Community Survey
Participation & Key Findings
The Wildlife Committee conducted a comprehensive survey among Deerwood residents regarding the management of wildlife in our community. Responses were limited to one per property. The results provide important insights into current wildlife issues, concerns about overpopulation, and potential health and safety risks.
54%
Reported direct conflicts with wildlife
31%
Reported incidents or injuries related to wildlife
Note on survey reach: 154 responses represent approximately 16% of Deerwood's ~960 properties. The committee advises treating these results as directionally useful while recognising that the majority of non-respondents may simply have had no wildlife concerns.
Effectiveness
Current DIA Practices
A majority of residents (61%) believe the current wildlife management practices are effective, while 39% do not. The 31% who reported incidents or injuries underscores that ongoing monitoring and mitigation efforts remain essential regardless of overall satisfaction.
61%
Consider current practices effective
34%
Support hiring a Certified Wildlife Biologist
46%
Oppose spending on a Wildlife Biologist
The survey shows significant division on approving DIA spending for a Certified Wildlife Biologist (CWB): 34% support, 46% oppose, and 20% are conditional based on cost. These results suggest a need for further cost-benefit analysis before committing additional funds.
Committee Recommendations
Wildlife Committee Recommendations
Based on survey feedback and further research, the Wildlife Committee recommends the following actions:
-
1
Educational outreach. Enhance community education about coexisting safely with local wildlife. A permanent website presence curating current best practices for dealing with the various wildlife that shares our land — the Wildlife & Nature page serves this purpose.
-
2
Ban feeding of wildlife. The committee strongly recommends banning the feeding of wildlife, especially deer, feral cats, geese, and ducks. Feeding one species inadvertently feeds others, as food is accessible to any animal. Reducing resident feeding behaviour is expected to produce a distinct change in foraging patterns and reduce nuisance factors. Florida law also prohibits feeding many wildlife species.
-
3
Non-lethal population management. Explore cost-effective, non-lethal, and ethical methods to address specific populations. Green laser pointers have shown success in deterring Canada Geese quickly and humanely (search Amazon for "HITEKK High Power Green Laser Pointer", ~$25). Never point a laser directly at animals, people, or aircraft — direct the beam at the ground near the geese only.
-
4
Ongoing incident monitoring. Continue tracking incidents involving wildlife to update practices as needed.
-
5
Large animal removal process. Establish a formal process and preliminary budget of approximately $3,000 per year for removal of large animal remains (deer and similar) from common areas and member properties. Removal of remains from vehicle collisions should not fall to the individual homeowner. This service applies to large wild animals only — not smaller animals or pets.
-
6
Injured wildlife guidance. Maintain and distribute updated guidance on what to do when encountering injured wildlife, via the website and regular email communications.
On a Certified Wildlife Biologist: Further engagement with a CWB can be considered if cost-effective and widely supported. However, a CWB report may have a short useful life given the transient nature of wildlife in Deerwood. The committee does not see broad support for this at this time, but notes it may become more relevant if behavioural change efforts — particularly a feeding ban — do not produce results.