View Council Meetings

Watch for our advertisement in the Ludington Daily News

The following in from a Ludington Daily News Article. It is interesting that Superintendent Corlett states they are trusting the city. Evidently he did not reaesarch the subject thoroughly or he would have known the cull passed by only one vote.

The following are my submissions to the Ludington Daily News in opposition of the cull

I am hopeful that when our city fathers take up the issue of a deer cull within the city limits of Ludington, they carefully consider the cost, benefit, and risks of this undertaking.

I have discussed this with the city manager at the suggestion of the mayor and believe both are opened minded but should know how you feel about this.

I am against this idea for the following reasons.

1.   Even if the cull is successful over time the deer will return and when they do, we will not have another $125,000 hand out from the treasury to pay for another cull.

2.   The presence of the deer most likely makes us all more cautious drivers and that may just save children’s lives.

3.   To my knowledge there has never been a serious car deer accident in the city.

4.   The deer have been in town ever since city ordinances tied up our dogs. I don’t disagree with this but the eventual migration of wildlife into the city should have been foreseeable.

5.   Public health is referenced as a justification for the cull, specifically Chronic Wasting Disease even though there has never been a reported case of this disease in Mason County and this disease is not transmittable to humans or domestic animals.

6.   As I understand this the cull would be conducted during darkness using night vision goggles and rifles with night scopes to kill the deer. What could possibly go wrong? It seems to me that a lot could including injury or death to a person or pet. Trauma to a person especially children who might witness the killing of a deer is also a possibility.

7.   For a city that is so averse to liability that they will not have lifeguards at the beech because of the liability but will consider having people shooting rifles in the city seems ludicrous. We will not risk an activity that could save lives but will undertake one that has the potential to take lives just defies logic. 

8.   Another question is, is this humane? The deer have been visiting the city for decades, while still cautious they have lost much of their fear of humans so this will be a slaughter. All because of a few flowers or shrubs being eaten. Is this what we are or have become? I hope not.

9.   Then what, do we start killing all the rabbits, then the squires and so on until we are the only inhabitants of Ludington?

The following expands on my earlier comments regarding the cull. Another disturbing fact about the proposed cull is that the many doe will be about halfway through their gestation so we would be killing unborn fawns along with the doe.

I can find published information on only six culls conducted in Michigan. They are Meridian Township, University of Michigan Dearborn campus, Lansing, Muskegon, Ann Arbor, and Farmington Hills. I suggest you go online and read the details about each. My impression is that the culls are not successful even when conducted over extended periods of time and result in controversy and discord in the community without resolving the problem.

The second and third points in my original objection to the cull are specific to the presence of dear within the city limits and how that relates to public safety. Incidences outside of the Ludington city limits are not germane to my point.

The fourth point about the dogs and deer in Ludington is based on my personal experience that when dogs were not restrained in the city, deer were not present in the city.

The fifth point refers to public safety as it relates to disease caused by deer. It has been suggested that Lyme disease, bovine tuberculosis, and chronic wasting disease can be spread from deer to humans. This is not true; humans and livestock are not threatened.

You may hear that a cull is necessary because high density deer population generate a risk of disease, the opposite is true.  While the total contact rates may be lower in the low-density populations, the infection risk of a random susceptible deer is likely higher in the low-density population, because it is more likely to share a group with an infected deer. This seems counterintuitive but is true.

It is a published fact that chronic wasting disease cannot be spread to humans or domestic animals. The DNR reports the incidence of CWD to be .0035% of the deer population and there has never been a reported case in Mason County.

Bovine tuberculous is a very rare disease and there are only eight (8) cases of it ever reported in deer in the entire United States. And only two (2) in Michigan. If you want more information, go to this website. https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/managing-resources/wildlife/wildlife-disease/bovine-tuberculosis

Lyme disease is spread by ticks not directly by deer. The following is from a Humane Society publication The Black-legged tick, the culprit in the spread of the disease bacterium, was originally called a "deer tick," a misnomer that has perpetuated the false belief that deer alone are responsible for Lyme disease. In truth, Lyme disease has a complex ecology in which multiple hosts and varying landscapes affect both its presence and its impact on people.” Consequently, killing deer will have little or no impact on the spread of this disease.

According to the CDC’s latest data Michigan has only reported 1,931 total cases of lime disease with eighteen (18) of those being in Mason County.

My sixth and seventh point regarding public safety and liability are based on my understanding that the cull would be within and near the city limits.  

All the culls that I could find published information on were conducted in woodlands surrounding metropolitical areas not within them. To suggest that because there is a plan and because the cull would be at the perimeter (whatever that means) of the city limits that nothing could go wrong, and that there is zero risk is irresponsible. I suggest that anytime you mix firearms and people there is a risk that must be considered. My prayer is that at some point in the future I will not be publishing a “I told you so” in the Daily News.

For the record I am not against hunting or anti-gun.

My eighth point suggested that the cull is inhumane because “city deer’ are less wary of humans than their woodland counterparts. Essentially, I am saying it is like shooting fish in a barrel. Data related to non-urban deer are not relevant to my point.

My statement regarding rabbits and other creatures being subject to future culls was my attempt to be facetious, apparently ineptly.   

The last point made I made is the benefit from the distribution of the meat harvested from the cull. Published data, while scant, indicates that less than 1% of the population will eat deer meat and that many hunters do not eat the deer they kill themselves. Consequently, any benefit harvested meat from the cull produces will go to a very limited number of people and is unlikely to help many who are in need. Whereas a contribution to the local food bank would help those who need it most.

I was surprised to learn there is an entire industry built on deer culls. There are numerous companies in this business, some even have their own websites. One thing they never mention is being successful in eliminating the “problem”. It appears that each cull results in 35 or less deer being killed at a cost of about of about $350.00 or more for each deer killed.

There is a lot of boasting about the meat donated but this is mandated by law. Individuals who use these permits may keep the harvested deer or donate it, but above all, the carcass must not go to waste.

Some cities like Big Rapids conduct the cull annually and have been at it for over fifteen (15) years. Others like Grand Haven conducted them for a few years and then abruptly stopped. I reached out to both city managers requesting information related to the culls. I heard back from Mark Gifford Big Rapids city manager. This is his response to the question, do the culls work?  “I would say yes from the standpoint that people think that our conflicts with deer would only be more frequent if a cull was not performed.  Does that mean that the public or staff see it as solving the problem, the answer to that is no”.  Grand Haven did an aerial infare red study that resulted in them not doing the cull. * See article below.

Despite all the additional hunter days, blinds, tree stands, and baiting being allowed the White Tail population is not declining significantly.  So why should we believe that a couple of culls conducted in Ludington will make any difference? It would be much better to spend the money wasted on culls to enhance the security at our schools and protect our children. This could be the most important thing we could ever do.

The published information leads me to believe that some culls are conducted for political reason rather than a serious need. Some communities discontinue them when it becomes obvious that the culls do not achieve the desired result and are a waste of money while others continue in the hope that just one more will do the trick. Or maybe because of a good sales pitch from the cull companies.

Many big city transplants believe a deer that does not look like elk or cattle are undernourished. They are not! The White Tail deer is delicate, slender, graceful, and SMALL built for speed not power. seldom weighing over 100 pounds for females and 150 pounds for males.

Mason County natives have coexisted with the White Tail deer for many decades without the need for the barbaric practice of slaughtering the deer. We learned this the hard way from the example of what the first settlers did that nearly led to the extinction of the White Tail.

* By Chad D. Lerch | Muskegon Chronicle

GRAND HAVEN -- Capt. Rick Yonker of the Grand Haven Department of Public Safety used a heat-sensing video camera Wednesday while flying 200 feet above treetops throughout the city. Yonker said 54 deer were spotted over a two-hour "grid pattern search" covering the city's 6.22 square miles. The number of deer spotted was far fewer than officials had anticipated. 

Depriving the deer of their life because they eat some of our plantings is immoral. Claiming they will overgraze when they have tens of thousands of woodlands they can freely move to, and will, is just as bogus as the claims about spreading disease, over population and car deer collisions within the city limits of Ludington.

In my opinion the DNR is not a good source of information regarding culls. They appear to be more interested in the sales of licenses and revenue than the actual treatment of the White Tail as a living breathing creature. As I understand it the shooters must purchase a permit for each deer they intend to shoot.

Driving the deer out of town could result in more of them living in adjacent areas where both they and vehicles are traveling at higher speeds resulting in more frequent and more serious collisions.

A cull will not achieve its stated goal, but it will cost you the taxpayer money.  It is just a fact of life that if you choose to live in northwestern Michigan, you will be coexisting with White Tail deer.

If you agree contact your ward councilperson and tell them, you do not want the cull.

At a cost of $58,500.00 and many broken hearts the city decided to enter a contract for a deer cull in the long shot hope that it will save a few plants and flowers.

The following is the exact wording from the petition for the cull. “We believe that there are far too many deer in the city limits.

Believing there are too many deer in the city is not knowing that for a fact. No real scientific survey has been conducted. One of the rationales for thinking there are too many deer is the number of car deer collisions in the surrounding area. In fact, it is not the deer but the increase in traffic on the rural roads around Ludington causing the increase. This is a quote from the Deer Management Report published by the DNR “Statewide deer population estimates indicate that the Michigan deer population grew steadily through the ‘70s, ‘80s, and early ‘90s, but has experienced a gradual long-term declining trend since 1995”.

The areas for the kill are reported to be Cartier Park and the High School Forest even though killing in Cartier Park could result in the city losing ownership of the property and it is illegal for the city to pay for the killing in the High School Forest because it is not in the city limits. The school board says Ludington is paying for the cull on school property.

State law requires the permission to hunt with a firearm within 450 feet of any residence by that resident. The DNR can dictate that a cull is not hunting so they don’t need your permission to allow shooting near your home. One state legislator tells me they are looking at this potentially hazardous practice now.

If you live near the killing zones, I suggest you keep your prayers up to date, your pets clear of the area and hope no stay bullet hits your home or a passerby on the roads surrounding the areas. The following is the plan of action. If you are uncomfortable with it, I suggest you let councilpersons know. “At the request of the City of Ludington, Wildlife Services will lethally remove white-tailed deer under permits issued by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Wildlife Services may utilize suppressed firearms from vehicles, ground blinds, elevated stands, and/or baiting. Wildlife Services will prepare deer for processing in a secured building provided by the City of Ludington”. Contaminated with toxins or not.

If the deer are living in the city how is killing deer in Cartier Park or the High School Forest going to change that. It seems to me that it is more likely that it will encourage the deer there to seek safety within the city thereby exacerbating the problem, unless we believe the deer are stupid enough to flock to the killing zones. Suppressed firearms are not silent like in a movie. Both you and the deer can hear them.

There could be DNR approved baiting in advance to draw the deer to the killing zones. This in turn could increase the population of deer in areas around Bryant Road, Johnson Road and Jebavy Drive where there is heavy traffic including the drop off and pick up of children from school.  This is against the rules and regulations we the taxpayers must obey. Another case of you cannot, but they can.

I suggest that everyone get a copy of the contract between the city of Ludington and the United States Department of Agriculture and ask yourself if you would ever sign such an agreement that I believe essentially says you agree to pay, and they guarantee nothing in return.

This agreement is not easy to find on the city website, if you contact Mitch Foster city manager, he may send you the link to the contract. It can be found by going to the city website and clicking on Agendas and Meetings Minutes on the home page, then click on City Council, then click on Council Agenda Packet, then open 2022, then select the packet for October 10. Then you must scroll down until you find Ordinance No. 494-22. The names of the people signing the petition are listed if you want to know who was in favor of killing the deer.