Travis County Commssioners Court
December 10, 2002
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Item 6
Number 6 to discuss draft guidelines for wildlife, including reduction of deer population and vegetation management in Travis County parks and preserves and take appropriate action.
>> good morning judge and court members. Just -- we can go over what you've got in your backup. The backup number gives you the overview of what we're trying to accomplish. Also attached to that are the actual died lines that we're proposing. Guidelines. In addition to that is an example of the first implementation that we'd like to have take place, which is, as you referenced in the posting, removal of white-tail deer on a portion of the property that we own as the balcones canyonlands preserve. And that is the jollyville unit, which roughly is between 620, fm 2769, and bullock hollow road near Lake Travis: what we're basically trying to accomplish here is have good habitat management, good land management in both parks and preserves. The concept being that in many cases invasive or non-native species begin to take control over habitats and lands and either take us away from our mission of properly managing those lands or even causing danger such as disease or conflict with visitors or vehicles or neighboring subdivisions. We feel like the proposal that we have in front of you is the more streamlined way of accomplishing what we need to do, and that is to -- if the court desires, direct the executive manager to take staff recommendations -- in this case we're calling management permits. Evaluate those and approve them on a case-by-case basis. As it becomes necessary. So -- pu that's pretty much what we're here to discuss with you today. We feel like as specifically as it applies to white-tail deer management, this is something that we as a partner in the balcones canyonlands preserve and just managers out there of public lands are sort of behind the eight ball on. Other partners are doing this. And the reason that the white-tail deer is causing a problem predominantly on the preserve lands is that they -- their numbers are too high. They're artificially too high. In central Texas we've got the highest white-tail deer densities in the nation, which essentially is the world, and that's just a fact. And once you take the predators out of the picture, that equation really gets skewed out of control. So then what happens is that -- especially the components of your habitat for the song birds that we're supposed to be protecting under the bcp become endangered because they browse on those component of the habitat and they eat their seed and so forth and simply cannot be regenerated. So that's kind of where we're at. We want to make sure that everybody understands that this is not something that is a fun hunt for us to do. It's serious work and tough weather conditions.
>> and we're ding doing it as humanely as possible as well.
>> yes.
>> to protect our other investments that we have.
>> that's correct.
>> and I guess -- what's the -- of course, by reducing the population, of course, for health reasons, other than also control of the population of the white-tailed deer, we're looking at possible ways to assist as far asprocessing some of this to ensure that the area here in Austin may be somewhat served to a capacity, and not just see things go to waste.
>> that's correct.
>> I'm really concerned about the hungry here in this community, and I think all of us are. And I think it's also a good way to work with the processors that would process the meat and also have it distributed to the agencies that would help feed the poor and the needy in this community. I think that's something -- a plus as far as helping out the hungry. So of course I completely support this. And I guess with everything that you've said, you have the budget to could have these particular activities as far as reducing the population to a manageable healthy population within the pujt?
>> yes, sir, we do. One of the reasons we're bringing it forward in this manner is that we're suggesting that it is more economical for staff to undertake this rather than contracting it out. And that's in the backup. And we've got at least on the bcp side there may be some line item shifting that we need to do to take care of it, but on the park side probably under contracted services we'll be able to handle those costs associated with the processing and so forth.
>> and all the persons that will be distributing and serving the -- stuff like that, they're basically in agreement and are willing?
>> yes, sir.
>> everything is on the up and up and the persons that would be searching it to the hungry here in Travis County?
>> yes, sir. We have a couple of specific processors that have given us the dollar amount proposals that we've given you in the backup and caritas has been appointed as a recipient for the meat, as you say, to go to the hungry. In this case there -- these processors have been doing business with caritas over the years along these lines, so the relationships are already established.
>> so have we already determined that this meat is healthy for people?
>> oh, certainly. You know, those of us that are involved with the actual culling of the animals can recognize diseased or unhealthyanimals. And again, we're not the last judgment on that. It goes to the processor, who sees and has the inspections necessary to be able to assure that that is healthy stuff.
>> well, since these are guidelines, as draft guidelines, are we going to release these to the public for comment?
>> well, I think we ought to have a public hearing, unfortunately. Tiply when you start talking about reducing the population of any animals, you get some feed back.
>> yeah.
>> so are they ready to go out to the public or do we still need to be --
>> these guidelines? Certainly. The other thing, the other time con straint, I'm not disagreeing with anything that's been said, but we would would like to be able to comish this during this season, which ends January 19th.
>> yeah, deer season is -- yeah.
>> and I would add too that there have been a number of other folks who have had similar public meetings with mostly success. The city of Austin has had fairly public process and is doing this now on their preserves. The same thing with the lcra on' number of their properties. So we're not in -- [ inaudible ]
>> well, it takes some time to gear up to prepare.
>> to implement? For us within a week to 10 days I think we could do what we need to do. That is, notifying property neighbors and stakeholders and so fort. I mean, that is already anticipated as a part of this process before you today. Not as a separate public hearing, but just as a part of doing business.
>> what are you suggesting?
>> I feel a lot better su sceding a public hearing.
>> next week? In the morning?
>> okay. And I can't guarantee folks will show, but I know that this issue has come up in the past there has been some folks bound to express opinions one way or the other.
>> yeah.
>> next week, Tuesday morning, would be a good time, I guess.
>> and I guess, john, in the backup, as far as as far as maybe seeing how the city of Austin do it because they do have that type of program in place and stuff like that. So it would be good to see how their fair. I guess they are faring pretty good from what I understand.
>> yes, sir. Are you suggesting you would like us to invite them to the public hearing?
>> if necessary. I'm very concerned about the hunger as far as the hungry folks out there, having something to eat. But anyway, that's a different arena. But it will be good to hear from them if we need -- the concern from the public hearing anyway.
>> okay.
>> any objection to having this public hearing scheduled for next Tuesday, December 17th? ,.
>> I have no problem with that, judge.
>> then let's do that. We'll have it back on the agenda next week for a public hearing.
>> that will be fine. I move we recess until 1:30.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM