Deer, Dissension, and Dialogue: A University-Community Collaboration in Public Deliberation

About Resource

In 2007, a team of researchers at Michigan State University (MSU) led by Dr. Wynne Wright began a new project using dialogue and deliberation to address a local issue and identify sustainable solutions in collaboration with the community. Public officials in Green Port, Michigan, learned that the increasing population of white-tailed deer was leading to damaged property and stressed resources. They also recognized that members of the community had widely varying views on the problem and its potential solutions. As the human-wildlife conflict and tensions rose, city officials decided to form a collaboration between MSU, the Green Port government, extension educators, and specialists from the state’s Department of Natural Resources to facilitate a community dialogue and determine how to best manage the increasing deer population.

The first step was holding public forums where the community could share their concerns and ideas, and learn about established best practices from wildlife experts. A group of community members were then established as a task force to study the issue and produce an actionable plan. This plan was presented to the public for comment, and after revision was given to the city council. The plan was then implemented, with regular updates to the public and opportunities for public comment. Thus, their deer management plan became a living document with the capacity to be improved over time.

This program lasted for three years, and in 2009 the group published a paper sharing lessons about how dialogue and deliberation could help to co-develop solutions between communities and professionals. Perhaps most importantly, Dr. Wright notes that “tensions erupted and new challenges to successful deliberation emerged when scientists and extension educators functioned as knowledge authorities with the ‘answers’ rather than partners with resources to contribute to supporting the decision-making process.” She identified three key lessons from the project:

1. Receptivity to Context - successful public deliberation around natural resources should be crafted around the local circumstances and context and developed for the stakeholders. A homogenous or single approach is unlikely to succeed.
2. Learning - the engaged public valued the presentations by specialists and community members were asked for their local knowledge and personal experience.
3. The Role of Science - Community members appreciated the scientific research made available to them and found it to be a valuable contribution to their decisions. However, the scientists were often viewed as arrogant and insufficiently cooperative, further emphasizing the need for humility on the part of experts.