Consulting Firm Produced “Biased” Deer Management Study, Says HSHV Official
by Madeline Fetchiet
AFTER NEARLY A year of presentation and debate over Ann Arbor’s Community-Endorsed Deer Management Plan at City Council meetings, the Humane Society of Huron Valley, some city residents, and city officials still disagree over using lethal or non-lethal methods to solve the problem. Robert McGee, President of the Ann Arbor Residents for Non-lethal Deer Management said he plans to take this to the Fall ballot, believing the city should “let the residents decide.”
McGee, along with Tanya Hilgendorf, President and CEO of the HSHV, have been critical not only of the lethal methods proposed, but also of the public process and the methods used to conduct the study.
Both McGee and Hilgendorf expressed concern that the City Council, and Project Innovations Founder and President Charlie Fleetham, as their paid consultant, conducted a biased study and failed to be objective in gathering public opinion. They both also noted a lack of consideration for scientific data or expert opinion when it was needed.
“The most research that they have is Google, and Google does not make one an expert,” Hilgendorf said.
Hilgendorf believes a private consultant who lacks expertise, and is not relying on scientific data should not be facilitating discussion leading to severe recommendations from city administration, such as hiring sharpshooters to kill deer. And even the flyover that was conducted for the study cannot be considered scientific data, according to Hilgendorf.
Hilgendorf said, “I think it speaks to this larger trend of handing over our public policy to consultants,” noting that in this case, neither Fleetham nor Bahl have any expertise in population management.
Although flyover data was analyzed, Hilgendorf said, “The Department of Natural Resources will say a flyover is not a good way to understand the population density of deer, and is not a good way of devising a plan.”
Hilgendorf also questions why a private consultant was hired in the first place, instead of elected officials doing the “heavy lifting.” She fears the outcome of the study and subsequent recommendations were predetermined, citing disconnects between the recommendations given by Ann Arbor’s city administration to the City Council and the study conducted.
Although, Ann Arbor Community Services Administrator said the City invited the HSHV to present in favor on non-lethal managemet at the public meetings, Hilgendorf claims the plan was preset, and she was only allowed to present on immunocontraception as a non-lethal option for deer population control.
As a local Humane Society, the HSHV lacked the resources and expertise to present on the topic, so Hilgendorf referred Bahl to the Humane Society of the United States to present non-lethal options, but said he declined to contact them, citing localization efforts.
Bahl was unavailable for response to this comment when contacted by The Ann Arbor Independent.
To bring expert knowledge to the discussion, McGee and his wife offered first in an email to Mayor Christopher Taylor, to cover expenses for Stephanie Boyles Griffin, Senior Director of Innovative Wildlife Management and Services for the Humane Society of the United States to present on non-lethal control methods if Griffin received a written invitation from the City Council. Griffin was the expert originally recommended to City Council by Hilgendorf.
When nothing came of it, McGee announced the offer again during the April 20 City Council meeting.
“The choice is up to each of you. If you want a nationally recognized expert from the Humane Society to come to Ann Arbor, conduct an on-site assessment, meet with you, prepare a report and if need be assist you in securing permission from the Department of Natural Resources, all at no cost to the city, all’s it takes is one of you to publically ask for it on your call to the Council tonight and follow through with an email. If not, my wife and I are withdrawing our offer to pay for those expenses.”
McGee said in an email to Mayor Taylor.
Mayor Taylor and the City Council eventually accepted the offer to have non-lethal advocates and experts from the Humane Society of the United States perform an evaluation of the deer problem the City is facing.
Meanwhile on May 20, Hilgendorf and the HSHV also hosted a discussion session with Griffin via Skype at a community meeting held at the HSHV. According to Hilgendorf, Mayor Taylor attended, but not a single member of City Council was present.
While McGee said Griffin was integral in helping display a full range of deer population control options, he said City Council seemed only willing to consider lethal options that provided immediate relief from deer eating residents’ vegetation and causing car accidents.
And when McGee attended the public meetings, he said he saw a “red flag” when Fleetham attempted to “censor” those speaking while facilitating the meetings, leading McGee to further question the plan’s objectivity.
“Before he allowed the audience to give comment, he put parameters on what they could and could not say,” McGee said.
When another women commented suggesting the City and the study wasn’t telling the whole story in terms of both lethal and non-lethal control options, Fleetham “cut her off,” McGee said.
In a February, 2015 email sent to Mayor Taylor, McGee detailed the actions he considered biased by City Council members and Fleetham, including but not limited to Fleetham sorting through audience question cards and misrepresenting/rephrasing a resident’s question, presenting only lethal methods of deer management, and predetermining what statements were allowable during public comment.
According to an email transcript sent from McGee to Mayor Taylor, in one meeting, Fleetham specially asked that, “When you make public comment, make your comments about the ideas, not the organization that may be here or may not be here,” and went on to say that people in attendance don’t want to see their organizations criticized.
Fleetham declined to comment on this story.
Bahl said the City hired Fleetham to “facilitate the public meeting,” instead of City staff members who were “busy with other public projects.”
According to Bahl, City Council approved allocating $20,000 from the City’s General Fund to devise the Community-Endorsed Deer Management Plan.
Take a look at the pedigree of the guy leading this study from the website of Project Innovations. Nothing to do with wildlife management. Half-baked? This has to be the least baked process I can remember.
This must be a patronage gig of some sort.
“And when McGee attended the public meetings, he said he saw a “red flag” when Fleetham attempted to “censor” those speaking while facilitating the meetings, leading McGee to further question the plan’s objectivity.”
“Before he allowed the audience to give comment, he put parameters on what they could and could not say,” McGee said.”
Although I am in favor of killing the deer via sharp-shooters, I do agree that the consultant tried censoring public comment. This censoring was completely unacceptable and I voiced my dislike of it at one of the meetings. I was at the meeting where this happened and I remember hearing them as they instructed the public on how they should or should not speak. In a public process free speech must be respected and folks must have the opportunity to voice their opinion about the issues at hand. If the consultant cannot respect free speech and public commentary then they should not be involved in future consulting gigs that involve public commentary.