densities anywhere near the biological carrying capacity due to negative impacts. The deer density that is preferred by Pennsylvanians is generally referred to as the “social or cultural carrying capacity” (Minnis and Peyton 1995, West and Parkhurst 2002). In addition, harvest levels are maximized when deer densities are well below the biological carrying capacity because recruitment is maximized and mortality is minimized (McCullough 1987). Lastly, many Pennsylvanians would view the cultural carrying capacity as the number of deer the forest can sustain without losing structure and function or biodiversity within forest ecosystems. Thus, cultural carrying capacity models are complex because they include a plethora of subjective information based on hunting and viewing opportunities, economic losses, human fatalities and injuries, or impacts deer have on forest ecosystems (Minnis and Peyton 1995).

The deer population on the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve exceeds the carrying capacity of the ecosystem, which is the maximum number of deer the ecosystem can support without degradation of habitat. Passing this maximum number leads to increased competition for limited food resources-setting up a situation that, at worst, will cause starvation and disease in the deer population and, at best, migration of deer into neighborhoods to feed on landscape plants. Large populations of starving deer will also begin to browse on plants they normally would avoid-a problem known as overbrowsing

The most common sign of deer overpopulation is the browse line, where all vegetation from about five feet high down to the ground is stripped of leaves. Although the mature oak and juniper trees are often tall enough to escape extensive browsing, overbrowsing still has a devastating effect on golden-cheeked warbler habitat because it removes all seedlings and saplings that could eventually develop into mature trees. Overbrowsing also removes other understory vegetation (shrubs, grasses, and wildflowers) that is essential for preventing soil erosion, protecting water quality, and providing habitat for a large range of animals, including the endangered black-capped vireo.

Besides devastating the local ecosystem, large urban deer populations also directly impact people and communities. Although deer are not typically thought of as more dangerous than sharks or bears, white-tailed deer cause far more deaths every year due to car accidents. Collisions between deer and vehicles result in dozens of annual fatalities as well as millions of dollars in insurance claims. In addition, white-tailed deer cause significant economic damage to landscapes, gardens, and crops-often causing homeowners to spend thousands of dollars replacing landscapes destroyed by hungry deer. (For a list of deer-resistant plants that discourage browsing, click here.) Finally, deer also impact people by carrying the ticks that transmit Lyme disease. For more information on this serious illness, visit the Center for Disease Control website.

The most cost effective solution available for deer overpopulation is lethal, humane culling by professionals, which replaces the ecological role of the now-absent top carnivores. Wild mammal contraceptives are being researched for possible future use, but currently are not practical or effective on a large scale and have not been approved for use in Texas. The meat produced by culling is required by state law to be used beneficially and is usually donated to food banks and similar charities. Last year, the City of Austin donated over 6,000 pounds of venison-an otherwise expensive source of protein for needy families-through the Hunters for the Hungry program to the Capital Area Food Bank-a non-profit organization providing food to hungry people across Central Texas.

Few estimates of habitat carrying capacity for deer exist and vary, naturally, with habitat type.

Carrying capacity is enhanced by the additional forage provided by old fields, from 20 deer/km2

(1 deer per 12.35 acres) for those sites that lack old fields, to perhaps 60 deer/km2 (1 deer per 4.1

acres) for those that possess 50% old fields (DeCalesta and Stout 1997). These estimates,

however, represent a single-species emphasis and do not integrate the needs of other ecosystem

components. Recommended indices reported in literature that consider levels at which habitats

rebound from deer grazing pressure when determining carrying capacity range from 1 deer per

10 acres (Halls et al. 1984), 1 deer per 12 acres (Harder 1980) , to 1 deer per 25 acres (VDGIF

1999). As is apparent, the minimum index to deer density on the Refuge is still considerably

higher than the recommended indices reported in the literature, even with the inclusion of

inhabitable acreage. Deer counts, based on spotlight survey data and extrapolated to include all

of the grassland acreage of the Refuge (not the wetland or forested acreage), grew from 117 in

Wildlife Society Bulletin

Article: pp. 525–530 | Abstract | PDF (103K)

CapacityBuilding: A New Focus for Collaborative Approaches to Community-Based Suburban Deer Management?

DANIELA B. RAIKA, DANIEL J. DECKERB, and WILLIAM F. SIEMERC, 1

A. Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA, B. Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA, C. Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA

Table of Contents:

  • An Emerging Opportunity
  • Building Capacity
  • Capacity and Collaboration
  • Knowledge
  • Leadership
  • The Manager's Role ...
  • Capacity Building at ...
  • Opportunities to Facilitate ...
  • Acknowledgments
  • Literature Cited
  • Figures

Options:

  • Create Reference
  • Email this Article
  • Copyright Permissions

Search CrossRef for:

  • Articles Citing This Article

Search Google Scholar for:

  • DANIELA B. RAIK
  • DANIEL J. DECKER
  • WILLIAM F. SIEMER

Increasing human–wildlife interactions in urban and suburban environments have created new challenges for management agencies as residents seek to become more involved in the decision-making process. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) management may best illustrate both the challenges and the opportunities that exist in human-dominated environments. In these settings wildlife managers are increasingly being expected to engage stakeholders in identifying objectives and implementing management actions tailored to local needs and circumstances. We argue that successful management in these environments is closely related to several attributes of the stakeholder involvement process. Thus, additional theoretical developments and more empirical research will be needed to help managers facilitate community-based decision-making processes that are truly collaborative. We believe the next frontier for continued advancement and increased community and agency satisfaction with suburban deer management is improving local knowledge and leadership. We contend this can best be done through comprehensive intervention programs. In this paper we draw on the body of wildlife agency collaborative management process research to identify and describe the role of knowledge and local leadership in collaboration.

Keywords:capacity building, collaboration, comprehensive intervention, leadership, local knowledge, Odocoileus virginianus, white-tailed deer, wildlife management

DOI: 10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34[525:CBANFF]2.0.CO;2

An Emerging OpportunityReturn to TOC

Suburban residents come into frequent contact with wildlife in their day-to-day activities. Although both benefits and costs have been documented, the negative aspects of human–wildlife interaction in the urban–suburban ecosystem have been of greatest concern (e.g., Chase et al. 2000, McNay 2002, Peterson et al. 2002, Teel et al. 2002). Wildlife agency administrators in many states report an increase in complaints about problems with species such as beaver (Castor canadensis), black bear (Ursus americanus), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) over the past 5 years (International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 2004). When problems with wildlife increase, local stakeholders develop a vested interest in wildlife management decisions and, thus, may become more interested in being involved in decision-making processes. In recent decades government agencies have increased their reliance on citizen participation to make decisions on a broad spectrum of natural resource management issues (Beierle 2002). Public involvement in wildlife management decisions has become more prevalent in recent decades as well (Chase et al. 2000), but it remains a major challenge for wildlife management agencies (Nie 2004).

In the urban–suburban environment, wildlife agencies, community leaders, local government officials, and local stakeholders face the challenge of crafting acceptable, enduring solutions to a range of human–wildlife conflict issues. These challenges have ushered in a new era of wildlife management distinguished by community-based collaboration among diverse stakeholders and experimentation with novel stakeholder engagement efforts. This expectation for community participation in wildlife management has put unprecedented strain on wildlife agency responsiveness, and the problems that communities endure have diminished public tolerance of some species (e.g., replication of a 1985 survey [Decker and Gavin 1987] demonstrates how community tolerance for white-tailed deer can erode after an increase in deer-related problems [Siemer et al. 2000]).

Stakeholder participation in urban–suburban wildlife management takes several forms. It is spread across a continuum of approaches to decision making, ranging from agency-based, expert-controlled decision making to broad power sharing among stakeholders (Chase et al. 2000). Comanagement is an approach to decision making in the local context that can be found on the power-sharing end of the spectrum. Comanagement is a community-based collaborative effort on the part of state wildlife agencies, local governments, interest groups, citizens experiencing impacts from wildlife, and other stakeholders (Schusler 1999, Chase et al. 2000).

The multiplicity of interests with respect to human–wildlife interactions creates a demand for management strategies that are tailored to specific communities and requires community participation and investment. These are typical elements of comanagement (Chase et al. 2000, Decker et al. 2000). Whereas traditional wildlife management generally is the result of statewide, legislatively driven policies that are achieved through regulation and enforcement, comanagement calls for local-scale stakeholder collaboration, local government action, and voluntary activity.

Collaborative management has achieved varying degrees of success. Criteria for evaluating successful collaboration have been classified into 5 general types: process, environmental, socioeconomic, impact outcomes, and management performance (Conley and Moote 2003, Raik 2004).

Process criteria include 1) diverse, inclusive participation, 2) a fair and just process, 3) linkages to individuals and groups beyond the organized interest groups, and 4) consensus-based decision making.

Environmental criteria include 1) improved habitat, 2) healthy wildlife, and 3) conservation of biological diversity.

Socioeconomic criteria include 1) improved relationships and partnerships, 2) increased trust, 3) greater knowledge and understanding among participants, and 4) improved capacity to engage in decision making (Lauber and Knuth 2000, Conley and Moote 2003).

Impact outcome criteria with respect to wildlife issues, such as those associated with deer, could include 1) a decrease in the fear associated with deer–vehicle accidents, 2) a decrease in the fear of Lyme disease, 3) a decrease in the costs of property damage, 4) a decrease in frustration associated with shrub damage, or 5) elimination of the identified problem.

Finally, management performance criteria refer to the specific management actions implemented and could include 1) no complaints about archery program, 2) an increase in archery licenses issued, 3) an increase in deer harvest, 4) a safe hunting program, or 5) a genuine attempt to implement nonlethal methods (Raik 2004).

Meeting these criteria requires the participants in collaborative management to possess or develop the capacity to engage in the decision-making process. Intervention strategies and collaborative processes can be designed to contribute to the development of participants' capacity (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000, Straus 2002). Interventions that address issues of stakeholder capacity with respect to knowledge and leadership may be vital for suburban wildlife management (Raik et al. 2005b).

Building Capacity Return to TOC

The concept of capacity in a social science context emerged from both theoretical and applied research (Mengers 2000). The term capacity originally appeared in the wildlife management literature in reference to biological carrying capacity (e.g., Miller and Wentworth 2000), cultural or social carrying capacity (e.g., Ellingwood and Spignesi 1986), and wildlife acceptance capacity (Decker and Purdy 1988, Carpenter et al. 2000). However, in focusing on stakeholders' ability to participate in wildlife policy and management decision making, we adopt a definition of capacity from Goodman et al. (1998): “the characteristics of communities that affect their ability to identify, mobilize, and address social . . . problems.”

Increased capacity can contribute to empowerment of individuals and groups, which has been shown to lead to sustained and meaningful action (Rappaport 1981). Capacity can develop as the result of spontaneous, organic processes, or it can be spurred by deliberate intervention (Rogers 1990). It is reasonable to assume that interventions that enable development of capacity may contribute to effective and efficient collaborative decision making in communities.

Capacity building can be encouraged in a variety of ways. Actions toward this end may include engaging in formal and nonformal education for knowledge or skills development, stakeholder deliberation opportunities, or otherwise creating the conditions in which capacity is more likely to develop (Payne 1995). Interventions that develop capacity for collaboration contribute to effective and efficient decision-making processes (Raik et al. 2003, 2005b).

Capacity and Collaboration Return to TOC

We studied community-based deer management to identify dimensions of capacity that are most important for achieving successful collaboration (Raik et al. 2003, 2005b). We interviewed 10 experienced deer managers from across the northeastern United States (Raik et al. 2005a). We also interviewed stakeholders from 6 communities—3 in New York and 3 in Massachusetts. From these interviews we identified important dimensions of capacity for collaboration. These include partnerships, credibility, funding, relationships, common purpose, knowledge, and local leadership (Raik et al. 2003, 2005b). Among this set 2 particularly important dimensions of capacity for effective collaboration are stakeholder knowledge about the wildlife issue and leadership arising from members of the community. These 2 dimensions are explored further, first by literature review and then illustrated by one of our case-study communities.

Knowledge Return to TOC

Knowledge in this context is awareness and understanding (Guralnik 1986) of key topics relevant to the wildlife issue (e.g., wildlife biology; wildlife management options; impacts of wildlife–human interactions; multiple values held by various stakeholders; the decision-making process; decision-making authority; and rules, regulations, laws, and policies relevant to the situation). Increased knowledge can be attained by any stakeholder in community-based wildlife management—local government officials, representatives of nongovernmental organizations, landowners, hunters, recreationists, and citizens.

Knowledge has been identified as taking various forms, such as expert knowledge and local knowledge. Expert knowledge, knowledge that is gained through deliberate and systematic effort (e.g., science) and communicated in formal ways, often is given more weight and considered to be more valid by decision makers than local knowledge and, therefore, may have more influence over decision making (Fischer 2000). Expert knowledge is generated with the assumption that there is “a single, objective reality—the world out there—that we can observe, know, and measure” (Merriam 1991). The role of research in generating expert knowledge is to collect valid and reliable data to test theories and discover universal laws and facts. Such research is typically conducted through the scientific method, and only experts trained in this method are considered qualified to conduct such inquiry. Thus, the scientific research process privileges expert knowledge by “excluding laypersons from both knowledge inquiry and construction” (Zanetell and Knuth 2002).

Local knowledge is the “popular, or folk knowledge that … remains in the informal sector, usually unwritten and preserved in oral traditions rather than texts” (Brush and Stabinsky 1996). Local knowledge does not stem from professional inquiry, and it is inherently associated with, and interpreted within, the specific culture in which it was produced (Fischer 2000). Compared with expert knowledge, local knowledge is associated with a much broader definition of knowledge and the means for attaining knowledge (Greenwood and Levin 1998). Local knowledge is produced with the assumption that “reality is not an object that can be discovered and measured but rather a construction of the human mind. The world is a highly subjective phenomenon that is interpreted rather than measured” (Merriam 1991). The integration of both expert and local forms of knowledge enhances the collaborative decision-making effort as all parties involved bring relevant knowledge to the group and learn from one another, rather than one group being privileged because of the kind of knowledge they contribute to the deliberation (Zanetell and Knuth 2002, Raik et al. 2003).

Leadership Return to TOC

Local leadership also is important for collaborative community-based wildlife management (Raik et al. 2003, 2005b). Local leadership can take the form of formal leadership (e.g., elected official in local government, appointed official in law enforcement) or informal leadership (e.g., local opinion leader) that contributes to initiating and sustaining action in a community.

Leaders often keep projects alive despite apparent deficits of resources, political support, or group motivation. Formal leaders such as town officials or agency staff can motivate change and foster stakeholder trust and support (Shindler and Cheek 1999, Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Local leaders are especially important in controversial or complex situations because they lend credibility to efforts to address public issues (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Where trust in the agency is lacking, public agencies may need to invest in building the capacity of local leaders to engage the community in productive dialogue about public issues.

Informal leaders who usually volunteer to participate in decision making also are crucial for effective collaborative processes (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). These individuals often are well-respected by some members of the community and, therefore, exert some influence (Belenky et al. 1997). Informal leaders often make personal connections with people, and rather than directing their “followers” as traditional leaders do, these leaders ask good questions and draw out people's thinking so they can find their own direction (Belenky et al. 1997).