Laserfiche WebLink
88 2. Introducing predators - reintroducing predators would not be feasible in an urban setting for <br />89 three reasons: <br />90 a There is no suitable habitat for deer predators. <br />91 a There is a potential for these predators to kill non -deer targets. <br />92 ® Close proximity to humans would negatively impact public safety. <br />93 <br />94 3. Relocation <br />95 Relocating deer is costly, impractical, and ineffective. Relocation is also very stressful to <br />96 deer, and high mortality rates are associated with relocation. The spread of deer diseases is <br />97 another concern. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources does not allow this <br />98 technique. <br />99 <br />100 4. Contraceptive <br />101 While effective for the individual deer, contraceptives are not an efficient means of overall <br />102 deer population control because they must be applied to nearly every female in the herd. A <br />103 booster would also have to be applied annually. This process is estimated to cost $800- <br />104 $1000 per doe, with $200-$300 per year maintenance. The Minnesota Department of <br />105 Natural Resources does not allow this technique. <br />106 <br />107 5. Sharp Shooting <br />108 Through the Metro Bow Hunters Resource Base (MBRB) individual citizens can participate <br />109 in urban archery hunts. During these hunts, hunters emphasize shooting antlerless deer in the <br />110 hopes of reducing the number of does in the deer population. Deer populations are more <br />111 quickly reduced when the number of does is reduced. <br />112 <br />113 6. Bow Hunting <br />114 Sharp shooting is another method which has proven successful. Specially -trained deer sharp <br />115 shooters are hired to come into a community with the purpose of removing a large amount <br />116 of deer at one time. They are trained to shoot as efficiently and effectively as possible to <br />117 minimize <br />118 the possibility of the herd scattering, and to quickly dispatch deer and maintain safety to <br />119 surrounding residents. This is done cooperatively with the USDA (United States Department <br />120 of Agriculture). <br />121 <br />122 COStS <br />123 The cost of this new program would be the responsibility of the City. <br />124 <br />125 There is no direct cost associated with an archery hunt. For sharp shooting, the direct cost is estimated at <br />126 $215-$270 per deer removed. <br />127 <br />128 The annual monitoring and inventory costs are approximately $800. <br />129 <br />13o There is also an indirect cost for such items as staff time, organization, supplies and materials, <br />131 enforcement... of administering a program. Currently capacity for Parks and Recreation staff is limited. <br />132 <br />133 Partnerships <br />134 Ramsey County would be involved and help guide Roseville through a control process if desired. <br />135 <br />136 Ramsey County and other cities in the County have allowed controlled deer hunts on private property <br />137 and/or public property, either by bow hunters or sharp shooters. <br />138 <br />139 <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />