Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Highland residents press council for stronger deer‑management program; council asks staff to explore options and return by spring
Summary
Residents told Highland City Council they are experiencing severe garden and orchard damage from increasing urban deer and asked the city to reinstate a proactive abatement program and explore controlled bow hunting, timed trapping and limited fence exemptions.
Residents whose yards and fruit trees have been repeatedly damaged by deer urged Highland City Council on Tuesday to pursue a mix of improved trapping, targeted culling and limited fence exemptions to protect gardens and orchards.
Lou Anne West and other residents described persistent deer damage. “We’ve had up to five bucks and eight does in our yard that we’ve had to chase out,” West said. “They’ve eaten green beans, strawberries, pumpkins, pears, peaches … even mint.” Her husband, Steve West, added that the city’s trap program scheduled August–October misses the main garden season and recommended shifting timing if the program is continued.
Staff described the current program as reactionary: staff will place DWR‑approved traps only on private property when requested by a resident and after a signed waiver. Highland previously contracted with an outside vendor (Humphreys) for a more proactive program that included bow‑hunts and more extensive trapping. Staff said Humphreys stopped offering the service and the city shifted to a resident‑driven, reactive approach because of the time staff takes to process and manage proactive operations and the regulatory and meat‑handling requirements (sampling, donation, butchering) that accompany euthanasia or harvesting.
Residents and council members said the Humphreys program had been effective in past years; a council member recalled the program removed 70–90 deer in a year without major complaints. Chief Williams and other staff said any future euthanization or bow‑hunt program would need a DWR certificate and strict oversight (trained archers, monitoring, carcass handling and donation processes, reporting of lymph node samples, etc.). Staff cautioned that DWR limits harvest windows and sets technical conditions; any change to the harvest method (e.g., returning to archery) would require DWR approval and time to modify the city’s certificate.
Council and residents discussed other measures: temporary eight‑foot netting around gardens, an ordinance prohibiting deliberate feeding of deer (hay, grain, salt blocks), vegetation management on large irrigated parcels that provide cover, improved trap maintenance and training for staff, and outreach to local archery clubs or contractors to see if a third party could run a pro‑active harvest. Several residents said netting or tall fences should be a last resort to avoid citywide precedent for taller fences.
Council direction: The council asked staff to:
- Contact DWR immediately to confirm harvest windows and certificate modification timelines and report feasible options and constraints; - Reevaluate the city’s reactive trap program, including trap deployment timing (residents urged an earlier August start) and staffing/training to avoid trap failures; - Reach out to former vendors (for example Humphreys) and other private archery groups to determine availability and cost of a contracted, managed program similar to past years; - Draft an ordinance prohibiting deliberate feeding of deer and evaluate vegetation/maintenance standards for irrigated parcels that harbor deer; and - Return with recommended options (costs, timeline, DWR permitting needs, and public process) by early March/April to enable any needed certificate changes before summer/fall season.
Why it matters: Residents said the deer population increase harms private gardens, ornamental landscaping and yield of home orchards and increases the risk of vehicle collisions. Staff emphasized statutory constraints and animal‑handling requirements (DWR rules, meat donation and sampling) that complicate proactive city‑run euthanasia programs but said the city can explore partnerships with qualified private providers and adjust the reactive trap schedule and procedures.
Next steps: Staff will report back with DWR timing, contracting options, ordinance language on feeding and an implementation timeline for the council to consider at a March–April follow‑up meeting.
