Worthington's targeted deer removal program hit its year-one goal of 100 deer despite a Level 3 snow emergency that cancelled one operational night and suppressed deer activity in city parks for weeks, staff told City Council at its April 20 meeting. All processed venison, more than 4,200 pounds, was donated to the Worthington Resource Pantry. Two residents used the public-comment period to challenge how the city notified neighbors about operations, and staff acknowledged communication will be one of the program's refinements heading into 2027.
The numbers
Program manager Riley Hoover presented the year-one report, which is posted in full at worthington.org/deer. Operations ran across eight nights between January 21 and late February. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services, under a not-to-exceed contract, carried out the removals. Worthington police accompanied every operation and deployed a drone to monitor the area around each site.
Of the 100 deer removed, the majority were antlerless. "The priority is to remove antlerless deer because our goal of this program is to reduce the deer population," Hoover said.
Total program cost came in at roughly $119,000. Hoover broke it down in rough terms:
- USDA Wildlife Services contract (the federal sharpshooters) — largest line item, structured based on time but capped by a "not to exceed" limit
- Worthington Police support — billed by hours and nights of operations
- Field dressing — staff overtime, equipment, composting
- Deer processing — flat rate of $130 per deer, paid to Ohio Penal Industries
Hoover noted the weather drove up several of the variable costs: more nights on the ground with fewer deer taken per night meant more billable hours for both field-dressing staff and police escorts. "If we were to not have that snow there's a potential that we would have done in less nights with less cost," she said.
Weather and the role of residential properties
Wildlife Services reported "observing no deer in the Olentangy Parklands for multiple consecutive weeks while several inches of snow remained on the ground," according to Hoover. Without the 22 volunteered residential properties approved for the program (10 of which were actually used), the city "would have taken zero deer" on several nights, she said.
Two publicly owned sites were used: the Olentangy Parklands and Walnut Grove Cemetery. City Council had approved seven city parks for operations in October 2025; most went unused in year one. Hoover said interest in 2027 residential enrollment is already building: "Especially since operations have concluded, we've continued to hear from residents who would like to have their property enrolled in the program used for 2027." Many of those residents cite aggressive deer encounters, pets, children, and landscape damage as their reasons.
Stay connected to what's happening in Worthington, Ohio.
Council questions
Removal target. Council Member Glen Pratt pressed on where the 100-deer target came from and said he personally had not noticed a population change. Hoover said the Ohio Department of Natural Resources' Division of Wildlife modeled that more deer could have been removed to reach the program's long-term goal sooner, but the first-year number reflected what Wildlife Services considered operationally feasible. The target will be revisited in fall 2026.
Cost trajectory. Staff told Council that $119,000 is "in line" with expectations and that future-year costs should not be significantly higher, weather permitting. The processor fee is a flat $130 per deer, and the Wildlife Services contract is time-based and was not exceeded in year one.
Data collection. Council Member Maria Ramirez noted the Colonial Hills area has well-documented deer activity that nonetheless appeared relatively light on the city's heat map (page 14 in this document), and asked how residents should report deer problems. Hoover clarified that the heat map tracks only three streams: police calls for service with the keyword "deer," carcasses retrieved by the service department, and deer-vehicle collisions reported to police. Resident emails, calls, and web-form submissions are logged separately and are the main way the city hears from residents. The online form can be found through the Share Your Concerns link on worthington.org/deer. Additionally, Worthington police perform a population index twice a year by driving to specific areas like the Walnut Grove Cemetery to manually count the number of deer standing in the community.
Food pantry capacity. The Worthington Resource Pantry had told the city before operations began that it could absorb the full harvest thanks to its freezer capacity, and that it could redistribute surplus through partner pantries if needed. In practice that was not necessary; the pantry handled the full 4,200-plus pounds internally. Two drops were made, one mid-program and one at the end.
The no-feeding ordinance
City Manager Robyn Stewart reiterated that feeding deer is a municipal offense in Worthington and that the city has pursued enforcement, including at least one case that went to Mayor's Court and resulted in fines. Feeding concentrates deer, can override Wildlife Services' baiting strategy at approved sites, and tends to generate the neighborhood complaints the program is designed to reduce. Enforcement requires a resident to file and attest to a complaint through the form on the city's deer page, because city staff usually cannot observe feeding from the public right-of-way.
Public Comment
Two residents spoke to the program during public comment. Both supported the idea of a year-one debrief and both pressed the city on how it communicated the operation to adjacent neighbors.
The first speaker, a Worthington homeowner, thanked Hoover personally and said she was "grateful" to hear staff talk about refining communications for next year. She described a January 24 meeting between a group of residents and President Pro Tem Rebecca Hermann as productive but said confusion about the program remains widespread — including residents who still believe operations happened only between midnight and 4 a.m., which she said was not the case.
She said that the adjacent neighbors of volunteer property owners were not given notice of specific operational dates and times, and argued that residents whose homes are "within bullet range" of an active site should be able to make informed decisions about their own movements. She cited "a family with young children who was directly affected by gun violence mere weeks before this program started" whose next-door neighbor enrolled in the program without their knowledge. Additionally, she said legal costs the city incurred were "unnecessary" and were not included in the reported budget.
The second speaker, also a Worthington homeowner, said the city should adopt common-sense practices from other Ohio cities that run similar programs: an opt-in notification list for residents who want to know when operations are occurring nearby, and a "good neighbor" requirement that would ask volunteer property owners to secure adjacent-neighbor approval before enrolling. He claimed trail signage at the Olentangy Parklands did not go up until mid-January, after residents had raised the issue at an earlier City Council meeting. He also said that he and another resident filed public-records requests for the names and addresses of volunteer property owners, were initially denied, and ultimately obtained the records only after appealing to the Ohio Court of Claims. He also noted that residents who speak at Council are required to state their names and addresses publicly, while property owners who volunteered "for government action somehow have more privacy rights."
Staff Response to Public Comment
City Manager Stewart clarified during the meeting that actual removal operations did not begin until January 21. Signs at the Parklands entrances went up before that date; baiting-related activity in early January may have created the impression that operations had started earlier.
Stewart directly addressed the second speaker's reading of the Deer Task Force report. Stewart clarified that the task force’s reference to "designated sites" meant that operations would be limited to specific approved locations rather than occurring randomly across the city. She noted that the term was not a commitment to publicly announce those locations. "The task force wasn't intending to [suggest]... that we were going to necessarily announce [the sites] to the community," Stewart said, adding that several task force members confirmed this was their original intent.
What happens next
The Deer Advisory Committee does not recommend major program changes at this time, Hoover said, citing the researchers on the committee who stressed that one year of data, especially one year in an unusually cold and snowy winter, is too little to draw long-term conclusions. The committee will reconvene in fall 2026 to discuss refinements for 2027, including the 2027 removal target and, specifically, changes to the communication strategy.
Hoover closed by acknowledging the communications concerns directly, saying the city recognizes "the concerns and confusions the letters mailed to residents may have created" and is working to refine the approach before fall.
Residents who want to enroll their property for 2027 operations, report feeding, report aggressive deer, or submit general feedback can use the Share Your Concerns form at worthington.org/deer. Every submission that includes contact information gets a return email or phone call, Hoover said.
For broader background on how the program was designed, the Deer Task Force, and the pre-operation safety framework, see the Pulse's special edition overview.