deny a permit for programs outside statewide hunting regulations if they
are not comfortable with the program. As best we can tell, Bay did not submit any
program to be denied.
Regarding the program: Given the diversity and needs from
one area to another, different criteria can be assigned that may vary from city
to city. Criteria is established in direct relation to and dependent upon what
a city defines as issues and goals. The city itself must first site reduction
in traffic accidents as a goal, the ODNR in turn may require particular traffic
statistics. ODNR will not simply say – X amount of accidents are not enough to
consider a program for your town. Cities tend to want to lay the focus on deer
vehicle accidents but the reality in most cases should be on resident issues. If it is landowner complaints, ODNR will
require citizen survey data. If it is for biodiversity issues, they look for
vegetation monitoring. Cities are held to providing an amazing amount of work
and will be under scrutiny once they involve the ODNR.
According to the ODNR, there is no one answer or even a good
answer when looking at optimum population or “population parameters”. The goal
is not necessarily always population control, but goals are tied to the
problems the population creates in each individual city, in which case the size
of the herd may sometimes be inconsequential. Goal examples: a city can have as
a goal of working toward a 30% reduction in resident complaints in area 1 or;
no more than 5 vehicle accidents in area 2. Attaching the same numbers to a
herd for every community in the state of Ohio does not work. Think of the
different landscape throughout the entire state and you know that some areas
can sustain 25 deer per square mile while other areas only 5 per square mile. As
in the case of an airport area, a zero deer population is the goal. In fact the
ODNR stated that a lot goes into determining appropriate levels.
My understanding: To
say the ODNR looked at the deer population parameters and accident rates of Bay
was simply an easy, incomplete and skewed answer. To say that Bay did not meet
population parameters is untrue since there are no such parameters to meet. To
say, in essence, we were denied permission to cull is in fact – not fact. Contrary
to what was said at the debate, there is no basis for citing lack of population and
accidents to create a management plan to control deer.
Should the city write a plan and contact the ODNR, yes, they
will look at deer traffic accidents if lowering accidents is a part of said
goals. Accidents will be looked at relative to your plan; not in comparison to
any other city’s accidents or plans such as Solon. But since Solon was the example
given, Solon’s herd, is assumedly bigger because the city of Solon has 20 square
miles to Bay’s 7 square miles. It stands to reason Solon would have more deer
related auto accidents. Still, there is no accident standard to be met unless
and until the city outlines that in their goals.
The ODNR will work, no fees involved, to discuss techniques
to achieve identified goals on a case by case basis. For a densely populated city like Bay Village
where bow and arrow and sharpshooting would not work, there are options
including trapping.
