Izu City wildlife data is a stack of separate public layers
Izu City publishes a broad wildlife-damage prevention plan plus current notice pages for monkeys, bears, and wildlife protection. The useful dashboard keeps damage, sightings, warnings, protection context, and capture operations separate.
Source-layer finding
The strongest Izu City all-wildlife source is the FY2027-FY2029 prevention-plan PDF: five target animals, FY2023 damage amounts, reduction targets, and capture plans. Current city pages add monkey sightings and bear guidance, but they are not the same measurement layer.
This is not an official alert or complete wildlife database. The prevention plan measures damage and management targets; monkey and bear pages are current public notices that can change and should be snapshotted before being used as an archive.
Official records
What the public records show
Scope: Izu City · Shizuoka Prefecture · Amagi and Toi districts · Kano River watershed. Each panel names where its numbers come from, so prefecture totals, town alerts, and injury documents are not folded into one danger score.
Plan species
5
Izu City's FY2027-FY2029 prevention plan names deer, boar, masked palm civet, badger, and cormorant
FY2023 damage
¥33.883m
Agriculture/forestry/fishery damage in the city plan, not sightings or injuries
Largest damage row
Sika deer
¥17.632m and 5.3 ha in FY2023 city-plan data
Monkey notice rows
40
Current Izu City public sighting list checked on the city page; separate from the prevention-plan species
Planned annual culls
3,229
R7-R9 plan count: deer 2,000; boar 1,200; badger 18; civet 11
Fence subsidy
¥9.409m
R3-R5 city standalone fence-subsidy spend in the plan; 26.9 km of fence material support
Izu City's all-wildlife baseline is a damage table, not an alert feed
The city prevention plan gives one official local table across five target animals. It measures damage value and area for agriculture/forestry/fishery uses; it does not count every public encounter.
Area damage is only available for the land-based plan species
The same city plan reports damaged area for deer, boar, masked palm civet, and badger. The cormorant row is an ayu/fishery-loss row and is kept out of the area chart.
The city plan sets a 20% damage-reduction target by FY2027
The target table keeps current damage, target damage, current area, and target area visible. It is a policy goal layer, not observed future events.
Izu City damage-reduction target table
| Species | Current damage | Target damage |
|---|---|---|
| Sika deer | 17,632 | 14,106 |
| Wild boar | 6,016 | 4,813 |
| Masked palm civet | 780 | 624 |
| Japanese badger | 340 | 272 |
| Great cormorant | 9,115 | 7,292 |
| Total | 33,883 | 27,107 |
The plan states both damage amount and area should fall by 20%; cormorant area is not applicable in the published table.
Municipal notice and protection context
Izu City's public notice layer includes monkey sightings, a bear encounter warning, wildlife protection information, and related resident guidance. These current pages sit beside the plan PDF rather than replacing it.
Monkey sightings are a separate current municipal notice layer
Izu City also publishes a public monkey-sighting page. Monkeys are not one of the five animals in the FY2027-FY2029 damage-prevention plan, so the sighting notice must stay separate from the plan's damage table.
Bear warnings and wildlife-protection pages are context, not a local annual count
The city has a bear encounter warning page keyed to an Oct. 20 capture in Kawazu Town and a wildlife-protection page listing four bird-and-wildlife protection areas. These pages are important public context but do not provide an annual Izu City bear count.
- Bear notice
- Encounter warning
- Contact city Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Division or prefectural agriculture/forestry office after securing safety
- Protection areas
- 4
- Shuzenji Park, Amagi Kogen, Amagi, and Darumayama-Kakigi bird/wildlife protection areas
- Coverage caveat
- Current notices
- Public notice pages can change; snapshot them before treating them as time-series data
Capture, cull, and operational response layers
Capture, response, and implementation rows show how the city manages the animals named in the plan. They should be read as administrative operations, not as biological population totals.
The plan's incentive layer is mostly cost-sharing and labor support, not a bounty table
Izu City's plan documents three visible incentives: city standalone support for farm fence materials, national/prefectural grant use for group fence projects, and partial support for hunting-license acquisition plus training. The plan does not publish a per-animal bounty/reward table in this source layer.
- Fence material subsidy
- R3-R5 ¥9.409m
- City standalone subsidy: R3 ¥3.029m / 8.3 km; R4 ¥3.802m / 11.0 km; R5 ¥2.578m / 7.6 km
- Forward fence target
- 10 km/year
- R7-R9 plan continues city support for invasion-prevention fencing for deer, boar, civet, and badger
- Group fence grants
- National/prefectural
- Plan cites national wildlife-damage countermeasure grants and prefectural agriculture/rural-development subsidy use; group direct construction is a condition in cited examples
- Hunter pipeline
- Partial license-cost support
- Plan says the city publicizes hunting-license exams, subsidizes part of license-acquisition costs, and holds beginner trap / safe capture training
- Labor-saving tech
- ICT support
- Sensor cameras, trap-monitor sensors, capture-confirmation apps, and equipment loans are framed as reducing capture-worker burden
- No bounty table found
- Not published here
- Search of the plan text found subsidy/support language, but not 奨励 or 報償 bounty/reward rows
Recent fence incentives are visible as spend and kilometers, not event counts
The city standalone fence-support row is one of the clearest incentive datasets in the plan. It measures public support for prevention infrastructure, so it belongs beside — not inside — sighting, damage, or cull counts.
Izu City recent fence-subsidy rows
| Fiscal year | Subsidy amount |
|---|---|
| R3 / FY2021 | 3,029 |
| R4 / FY2022 | 3,802 |
| R5 / FY2023 | 2,578 |
These rows are cost-sharing / prevention-infrastructure incentives, not wildlife events.
The plan schedules 3,229 annual culls/captures across four target mammals
Izu City's R7-R9 plan gives the same annual capture-plan count for each year. Deer and boar dominate the cull plan; civet and badger are much smaller household-complaint response rows. Cormorant control is described operationally but has no annual plan count in the table.
Cull/capture rows are management operations, not population estimates
The plan publishes recent deer/boar capture results and future capture-plan counts. It explicitly says boar practical population estimation is not established, so capture targets should not be read as population totals.
Izu City capture rows and plan counts
| Fiscal year / plan row | Sika deer | Wild boar |
|---|---|---|
| R3 / FY2021 | 847 | 715 |
| R4 / FY2022 | 633 | 865 |
| R5 / FY2023 | 417 | 543 |
| R7 plan | 2,000 | 1,200 |
| R8 plan | 2,000 | 1,200 |
| R9 plan | 2,000 | 1,200 |
Plan rows are planned annual counts: deer 2,000 and boar 1,200 each year for R7-R9; recent rows are R3-R5 actual results in the plan.
Small animals and cormorants have different response mechanisms
The plan treats masked palm civet/badger household complaints, cormorant fishery damage, and deer/boar agricultural damage as different operational problems. Keeping those rows separate prevents the dashboard from inventing one generic wildlife-risk score.
- Masked palm civet / badger
- House / yard complaints
- Plan notes attic, underfloor, droppings, and garden/farm damage complaints across the city
- Great cormorant
- Kano River fishery layer
- Plan cites freshwater fish predation in the Kano River system, roost/colony checks, air-gun capture where safe, and drone/ICT work
- Deer density context
- 19.08 deer/km²
- FY2023 Shizuoka pellet-count density for Izu City cited by the city plan; still high despite decline
How these numbers were counted
- •Izu City's prevention-plan table covers five target animals; it is not a complete list of every species residents may see.
- •Agricultural/fishery damage, monkey sightings, bear warnings, protection-area context, incentives/subsidies, and capture operations remain separate source layers.
- •Monkey rows come from a current city page and should be snapshotted before being treated as a durable archive.
- •Capture targets are management-plan numbers and are not population estimates or public-sighting counts.
- •Subsidy rows are implementation incentives: fence support, license-cost support, training, grants, and labor-saving equipment are not animal-event counts.
The plan covers five target animals, not every possible animal
Izu City's prevention plan names sika deer, wild boar, masked palm civet, Japanese badger, and great cormorant as target animals. It is the best official all-wildlife baseline for local damage because the rows share one municipal planning frame.
That does not make it a complete encounter database. The city also has pages for monkey sightings, bear guidance, wildlife protection areas, bird problems, snakes, and related resident questions. Those pages belong in the municipal notice layer rather than inside the plan table.
- •FY2023 total damage in the plan: 33.883 million yen across the five target animals.
- •Largest damage rows: sika deer 17.632 million yen; great cormorant 9.115 million yen; wild boar 6.016 million yen.
- •The plan's target table aims for a 20% reduction in damage amount and area by FY2027/R9.
Monkey sightings are current public notices
Izu City's monkey page lists dated sighting rows by district and head count. This is much closer to a resident-alert layer than to the prevention plan's damage layer.
Because the page is presented as a current,随時更新 list, it should be snapshotted if we want a stable time series. The first pass counted 40 listed sighting rows and kept the visible place labels rather than converting them into a fake annual risk score.
Capture rows are operations, not population totals
The plan publishes recent deer/boar capture results and future capture-plan counts. It also says practical boar population estimation is not established, which is a useful warning against treating capture targets as animal population estimates.
For Izu City, the clean dashboard split is: damage value/area, policy targets, monkey sightings, bear warning context, wildlife-protection context, incentives/subsidies, and capture/cull operations. The R7-R9 plan schedules 3,229 annual culls/captures: deer 2,000, boar 1,200, badger 18, and civet 11; cormorant control is operational but has no annual plan count in the table. Incentives are also a separate implementation layer: fence subsidies, license-cost support, grants, training, equipment loans, and ICT support are not wildlife-event counts.