Kevin Skerl
Ecologist, Cuyahoga Valley National Park, Brecksville, Ohio

“The park is now better equipped to assess social impacts, plan mitigation, and design education and outreach programs should lethal management be prescribed.”

Growing white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) populations increasingly threaten vegetation and forest processes in eastern national parks. Park managers often consider lethal control of deer a viable management response; however, significant public controversy can arise over such proposals. Few issues highlight the need to integrate social science into natural resource management more than the proposed lethal control of overabundant wildlife in national parks. In 2001, park managers at Ohio’s Cuyahoga Valley National Park gained a better understanding of public perceptions, attitudes, and possible social responses to deer management.

The lethal control of overabundant deer populations at Cuyahoga Valley National Park was first proposed in 1997 when resource managers drafted an environmental assessment and management plan outlining such an action. Amid much public controversy, a group of local and national animal-interest groups filed suit in federal district court to stop the action. The judge issued an injunction partly because of his opinion that the park had not adequately addressed the social consequences of the action. In response, the National Park Service withdrew the plan and continued monitoring and research efforts.

In light of the controversy, land managers were compelled to examine the local social environment with the same scientific rigor usually afforded to biological and ecological issues. In cooperation with the National Park Service, researchers at the University of Minnesota completed the analysis of a mail-back survey of 700 park residents and neighbors in 2001. This comprehensive study not only collected information on public preference for management techniques and emotional reactions to management decisions, but also measured how these decisions might affect park visitation and local attitudes toward the National Park Service.

Somewhat surprisingly, survey results revealed broad public support for lethal control of deer. Approximately two-thirds of respondents found lethal control acceptable, while only one in six felt that taking no action was acceptable. Additionally, the majority of respondents indicated that they would experience no negative emotional effects from lethal control. Respondents showed high general confidence in the Park Service, and 80% indicated that they would not change their use of the park or the opinion of park staff should lethal control be implemented.

However, 20% of respondents found lethal control unacceptable and would be very upset by such actions. A similar number indicated that such a program would keep them from visiting the park or participating in park activities. Though a statistical minority, this group represents the potential for significant controversy over the issue.

The survey also identified key issues and impediments for public outreach and education efforts. Most importantly, survey results revealed a significant disconnect between park management priorities and the reasons why the public would support lethal control of deer populations. Although concern for native impacts to vegetation and ecological processes may motivate the park to manage deer, most respondents supported deer management primarily to maintain a healthy herd, reduce deer-vehicle accidents, and curtail damage to private landscaping and gardens. Helping the public understand how deer overabundance can affect forest ecosystems is clearly a priority. Most respondents also indicated that the deer management issue is important to them personally and is related to their personal values. This high personal connection to the deer issue may indicate potential difficulties in changing public attitudes through education.

The park is now better equipped to assess social impacts, plan mitigation, and design education and outreach programs should lethal deer management be prescribed. Using social science techniques to collect site-specific data on controversial resource management issues characterizes the actual attitudes and needs of the entire local community, not just the most vocal citizens. Integrating such social science information into planning efforts is not only a mandate of the National Environmental Policy Act but is also an act of responsible public stewardship.