Ordinance 47-23RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043
Ordinance No. 47-23 Passed , 20
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 91.12 “FEEDING OF WATERFOWL
PROHIBITED” OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
DUBLIN
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin, Ohio recognizes the negative impact that residents
feeding wild animals and/or animals at large can have, including the spread of
disease and disruption of their natural foraging behaviors; and
WHEREAS, the feeding of wild animals and/or animals running at large has been
proven to increase the concentration of that creature in a residential neighborhood,
potentially leading to damage to landscape and vehicle-animal crashes; and
WHEREAS, animals accustomed to people and being near homes can lose their fear
of people and become aggressive; and
WHEREAS, the United States Department of Agriculture and the Ohio Department of
Natural Resources encourage property owners to avoid feeding wild animals and/or
animals at large; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin finds that adopting an ordinance prohibiting feeding of
wild animals and animals at large promotes a safer, healthier and more resilient
community;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, "]
of its elected members concurring, that:
Section 1. Chapter 91 Section 12 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Dublin,
“FEEDING OF WATERFOWL PROHIBITED” is hereby amended to read as follows:
§ 91.12 OUTDOOR FEEDING PROHIBITED.
(A) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall
apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning.
(1) RUNNING AT LARGE. An animal off its owner’s premises, without a
leash, and without a person to control the animal.
(2) WILD ANIMAL. An animal not legally confined or held by private
ownership legally acquired and shall include, but not be limited to, feral cats,
squirrels, chipmunks, ground hogs, raccoons, skunks, waterfowl, opossums,
muskrats, deer, foxes, black bears, wild turkey, bobcats, and coyotes.
(3) FEED OR FEEDING. The act of or the furnishing of food or other
sustenance.
(B) No person shall feed, cause to be fed or provide food for animals running
at large or wild on any private or public property within the boundaries of the
city. The feeding of one’s own animal(s) or wild birds on their premises shall
be the exception so long as the feed does not attract animals running at large
or wild from public property, public ways or private property not owned by the
feeding person.
(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor. Each day
that a violation continues shall be deemed a separate offense.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective on the earliest date permitted by law.
Passed this 2 day of Klovemboy , 2023.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. : Form No. 30043
Ordinance No. 47-23 Passed Page 2 of 2 _, 20
Dine Dil
Mayor - piesiding Officer”
ATTEST:
Gand Og!
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Megan D. O’Callaghan, P.E., City Manager
Date: November 21, 2023
Initiated By: Emily Goliver, Management Analyst
Barbara Ray, Nature Education Coordinator
Re: Ordinance 47-23 – Amending Section 91.12 “Feeding of Waterfowl Prohibited”
of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Dublin
Background
At the November 13, 2023 City Council meeting, Staff presented the first reading of Ordinance 47-
23 Amending Section 91.12 “Feeding of Waterfowl Prohibited” of the Codified Ordinances of the
City of Dublin. The Council requested additional information on the number of deer/vehicle
accidents and the number of dead deer pick-ups the City makes annually.
Deer/Vehicle Collisions
The information below is compiled from police reports and is the best available data. Some drivers
will only report an accident to the police department if there is damage or injury to support an
insurance claim. Minor damage encompasses functional damage to vehicles, as reported by the
responding officer. Significant damage is defined as disabling damage in the police reports. A map
of collisions in 2023 is included for reference.
Year Number of
Collisions
# Resulting in
Minor Damage
# Resulting in
Significant
Damage
# of Collisions
Resulting in Injury
2015 11 10 1 2
2016 13 10 3 0
2017 13 11 2 2
2018 10 10 0 0
2019 10 8 2 2
2020 21 19 2 5
2021 12 8 4 1
2022 11 8 3 1
2023 (YTD) 7 7 0 1
Deer-related dead animal reports
Prior to 2022, the GoDublin app did not specify a deer carcass as part of the dead animal reporting
tool. Staff filtered all dead animal pick-up requests from 2021 that included the word “deer” and
concluded that there were 52 deer-related dead animal pick-ups. The dashboard below is the most
up-to-date information on the location and number of deer carcasses reports the City has received.
Office of the City Manager
5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017
Phone: 614.410.4400 Memo
Memo re. Ordinance 47-23 – Amending Section 91.12 “Feeding of Waterfowl Prohibited” of the Codified
Ordinances of the City of Dublin
November 21, 2023
Page 2 of 2
This information is updated in real time and can be found here.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the adoption of Ordinance 47-23.
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Megan D. O’Callaghan, P.E., City Manager
Date: November 7, 2023
Initiated By: Emily Goliver, Management Analyst
Barbara Ray, Nature Education Coordinator
Re: Ordinance 47-23 – Amending Section 91.12 “Feeding of Waterfowl Prohibited”
of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Dublin
Background
At the February 8, 2022 meeting of the Community Services Advisory Commission (CSAC), staff
provided a presentation regarding the City’s wildlife management program, including management
of white-tailed deer. Since that time, staff has conducted additional research regarding deer
management. A deer-specific update was provided at the February 14, 2023 CSAC meeting.
Staff partnered with The Ohio State University’s School of Environmental and Natural Resources to
conduct research during the weeks of May 9 through May 26, 2023. The purpose of this work was
to establish a population estimate of the deer herd within the City of Dublin. The survey team
conducted a field study during the week of May 15, which included road sightings and camera trap
surveys, assessing the vegetation for signs of deer and creating a citizen survey to gather data on
the community’s attitude towards deer. Based on the data collected by the survey team, there are
approximately 50 – 85 deer per square mile within Dublin. A healthy population of deer is around
20-25 per square mile. The community-wide survey received 297 responses. The public’s
sentiment was split on whether the population of white-tailed deer in Dublin is increasing and
needs to be managed.
At the June 13, 2023 CSAC meeting, staff provided an update on the herd population survey. Staff
returned to provide information on management options at the September 12, 2023 meeting of
CSAC. Following discussion on lethal and non-lethal tactics, CSAC requested staff draft language
for an outdoor feed ordinance. The Commission reviewed the language for a potential ordinance at
the October 10, 2023 meeting. After reviewing the language, the CSAC recommended that City
Council amend the City’s Code of Ordinances to include a prohibition on outdoor feeding of wild
animals or animals running at large. CSAC recommended that Council direct staff to draft an
outdoor feed ordinance to be considered at a future City Council meeting.
At the October 23, 2023 City Council meeting, CSAC Chair Rex Pryor presented the CSAC
recommendation to the Council. By motion, City Council voted unanimously to direct staff to
prepare legislation as recommended by CSAC.
Summary
Other Ohio cities have adopted outdoor feed ordinances to prohibit the feeding of any wild animal
or animal running at large (such as an outdoor cat). Dublin’s Nature Education Coordinator
anticipates that there may be observances of wild turkey, bobcats and black bears in the next
decade, as these species may become more common in Columbus-area suburbs. An outdoor feed
ordinance pre-emptively addresses those potential future concerns. Adopting a general regulation
prohibiting the feeding of all wild animals on private property eliminates the need to pass animal-
Office of the City Manager
5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017
Phone: 614.410.4400 Memo
Memo re. Ordinance 47-23 – Amending Section 91.12 “Feeding of Waterfowl Prohibited” of the Codified
Ordinances of the City of Dublin
November 7, 2023
Page 2 of 2
specific no feed ordinances each time there is an increase in the population of a wild animal.
Section 91.12 of the City’s Code of Ordinances Section prohibits feeding of waterfowl on public
property and Section 96.17(C) prohibits feeding wildlife in parks but does not prohibit it on private
property. The proposed amendment to Section 91.12 prohibits feeding any wild animals or animals
running at large on private property.
Residents feeding wild animals on their property can lead to a higher concentration of wildlife in
residential areas. Feeding animals can cause them to become comfortable in an area and
frequently return, knowing there is food easily accessible. Additionally, more wildlife are drawn to
the area by easily accessible food. Wild animals can become desensitized to people when they are
close to them frequently, which can lead to them becoming aggressive with people and pets.
Not all feeding of wildlife is intentional. Improper care and maintenance of a bird feeder can lead
to food dispersing on the ground, which will attract other wild animals. Some bird feeders can be
altered to provide easier access to mammals, drawing wildlife to that yard. Properly maintained
bird feeders are a welcome addition to any backyard to avoid unwanted wildlife.
In a discussion with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), staff members from
ODNR recommended an outdoor feed ordinance as the most appropriate management tactic at
this point. It is anticipated that by passing an outdoor feed ordinance, Dublin residents will see a
decrease in the congregation of wildlife, specifically deer, in residential areas over the next year.
As food becomes unavailable to deer, they will begin to look for alternate food sources, especially
during fawning season.
As part of the enforcement of this ordinance, the GoDublin app will be updated to include “Outdoor
Feeding” as a report type under the Code Enforcement section of the app. The City’s Nature
Education Coordinator will initiate the first conversation with the residents that are feeding wildlife
to inform them of the issues caused by outdoor feeding. If a resident is found to be violating the
ordinance beyond the initial educational conversations, Code Enforcement will become involved.
Communications and Public Information will launch a public education campaign to inform
residents of the ordinance, should the Council adopt the ordinance. This will include current
educational materials and videos to explain why feeding wildlife is problematic.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the adoption of Ordinance 47-23 at the second reading/public hearing on
November 27, 2023.
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Members of the Community Services Advisory Commission
Date: October 17, 2023
Initiated By: Emily Goliver, Management Analyst
Barbara Ray, Nature Education Coordinator
Re: Outdoor Feed Ordinance - Community Services Advisory Commission
Recommendation
Background
At the February 8, 2022 meeting of the Community Services Advisory Commission (CSAC), staff
provided a presentation regarding the City’s wildlife management program, including management
of white-tailed deer. Since that time, staff has conducted additional research regarding deer
management. A deer-specific update was provided at the February 14, 2023 CSAC meeting.
Staff partnered with The Ohio State University’s School of Environmental and Natural Resources to
conduct research during the weeks of May 9 through May 26, 2023. The purpose of this work was
to establish a population estimate of the deer herd within the City of Dublin. The survey team
conducted a field study during the week of May 15, which included road sightings and camera trap
surveys, assessing the vegetation for signs of deer and creating a citizen survey to gather data on
the community’s attitude towards deer.
At the June 13, 2023 CSAC meeting, staff provided an update on the herd population survey. Staff
returned to provide information on management options at the September 12, 2023 meeting of
CSAC. The materials from each meeting are provided for reference.
Summary
Based on the data collected by the survey team, there are approximately 50 – 85 deer per square
mile within Dublin. A healthy population of deer is around 20-25 per square mile. The community-
wide survey received 297 responses. The public’s sentiment was split on whether the population of
white-tailed deer in Dublin is increasing and needs to be managed.
Several regional and statewide jurisdictions are also considering wildlife management tactics.
Management tactics can be categorized as lethal and non-lethal. At the September meeting of
CSAC, staff provided the commission a summary of the lethal and non-lethal options other cities
across the state and country have implemented. CSAC was supportive of staff drafting an “Outdoor
Feed” ordinance as an immediate management tactic the City can deploy. At the October 10, 2023
meeting, CSAC reviewed potential language to be included in the ordinance.
Outdoor Feed Ordinance
Other Ohio cities have adopted outdoor feed ordinances to prohibit the feeding of any wild animal
or animal running at large (such as an outdoor cat). Dublin’s Nature Education Coordinator
anticipates that there may be observances of wild turkey, bobcats and black bears in the next
decade, as these species may become more common in Columbus-area suburbs. An outdoor feed
ordinance pre-emptively addresses those potential future concerns. To avoid the need to pass
0BOffice of the City Manager
1B5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017
2BPhone: 614.410.4400 Memo
Memo re. Outdoor Feed Ordinance - Community Services Advisory Commission Referral
October 17, 2023
Page 2 of 3
animal-specific no feed ordinances each time the population of a wild animal increases, CSAC
recommends adopting a general regulation prohibiting the feeding of all wild animals on private
property.
Section 91.12 of the City’s Code of Ordinances Section prohibits feeding of waterfowl on public
property and Section 96.17(C) prohibits feeding wildlife in parks but does not prohibit it on private
property.
Residents feeding wild animals on their property can lead to a higher concentration of wildlife in
residential areas. Feeding animals can cause them to become comfortable in an area and
frequently return, knowing there is food easily accessible. Additionally, more wildlife are drawn to
the area by easily accessible food. Wild animals can become desensitized to people when they are
close to them frequently, which can lead to them becoming aggressive with people and pets.
Not all feeding of wildlife is intentional. Improper care and maintenance of a bird feeder can lead
to food dispersing on the ground, which will attract other wild animals. Some bird feeders can be
altered to provide easier access to mammals, drawing wildlife to that yard. Properly maintained
bird feeders are a welcome addition to any backyard as a way to avoid unwanted wildlife.
Below is an overview of the content reviewed by CSAC for an outdoor feed ordinance. CSAC is
supportive of this language:
(A) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply unless the context
clearly indicates or requires a different meaning.
(1) RUNNING AT LARGE. An animal off its owner’s premises, without a leash, and
without a person to control the animal.
(2) WILD ANIMAL. An animal not legally confined or held by private ownership legally
acquired and shall include, but not be limited to, feral cats, squirrels, chipmunks, ground
hogs, raccoons, skunks, waterfowl, opossums, muskrats, deer, foxes, black bears, wild
turkey, bobcats, and coyotes.
(3) FEED OR FEEDING. The act of or the furnishing of food or other
sustenance.
(B) No person shall feed, cause to be fed or provide food for animals running at large or wild on any
private or public property within the boundaries of the city. The feeding of one’s own animal(s) or
wild birds on their premises shall be the exception so long as the feed does not attract animals
running at large or wild from public property, public ways or private property not owned by the
feeding person.
(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor. Each day that a violation
continues shall be deemed a separate offense.
Public Education
An outdoor feed ordinance must be coupled with community education programs to help residents
understand the negative impacts caused by feeding wildlife. The City’s Communications and Public
Information team has already begun this messaging and plans to expand the efforts. The first
episode of the “Dublin’s Backyard with Barbara” series focused on deer management and stressed
the importance of not feeding wild animals. This information has also been communicated through
Memo re. Outdoor Feed Ordinance - Community Services Advisory Commission Referral
October 17, 2023
Page 3 of 3
the attached Frequently Asked Questions document and is available on the City’s website.
Nature education will also be a topic at the October 18, 2023 Neighborhood Leadership Meeting.
This will be an opportunity for staff to provide neighborhood leaders with information on ways to
limit the number of deer in their yard and stress the importance of not feeding any wildlife.
Recommendation
By a unanimous vote, the Community Services Advisory Commission recommend that City Council
amend the City’s Code of Ordinances to include a prohibition on outdoor feeding of wild animals or
animals running at large. CSAC recommends that Council direct staff to draft an outdoor feed
ordinance to be considered at a future City Council meeting.
Outdoor Feed Ordinance –CSAC Recommendation
October 23, 2023
Rex Pryor, Chair, Community Services Advisory Committee
•February 8, 2022 – Staff presented on the City’s wildlife
management program.
•February 14, 2023 – Staff provided an update specific to the deer
management program.
•June 13, 2023 –Staff reported the results of a herd population
assessment conducted by the Ohio State University.
•September 12, 2023 – Staff provided a summary of lethal and
non-lethal options for deer management. CSAC requested staff
draft a “Outdoor Feed” ordinance.
•October 10, 2023 –CSAC voted to recommend that City Council
amend the City’s Code of Ordinances to include an Outdoor Feed
Ordinance
Background
•The survey team estimates
that there are approximately
50-85 deer per square mile in
Dublin. A healthy amount is
20-25 per square mile
•The results of the community-
wide survey indicated that
resident’s attitude towards
deer population and
management is mixed
Herd Population Assessment
Do you think there are too many white-tailed
deer an acceptable number, or too little
number in Dublin, Ohio?
Acceptable amount of white-tailed deer 163
Too little white-tailed deer 8
Too many white-tailed deer 126
Do you think the white-tailed deer population
in Dublin is increasing and needs to be
managed?
The white-tailed deer population is
increasing and should be managed
150
There is no need to manage the white-
tailed deer herd in Dublin
147
Summary
•Lethal vs. Non-lethal options•Outdoor feed ordinance vs. no
feed ordinance•Dublin City Code Sections 91.12
and 96.17(C) •Feeding wild animals can lead to:•A higher concentration of
wildlife in that area•Increased comfortability of
wildlife in that area•Desensitized animals in that
area
(A)Definitions.For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply unless thecontextclearly indicates or requires a different meaning.
(1)RUNNING AT LARGE.An animal off its owner’s premises, without a leash,and without a person to control the animal.(2)WILD ANIMAL.An animal not legally confined or held by private ownershiplegallyacquiredandshallinclude, but not be limited to,feral cats,squirrels,chipmunks,ground hogs,raccoons, skunks,waterfowl,opossums, muskrats,deer,foxes,black bears,wild turkey,bobcats,and coyotes.(3)FEED OR FEEDING.The act of or the furnishing of food or other sustenance.
(B)No person shall feed,cause to be fed or provide food for animals running at large or wildonanyprivateorpublicproperty within the boundaries of the city.The feeding of one’s ownanimal(s)or wild birds on their premises shall be the exception so long as the feed does notattract animals running at large or wild from public property,public ways or private propertynotownedbythefeeding person.
(C)Whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor.Each day that a violationcontinues shall be deemed a separate offense.
Language Reviewed by CSAC
By a unanimous vote, the Community Services Advisory Commission
recommends that City Council amend the City’s Code of Ordinances to
include a prohibition on outdoor feeding of wild animals or animals
running at large. CSAC recommends that the Council direct staff to draft
an outdoor feed ordinance to be considered at a future City Council
meeting.
Recommendation
To: Community Services Advisory Commission Members
From: Megan D. O’Callaghan, P.E., City Manager
Date: October 4, 2023
Initiated By: Emily Goliver, Management Analyst
Re: Outdoor Feed Ordinance
Background
At the February 8, 2022 meeting of the Community Services Advisory Commission (CSAC), staff
provided a presentation regarding the City’s wildlife management program, including management
of white-tailed deer. Since that time, staff has conducted additional research regarding deer
management. A deer-specific update was provided at the February 14, 2023 CSAC meeting. At the
June 13, 2023 CSAC meeting, staff provided an update on a herd population survey conducted by
the Ohio State University (OSU). Staff returned to provide information on management options at
the September 12, 2023 meeting of CSAC. The materials from each meeting are provided for the
Commission’s reference.
Based on the data collected through the report provided by OSU, there are approximately 50-85
deer per square mile within Dublin. Dubin is not the only central Ohio city that is examining
potential management options. This topic is being considered regionally and statewide by
numerous jurisdictions. Management options can be categorized as lethal and non-lethal. Staff
provided CSAC with information on the pros and cons of lethal and non-lethal options that have
been implemented in other cities across the state and country. CSAC was supportive of staff
drafting a No Feed Ordinance as an immediate management tactic the City can deploy.
Summary
To avoid the need to pass animal-specific no feed ordinances each time the population of a wild
animal increases, staff is proposing a general regulation prohibiting the feeding of all wild animals
on private property. Outdoor feed ordinances have been adopted in other Ohio cities to prohibit
the feeding of any wild animal or animal running at large (such as an outdoor cat). Dublin’s Nature
Education Coordinator anticipates that there will be observances of wild turkey, bobcats and black
bears in the next decade, as these become more common in surrounding suburbs. An outdoor
feed ordinance pre-emptively addresses those potential future concerns.
Chapter 96.17(C) of the City’s Code of Ordinances prohibits feeding wildlife in parks but does not
prohibit it on private property.
Residents feeding wild animals on their property can lead to a higher concentration of wildlife in
residential areas. Feeding animals can cause them to become comfortable in that area and
frequently return, knowing there is food available to them. As this continues, more wildlife will be
drawn to the area. Wild animals can become desensitized to people when they are close to them
frequently, which can lead to them becoming aggressive with people and pets.
Not all feeding of wildlife is intentional. Improper care and maintenance of a bird feeder can lead
to food dispersing on the ground, which will attract other wild animals. Some bird feeders can be
altered to provide easier access to mammals, drawing wildlife to that yard. Properly maintained
0BOffice of the City Manager
1B5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017
2BPhone: 614.410.4400 Memo
Memo re. Outdoor Feed Ordinance
October 4, 2023
Page 2 of 2
bird feeders are a welcome addition to any backyard as an opportunity.
Outdoor Feed Ordinance
Below is an overview of the content to be included in an outdoor feed ordinance, should that be
the recommendation of CSAC:
(A) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply unless the context
clearly indicates or requires a different meaning.
(1) RUNNING AT LARGE. An animal off its owner’s premises, without a leash, and
without a person to control the animal.
(2) WILD ANIMAL. An animal not legally confined or held by private ownership legally
acquired and shall include, but not be limited to, feral cats, squirrels, chipmunks, ground
hogs, raccoons, skunks, waterfowl, opossums, muskrats, deer, foxes, black bears, wild
turkey, bobcats, and coyotes.
(3) FEED OR FEEDING. The act of or the furnishing of food or other
sustenance.
(B) No person shall feed, cause to be fed or provide food for animals running at large or wild on any
private or public property within the boundaries of the city. The feeding of one’s own animal(s) or
wild birds on their premises shall be the exception so long as the feed does not attract animals
running at large or wild from public property, public ways or private property not owned by the
feeding person.
(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor. Each day that a violation
continues shall be deemed a separate offense.
Public Education
In cities that have adopted a no feed or outdoor feed ordinance, the legislation typically defines
“feeding” as intentionally feeding or causing to be fed. This is consistent with Chapter 91.12 of
Dublin’s code, which prohibits feeding waterfowl on public property. In many cases, violators are
guilty of a minor misdemeanor. Each day is considered a new violation.
These ordinances must be coupled with community education programs to help residents
understand the negative impacts that feeding wildlife can have. The City’s Communications and
Public Information team has already begun this messaging and has plans to expand the efforts.
The first episode of the “Dublin’s Backyard with Barbara” series focused on deer management and
stressed the importance of not feeding the wild animals. This information has also been
communicated through the attached Frequently Asked Questions document and is available on the
City’s website.
Dublin hosts a bi-annual information session with leaders of the local homeowners and civic
associations. A topic for discussion at the Oct. 18, 2023 Neighborhood Leadership Meeting is
nature education. Since it is a popular topic, the presentation will focus mainly on how residents
can limit the number of deer in their yard and will stress the importance of not feeding any
wildlife. This communication will continue should the Ordinance be adopted by City Council.
Recommendation
Staff requests a CSAC recommendation to the City Council to amend the City’s Code to include a
prohibition on outdoor feeding of wild animals or animals running at large.
DEER MANAGEMENT FAQ
The white-tailed deer is a common backyard visitor in
Dublin. They typically feed on gardens, landscape plants
and trees, and agricultural crops.
We certainly understand the frustration deer can cause
regarding landscape damage, pet interactions and other
associated issues. Herd management options are
complex and the City is taking a comprehensive
approach to determining the appropriate actions.
Below are answers to frequent questions we receive and
tips on managing deer on your property.
HOW DO I STOP DEER FROM
EATING MY PLANTS AND
BIRDSEED?
Being proactive and using several strategies when
managing deer on your property is essential. Deer are
commonly interested in new plant growth in the spring
but tend to be curious and “browse” year-round.
Protective structures often keep deer out of gardens or
away from young or sensitive trees. Fencing is
commonly used, though it is only effective if layered and
angled short to tall at approximately 18, 26 and 36
inches. Temporary fencing, like chicken wire, can also be
installed and should be 26 to 36 inches tall. Another
option is laying a 3-foot wide strip of chicken wire or
other mesh fencing flat on the ground. Flashing or
amber holiday lights can also be plugged into a motion
sensor.
Deer damage to ornamental plants is very frustrating.
You can minimize the damage they can do by avoiding
plants they prefer and instead use plants listed in the
table at the bottom of this document that deer avoid
due to toxicity, fragrance or texture.
Deer-proof bird feeders are suggested as an effective
way to sway deer from eating birdseed. Opting for seeds
with bitter or a spicy coating also deters deer but keeps
the birds interested.
CAN I FEED THE DEER?
The City asks that residents please refrain from feeding
the deer by any means. Deer are creatures of habit and
will return to the same area. It is strongly suggested
that neighbors work together to eliminate feeding
activity and identify common areas that may entice the
deer. Staff have found that deer can become aggressive
and persistent when fed by humans.
While we understand some love deer and other wildlife,
not feeding the animals is the most effective way to
eliminate interactions now.
WHAT ARE OTHER WAYS TO
MANAGE DEER ON MY PROPERTY?
Hazing is a method of frightening deer away from your
yard with loud noises or movement. This is a short-term
solution as deer quickly become used to the hazing
unless techniques are rotated out. Common practices
include:
• Motion-activated sprinklers
• “Predator Eyes” or motion-activated lights
• “Deer Scram,” a granular repellent odor
• Menthol rub on leaves
Utilizing these and the other tips listed in this document
will help reduce the number of deer entering your yard.
WHO SHOULD I CONTACT FOR
MORE INFORMATION?
Our Nature Education Coordinator, Barbara Ray, is
happy to meet with neighbors and the HOA to provide
some advice and guidance on plant selection,
repelling deer, keeping deer away from your yard and
answering any questions.
Phone: 614.410.4730
Email: bray@dublin.oh.us
Outdoor Feed Ordinance
October 10, 2023
Emily Goliver, Management Analyst
•February 8, 2022 – staff presented on the City’s wildlife management program•February 14, 2023 – staff provided an update specific to the deer management program•June 13, 2023 – staff reported out on the results of a herd population assessment conducted by the Ohio State University•The survey team estimates that there are approximately 50-85 deer per square mile in Dublin. A healthy amount is 20-25 per square mile•The results of the community-wide survey indicated that resident’s attitude towards deer population and management is mixed•September 12, 2023 – staff provided a summary of lethal and non-lethal options for deer management. The CSAC requested staff draft a No Feed Ordinance
Background
•Lethal vs. Non-lethal options
•Outdoor feed ordinance vs. no feed ordinance
•Chapter 96.17(C)
•Feeding wild animals can lead to:
•A higher concentration of wildlife in that area
•Increased comfortability of wildlife in that area
•Desensitized animals in that area
Summary
•Dublin’s Backyard with Barbara
episode 1
•Bi-annual Neighborhood
Leadership Meeting on Oct. 18
•FAQ document
•Living with wildlife documents
Public Education
(A) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. (1) RUNNING AT LARGE. An animal off its owner’s premises, without a leash, and without a person to control the animal.(2) WILD ANIMAL. An animal not legally confined or held by private ownership legally acquired and shall include, but not be limited to, feral cats, squirrels, chipmunks, ground hogs, raccoons, skunks, waterfowl, opossums, muskrats, deer, foxes, black bears, wild turkey, bobcats, and coyotes. (3) FEED OR FEEDING. The act of or the furnishing of food or other sustenance. (B) No person shall feed, cause to be fed or provide food for animals running at large or wild on any private or public property within the boundaries of the city. The feeding of one’s own animal(s) or wild birds on their premises shall be the exception so long as the feed does not attract animals running at large or wild from public property, public ways or private property not owned by the feeding person.
(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor. Each day that a violation continues shall be deemed a separate offense.
Draft Language
Staff requests a CSAC recommendation to the City Council to amend the
City’s Code to include a prohibition on outdoor feeding of wild animals or
animals running at large.
Recommendation
To: Community Services Advisory Commission Members
From: Megan D. O’Callaghan, P.E., City Manager
Date: September 6, 2023
Initiated By: Emily Goliver, Management Analyst
Re: Deer Management Options
Background
At the February 8, 2022 meeting of the Community Services Advisory Commission (CSAC), staff
provided a presentation regarding the City’s wildlife management program, including management
of white-tailed deer. Since that time, staff has conducted additional research regarding deer
management. At the June 13, 2023 CSAC meeting, staff provided an update on a herd population
survey conducted by the Ohio State University (OSU).
Based on the data collected by the students at OSU, the survey team estimates there are
approximately 50-85 deer per square mile within Dublin. A healthy population of deer is around
20-25 per square mile. The report also indicates that the population of deer is negatively impacting
reforestation. A community-wide survey was open for five days from May 19th to May 23rd and
received 297 responses. The responses indicated that the community’s attitudes towards the
white-tailed deer population and management of it was mixed. The materials from both meetings,
including the report, are provided for reference.
Summary
The City of Dublin is not the only central Ohio city considering this issue. The City of Worthington
has a task force to address concerns related to its herd population. Additionally, according to
representatives at the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Franklin County has seen an
increase in deer over the years. As a species, deer are transient animals. Thus, ODNR is working to
increase education on potential management tactics for all cities. Potential options to manage the
white-tailed deer population can be categorized as non-lethal and lethal.
Non-lethal Management Options
No-Feed Ordinance
A common non-lethal management option is instituting a No-Feed Ordinance. Residents feeding
deer on their property can lead to higher deer concentration in residential areas. Additionally,
feeding deer can lead to increased comfort for the deer in that area. In some cases of aggressive
deer encounters, residents in the neighborhood have admitted to either leaving food out for the
deer or not using deer-proof bird feeders. Chapter 96.17(C) of the City’s Code of Ordinances
prohibits feeding wildlife in parks but does not prohibit it on private property. The City also
prohibits feeding geese and other waterfowl on public property within the boundaries of the city
(Chapter 91.12).
In city’s that have adopted a no-feed ordinance, the legislation typically defines “feeding” as
intentionally feeding or causing to be fed. This is consistent with Chapter 91.12 of Dublin’s code.
In many cases, violators are guilty of a minor misdemeanor. Each day is considered a new
violation. These practices could be implemented in a no-feed ordinance adapted for Dublin.
0BOffice of the City Manager
1B5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017
2BPhone: 614.410.4400 Memo
Memo re. Deer Management Options
September 6, 2023
Page 2 of 3
No-feed ordinances must be coupled with community education programs. It is important for
residents to understand the purpose of the ordinance and the negative impact that feeding deer
can have. Should a no-feed ordinance be passed, staff will work on an educational campaign with
the City’s Communications and Public Information Division.
Contraceptives
Another non-lethal option that is more difficult to implement is sterilization. This involves injecting
females with infertility drugs or surgically sterilizing them. These programs have not been proven
effective when implemented. A doe that does not have children lives longer than does that do. For
example, the City of Columbus attempted this management tactic in the early 2000’s and are still
observing the sterilized does to this day. Additionally, when the fawn output decreases due to
sterilization of half of the does, the other half will begin producing more offspring in one cycle. For
instance, a typical doe has one or two fawns per year. If the fawn population decreases due to
sterilization of does, the does will begin having litters of three or four to repopulate the herd.
Contraceptive programs are also expensive. It costs about $1,000 to surgically sterilize a doe or to
immobilize a deer to administer the infertility drug. The ODNR will only permit this when it is
coupled with a lethal option.
Relocation Programs
Trapping and relocation of a deer is not permitted by ODNR. Deer mortality rates of these
practices are upwards of 60% due to the stress it causes the animal. Additionally, relocation can
lead to disease spread in a new area, which is not desirable to the relocated or native deer.
Lethal Management Options
Below is a summary of two lethal options that have been implemented in other cities to manage
the deer herd. Chapter 91.08 of the City’s Code of Ordinances currently prohibits hunting of any
animal within the city’s boundaries. Any lethal options need to be seriously considered with the
input of the Dublin Police Department (DPD). The safety of residents and visitors is a top priority.
In the past, DPD has expressed concerns regarding lethal methods of deer management.
Urban Bow Hunting Program
An urban bow hunting program is one of the lethal management options that some cities, including
Gahanna, OH, have implemented. Urban bow hunting programs are very restrictive. For instance,
a common requirement in these programs is maintaining a suitable distance (200 feet, in many
cases) from a school, walking path and residential neighborhood. These are typically implemented
on public property but could be applied to private property with permission from the owner. Based
on the location and size of many public lands in Dublin and the aforementioned restrictions, there
would be very little space in Dublin that would be appropriate for an urban bow hunting program.
Additionally, a program like this requires hunters to obtain permits through the State of Ohio,
register with the police department, pass an archery proficiency test, and to submit a background
check. These programs require staff resources, particularly through the police department, to
screen applicants and monitor the hunters for compliance.
Sharpshooting Program
Some Ohio cities, particularly in northeast Ohio, have implemented sharpshooting programs to
manage their deer herds. In order for this to be successful, the sharpshooting would occur
overnight on specific properties with a high level of deer-related activity, typically a city park. This
management option would require the city to hire a contractor to conduct the culling. These
Memo re. Deer Management Options
September 6, 2023
Page 3 of 3
programs typically cost over $60,000 for just the sharpshooting. Another cost related to
sharpshooting programs is the cost the harvest the deer meat to be donated. This fee depends on
the number of deer and the contractor hired to do this work.
South Euclid, OH has been given permission by ODNR to implement a sterilization program
because it is being done in conjunction with a sharpshooting program. This is part of a research
project that includes tracking the movements of deer after sterilization. The sterilized deer are
tagged and prohibited from being culled.
Recommendation
Staff is seeking feedback from CSAC regarding management options.
Deer Management Options
September 12, 2023
Emily Goliver, Management Analyst
•February 8, 2022 – staff presented on the City’s wildlife
management program
•February 14, 2023 – staff provided an update specific to the
deer management program
•June 13, 2023 – staff reported out on the results of a herd
population assessment conducted by the Ohio State University
•The survey team estimates that there are approximately 50-85
deer per square mile in Dublin. A healthy amount is 20-25 per
square mile
•The results of the community-wide survey indicated that
resident’s attitude towards deer population and management is
mixed
Background
•Deer population is an issue seen throughout the state, county
and central Ohio region
•The Ohio Department of Natural Resources is working to
increase education on potential management tactics for all
cities
Summary
No-Feed Ordinance•Residents feeding deer can lead to a higher population concentration in residential areas•The City of Dublin currently prohibits feeding wildlife in parks and prohibits feeding waterfowl on public property•No-Feed Ordinances must be coupled with educational campaigns to explain why it causes issues
Contraceptives•Injections or surgical sterilization•Approx. $1,000 surgically sterilize a doe or immobilize it for injection•ODNR will not permit this unless it is coupled with a lethal option
Relocation Program•Trapping and relocating deer is not permitted by ODNR due to the stress and high mortality rate it causes the deer
Non-Lethal Options
Urban Bow Hunting Program•Must be implemented in an area that is an appropriate distance from pedestrian facilities, homes and schools.•Typically implemented on public property but could be on private property, with permission•Hunters must obtain a permit through the State of Ohio, register with the police department, pass an archery proficiency test and submit a background check•Requires significant staff resources. There are also very few locations in Dublin that would be appropriate, given the limitations
Sharpshooting Program•Sharpshooting occurs overnight in areas with a high population density, typically on public parks•The City of Dublin would hire a contractor – typically costs over $60,000•Dublin’s high-density areas are mainly in residential areas
Lethal Options
•Defines “feeding” as “intentionally feeding or causing to be
fed”
•Violators are typically found guilty of a minor misdemeanor
•Each day is considered a new violation
•Implementation –
•Code Enforcement violation
•Worthington has an online complaint form
No-Feed Ordinance
Staff is seeking feedback from CSAC regarding management
options
Recommendation
To: Community Services Advisory Commission Members
From: Megan D. O’Callaghan, P.E., City Manager
Date: June 7, 2023
Initiated By: Emily Goliver, Management Analyst
Re: Deer Management – Herd Population Report
Background
At the February 14, 2023 meeting of the Community Services Advisory Commission (CSAC), staff
provided an update regarding the City’s plans for conducting an analysis of the City’s deer herd.
This information was provided as a follow-up to the February 8, 2022 meeting of CSAC at which
staff presented on the City’s wildlife management program. The materials from both meetings are
provided for reference.
Summary
Students from The Ohio State University’s School of Environmental and Natural Resources
conducted research during the weeks of May 9th through May 26th to establish a population
estimate of the deer herd within the City of Dublin. The survey team conducted a field study the
week of May 15th, which included road sighting and camera trap surveys, assessing the vegetation
for signs of deer and creating a citizen survey to gather data on the community’s attitude towards
deer.
Based on the data, the survey team estimates there are approximately 50-85 deer per square mile
within Dublin. A healthy population of deer is around 20-25 per square mile. The results of the
vegetation assessment indicates that deer population is negatively impacting reforestation. The
analysis indicates that the deer are eating trees and tree saplings, but there was little browsing to
ground cover and invasive plants. The analysis indicates that the tree preferences of the deer herd
are beech, maple and ash trees. In addition to eating the saplings and impacting reforestation,
there were also signs of damage to trees due to scratching.
The community-wide survey was open for five days from May 19th to May 23rd. In total, 297
responses were recorded. The results of each question are listed below. The questions were
adapted from the Wildlife Society Bulletin and phrased in a non-biased manner.
1. How would you describe your experience with white-tailed deer in the City of Dublin?
Response Count of Responses
Negative 74
Neutral 73
Positive 150
2. Do you think there are too many white-tailed deer, an acceptable number, or too little number
in Dublin, Ohio?
Response Count of Responses
Acceptable amount of white-tailed deer 163
Too little white-tailed deer 8
Too many white-tailed deer 126
Office of the City Manager
5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017
Phone: 614.410.4400 Memo
Memo re. Deer Management - Herd Population Report
June 7, 2023
Page 2 of 2
3. Do you think the white-tailed deer population in Dublin is increasing and needs to be managed?
Response Count of Responses
The white-tailed deer population is increasing
and should be managed.
150
There is no need to manage the white-tailed
deer herd in Dublin
147
4. What negative experiences have you or a member of your household had with white-tailed deer
in Dublin?
Response Count of Responses
Deer/vehicle collision or almost collision 29
Lyme’s Disease from Deer Tick 2
Other 47
Plant/Property Damage 219
5. Have you seen a white-tailed deer on your property?
Response Count of Responses
No 17
Yes 279
Recommendation
Staff will continue to engage with The Ohio State School of Environmental and Natural Resources
to determine the appropriate next steps based on the report. Staff will provide a report to CSAC
regarding these efforts at a future meeting.
WHITE-TAILED
DEER HERD OF
DUBLIN, OHIO
A study determining population size, vegetation
response, and public opinion of urban deer.
Willeke, Evan., Huddleston, Davina., Branch,
Shannon.
The Ohio State University ENR 4900.02
i
The Ohio State University
School of Environmental and Natural Resources 2021 Coffey Road
Columbus, Ohio 43201
May 26 2023
Emily Goliver
Management Analyst
Dublin Service Center
6555 Shier Rings Road
Dublin, OH 43026
We would like to first say that it was a great pleasure working with you over these last
few weeks to help the city of Dublin understand its deer population more. This letter includes the
data analysis, and deer management recommendations for the City of Dublin. For the data
analysis we set up camera traps, conducted road surveys, shared survey questions with the City
of Dublin for its citizens, and assessed vegetation for foraging and rubs throughout Dublin.
During the week of May 15th to May 22nd data was collected by students from The Ohio
State University, School of Environmental and Natural Resources for ENR 4900.02
Environmental & Natural Resources Management for Forestry, Fisheries, & Wildlife Capstone
course. Data was collected from various green spaces throughout Dublin for the vegetation
surveys and camera traps, the road surveys were conducted on the roads within the Dublin area.
The methods for the surveys are outlined in the report and were chosen to collect accurate and
relevant data during the week.
The purpose of this study is to provide Dublin with information about their deer population
density and the impacts it has on the habitat and social carrying capacity. To get to that point we
ii
had to establish a population estimate with cameras and road surveys. We also needed to
understand how the deer are affecting the vegetation, so we conducted vegetation surveys
throughout Dublin. We created questions for the citizens of Dublin, which were shared with the
city’s communications team, to get an understanding of how the citizens feel about the number
of deer in their city. Finally, we provided education and outreach resources to citizens about deer
and human interactions.
A healthy population of deer is around 20- 25 per square mile. With the data that we
collected and analyzed we found a conservative estimate of 50-85 deer per square mile. The
density is high enough that we believe that management actions need to be taken to help the City
of Dublin, its citizens, and the health of the deer as well. The specifics on how we came to this
number can be found in our report as well.
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project and for taking our
recommendations into consideration for the white-tailed deer population in Dublin. We hope that
this data will provide you with valuable information when creating a management plan for the
City of Dublin.
Sincerely,
Evan Willeke, Davina Huddleston, Shannon Branch
iii
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
Study Area ............................................................................................................................... 2
Methods, Results, and Discussion ............................................................................................ 2
Objective 1: Find a Deer Population Estimate ................................................................................ 2
Objective 2 Assess Vegetation for Signs of Deer ............................................................................. 7
Objective 3: Establish a Citizen Survey Based Upon Experience and Opinion of Deer ............... 12
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 14
Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................... 16
Appendix ............................................................................................................................... 17
iv
List of Tables
Table 1: Deer vegetation survey table
List of Figures
Figure 1: Map of Dublin, Ohio.
Figure 2: Map with areas surveyed.
Figure 3: Two bucks caught on a camera trap.
Figure 4: A pie graph showing the ratio of bucks to does.
Figure 5: A graph showing the deer impact scores on plant species in that area.
Figure 6: A picture of a rub mark from a buck.
Figure 7: A picture of a plant that had been browsed on by deer.
Figure 8: A pie graph showing how many people have seen deer on their property.
List of Appendices
Appendix A: The entire handout from the Mississippi FWRC regarding protocol and calculations
for deer density.
Appendix B: List of camera trap numbers and their coordinates.
Appendix C: A collection of the raw data collected from the vegetation survey
1
Introduction
White-tailed deer are arguably one of the most recognizable of America’s wild animals,
and they happen to be adapted well to coexisting with humans in urban and suburban
environments. In many places around the country, local governments are having to make
decisions on what to do about the growing deer numbers within their borders. Making a decision
on how to manage these populations is often difficult due to members of the public having
differing opinions on the issue, and often times these are very strongly held opinions. The city of
Dublin, located in central Ohio, has had a growing concern with the number of deer present
within their city, the amount of negative human deer encounters, and for the health of the deer
and health and safety of its citizens. The numbers of dead deer reported across the city have also
been increasing, with 81 dead deer reported in the year 2022 (Goliver 2023). While not all were
labeled as traffic deaths within the data, it is likely many were unreported traffic accidents due to
the frequency of dead deer surrounding highly trafficked areas. The city's management team
reached out to The Ohio State University for help in establishing a population estimate for the
deer herd within their city. They were also seeking information related to what a healthy
population number would be. Another goal of theirs was to get a sense of how their citizens felt
about the local deer herd, and if they had negative experiences or seen deer on their property.
Throughout the course of this short seven-day study window, we have compiled the data below.
2
Study Area
The city of Dublin is in Franklin, Delaware, and Union Counties in central Ohio (see
Figure 1). The 24.91 square miles (15,000+ acres) are comprised of neighborhoods, business
sections, golf courses and a series of very diverse parks and open spaces throughout the city.
Dublin has many different neighborhoods and many of them have large lawns that backup to or
connect to parks or green spaces. Our study took place within the 949 acres of parks and open
spaces, as well as along the roadways of the city.
Methods, Results, and Discussion
Objective 1: Find a Deer Population Estimate
Methods
To establish a population baseline, estimate of the white-tailed deer herd in the city of
Dublin we completed road sighting surveys and camera trap surveys. To complete the road
surveys, we divided the city of Dublin using Avery-Muirfield Drive, Muirfield Drive and Avery
Road as our north and south running transects, and used Brand Road as our main east and west
Figure 1: Map of Dublin, Ohio
3
transect. We targeted our road surveys to be conducted in the first two hours of daylight from
5:45 AM to 7:45 AM and the last two hours of daylight from 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM. To track each
survey, a GPS tracking feature was used on the CalTopo mapping software starting at the
beginning of the survey and finishing the track at the end of the survey. While driving locations
were marked on the map and labeled with the number of deer and the time of each sighting.
For a second estimation, we followed a camera-based protocol provided by the
Mississippi State Forest and Wildlife Resource Center (FWRC) for our study as closely as
possible (FWRC 2000). We placed 10 camera traps at selectively randomized locations
throughout the city of Dublin’s many parks and open spaces which total 949 acres. The open
space and parks consist of ball fields, walking paths, wood lots, and mowed grass fields. We
selected our camera trap locations to be representative of three different vegetation classes: open
space, intermediate woodland, and mature timber. We classified open space as having very few
trees placed in the area or no trees present in the middle of the plot, intermediate woodland was
identified by finding trees and shrubs that have not yet fully matured but more advanced than
initial establishment. Mature timber was as the name describes. We distributed the camera traps
throughout the different greenspaces across the city to cover as much of the municipality as
possible. When selecting the locations, we entered habitat patches, categorized the patch into one
of the 3 categories, and then randomly selected a tree to hang the camera on. We hung cameras
three feet off of the ground depending on the surrounding vegetation; when necessary, we
removed vegetation that would trigger the sensor or obstruct the view of the cameras. It is
recommended to run camera traps on a 5- or 10-minute capture delay for the best data possible, if
this is not done pictures must be deleted to reflect one per 5- or 10-minute interval; otherwise the
amount of data becomes overwhelming, but detection of new unique individual deer does not
appreciably increase. We then placed 10 pounds of corn in front of the cameras in a line roughly
5 meters from the camera. We allowed these cameras to sit and collect data for 7 days before we
pulled each of them.
4
Results
After removal of the SD cards, we filed all the photos with their respective camera and identified
each unique buck on camera and placed every picture of that individual on a file. In order to
identify different bucks, we kept records of each buck as it first appeared on camera and filed
Figure 2: A map of Dublin with all of the areas that were surveyed. The lines along the roads are the drive surveys
which were conducted at duck and dawn. The camera traps are marked with a green camera icon. The deer sighted
are depicted by the red circle icon with a D in it. The vegetation survey areas are marked by a solid blue point.
5
that photo in its respective home. The different bucks were identified based off their unique
antler growth, and we identified 18 unique bucks. We then counted the number of times each
buck was photographed and divided by our total number of bucks against the total number of
buck pictures to receive our population factor of .24. We multiplied .24 by our total number of
does to reach 45.24 does, we then multiplied that number by our extrapolation factor which was
1.6667, that gives us 75.4 does. We found this number by determining our summer detection
rates after a week to be around 60%; in other words, 6 out of every 10 deer within the survey
window would be expected to be captured on camera during a 7-day survey. We came to this
conclusion after studying the difference in detection rates in for winter and fall surveys provided
in the literature. Detection probability is lower than the fall or winter due to increased cover from
foliage, the increased availability of food (making deer less likely to be attracted to our baited
cameras), and behavior of does to identify and hone in on parturition (birthing) sites for fawns.
Based on the estimated 60% detection rate, we multiplied our total number of unique bucks by
our detection factor to estimate a total of 30 bucks. Adding in the estimated 75.4 does gives us a
total of 105.4 deer within the 949 acres surveyed. While this number is an estimate, this
translates to around 50-85 deer per square mile.
Figure 3: Two bucks that were caught on one of the camera traps.
6
We observed 97 deer in the driving survey transects. Generating a reliable estimate based
on vehicle-based observations, however, is difficult. First, the area surveyed is difficult to
determine – exactly how wide is the surveyed visual driving route? Estimating the transect width
is necessary to convert the 97 deer to a reliable density estimate. Furthermore, the risk of double
counting deer between driving routes is considerable, adding more variation to the method.
Discussion
These numbers are very conservative estimates, and the population is likely even denser,
the summer/spring conditions make getting an accurate representation of population size
increasingly difficult. During this time of year does are shrinking their respective home ranges in
anticipation of fawning which also leads to a lesser detection rate. In addition, fawning season is
now active with does dropping an average of 1.9 fawns per year. This obviously adds a large
number of deer to the herd, especially given other studies which have indicated fawn survival
rates of 70% which is 30% higher than their rural counterparts (Carter 2017). It is worth noting
that the camera surveys occurred within green spaces and parks; it is a tenuous assumption that
deer densities within the more heavily residential or commercial areas of Dublin are as high as
more natural habitats; however, urban white-tailed deer are extraordinarily adaptable and
integrate into highly developed matrices easily. The frequency of vehicle-based observations that
occurred in lawns and residential areas is proof of this. Glacier Ridge metro park which is
roughly 1000 acres and comparable in size to our survey area counted 110 deer the year before
starting culling program, but after three years of continued removal, have successfully lowered
the number of deer within the park to 81 at the most recent count this February (Kasnyik 2023).
Figure 4: A pie graph showing the ratio of bucks to does in
Dublin. Does can be seen in blue, and the bucks are seen in
orange.
7
While the roadside counts do not provide a reliable estimate of density, they do show promise to
track trends if roadside transects were established and repeated in a consistent manner through
time. To advance this effort, an expanded camera survey in the autumn would be a good idea.
For an even better though much more logistically-demanding and expensive estimate,
employment of a helicopter to fly the municipality with snow cover during winter can provide
highly reliable estimates; this method is currently being used to survey Glacier Ridge Metro
Park.
Objective 2 Assess Vegetation for Signs of Deer
Methods
The vegetation survey sites were chosen based on selective randomization. The areas
needed to survey included high deer traffic area, high human traffic area, riparian forest, mature
forest stand, young forest stand, honeysuckle thicket, and forest edge. To understand what a
control situation would be, the deer exclosures at Glacier Ridge Metro Park (McBride) were
visited. The vegetation began to have a lot of sapling growth, whereas outside the exclosure there
were no saplings.
Once the areas were chosen a range finder was used to make a 10-meter radius around a
center point. The center point was marked on Caltopo for record, and the coordinates were also
recorded on paper. The edges were marked with flagging tape in four directions. Using plant
identification apps, the plants within the circle were recorded and sorted into the type of plant it
was which included ground cover (GC), shrubs (S), and trees (T). After identifying all the plants,
the percent makeup of the plants was determined within each plant group, if there were 5 GC
plants then the density makeup of those plants would add up to one hundred percent, the same
for the shrubs and trees (see table 1).
8
Table 1: A table used in one of the vegetation surveys. The score meanings are listed below.
Score Description
0 No impact
1 Low impact 1-25% browsed.
2 Low-moderate impact 26-50% foliage browsed, stem or rubbing damage.
3 Moderate-high impact 51-75%, multiple stem breakage or severe rubbing damage
4 High impact 76-100% foliage browsed or extreme rubbing damage.
The amount of deer damage or browsing would be assessed according to the National
Feral Deer Action Plan (NSFAP 2022); the meaning of these scores can also be found under
table 1. Deer damage included rubbing which is the action of a buck scratching his antlers on a
tree which will leave a mark (see figure 6), and the severity of deer browsing was also
considered (see figure 7). Vegetation assessments were conducted ten times in different locations
spread throughout Dublin, the areas chosen needed to be within the open spaces and parks. It was
necessary to have varying kinds of habitat, these kinds included riparian corridors, mature forest
stand, young forest stand, high deer traffic areas, high human traffic areas, and honeysuckle
thickets. A mature forest stand would be a forest that has trees of varying ages but there are
many large trees that would be old, and a developed understory. A young forest would have trees
that are likely close in age and are rapidly growing, the understory has not had much time to
develop yet. High deer traffic areas were depicted by areas that had many deer tracks where
“highways” (repeatedly used areas that deer use to walk) have developed. High human traffic
areas included areas that were close to neighborhoods, sidewalks, trails, roads, or any
combination of these characteristics. Finally, a honeysuckle thicket was characterized by an area
Observer Name: Group
Center Point: 40.12156, -83.10384
Date: 5/17/23
Species % Makeup Score Other Comments Type
Sedge 5 3 GC
Virginia Creeper 15 0 GC
Poison Ivy 5 2 GC
Cudweed 5 2 GC
White Avens 10 1 GC
Japanese Honeysuckle 60 0 S
Amur Honeysuckle 20 1 S
Privet 60 1 S
Multiflora Rose 5 0 S
Grapevine 15 0 S
Elm 80 1 T
Dogwood 15 2 T
Maple 5 2 T
9
that had so many honeysuckle bushes that the area was hard to get into and there are not many
other species growing in that area because the honeysuckle is too established to let them grow.
Having a diverse habitat selection like this would provide data on the kind of vegetation the deer
would eat in different environments and situational settings.
0
1
2
3
4
Damage ScorePlant Species
Damage Scores on Different Vegetation
Figure 5: A graph showing the damage scores for each of the plants in this survey area (this graph
is in a different area from the vegetation survey table). Ground cover had the least amount of
damage, shrubs had a medium amount of damage, and trees had the most.
10
Results
When comparing to the control site area located in Glacier Ridge Metro Park, it was
found that there was evidence of browsing to the vegetation by deer in all ten areas surveyed.
There was a significant browse line that could be seen in almost every survey plot excluding the
honeysuckle thicket which did not have many deer in it; another reason the thicket was left alone
was because the deer showed a preference to not eat the invasives, and Amur honeysuckle is one
of them. In most of the areas surveyed there was a significant amount of browsing to the plants,
most of their browsing was focused on the trees and tree saplings, there was some browsing to
the shrubs and little browsing to the ground cover (see figure 5). Other than the deer eating the
vegetation (see Figure 7), there was significant damage to the smaller trees where bucks were
rubbing their antlers on trunks (see figure 6). The plants that are being selected the most by the
deer are beech, maple, and ash trees; most of the impacts came from the deer eating the saplings,
but they also were scratching the trees which was accounted for as damage as well.
Figure 6: A picture of a rub mark on a beech tree in Thaddeus
Kosciuszko Park that had been used by bucks to scratch their
antlers. These marks show severe damage and is likely from
several different bucks.
11
Discussion
The deer are creating significant impacts on the plants, so much so that most saplings are
suppressed and stunted which impacts forest regeneration, plant diversity, and the health of the
green spaces in Dublin. The invasive species like Amur honeysuckle, multiflora rose, privet, and
grapevine, which are within the deer’s preferred browsing area of six feet and below, are mostly
being left alone by the deer. The ash trees are not a preferred source of food by deer, but as seen
in figure 5, they are being browsed a lot even in the presence of other tree species that they prefer
more, such as maple and oak. This evidence indicates that deer are becoming more desperate for
a food source which yet another indicatorthat there are too many deer in the area to healthily
support them all without ill consequences on the environment. Excessive rubbing on trees,
especially when many bucks are rubbing on the same tree can leave an open wound on the trees
which can make them more susceptible to diseases and pests killing the tree. Bucks will choose
to rub only on the thinner trees because they are able to fit their antlers around them, thinner
trees are also younger. Since the deer are not eating the invasive plants and only eating and
rubbing on the native plants, a synergistic negative effect of white-tailed deer with invasive plant
species expansion and establishment is likely occurring. With fewer deer in Dublin, that would
give the native plants more of a chance at survival and combined with the efforts of invasive
removal then the results would increase their chances even more. By both decreasing the deer
12
population and the invasive plants, the biodiversity of the forests will increase, and the native
plants will have the best chance at survival.
Objective 3: Establish a Citizen Survey Based Upon Experience and Opinion of Deer
Methods
Survey questions were written in a non-biased tone to ask the citizens of Dublin what
their opinions of the deer population were. Some questions were reused and revised from the
Wildlife Society Bulletin (Kilpatrick 1997). The specific questions asked can be found in the
appendences below. The questions were sent to Dublin’s communications team conducted the
survey, how their team conducted the survey is unknown. The survey was active for five days.
Figure 7: Butterweed plant that had been browsed on by deer.
13
Results
There were 297 responses from the citizens of Dublin after the five days it was out. From
those results it was found that fifty percent have negative or neutral experiences with the deer.
Fifty percent said the population needs to be managed. Forty-two percent said there are too many
deer. About seventy-five percent have seen property/plant damage from the deer. Finally, ninety-
five percent have seen a deer on their property (see figure 8). There were some people who had
left additional comments on the behavior of the deer such as one person remarking that the deer
in Thaddeus Kosciuszko Park as being very aggressive. Another person stated that they have had
does leave their fawns in their bushes and two people said that the does are very aggressive.
Discussion
Many of the citizens assumed that management only meant hunting the herd, which is an
option, but it is not the only one. Having hunting and culling programs can be completed without
the greater public knowing. When meeting with Kevin Kasnyik, Columbus Metro Parks Head of
Resource Management, he said that they publicly inform the people that the raffle for their
hunting program is open (Kasnyik, 2023). Dr. Karns, who lives next to Sharon Woods metro
park, said that he had no idea that deer culling occurs until he was told so by the park manager
related to another project (Karns, 2023). Public transparency can help a highly controlled hunting
Figure 8: A pie graph showing the number of citizens who have seen a deer on their
property. The people who said yes are shown in orange, and for those who said no, they
are shown in blue.
14
program or culling operation succeed without creating too much attention in the occasion that
some of the public are apprehensive about a culling or hunting program.
Another option for managing the herd would be using contraceptives on the does which
would prevent the herd from growing. This option would take time to see results from, rather
than an immediate response from hunting. By decreasing the birth rate for Dublin and the death
rate staying the same it will take time since the deer would be dying from old age, disease, and
possibly car collisions, the population will steadily decrease. Contraceptives are expensive since
they require the actual contraceptives, conducting live captures, and reapplying the
contraceptives to new deer, which will all add up quickly. Although this route would likely to be
supported by the public the most due to the amount of concern about hunting, the only issue may
be is if the public is willing to pay for the contraceptives and the work that goes into applying
them.
The public seem to have split opinions on whether they would like action to be taken to
manage the deer herd or to leave them alone. Many of the citizens have shown that there are
many negative experiences that they have experienced and if the deer herd was managed these
concerns would decrease. Some of the citizens voiced concern about having less deer and how
much they enjoy them, but even if the herd is managed there will still be deer for them to enjoy.
Despite what management action is taken it is important that an action plan must be started
because the public are seeing a lot of damages to their property, their vehicles, and even
themselves when some deer become hostile.
Conclusion
The deer herd in Dublin, Ohio is overpopulated and the data that was collected for this
report proves just that. The camera traps helped find an estimate of 50-85 deer per square mile
and a healthy number is between 20-25 deer per square mile. And these numbers are likely
conservative. The tree saplings are all being eaten by the deer and the invasives are not, so
biodiversity is likely decreasing. The deer are showing that they are becoming more desperate
for food by eating vegetation that they would usually not eat. The public seems split on wanting
the herd to be managed, although many have agreed that they have taken damage to their
property or vehicles. All that being said, the city of Dublin needs to continue gathering
15
information on their deer herd, on the health of the habitat, and on public attitudes and they begin
discussion of potential management action. Whether a culling or hunting program or using
contraceptives on does, all evidence points to an overabundant white-tailed deer population.
Without action. the deer population will continue grow leading to increased amounts of negative
citizen-deer interactions and habitat degradation.
Literature Cited
Goliver, Emily. 2023. Personal interview. Interview conducted by Willeke, Evan., Huddleston, Davina.,
Branch, Shannon. Interview conducted on May 11th, 2023.
Jacobson, Harry., McKinley, William., Demarais, Stephen. 2000. Using Infared-triggered Cameras to
Survey White-Tailed Deer in Mississippi. Research Advances: Forest & Wildlife Research
Center. Vol. 5, No. 3. https://mrmpros.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Using-Cameras-to-
Survey-Whitetailed-Deer-in-Mississippi.pdf
Karns, Gabriel. 2023. Personal interview. Conducted by Willeke, Evan., Huddleston, Davina., and
Branch, Shannon. Interview conducted May 21st, 2023.
Kasnyik, Kevin. 2023. Personal interview. Conducted by Willeke, Evan., Huddleston, Davina., Branch,
Shannon. Interview conducted on May 16th, 2023.
Kilpatrick, H. J., and W. D. Walter. 1997a. Urban Deer Management: A Community Vote. Wildlife
Society Bulletin (1973-2006) 25:388–391.
McBride, Benjamin., Schumacher, Christian., Tran, Lucas., Burack, Nick. May 2021. Deer Exclosure
Study. The Ohio State University, ENR 4900.02.
https://osu.instructure.com/courses/143892/files/54474710?wrap=1
NFDAP. 2022. Field manual for assessing deer density and impacts on forested vegetation. National
Feral Deer Action Plan. https://feraldeerplan.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Assess-deer-
density-and-impacts_Field-survey-protocol.pdf
Timothy C. Carter. 2017 Seasonal and annual space use of white-tailed deer in urban and rural southern
Indiana. https://cardinalscholar.bsu.edu/handle/123456789/201070
Witmer, Gary W., DeCalesta, David S.. 1991. The Need and Difficulty of Bringing the Pennsylvania
Deer Herd Under Control. Digital Commons @ University of Nebraska – Lincoln
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ewdcc5/45?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fewdcc5%2
F45&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
Appendix
Appendix A: The detailed methods and procedures provided by Mississippi FWRC
https://mrmpros.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Using-Cameras-to-Survey-Whitetailed-Deer-in-
Mississippi.pdf
Appendix B: Camera trap numbers and their respective locations
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M9yetv9Dv44_8BOtWqvyDz0IZKsf-93yb-
CEaZShX5Q/edit?usp=sharing
Appendix C: The vegetation survey records that includes the coordinates, species seen, percent makeup of
those species, the impact score from the deer, and other comments on the area. There are also graphs of
each area that include the species and the deer impact score.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Oks8fgSTEYhFbwzBtK3gnehCBrnE6GsD/view?usp=drive_link
Deer Management – Herd Population Report
June 13, 2023
Emily Goliver, Management Analyst
•February 8, 2022 – staff presented on the City’s wildlife
management program
•February 14, 2023 – staff provided an update specific to the
deer management program
•May 9th through May 26th – students at Ohio State conducted
a survey to determine the size of Dublin’s deer heard
Background
•Road sightings at dawn and dusk
•Divided the city using Avery-Muirfield Dr., Muirfield Dr. and Avery Rd. as the north/south transect and Brand Rd. as the main east/west transect•Camera traps
•10 camera traps throughout the city (Coffman Park, Trabue, Brandon Open Space “A” and “B”, Wedgewood Hills Park, Thaddeus Kosciuszko Park, Wyandotte Woods Open Space “C”, Tartan Ridge Open Space “E”, Riveria Reserve D2 and Heather Glen Park)
•Identify unique bucks based on antler growth and number of times each was photographed
Field Survey
•Focused on areas of high deer
traffic, high human traffic, riparian
forest, mature forest stand, young
forest stand, honeysuckle thicket
and forest edge
•Compared results to a control
study ongoing at Glacier Ridge
Metro Park
Vegetation Assessment
Community Survey
How would you describe your experience
with white-tailed deer in the City of Dublin?
Negative 74
Neutral 73
Positive 150
Do you think there are too many white-tailed
deer an acceptable number, or too little
number in Dublin, Ohio?
Acceptable amount of white-tailed deer 163
Too little white-tailed deer 8
Too many white-tailed deer 126Do you think the white-tailed deer population
in Dublin is increasing and needs to be
managed?
The white-tailed deer population is
increasing and should be managed
150
There is no need to manage the white-
tailed deer herd in Dublin
147
What negative experiences have you or a
member of your household had with white-
tailed deer in Dublin?
Deer/vehicle collision or almost collission 29
Lyme’s Disease from Deer Tick 2
Other 47
Plant/Property Damage 219
Have you seen a white-tailed deer on your
property?
No 17
Yes 219
•The survey team estimates that
there are approximately 50-85
deer per square mile in Dublin. A
healthy amount is 20-25 per
square mile
•Deer browsing is having a negative
impact on the forests by stunting
regeneration and damaging mature
trees
Results
Staff will continue to engage with OSU to determine the
appropriate next steps based on the report. Staff will provide a
report to CSAC regarding these efforts at a future meeting.
Recommendation
To: Members of the Community Services Advisory Commission
From: Robert E. Ranc, Jr., Deputy City Manager
Emily Goliver, Management Analyst
Barbara Ray, Nature Education Coordinator
Date: February 7, 2023
Re: Deer Population Management Update
Background
At the February 8, 2022 meeting of the Community Services Advisory Committee (CSAC), staff
provided a presentation regarding the City’s wildlife management program. The memo and
presentation from that meeting are attached for reference. Since that time, staff has conducted
additional research regarding deer management specifically. This memo provides a summary of
staff’s additional research and steps moving forward.
Summary
To understand the current state of the deer herd and potential next steps, staff researched the
following points:
1. The historic trend of deer/vehicle accidents in the last 5 years
2. Historic trend of deer-related complaints in the last 5 years
3. Map of the 2022 deer-related accidents
4. The cost and logistics of a deer population assessment
Historic trend of deer/vehicle accidents in the last 5 years
The information below is compiled from police reports. The data may not accurately reflect the
total number of collisions. Some drivers only report the accident to the police department if there
is damage or injury in order to support a car insurance claim. Minor damage in the chart below
encompasses functional and minor damage to vehicles, as reported by the responding officer.
Significant damage is defined as disabling damage in the police reports.
Year Number of
Collisions
# Resulting in
Minor Damage
# Resulting in
Significant
Damage
# of Collisions
Resulting in Injury
2015 11 10 1 2
2016 13 10 3 0
2017 13 11 2 2
2018 10 10 0 0
2019 10 8 2 2
2020 21 19 2 5
2021 12 8 4 1
2022 11 8 3 1
TOTAL 101 84 17 13
Office of the City Manager
5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017
Phone: 614.410.4400 Memo
Memo re. Deer Population Report
February 7, 2023
Page 2 of 2
The number of collisions increased significantly in 2020, which is in line with the overall spike in
crashes across the country that year. Due to the pandemic, the number of drivers on the road at
any given time was lower. The reduced traffic led to motorist driving faster, limiting their ability to
control their vehicle and avoid hitting a deer.
Historic trend of deer-related complaints in the last 5 years
In an attempt to determine the density, staff analyzed GoDublin requests for dead animal removal
in 2022. 85 deer-related dead animal reports have been received this year. A map of the deer-
related dead animal reports can be found here:
https://dublinohio.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/54168123d29d400bad87b89aa0d9a88c
Based on the above map, staff has determined that the heard is well distributed throughout the
city. There is no one area where the heard is more dense.
Map of the 2022 deer-related accidents
A map of animal crashes in 2022 is attached. This map was provided by the division of
Transportation and Mobility based on their crash report data. Though the crash reports that T&M
receives are generally animal related and not specific to deer, the locations identified match the
locations on the deer-related police accident reports.
The cost and logistics of a deer population assessment
Hiring a consultant to conduct a population assessment can be expensive. As an alternative to
hiring a consultant, staff engaged with The Ohio State University School of Environment and
Natural Resources (OSU School of ENR) to determine if they have the ability to determine the
density of the deer herd in Dublin. OSU’s School of ENR hosts a Maymester capstone course each
year in which the students partner with organizations to provide solutions to real-world problems.
The OSU School of ENR has agreed to work with the City to provide an analysis of the City’s deer
herd. Students in the 3-week course will work with the City to provide population estimates for
Dublin’s herd. This assessment is free to the City.
In order to collect the field data, the students will use two industry standard methods. The first is
a pellet count survey, which consists of tracking down deer droppings and using industry data to
estimate the population and density of the herd. Additionally, the students will conduct a trail
camera survey. The survey consists of setting up cameras in various locations around the city and
review the footage to count unique deer that pass by.
The first week of the course will consist of the students conducting interviews with key
stakeholders from city staff, establishing goals for the project, and drafting an action plan for data
collection. The second week will be used for data collection in the field. During the final week, the
students will draft a report and present their findings. The course’s professor will review and edit
the reports, which will then be shared with the City.
Recommendation
This memo is for information only. Staff will provide an additional follow-up report to CSAC after
reviewing the findings from The Ohio State University’s study.
Harriott Rd
Tuttle Crossin
g
Blvd
W Henderson
Rd
M
a
n
l
e
y
R
d
W oern er-Te
mple Rd
Tuttle Rd
Shier-Rings Rd
Perimeter Dr
Ri ng s Rd
G l ick
R
d
Hay d en
R
u
n
R dCosgray RdWilcox RdPost Rd
Rings Rd
Brand
R
d
Eiterman RdSawbur y Blvd
Mi
t
c
hell-Dewitt Rd Jerome Rd
Cr a n s tonDr
Brand Rd
Houchard RdCoffman Rd
Muirfi
e
ld
DrBrock
R
d
Summit View Rd
UV745
UV33
UV33
UV745
UV161
UV161
UV257
UV745
UV257
UV33
UV750
UV33
Warne
r
R
d
Mckitrick Rd
Frantz RdAvery-MuirfieldDrCosgray RdAveryRdWilcoxRdEmeraldPkwyAvery RdBlaz erPkwy
Britton PkwyEmerald PkwyDublin RdSawmill RdFederate
d
B
l
vdHyland-Croy RdSawmi
l
l
P
k
w
y
RiversideDrDublinRdUV33 UV161
Riversi
de DrUV270
UV270
F
4,000
Feet
Animal Crashes
Jan 1, 2022 through Nov 30, 2022
To: Community Services Advisory Commission
From: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager
Date: February 1, 2022
Initiated By Robert E. Ranc, Jr., Deputy City Manager/Chief Operating Officer
Christine Nardecchia, Director of Outreach and Engagement
Barbara Ray, Nature Education Coordinator
Re: Nature Education Overview and Wildlife Management
Background
At its January 11, 2022 meeting, the Community Services Advisory Commission (CSAC) requested
City Council to refer several items for CSAC’s review. One of the items was the City’s wildlife
management program. At its January 24, 2022 meeting, City Council referred the wildlife
management program for CSAC’s review. Accordingly, City staff will provide an outline of the
City’s nature education and wildlife management program, with a focus on recent issues, current
trends, solutions, and successes of the program.
Established as a position in 2003, the City’s Nature Education Coordinator fulfills a multi-faceted
role that encompasses 1) educating the public and staff on nature and wildlife through classes and
educational materials, 2) serving as the liaison for the City’s contractual relationship with the Ohio
Wildlife Center and SCRAM!, 3) overseeing Dublin’s Community Wildlife Habitat Certification,
including the Community Gardens at Darree Fields, and 4) advising, advocating for, and expanding
programs that promote the peaceful co-existence with native wildlife. Nature Education
Coordinator Barbara Ray works collaboratively with all work units within the City, particularly Parks
and Recreation, Code Enforcement, Police, Public Service, Communications and Public Information,
Recreation Services, and Outreach and Engagement. She also works with numerous volunteer
initiatives in conjunction with the Outreach and Engagement Division, including water quality
monitoring, bluebird trail monitoring, park ambassadors, and corporate, civic, and scouting groups
serving the City’s parks and waterways.
A key function of this position is wildlife monitoring and management. The Nature Education
Coordinator works with residents, neighborhoods, and staff to observe, keep data, report patterns,
and find solutions to numerous issues involving wildlife. The coordinator also responds to phone
calls, e-mails, social media inquiries, and in-person requests for wildlife understanding and
assistance. The City’s wildlife management program currently focuses on preventing unwanted or
dangerous interactions with wildlife through public education. Attached to this memo are five
examples of educational materials that assist Dublin residents in understanding how best to live
with wildlife in the community.
Recommendation
This information is provided as background material to understand the City’s current nature
education and wildlife management efforts. Staff will address any questions and recommendations
CSAC may have regarding the City’s efforts in these areas.
Department of Public Service
6555 Shier Rings Road • Dublin, OH 43016
Phone: 614.410.4404 Memo
Memo re. Nature Education Overview and Wildlife Management
February 1, 2022
Page 2 of 2
Please contact Barbara Ray, Nature Education Coordinator at 614-410-4730 or bray@dublin.oh.us
for further information or with any questions.
Attachments:
7 Steps of Coyote Behavior and Alert
Living with Wildlife – Deer
Living With Wildlife – Fox
Living With Wildlife – Preventing Wildlife Invaders
Living With Wildlife – Skunks
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN
NATURE EDUCATION COORDINATOR
FEBRUARY 8, 2022
NATURE EDUCATION HISTORY
•Position established in 2003
•Works closely with community volunteers and Dublin residents
•Works collaboratively with several City work units
•Parks & Recreation •Public Service•Police•Code Enforcement •Recreation Services •Communication & Public Information •Outreach & Engagement•Housed in the City of Dublin Service Center, 6555 Shier Rings Road, Dublin OH, 43016
NATURE EDUCATION HISTORY
•Established the Ohio
Community Wildlife Cooperative
with OSU
•Established SCRAM! contract for
Goose Control in 2004
•Received the NWF Community
Wildlife Habitat Certification in
2011
•Bluebird Trail and Water Quality
Monitoring and Park
Ambassadors Volunteer
programs
NATURE EDUCATION HISTORY
NATURE EDUCATION PURPOSE
•Environmental education programs
•Lead special activities-Scioto River
Clean Up, Earth Month, Fishing Derby
•Wildlife information and management
recommendations
•Data monitoring for water quality,
bluebirds and various flora and fauna
•Coordinates the City’s contractual
relationship with The Ohio Wildlife
Center and SCRAM!
•Promote peaceful co-existence with
native wildlife through programs,
events, HOA’s, schools, social media
NATURE EDUCATION PURPOSE
NATURE EDUCATION BY THE NUMBERS
•97 GoDublin Service Requests for
wildlife issues
•227 Wildlife Call Inquiries
•38 Community Garden Inquiries
•415 Deceased Animal Requests
(98% pick ups by Public Works)
•91 Deceased Deer Pick Ups
•673 Injured, sick, orphaned
animals to OWC from Dublin
•126 Animals to Crows Hollow
Wildlife Care (Union County)
from Dublin
NATURE EDUCATION BY THE NUMBERS: 2021
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
•A Complex Process
•Wildlife management typically
includes:
•Developing goals and policies
•Setting objectives
•Choosing and implementing actions
•Monitoring and evaluating
outcomes
•Revisiting goals, policies, and
objectives with new insights
derived from evaluation.
•Involving partners and other
stakeholders contributes to the
complexity of the wildlife
management
DEFINING URBAN WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
•41 Deer Vehicle Accidents (DVA)
•Per PD records –up from 32 in 2020•2 DVA listed as resulting in injuries•16 Deer damage complaints
•i.e. gardens, trees, etc.•3 Deer feeding complaints
•3 Coyote complaints
•Coyote acting tame or approaching dogs•28 Beaver Complaints
•Tree damage, flooding, dams. •Commonly in Riviera, Tartan West, Belvedere, and Kiwanis Park•Parks receives many additional complaints and is currently managing deterrents and dam removal
WILDLIFE CONFLICTS 2021: DEER, COYOTE, BEAVER
Dublin Responds When:
•Deer collisions occur (PD responds)•Deceased deer pick ups (through GoDublin)
•Resident inquiries about fawns, deer approaching dogs or humans, deer attacks on dogs, deer observed to be injured or ill, deer observed entrapped
•Resident complaints about landscape damage
•Resident complaints about neighbors feeding deer
•Requests for deterrent ideas and landscape methods
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN ACTION: DEER
•Determine IF there is a “deer
problem”
•Monitor the 2 key indicators of a true
“deer problem” in a city:
•1 –Public Tolerance
•2 –Habitat Integrity
•Tolerance is measured through
numbers of deer damage and safety
complaints/amounts and Deer Vehicle
Accident numbers
•Habitat is assessed by deer damage
to habitat, browse line, deer
condition and reproduction
DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Why Not Population Assessment?
•Can be done if necessary
•Expensive, not completely accurate and open community experiences emigration and immigration•Multiple methods but best options are infrared arial survey
•Thermal imaging cameras, grid surveys, trail cams –much less accurate and not as useful as habitat assessment
DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN
•Dublin focuses on public education and co-existence practices
•Deer signage, plantings, deterrents, hazing, NO Feeding
•Staff will also be working with Performance Analytics to map deer accidents and coyote sightings to track trends•Physical Control Methods
•An array of physical methods may be used if actual deer population increases to the point of intolerance or increased safety issues•Dublin does not use physical control methods at this time•Dublin hosted the Deer Management Workshop in 2018 and the 2022 workshop is planned for the Dayton area in April
DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN
•Prevention: SMART Coyote Education
•Monitor and map coyote sightings
•Investigate reports of abnormal
behavior
•Alter human behavior (lights,
leashes, accompany pets at dusk and
dawn)
•Hazing
•Signage and barriers; leash
reminders for parks and open space
•Assess with ODNR and removal of an
individual coyote if determined to be
a genuine threat to pets or people
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN ACTION: COYOTE
•Currently, beaver are more of an issue in Dublin than deer or coyote
•Complaints and inquiries several times per week
•Plants and trees damaged and downed on private property and city property•Dams rebuilt within 3 days of taking them down•Flooding of yards and sump pump issues in some residences
•Running water cues beaver to create dams to stop water flow
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN ACTION: BEAVER
•Living with beaver:
•Wrap or paint key trees
•Remove cut plants and tree limbs
(to prevent food and food stores)
•Remove dams
•Stop sound of flowing water-
turn off pond fountains for a few
weeks; underwater piping
underneath beaver dams
•Beaver usually move on to new
areas every 2-3 months
•Scioto River is source of constant
beaver traffic
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN ACTION: BEAVER
•Dublin has extensive wildlife
education resources for the
community:
•Living With Wildlife help sheets
•Website information and
VIDEOS such as Wildlife
Encounters safety training and
What to do about Skunks
•In-person and virtual programs
•All Animal Resource Phone List
•Barbara Ray-phone or email!
LIVING WITH WILDLIFE
THANK YOU!
NATURE EDUCATION
Living with Wildlife: Deer
Although browsing deer are fun to watch, they can cause damage by feeding on plants and rubbing antlers against
trees. In urban areas, home landscapes may become an appealing source of food. Damage is most commonly
noticed in spring on new growth. Because deer lack upper incisors, browsed twigs and stems show a rough,
shredded surface. Damage caused by rabbits, on the other hand, has a neat, sharp 45-degree cut. Rodents leave
narrow teeth marks when feeding on branches.
Management Strategies
Spooking deer with flashing light, sprinklers or dogs in the yard typically
provides only temporary relief. More practical management strategies
include selecting plants unattractive to deer, treating plants with deer
repellents, netting and tubing, and fencing.
Placement and Selection of Plants
The placement of plants in part determines the extent of damage. Plant
more susceptible species near the home, in a fenced area, or inside a protective ring of less -preferred species.
Table 1 lists plants and their susceptibility to deer damage. A hungry deer will find almost any plant palatable, so no
plant is “deer proof.” Also, a plant species may be damaged rarely in one area but damaged severely in another.
Repellents
The two types of deer repellents are contact repellents and area repellents.
Contact repellents are applied directly to plants, causing them to taste bad.
Area repellents are placed in a problem area and repel by their foul odor.
Repellents are more effective on less preferred plants.
Apply repellents on a dry day with temperatures above freezing. Treat young
trees completely. Older trees treated only on their new growth. Treat to a
height about 6 feet. Deer browse from the top down. Hang or apply repellents
at the bud or new growth level of the plants you wish to protect.
A spray of 20 percent whole egg yolk and 80 percent water is one of the most
effective repellents. (To prevent the sprayer from clogging, remove the chalaza
or white membrane attached to the yolk before mixing the eggs.) The egg
mixture is weather resistant but must be reapplied in about 30 days.
Netting and Tubing
Tubes of Vexar netting around individual seedlings are an effective method to reduce deer damage to small trees.
These tubes can protect just the growing terminals or can completely enclose small trees. Attach tubes to a support
stake to keep them upright.
Tubes placed around the trunks of larger trees will help prevent trunk damage. Tubes may not, however, protect
trunks from damage when bucks use the trees to scrape the velvet off their antlers. Fencing may be required.
Fencing
Adequate fencing to exclude deer is the only sure way to control deer damage. Fencing in urban
neighborhoods is used most frequently as a temporary structure in summer to protect vegetable gardens. The
conventional deer-proof fence is 8 feet high and made of woven wire. Electric fences also can be used. Electric
fences should be of triple-galvanized, high-tensile, 13.5-gauge wire carrying a current of 35 milliamps and 3,000 to
4,500 volts. Several configurations of electric fences are used: Slanted three to five-wire and single strand for
example.
Single-wire, electric fences should be baited with peanut butter. Attach 3-4” squares of aluminum foil smeared with
peanut butter. The baited wire attracts deer to the fence instead of what’s inside the fence. They administer a safe
correction that trains the deer to stay away. They are effective for small gardens, nurseries and orchards (up to 3 to
4 acres) that are subject to moderate deer pressure. Deer are attracted by the peanut butter and encouraged to
make nose-to-fence contact. Deer, like many wild animals, seem to respect and respond better to electric fencing
after they become familiar with the fenced area.
Table 1. Plants and their relative susceptibility
to deer browsing.
Often browsed Sometimes browsed Rarely browsed
Flowers
Geranium, wild
(Geranium fremontii)
Lupine, silver
(Lupinus argenteus)
Black-eyed susan
(Rudbeckia sp.)
Low sunflower
(Helianthus pumilus)
Pasque flower
(Pulsatilla patens)
California fuchsia
(Zauschneria sp.)
Nodding onion
(Allium cernuum)
Prairie coneflower
(Ratibida columnifera)
Daffodils
(Narcissus sp.)
Penstemon, low
(Penstemon virens)
Salvia
(Salvia reflexa)
Gaillardia/blanketflower
(Gaillardia aristata)
Phlox, common
(Phlox multiflora)
Scarlet gilia
(Ipomopsis aggregata)
Gayflower
(Liatris punctata)
Pussytoes, rose
(Antennaria rosea)
Tall coneflower
(Rudbeckia lacinata)
Grape hyacinth
(Cynoglossum officinale)
Strawberry
(Fragaria sp.)
Western wallflower
(Erysimum asperus)
Larkspur
(Delphinium nelsonii)
Tulips
(Tulipa sp.)
Wild iris
(Iris missouriensis)
Lavender
(Ravandula sp.)
Mariposa lily
(Calochortus gunnisonii) Mountain harebell
(Campanula rotundifolia)
Pearly everlasting
(Anaphalis margaritacea) Purple coneflower
(Echinacea purpurea)
Russian sage
(Perovskia atriplicifolia)
Thyme
(Thymus sp.)
Yarrow
(Achillea sp.)
Vines
Grapes
(Vitis spp.)
English ivy
(Hedera helix var.)
Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia)
Trees and shrubs
Apples
(Malus sp.)
Alder
(Alnus tenuifolia)
Apache plume
(Fallugia paradoxa)
Aspen
(Populus tremuloides)
Golden currant
(Ribes aureum)
Blue mist spiraea
(Caryopteris x clandonensis)
Mugo pine
(Pinus mugo mughus)
Mountain maple
(Acer glabrum)
Common juniper
(Juniperus communis)
Rocky Mountain juniper
(Juniperus copulorus)
Ninebark
(Physocarpus monogynus)
Douglas-fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii)
Roses (most)
(Rosea spp.)
Oregon grape
(Mahonia repens)
Hawthorn
(Crataegus sp.)
Wild red raspberry
(Rubus idaeus)
Wild plum
(Prunus americana)
Mountain mahogany
(Cercocarpus montanus) Oregon grape
(Mahonia repens) Pinon pine
(Pinus edulis) Potentilla/cinquefoil
(Potentilla spp.) Rabbit brush
(Chrysothamnus sp.)
Table 2. Relative effectiveness of repellents tested on hungry, captive mule deer and elk in Colorado
during 1989, 1991 and 1992. (Compiled by W.F. Andelt et al.)
Material Deer Elk
Hot Sauce® 6.2% hot sauce High Very High
Hot Sauce® 0.62% hot sauce Medium Medium
Hot Sauce® .062% hot sauce Low – failure Failure
Deer Away – same as Big Game Repellent High High
Chicken eggs (20% eggs, 80% water) High Medium
Coyote urine (100% urine) High High
Habanero peppers (8% pepper, 92% water) Medium Not reported
Tabasco sauce (50% Tabasco, 50% water) Medium Not reported
Thiram (labeled concentration) Medium Medium
Hinder (labeled concentration) Medium Medium
Soap (Lifebuoy) Low-medium Not reported
Ro-pel® (denatonium benzoate) Failure Failure
Ani-spray (denatonium benzoate, 3 x label) a Failure Not reported
a Products should not be used at rates above the labeled concentration.
References
Andelt, W.F. Managing Deer in Colorado. Outline for Master Gardener training in wildlife damage management.
Department of Fishery & Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University.
Craven, S.R. & Hygnstrom, S.E. Deer. 1994. Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. Extension, University
of Nebraska.
Jett, J.W. Resistance of Ornamentals to Deer Damage. Center for Agricultural & Natural Resources
Development, Western Virginia University Extension Service.
Krahmer, R.W. 1993. Reducing Deer Damage to Conifer Seedlings. Hortus Northwest 4:1-3.
Mesner, H.E., Dietz, D.R. & Garrett, E.C. 1973. “A Modification of the Slanting Deer Fence.” Journal of Range
Management 26(3):233-235.
Wiles, J. 1998. “Deer Management Options.” Landscape Management, January, p. 16.
Harriott Rd
Tuttle Crossin
g
Blvd
W HendersonRd
M
a
n
l
e
y
R
d
W oern er-Te
mple Rd
Tuttle Rd
Shier-Rings Rd
Perimeter Dr
R i ng s R d
G l ick R d
H ay d e n
R
un R dCosgrayRd Wilcox RdPost Rd
Ri ng s Rd
Brand Rd
Eiterman RdSawbur y B lvd
Mitchell-Dewitt Rd Jerome Rd
Cr a n s tonDr
Brand Rd
Houchard RdCoffmanRdMuirfi
e
l
dDrBrock
R
d
Summit View Rd
UV745
UV33
UV33
UV745
UV161
UV161
UV257
UV745
UV257
UV33
UV750
UV33
Warne
r
R
d
Mckitrick Rd
Frantz RdAvery-MuirfieldDrCosgray RdAveryRdWilcoxRdEmeraldPkwyAvery RdBlaz erPkwy
Britton PkwyEmerald PkwyDublinRdSawmill RdFederate
d
Bl
vdHyland-Croy RdSawmi
l
l
P
k
w
y
RiversideDrDublinRdUV33 UV161
Riversi
de DrUV270
UV270
F
4,000
Feet
Animal Crashes
Jan 1, 2023 through Nov 9, 2023
Crashes - Animal
Severity
Low Severity (7)
Serious Injury
Suspected (0)
Fatal (0)