Iroquoia Heights Conservation Area White-tailed Deer Management Strategy

Iroquoia Heights Conservation Area White-tailed Deer Management Strategy Public Engagement Workshops Summary Report Prepared For: Hamilton Conservation Authority and the Deer Management Advisory Committee (DMAC) Prepared by: Beacon Environmental Ltd. Date: Reference: June 2011 211135 MARKHAM 144 Main St. North, Suite 206 Markham, Ontario L3P 5T3 T) 905.201.7622 F) 905.201.0639 BRACEBRIDGE 126 Kimberley Avenue Bracebridge, Ontario P1L 1Z9 T) 705.645.1050 F) 705.645.6639 GUELPH 337 Woolwich Street Guelph, Ontario N1H 3W4 T) 519.826.0419 F) 519.826.9306 OTTAWA (SMS Aviation Safety Inc.) 275 Slater Street, Suite 900 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5H9 T) 613.238.3232 F) 613.236.3754

I r o q u o i a H e i g h t s C o n s e r v a t i o n A r e a Table of Contents page 1. Context for the Workshops... 3 1.1 The Deer Management Advisory Committee (DMAC)... 5 1.2 Workshop Design and Format... 5 2. Summary of Consultations Feedback... 6 2.1 Question and Answer Periods... 7 2.2 Individual Feedback... 8 2.3 Small Group Feedback... 12 3. Concluding Remarks and Next Steps... 16 T a b l e s Table 1. Summary of Public Engagement Workshop Survey Responses from Individual Participants... 9 Table 2. Summary of Public Engagement Workshop Survey Responses from Small Group Sessions... 13 A p p e n d i c e s A. Workshop Survey Form B. Qualifications of Facilitator C. Comment, Question and Answer Periods - May 31 and June 1, 2011

1. Context for the Workshops I r o q u o i a H e i g h t s C o n s e r v a t i o n A r e a Iroquoia Heights Conservation Area (IHCA) is a 120 hectare natural area located in Ancaster. It has been designated as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ANCA-12) because of its location on the Niagara Escarpment, having some forest interior, and provision of habitat for some provincially and regionally rare species. It is a passive recreational area that includes trails and views, and was originally acquired and protected by Hamilton Conservation Authority because of its contributions to natural heritage in the watershed. Although it is close to several other natural areas in the Dundas Valley, it has been effectively isolated from them and surrounded by residential development on one side, and the 403 Highway / Lincoln Alexander Parkway on the other. IHCA is well-used by both people and wildlife. It is frequented by bikers, hikers and dog walkers, and provides habitat for a range of urban-adapted wildlife (e.g., raptors, small mammals), a relatively high concentration of deer 1. Over the past few years there have been an increasing number of concerns expressed by local residents and visitors, as well as Hamilton Conservation Authority staff regarding the deer in and around IHCA. Key concerns can be divided into four categories and include the following: Human health and safety: o Concern about vehicle deer strikes on local roads and highways o Concern about deer carrying Lyme disease and spreading it to humans Iroquoia Height s vegetation and ecosystem functions: o Concerns about extensive damage to vegetation as a result of overbrowsing o Concerns over potential impacts to long-term ecosystem health and biodiversity, and loss of rare species Health and sustainability of local deer population: o Concern about lack of safe routes for deer to enter or leave Iroquoia Heights o Concern that inadequate natural food sources may result in deer sickness, starvation, greater susceptibility to disease o Concern that supplemental feeding may disrupt deer digestive system, encourage proximity to people, encourage a false sense of food security and result in more deer population growth o Concerns about dogs chasing or attacking deer Damage to personal property: o Impacts to gardens, shrubs, lawns o Damage to vehicles if involved in an incident 1 There is continued discussion and debate about what exactly constitutes a high deer concentration in IHCA. In 2009 the Ministry of Natural Resources conducted aerial surveys in the area and found that IHCA had about ten times more deer than what they would consider ecological carrying capacity in a rural or natural setting. However, some argue that in an urban setting such measures should not be applied. Others have questioned how well the actual numbers of deer in IHCA are documented, and to what extent a one-time survey can reflect population status and trends. Nonetheless, there does seem to be general consensus in the community that there are a relatively high number of deer inhabiting IHCA as compared to adjacent natural areas. Page 3

I r o q u o i a H e i g h t s C o n s e r v a t i o n A r e a Notably, many of these same concerns were expressed in the responses to a community survey circulated to residents in the IHCA area in March of 2011 2 by the Hamilton Conservation Authority. Hamilton Conservation Authority is committed to trying to address these concerns in a manner that respects the deer, the sensitivities of the natural communities in IHCA, and the concerns of the local community and IHCA visitors. Hamilton Conservation Authority recognizes that this is a complex and somewhat controversial issue that will require a comprehensive and long-term management approach, and the collaboration of various stakeholders as well as the local community and IHCA visitors. In recognition of this, they have undertaken the following actions: Established a Deer Management Advisory Committee (DMAC) (see details about its role and composition in Section 1.1 below) in 2009; Initiated a deer monitoring program in IHCA (also in 2009); Developed a Community Survey focussing on deer issues with input from DMAC and circulated this survey in March of 2011 (see footnote 2 below); Completed two evenings of Public Engagement Workshops (May 31 and June 1, 2011) with support from DMAC, including requests for completion of a survey regarding opinions of different management options (see Appendix A); and Solicited additional public input through its website between May 30 and June 15, 2011 with the same information (e.g., posters, presentation, workbook and survey form) as presented at the Public Engagement Workshops. The Public Engagement Workshops were identified by DMAC and Hamilton Conservation Authority in 2010 as a mechanism of soliciting input on draft management directions being considered, and an opportunity for informing concerned residents and other interested stakeholders about the status of the management process and findings on issues researched by the committee. Recognizing the different, and sometimes conflicting, opinions regarding deer and their management expressed by the community and various stakeholders, Hamilton Conservation Authority retained Margot Ursic of Beacon Environmental to plan, coordinate and facilitate the workshops (her qualifications are provided in Appendix B). The workshops were designed to be opportunities to voice opinions and engage in a positive and constructive manner. It is recognized that conflict cannot be eliminated, but appropriate management can be effective at preventing many conflicts from occurring and mitigating the severity of their impacts. Effective conflict resolution will take time, and a variety of approaches will be needed to address all of the issues. Strategy for Preventing and Managing Human-Deer Conflicts in Southern Ontario, 2008 2 Hamilton Conservation Authority circulated a survey to 350 residents in the IHCA area in March of 2011 to solicit feedback on how they feel about the deer in their community. Nearly half of the surveys circulated were completed and returned. Results of this survey were summarized and are available on the Hamilton Conservation Authority s website (along with other information related to this issue) at http://conservationhamilton.ca/deer-management-committee/hca/programsservices/deer-management-advisory-committee Page 4

I r o q u o i a H e i g h t s C o n s e r v a t i o n A r e a The purpose of this report is to summarize the feedback obtained through these workshops, including feedback received via email and fax from individuals unable to attend either night. This report, authored by the facilitator, is intended to provide a balanced and comprehensive summary of the feedback obtained through these workshops. 1.1 The Deer Management Advisory Committee (DMAC) To address deer issues identified at IHCA, the Hamilton Conservation Authority Board of Directors passed a resolution in December 2009 to form a Deer Management Advisory Committee (DMAC). The intent was for the committee to be a diverse, multi-stakeholder committee comprised of stakeholders from relevant local, provincial, and national agencies and organizations. Its membership is comprised of representatives from the following: Ancaster Horticultural Society Animal Alliance of Canada Citizens of Ancaster (not a formal organization) City of Hamilton Conservers Society of Hamilton and District Hamilton Conservation Authority Hamilton Naturalists Club Haudenosaunee Confederacy (committee resource) Iroquoia Bruce Trail Club Ministry of Natural Resources (committee resource) Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters Royal Botanical Gardens Six Nations of the Grand River The purpose of the committee (as stated in the July 13, 2010 DMAC Terms of Reference) is to provide recommendations to the HCA Board of Directors on the most effective method(s) to address the deer population at Iroquoia Heights Conservation Area based on area-specific conditions, characteristics, and constraints. In order to become educated about the various management issues and options, DMAC met regularly over 2010 and 2011 to share information amongst themselves and also invited a number of guest speakers and experts to address identified issues. The committee will continue to meet over the remainder of 2011 and plans to consider what it has learned in conjunction with the feedback from both the Community Survey and the Public Engagement Workshops (as described in this report) to develop a final draft strategy for deer management at IHCA. 1.2 Workshop Design and Format Public engagement workshops were held on Tuesday May 31 and Wednesday June 1, 2011. These workshops were both held at the same location (Chedoke Presbyterian Church gym in Hamilton) and the same time (6.30 to 9.30 pm), and had the exact same format. The intent of having two evenings was to accommodate people unable to attend one night. As mentioned above, the same information Page 5

I r o q u o i a H e i g h t s C o n s e r v a t i o n A r e a presented at the workshops was also posted on Hamilton Conservation Authority s website for review May 30 th along with the survey form (as per Appendix A) which could have been submitted any time until June 15, 2011. The format for both evenings was as follows: 6.30 6.45: sign-in and poster viewing 6.45 7.00: introductions 7.00 7.15 overview presentation by Steve Miazga, Hamilton Conservation Authority CAO 7.15 7.50: open question and answer period 7.50 8.00: break 8.00 8.40: small group workshop sessions 8.40 9.10: small group presentations 9.10 9.20: wrap up and next steps 9.20 9.30: completion of individual survey forms All DMAC members who were available attended both meetings and there was at least one representative at each small group during the workshop. DMAC members were asked to refrain from expressing their opinion on issues, and were instead encouraged to listen to the feedback being expressed and, where appropriate, answer technical questions based on their particular area of expertise or based on what they had learnt through the DMAC educational seminars and discussions. On both evenings all DMAC members demonstrated their respect for and interest in this process. Notably, City Council s representative on DMAC (Councillor Lloyd Ferguson) attended the second evening along with another City Councillor (Councillor Brian McHattie). Materials available for viewing included a series of posters, the presentation (by Steve Miazga, Hamilton Conservation authority CAO), and workbooks provided to participants that included some background and the survey form (see Appendix A). These materials were also all posted on the Hamilton Conservation Authority s website, along with other resources related to DMAC s and Hamilton Conservation Authority s activities related to this issue. The evenings were both led and moderated by the facilitator. Several staff from Hamilton Conservation Authority were also in attendance for both technical and logistical support. In addition to Steve Miazga (CAO) and Shari Faulkenham (Ecologist) who were the primary resources other staff assisted with the sign-in and note-taking. A representative from the Ministry of Natural Resources was also in attendance both evenings. 2. Summary of Consultations Feedback The total number of participants for both workshops was 39 (23 on May 31, 2011 and 16 on June 1, 2011). There were also an average of eight DMAC members in attendance each night (nine the first and seven the second), as well as five resource people from the Hamilton Conservation Authority, including Lisa Jennings (Assistant Ecologist) who took notes during the comment, question and answer period following the presentation. The following sections summarize the input received through (a) the comment, question and answer periods, (b) the individual survey forms submitted (including emails), and (c) the small group sessions. Page 6

2.1 Question and Answer Periods I r o q u o i a H e i g h t s C o n s e r v a t i o n A r e a An overview of the comment, questions and answer period from the first part of the workshop on each night is provided in Section 2.1 below. The detailed documentation of each comment and/or question, and the response provided, is included in Appendix C. Key issues and concerns raised by participants during the open comment, question and answer periods on both May 31 and June 1, 2011 included the following: public safety, and deer movement and safety o many expressed concern about vehicle collisions with deer, as well as the lack of safe passages for deer to move in and out of IHCA o discussion about the tunnel that goes under the 403 and its suitability (or unsuitability) for use by deer o some indicated the deer-strike data was incomplete as they themselves had had minor accidents that went unreported o suggestions for speed bumps on local roads, more warning signs public safety: transmission of Lyme Disease in the area o several people expressed concern about the possible transmission of Lyme Disease in the area, and inquired about its status supplemental deer feeding o inadequate number of no feeding signs at IHCA o concern that deer might starve without supplemental food o lack of clarity on whether or not feeding deer is legal controlled deer hunt / cull o if hunting is sanctioned, it should not be the Ministry of Natural Resources or local First Nations alone, but include both these groups and local members of the Ontario Federal of Anglers and Hunters o concern expressed that permitting deer hunting in the area would present a hazard to nearby residents, visitors and possibly drivers on nearby highways o several statements that humans have created this problem and should therefore manage their activities and planning, rather than targeting the deer personal property o frustration over deer destroying garden plants and personal vegetable gardens o concern over personal costs incurred as a result of collisions with deer o suggestions of effective deer deterrents in gardens (e.g., line fence with Christmas trees, spray plants with capsicum and olive oil) Responses to the issues and concerns raised above, provided primarily by Hamilton Conservation Authority staff (Steve Miazga, CAO, and Shari Faulkenham, Ecologist and Deer Management Project Manager) included: the need for further follow-up on the nature and status of the tunnel under the 403, and for follow-up with the Ministry of Transportation and the City regarding eco-passages in general; Page 7

I r o q u o i a H e i g h t s C o n s e r v a t i o n A r e a clarification on the cause and hosts for Lyme Disease, and its current status in the Hamilton area; discussion of the qualitative evidence of deer overbrowsing in IHCA and consuming both natural and supplemental foods that they would not normally eat; reiteration that the Conservation Authority does not condone feeding deer, or any wildlife, but that it is not currently illegal; confirmation that pursuing a deer cull or hunt is not a high priority management option at this time for Hamilton Conservation Authority, but that it is not off the table completely, and if it was pursued would be a multi-agency effort with all proper protocols and procedures in place; and confirmation that culls are not typically one-time events and that, like most management options, must be undertaken repeatedly. In general, there seemed to be consensus that there is something of a deer problem in the area and that engaging in some management actions was warranted, but there was some questions around and disagreement on what actions might be most effective and most appropriate. Other general comments included appreciation for the attention to the deer issue and work done to date by Hamilton Conservation Authority, the importance of avoiding the use of certain terms that imply bias or gloss over realities (e.g., the use of the term harvest instead of killing deer; the impact of deer on the ecosystem rather than the impact of humans on the deer population), and recognition that the issue is complex and challenging. 2.2 Individual Feedback A total of 33 surveys were completed and submitted by individual participants, with most (30) completed and submitted at the workshops and an additional three that were received following the workshops. There were also two individual email responses related to these workshops that did not use the survey forms. The feedback from the surveys is summarized in Table 1, and the feedback from all sources, including comments, on the various management options is summarized below. The survey responses (as summarized in Table 1) indicate a very high level of support among respondents for exploring opportunities for safe eco-passage, as well as traffic safety measures, and educating the local community about deer management. The majority of respondents also supported monitoring the local deer population (although this support was qualified by many, as discussed below) and for pursuing a municipal anti deer feeding by-law, although there was also a fair bit of opposition to this. Respondents were split about whether or not to exclude deer from ecologically sensitive portions of IHCA, with many not have an opinion one way or the other. With respect to the use of fertility measures, more respondents were in support of this than not, but there were several concerns with this option, as described below. While there was some confusion about what was being implied by perpetual care by the Haudenosaunee, most understood that this would entail a selective hunt led by local First Nations. The majority of respondents did not support this option, but a significant number did. This support is notable because it did not come through as strongly in the group sessions. Possible explanations include that participants either holding this position felt uncomfortable expressing their opinion once they felt outnumbered, or left prior to the group workshops (as several participants did each night). Page 8

I r o q u o i a H e i g h t s C o n s e r v a t i o n A r e a Table 1. Summary of Public Engagement Workshop Survey Responses from Individual Participants DEER MANAGMENT OPTIONS BEING CONSIDERED** SUPPORT % of total responses (number of responses) NEUTRAL % of total responses (number of responses) DO NOT SUPPORT % of total responses (number of responses) 1. Monitor deer populations and their impacts on local natural vegetation 62.5% (20) 25.0% (8) 12.5% (4) 2. Explore opportunities for safe eco-passage routes around Iroquoia Heights, and traffic safety programs 84.4% (27) 9.4% (3) 6.3% (2) 3. Educate local community about deer and preventing human-deer conflicts 81.3% (26) 12.5% (4) 6.3% (2) 4. Support an anti deer feeding bylaw and enforcement program 68.8% (22) 9.4% (3) 21.9% (7) 5. Exclude deer from ecologically sensitive parts of Iroquoia Heights, and rare species habitat 27.3% (9) 48.5% (16) 24.2% (8) 6. Explore feasibility of herd reduction through non-lethal means such as female deer fertility controls 46.9% (15) 15.6% (5) 37.5% (12) 7. Develop protocol for perpetual care of IHCA deer population with Haudenosaunee Confederacy 34.4% (11) 9.4% (3) 56.3% (18) A. Do Nothing 18.8% (6) 28.1% (9) 53.1% (17) B. Ministry of Natural Resources deer capture and relocation 31.3% (10) 12.5% (4) 56.3% (18) C. Ministry of Natural Resources controlled cull 18.8% (6) 28.1% (9) 53.1% (17) D. Establishment of formal deer feeding stations: 15.6% (5) 50.0% (16) 34.4% (11) ** Options 1 through 7 were adapted from the draft management strategies identified by the Deer Management Advisory Committee to date. Options A through D were adapted from the list of options considered in the City of London s Deer Management Strategy (2011). 1. Monitor deer populations and their impacts on local natural vegetation While there was general support for monitoring the local deer population, and recognition of the importance of having data to guide management, there were questions around the types and nature of monitoring done to date by the Hamilton Conservation Authority and Ministry of Natural Resources. Several respondents commented that they would support research and monitoring as long as the studies were more comprehensive and rigorous than what had been done to date. A few others focussed on the need for studies focussing on deer movement in and out of IHCA. 2. Explore opportunities for safe eco-passage routes around Iroquoia Heights, and traffic safety programs Although a few respondents expressed concerns about this being too costly a measure (and one suggested it should have been paid for the developers who surrounded the area with homes), most expressed strong support for this option and the need for better urban planning that accommodates wildlife movement in general. Fencing at known crossing locations along busy roads was noted as a Page 9

I r o q u o i a H e i g h t s C o n s e r v a t i o n A r e a component to this planning, and specific traffic calming measures suggested include speed bumps (at Old Mohawk Rd.), and more warning signs on both sides of Scenic Drive and around the bend. [It is] most important to give deer a chance to be able to move to other areas under... or over [the] highway. Workshop Participant 3. Educate local community about deer and preventing human-deer conflicts There was also very broad support for this option. Specific targets of this education identified by participants included primary and high school students, local real estate agents (to ensure people buying homes in the area are aware of the issues), and residents. Specific topics noted included the importance of driving slower, keeping dogs on leash in IHCA, not feeding the deer, the risks of Lyme Diseases, and staying away from deer in general but specifically babies and bucks in the fall. Focus needs to be put on the possible spread of lyme disease and to educate families with children. Workshop Participant 4. Support an anti deer feeding bylaw and enforcement program Although the majority of respondents supported this option, at least as a deterrent, some respondents expressed concern that this might pit neighbours against each other and that it would be more effective to educate people about the reasons not to feed deer. 5. Exclude deer from ecologically sensitive parts of Iroquoia Heights, and rare species habitat Most respondents did not have a strong opinion on this option one way or the other, however many that indicated support qualified this support to apply to the habitat of Species at Risk only. One respondent did not support this option because of concerns over cost. 6. Explore feasibility of herd reduction through non-lethal means such as female deer fertility controls There were several questions linked to opinions on this measure, and very mixed responses, although the majority of respondents expressed support for exploring this option. Some commented that the outcome as well as the cost was uncertain, while others expressed concern that this measure seemed to intrusive and more research was required. The feedback suggests that many respondents felt this presented a more humane option than hunting the deer, but were uncertain if it would be feasible or effective. 7. Develop protocol for perpetual care of IHCA deer population with Haudenosaunee Confederacy Some respondents were not clear on what was implied by perpetual care, but most seemed to understand that this would entail First Nations hunting in the area, and opinions on this were more opposed but fairly split. Many supporters qualified their support by indicating they felt that hunting should not by undertaken by the Haudenosaunee alone, that it can t be the only management option pursued, and that it must be controlled One respondent qualified their response by stating that this measure should not be Page 10

I r o q u o i a H e i g h t s C o n s e r v a t i o n A r e a pursued without more data confirming that there is in fact local overpopulation. Some of those who did not support it commented that it was not safe in a residential and urban context, and that humans were the problem (not the deer) and so the deer should not be made to suffer....[t]he best, most cost effective and humane way of dealing with the overpopulation of deer on HCA properties and mainly in Iroquois Heights... [is] a managed hunt for white tailed deer. Email Feedback Humans are the problem and we can fix conflict without killing deer. One species cannot be blamed for our poor planning. We should not... eliminate all species that we consider an inconvenience. Workshop Participant There needs to be more scientific research done before drastic solutions like a cull are considered. Workshop Participant A. Do Nothing The majority of respondents did not support the do nothing option. Notably, a number of respondents who indicated support for this option seemed to interpret it as simply not hunting or culling the deer, and indicated support for non-lethal management measures, so lack of do nothing support should actually be higher than the 53% indicated in Table 1. Many also indicated they were neutral on the subject, possibly also reflecting a misunderstanding as to what was meant by do nothing. In future, this term should be more explicitly explained. B. Ministry of Natural Resources deer capture and relocation The majority of respondents did not support this option, and some commented that they would only support this measure if the deer could be transported far enough away (i.e., more than the 1 km currently prescribed by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act). C. Ministry of Natural Resources controlled cull The majority of respondents did not support this option either, and some commented that it would only be a short-term solution at best, and that it was not appropriate in IHCA. Many supporters did not comment, although one who did indicated they felt this was the only effective solution. D. Establishment of formal deer feeding stations Responses to this option were predominantly neutral but somewhat split, although more opposed to the option than in support of it. One opponent felt this measure is not warranted in the context of IHCA, while one supporter qualified their support to during severe winters only. OTHER Additional management options provided not captured under the categories above include one suggestion for re-introducing coyotes, and the use of deer repellents in gardens (such as fencing yards with Christmas trees and applying cayenne pepper sprays to garden plants). One respondent suggested there was a need for a broader wildlife management plan, not just one focussing on deer. Page 11

I r o q u o i a H e i g h t s C o n s e r v a t i o n A r e a Several respondents also commented on the need to look at research and precedents from other jurisdictions that have dealt with this issue. Other comments included concern over public safety in relation to deer-vehicle collisions, concern about the possible spread of Lyme Disease, and dislike of deer damage to personal gardens. My son hit and killed a deer on Highway 403 on his way to work at 6 am. The car was totalled... Every time he goes to work I worry that he might hit another deer and get hurt or worse. Workshop Participant I am very concerned about traffic collisions, especially at [the] Highway 403 intersection, but do not believe reduction of deer numbers will equal long-term resolution of this problem. Workshop Participant Several participants who live adjacent to IHCA expressed their appreciation both on survey forms and verbally for the work being done by DMAC and Hamilton Conservation Authority to try and address this issue, and several also acknowledged the complexity and challenge of this issue. 2.3 Small Group Feedback In addition to the individual surveys and responses, participants were asked to provide responses based on small group discussions. The intent of these sessions was to generate dialogue and exchange of ideas and opinions between participants. The product of this exercise was one blended survey form from each of the three small groups from each of the evenings, giving an additional six completed surveys, as well as notes taken by the facilitator summarizing the group responses and feedback obtained through their presentations. Table 2 summarizes the responses from the survey forms submitted by the six small groups during the workshops. As noted in table, all groups were able to come to provide responses (whether unanimous or split 3 ) for options 1 through 7, but most did not respond to options A through D completely. In addition, not all participants stayed for the group sessions and in some groups minority opinions may not have been captured. Therefore, the numbers from the group feedback in Table 2 should be given less weight than the individual survey responses summarized in Table 1. 3 Survey forms that showed split responses were given a half or a third of a point instead of a whole. Page 12

I r o q u o i a H e i g h t s C o n s e r v a t i o n A r e a Table 2. Summary of Public Engagement Workshop Survey Responses from Small Group Sessions DEER MANAGMENT OPTIONS BEING CONSIDERED** 1. Monitor deer populations and their impacts on local natural vegetation 2. Explore opportunities for safe eco-passage routes around Iroquoia Heights, and traffic safety programs 3. Educate local community about deer and preventing human-deer conflicts 4. Support an anti deer feeding bylaw and enforcement program SUPPORT % of total responses (number of responses) NEUTRAL % of total responses (number of responses) DO NOT SUPPORT % of total responses (number of responses) 62.3% (3.8) 21.3% (1.3) 16.4% (1) 100.0% (6) 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% (6) 0.0% 0.0% 5. Exclude deer from ecologically sensitive parts of Iroquoia Heights, and rare species habitat 6. Explore feasibility of herd reduction through non-lethal means such as female deer fertility controls 66.7% (4) 0.0% 33.3% (2) 50.0% (3) 16.7% (1) 33.3% (2) 41.7% (2.5) 8.3% (0.5) 50.0% (3) 7. Develop protocol for perpetual care of IHCA deer population with Haudenosaunee Confederacy 0.0% 10.0% (0.5) 90.0% (4.5) A. Do Nothing* 33.3% (1) 33.3% (1) 33.3% (1) B. Ministry of Natural Resources deer capture and relocation* C. Ministry of Natural Resources controlled cull* D. Establishment of formal deer feeding stations* 0.0% 12.5% (0.5) 87.5% (3.5) 60.0% (1.5) 0.0% 40.0% (1) 0.0% 57.1% (2) 42.9% (1.5) * While all six groups provided responses to options 1 through 7, half or more did not provide responses to options A through D so the percentages do not necessarily reflect the opinions from all groups ** Options 1 through 7 were adapted from the draft management strategies identified by the Deer Management Advisory Committee to date. Options A through D were adapted from the list of options considered in the City of London s Deer Management Strategy (2011). Generally, the responses from the groups were similar to those of the individual surveys with a few notable exceptions, as follows: Half the groups were in favour of exclusion of deer from ecologically sensitive parts of IHCA, while the individual responses reflected more of a mixed response with almost half being undecided or neutral on the topic. Most groups were not supportive of the use of non-lethal fertility controls, although the support was still fairly split between those in support and those not. Page 13

I r o q u o i a H e i g h t s C o n s e r v a t i o n A r e a The groups did not come forward as having any support for management by the Haudenosaunee but some support for a Ministry of Natural Resources controlled cull, while the individual surveys revealed more support. However, only two of the six groups weighed in on the latter. The following summarizes opinions expressed and ideas shared during the small group discussions and through the comments on the group survey forms submitted. 1. Monitor deer populations and their impacts on local natural vegetation There was general support for collection of monitoring data, but not necessarily for the types of studies that had been done to date. Many agreed more data collection would be useful in informing management decisions, but some felt the current studies being done were not comprehensive or scientifically rigorous enough to provide useful data. A few thought the health of the deer themselves should be better studied, and others thought the focus should be on their local movement patterns. Some were not sure if resources should be allocated to monitoring. 2. Explore opportunities for safe eco-passage routes around Iroquoia Heights, and traffic safety programs As in the individual surveys, there was near unanimous support for pursuing this option. One group commented on the possible costs of such an endeavour which they felt should be borne by the local development community. Another group inquired about the existing tunnel that they indicated was closed off. One participant mentioned that this tunnel is probably too small to support deer passage in its current condition. There were questions around to what extent the deer are landlocked, and some support for study of local deer movement as well as opportunities for deer eco-passages. Steve Miazga (of the Hamilton Conservation Authority) spoke to the need to get the City and Ministry of Transportation involved in the study and management of the deer movement issue. There was also strong support for implementation of traffic safety measures. Suggestions included more warning signs in the area, installation of speed bumps, and installation of systems that warn drivers or discourage deer crossing roads (e.g., lights, reflectors, alarms). There was some discussion of the City of Ottawa s Speeding costs you deerly award-winning campaign that has been very successful. 3. Educate local community about deer and preventing human-deer conflicts There was also broad support for an educational program. Some of the educational measures suggested included some of traffic safety measures identified above. Additional suggestions included bringing education about deer into the local primary and high schools, educating people about the reasons why they should not feed deer, and holding community workshops. 4. Support an anti deer feeding bylaw and enforcement program Support for this option was divided. Some people felt a by-law would help discourage the feeding of deer. Others felt that education should be used instead of a punitive or legislative tool, and that such a by-law had the potential to pit neighbours against each other. Others were concerned that if the deer are not fed they might starve and considered this unacceptable. Some commented that it would be difficult to enforce. 5. Exclude deer from ecologically sensitive parts of Iroquoia Heights, and rare species habitat Opinions on this option were also divided. Some people felt this was warranted, particularly in the case of Species at Risk habitat. However, some felt that this approach was of questionable efficacy Page 14

I r o q u o i a H e i g h t s C o n s e r v a t i o n A r e a and that other management approaches should be used. Others felt this measure might be warranted if research demonstrated that it was effective. 6. Explore feasibility of herd reduction through non-lethal means such as female deer fertility controls Opinions on this measure were also split, and there were several questions that indicated a general lack of understanding on the tools available and their efficacy. Although birth control was perceived by some as a more humane way to control the population than through culls, others considered it cruel as well. A participant pointed out that no birth control measures are currently available in Canada, and that their effects are not well understood. Some also raised the question of cost. More research on this topic is required. 7. Develop protocol for perpetual care of IHCA deer population with Haudenosaunee Confederacy There was some confusion on both nights as to what was implied with a protocol for perpetual care, and it was clarified that this would include a controlled hunt every year with the intent of reducing the local deer population so that it remains in balance with the ecosystem. The survey forms submitted indicated a fairly strong consensus that this was not an appropriate management approach. One group supported the idea of hunting but felt the Haudenosaunee should not be engaging in this independently, but rather in conjunction with local hunters. Others expressed concern about the hazards of hunting in an urban, residential area, and others still expressed an opinion that killing the deer because of the mistakes we had made as humans was simply wrong. A. Do Nothing B. Ministry of Natural Resources deer capture and relocation C. Ministry of Natural Resources controlled cull D. Establishment of formal deer feeding stations Not all groups had enough time to reach any sort of consensus on these measures, and there was some confusion over what was implied by do nothing as well as what formal deer feeding stations entailed. In general, most groups felt some action was required and did not support do nothing. While some supported the idea of capturing and re-locating the deer in principle, once it was explained that the Ministry of Natural Resources could only remove them up to 1 km from their original habitat, and that incidence of mortality was high due to the deer going into shock, the support seemed to wane. Only one of the six groups expressed support for a controlled cull by the Ministry. Another group felt a controlled cull may be warranted in the future, but not until more data had been collected on the status of the deer population, and that if it was to proceed should involve First Nations as well as Ontario s Federation of anglers and Hunters. The other groups were all opposed to lethal means of management in the context of IHCA. Other closing remarks by participants included concern about human safety with respect to deervehicle collisions as well as risk of Lyme Disease, as well as concern that we should not be engaging in culls because we understand the natural dynamics so poorly and should learn to live with the deer (and other wildlife) because it is we who have displaced it. Page 15

I r o q u o i a H e i g h t s C o n s e r v a t i o n A r e a 3. Concluding Remarks and Next Steps It is now the job of DMAC to consider the feedback from these workshops in conjunction with feedback from the Community Survey and the information they have gathered from various experts both within and outside of their committee to develop a final draft strategy for deer management at IHCA. They are expected to develop this over the summer and submit it to the Hamilton Conservation Areas Advisory Board for consideration. The final report will then go to the Hamilton Conservation Authority Board of directors sometime in the fall of 2011. It is anticipated that the management approach and recommendations that emerge from this process will serve as a template and guide for deer management in other areas within the conservation authority s jurisdiction. It is also evident that this process will require ongoing collaboration between stakeholders at various jurisdictional levels. Effectiveness of prevention and management strategies is dependent on implementation of a variety of practical solutions through collaboration and discussion among stakeholders. Strategy for Preventing and Managing Human-Deer Conflicts in Southern Ontario, OMNR 2008 Page 16

Appendix A S u r v e y F o r m

Iroquoia Heights Conservation Area White-tailed Deer Management Strategy Public Engagement Workshops May 31 st and June 1 st, 2011 Survey Form Please review the background information in the workbook and the workshop presentation materials before completing this survey. Then consider the various management options and select if you (a) support, (b) are neutral, or (c) do not support, each one. Add comments to explain your selection if desired. Please select ONE MANAGEMENT OPTION SUPPORT NEUTRAL DO NOT SUPPORT COMMENTS 1. Monitor deer populations and their impacts on local natural vegetation 2. Explore opportunities for safe eco-passage routes around Iroquoia Heights, and traffic safety programs 3. Educate local community about deer and preventing human-deer conflicts 4. Support an anti deer feeding bylaw and enforcement program 5. Exclude deer from ecologically sensitive parts of Iroquoia Heights, and rare species habitat 6. Explore feasibility of herd reduction through non-lethal means such as female deer fertility controls 7. Develop protocol for perpetual care of IHCA deer population with Haudenosaunee Confederacy A. Do Nothing B. Ministry of Natural Resources deer capture and relocation C. Ministry of Natural Resources controlled cull D. Establishment of formal deer feeding stations: OTHER: OTHER: P AGE 1 OF 2

Iroquoia Heights Conservation Area White-tailed Deer Management Strategy Public Engagement Workshops (May 31st and June 1st, 2011) Survey Form Any other comments regarding the deer in Iroquoia Heights Conservation Area? (please use additional sheets if more space is required) Contact Information (optional) Name: Address: Telephone: Email: Please check this box if you would like to be on Hamilton Conservation Authority s email list regarding deer management issues at Iroquoia Heights. Note: Personal information on this form is collected under the authority of the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001, c. 25 and will only be used to correspond any further information on this issue as it develops. The disclosure of your personal information is governed by the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.m. 56. Questions about this collection and disclosure should be directed to Hamilton Conservation Authority s Administrator at (905) 335-7698. Please provide your feedback on-line, or via email or fax by June 15, 2011 one of: Hamilton Conservation Authority Contact Shari Faulkenham, Ecologist T: (905) 525-2181 x133 F: (905) 648-4622 Shari.Faulkenham@conservationhamilton.ca Facilitator Margot Ursic, Planning Ecologist / Facilitator Beacon Environmental Ltd. T: (519) 826-0419 ext. 21 F: (519) 826-9306 mursic@beaconenviro.com P AGE 2 OF 2

Appendix B F a c i l i t a t o r Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s

GUIDING SOLUTIONS IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Margot Ursic (B.A., M.Sc.) has more than 12 years of experience as a consulting ecologist and has developed special expertise in facilitation of meetings and workshops on natural heritage and urban forestry topics. She regularly undertakes project management and coordination, and has provided technical and facilitation support for more than 20 environmental projects over the past five years. Her relevant qualifications include: Master of Science (Botany), University of Guelph, 1994; Successful completion of workshops in support of her Professional Facilitator Certification with ICA; Provision of technical and facilitation support for Environmental Master Plans for the Town of Oakville, City of Windsor and Town of Vaughan (between 2003 and 2008), and a Climate Change Strategy for the Region of Peel (2010); Provision of technical and facilitation support for Urban Forest Management Plans for the City of Guelph (Framework 2006 2007; consultations 2009; UFMP 2010 2011), the Town of New Tecumseth (2007), Town of Ajax (2010) and the City of Burlington (2009-2010); and Provision of technical and facilitation support for the G8 EIS stakeholder workshops in Huntsville (2010), Guelph Natural Heritage Strategy stakeholder and public meetings (2004, 2009, 2010), and the County of Essex Wind Turbine Policy Round Table (2008). Most of these meetings and workshops have involved preparation of materials (e.g., hand-outs, presentations, posters, survey forms), and have included coverage of potentially contentious and controversial issues related to natural heritage / urban forestry. Margot is also familiar with the issues and challenges related to deer management in urban settings in southern Ontario based on her natural heritage work elsewhere (e.g., City of Guelph, Region of Peel Significant Wildlife Habitat Study), and involvement in a deer monitoring study for MTO (where the 401 and Creditview valley intersect). She has also consulted with First Nations on previous projects (e.g., Little Abitibi Ecological Assessments, Bay of Quinte Natural Heritage Strategy), and is generally familiar with the study area based on previous projects in Ancaster and the greater City of Hamilton. GUELPH OFFICE: 337 W OOLWICH S TREET. G UELPH, ON Canada N1H 2A7 Tel: (519) 826 0419 Fax: (519) 826 9306

Appendix C C o m m e n t s, Q u e s t i o n s a n d A n s w e r s M a y 3 1 a n d J u n e 1, 2 0 1 1

A p p e n d i x C A p p e n d i x C Comments, Questions and Answers (May 31 and June 1, 2011) The following is a consolidation of the questions / comments and responses from both the May 31 and June 1, 2011 workshops. Original notes were taken by Lisa Jennings of the Hamilton Conservation Authority and edited by the facilitator, Margot Ursic. C1: A participant expressed concern about public safety, specifically vehicle collisions with deer and transmission of lyme disease in the area. He has observed tics in the area and believes a decrease the local deer population would help alleviate his and others concerns with respect to lyme and deervehicle conflicts. Appreciation for the attention to the deer issue and work done to date was expressed. A1: Shari Faulkenham, Hamilton Conservation Authority Ecologist, explained how lyme disease is transmitted (i.e., the host is actually the white-footed mouse who then transfers the disease-causing bacteria to ticks that can be carried by deer) and confirmed that there are currently no cases on Lyme disease in the area, but that is has been documented at Wainfleet Bog and could move north. C 2: Concern expressed regarding the lack of no feeding wildlife signs within IHCA, and that more signs are needed. A2: Brian Hall, IHCA-Hamilton Conservation Authority Superintendent, confirmed that there is a sign at the main entrance gate of IHCA and a couple throughout the conservation area. Steve Miazga, Hamilton Conservation Authority CAO, indicated that the need for more signs within IHCA has been discussed at DMAC and is one of the options being considered. C 3: A participant suggested that if hunting is to occur it should be undertaken in conjunction with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. He also expressed his support for the need for deer population reduction, his concern about vehicle-deer collisions, and his support for more signs. C4: A participant expressed his concern about deer-vehicle collisions, and also expressed his frustration regarding deer eating his garden. C5: A participant indicated that she has successfully used Christmas trees to line her 4-foot fence to stop deer from entering her yard. She also expressed concern about the lack of deer eco-passages and commented that when the 403 was constructed there should have been an overpass or underpass for wildlife, and that in general that Ontario needs to plan better to accommodate wildlife. She also raised concern about deer-vehicle collisions, but said the answer was not to hunt the deer, but rather try and live with nature since we have created this problem. She suggested speed bumps along Mohawk Rd. C6: A participant inquired about the cull process and if it is effective. A6: Liz White, DMAC representative, indicated that culls are an ongoing management measure (not a one-time measure). She noted that in Rondeau Provincial Park they have been undertaking culls every one or two years for the past 30 years. Page C-1

A p p e n d i x C C7: A participant mentioned that there is a tunnel under the 403 and also indicated that there is a fence across the tunnel which does not allow wildlife passage. He also expressed support for his neighbours who feed the deer (cabbage, fruit scraps) to get them off the road and asked if it is legal to feed birds in IHCA, even if the deer might get the seed. A7: Steve Miazga responded that the Highway 403 tunnels are Ministry of Transportation property, and that he was uncertain about why they are fenced. Steve Miazga also stated that there is currently no wildlife feeding by-law and therefore feeding the birds and deer is not currently illegal. He noted that, strictly speaking, Hamilton Conservation Authority only has jurisdiction over its own lands and while it does not condone feeding wildlife, he is aware of bird feeders in IHCA. However, he explained that feeding deer is thought to disrupt their digestive system, and also makes them dependent on and less afraid of humans, which also creates potential safety issues. Therefore, DMAC is currently considering recommending a No Feeding Wildlife by-law be passed by the City of Hamilton. C8: A participant expressed her concern that hunting in IHCA is dangerous because it is well-used, urban, residential park. She also expressed concern that if there was sanctioned hunting, it would also encourage unsanctioned poachers. She asked how the hunting would be controlled. A8: Steve Miazga indicated that a cull is not on the table as a high priority management option at this time for IHCA or other conservation authority lands. However, if Hamilton Conservation Authority were to consider a cull, safety would be rigorously addressed through multi-agency involvement (e.g., police, Ministry conservation officers, and other agencies), as has been done at Navy Island and Rondeau Park. C9: A participant inquired about the success of deer relocations. A9: Steve Miazga explained that he understood that that capture and transfer methods usually caused a lot of stress on the deer, he asked Ian Hagman of the Ministry of Natural Resources to provide more details. Ian confirmed that the trap and transfer method does not have a high success rate. Liz White of DMAC added that the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act prohibits the movement of animals beyond 1 km from their original capture location, which is not a great distance for deer. C10: A participant inquired about the success of the culls at Rondeau Park. A10: Steve Miazga indicated that he was not well-versed on the status of the deer population at Rondeau Park, but that he thought that a Ministry of Natural Resources led cull has been happening every two years. Ian Hagman clarified that the cull process is dependent on the population so may not happen every two years. C11: A participant expressed her opinion that the deer population issue is primarily a result of urban sprawl and habitat loss, and she asked how they have concluded that there are too many deer, and also asked about constraints to local deer migration. A11: Steve Miazga responded that there were more than 120 deer counted by Ministry of Natural Resources during the survey conducted in 2009, and acknowledged that this only represents data from a single survey at one point in time. He also agreed that the deer issues are largely a result of poor planning, indicated that DMAC is trying to address this to the extent possible through their recommendations, and also mentioned that, based on what he has heard, the existing tunnel under the 403 is not considered a usable or adequate corridor for large wildlife such as deer. Page C-2