IDENTIFYING CAPACITY FOR LOCAL COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLANNING

Case 2: White-tailed Deer Issues at Valley
Forge National Historical Park

March 2007

HDRU Series No. 07-3

Prepared by:
Kirsten M. Leong and Daniel J. Decker
Human Dimensions Research Unit
Department of Natural Resources
Cornell University

__________________________________

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This project, supported by a cooperative agreement between Cornell University and the National Park Service (NPS), studies human dimensions of issues related to white-tailed deer and their management in the Northeast and National Capital Regions of the NPS. The research project consists of three phases. During Phase I, interviews were conducted with NPS natural resource managers and staff to describe the deer situation in northeastern parks and develop an approach for subsequent inquiry. In Phase II, interviews with public participation practitioners were completed to determine how public participation and civic engagement methods fit within NPS wildlife management. Phase III involves two types of studies with specific parks: Phase IIIA, interviews with local community residents, and Phase IIIB, a mail survey of local community residents. This report details Phase IIIA research conducted at Valley Forge National Historical Park (VFNHP), in southeastern Pennsylvania.

Interviews with local community residents were used as an orientation to community members' understanding of park wildlife management, expectations for public input in management planning, and experiences with the park related to wildlife management. Two types of interviews were conducted. Type A interviews were in-depth, semi-structured, open-ended interviews with known stakeholders and influential community residents. Type B were brief interviews with residents intercepted in local gathering places. Type A interviewees included: township board members, park neighbors who regularly contacted VFNHP, archery club representatives, representatives of groups against lethal deer management, and individuals representing other organizations in the area (both private and public) who had experience with deer management on their property. Type B interviewees included: additional township board members, adjacent park neighbors, park visitors who lived in the surrounding area, and local business owners.

Interviewees identified multiple contributing factors to controversy about deer management at VFNHP, including: concerns about primary impacts from deer, concerns about deer themselves, and concerns about potential management actions. Important primary impacts from deer included deer-vehicle collisions, vegetation damage, and wildlife viewing opportunities. In addition, interviewees identified characteristics of deer that they believed resulted in these impacts: population size/density, home range and movements, and behavior. Finally, concerns about potential management actions included how long it would take to see effects and the geographic scale of management necessary to reduce primary, as well as collateral, impacts.

Most interviewees adopted the problem frame used throughout the greater Philadelphia area: “too many deer.” This simplification of the problem led to arguments for and against management alternatives to reduce the populations; however, the specific aspects of population reduction objectives (e.g., which negative impacts were of interest, how soon improvements should be experienced, etc.) were not articulated. Future discussions that reframe “deer management” beyond a one-dimensional focus on the appropriate number of deer may result in more constructive dialogue. Indeed, many interviewees identified anthropogenic factors, especially residential and commercial development and resulting loss of natural habitat, habitat fragmentation, and creation of artificial habitat as more important to address than deer per se.Attention to clearly articulating and reaching agreement with stakeholders on the dimensions of both problem frame and solution frame (not specific solutions, but acceptable scope of solutions) may help avoid disagreement over appropriate means to achieve management goals. Input from stakeholders may assist managers in refining the problem and solution frames to reflect more accurately local conditions.

Deer issues were described as one of the more prominent local community concerns in the Valley Forge area, and many interviewees believed that deer populations could only be effectively managed on a landscape scale. These observations indicate the importance of including local stakeholder input and coordinating with communities when planning for shared effects from management of natural resources, such as deer. However, interviewees indicated a number of communication needs for effective public input: improved understanding about NPS management policies and VFNHP’s specific purpose; improved credibility of park staff; and improved awareness and knowledge of NPS planning processes and facts related to deer issues. Including efforts to address such needs likely will require a more long-term, proactive approach to public participation, of the type described in recent NPS policies. While certain episodic, issue-specific public participation efforts are needed to fulfill legal mandates, an approach that views ongoing dialogue with local communities as an integral part of park management may help improve the substance of decisions, as well as build relationships, identify potential partners, and fulfill NPS mandates for civic engagement. For long-term, regional management issues (such as deer management) this broader, relationship-based approach to public participation may improve the ability of NPS to successfully implement actions.

_______________________

To go to the report, click here