The stated purpose of all culls is to reduce the
overpopulation of deer for their own good. The problem is the DNR does
not know if there is an overpopulation or not as you can determine from
reading their Deer Management Plan.
The following is an excerpt from the plan that gives you an idea how
they determine a population. I suggest you read the entire plan.
The concept of managing impacts of deer rather than focusing
exclusively on deer numbers (Lischka et al. 2008) is supported by
biologists from Michigan and in other states, and was identified in the
original DAT report, and in the report on the public survey implemented
by Michigan State University (Riley and Lischka 2009) in preparation for
completion of the original plan. The concept of Adaptive Impact
Management (AIM) allows for wildlife professionals to integrate both
ecological and human dimensions into wildlife management. It emphasizes
stakeholder involvement and places focus on management impacts on
society rather than conditions of wildlife populations or habitat (Riley
et al 2003). For these reasons, the DNR has shifted their management
strategy from developing population estimates and goals to monitoring
multiple trends that reflect the direction a deer herd is changing and
the impacts associated with those trends. Understanding the impact of
deer on their environment and the recent trends are most important to
making regulatory changes and aligns well with the mission statement of
the deer program to monitor and limit negative impacts associated with
abundant deer populations. These impacts will be monitored annually
based on staff observations and a number of indicators, such as antlered
harvest, crop damage permits, deer vehicle collisions, and habitat
impacts. Much of the information previously collected to develop
population estimates will still be utilized to evaluate trends in DMUs.
One important activity in monitoring Michigan’s deer herd is through the
collection of biological data (biodata) from a sample of the harvested
deer at voluntary check stations located throughout the State. These
data are used to monitor the size, composition, and health of the deer
herd. In addition, the annual deer harvest mail survey, sent to a
randomly-selected sample of deer hunting license buyers, uses a
statistically-based, stratified sampling design to develop estimates of
various factors of the annual harvest (e.g., number of antlered and
antlerless deer harvested, the number of hunters pursuing deer, the
number of days hunters spent pursuing deer), and will continue to be
used to quantify additional important factors, such as hunter
satisfaction and success rates. Other factors, such as landownership
patterns, habitat quality, and climate changes will also be used in
consideration of deer harvest trends. In order to provide Michigan deer
hunters with clear and understandable deer hunting regulations, it is
important that the framework for deer management and deer hunting
regulations are consistent across the State whenever possible. However,
Michigan has a diverse landscape with soils, climate, land use patterns,
human population densities, and other factors that vary significantly
across the state. Similarly, deer densities and habitat quantity and
quality can be very different from one part of the State to the next.
When necessary, deer management regulations should accommodate these
differences, and be applied so that regional issues can be addressed at
the appropriate scale. Historically, deer management in Michigan has
been implemented at the relatively small scale of the DMU. Current DMUs
range in size from five to 2,615 square miles and average approximately
700 square miles. The smaller DMUs are typically islands or special
management units. Sufficient data have proven difficult to acquire at 14
the DMU level and deer management decisions and efforts are generally
more appropriate when focused on larger and more ecologically-similar
areas. Consequently, results and analyses pertaining to deer harvest
will be analyzed at both the DMU and the Wildlife Management Region
scale in the future (Figure 7). Regional management of deer in Michigan
is supported by DNR leadership, recommendations from the DAT, and the
public survey report (Riley and
|
Deer population is a complex issue and has nothing to do with how
many deer you see. If you want to be knowledgeable about the subject
Click Here
You can help stop the madness of deer culls in Michigan. Copy the
following text [between the lines] and send it to the state senator and
congressman from your district.
The state of Michigan needs legislation that prevents the DNR
from being paid for conducting deer culls to kill deer or anything else
for that matter. When deer or any other wildlife needs to be “managed”
it should be by non-lethal means whenever possible.
Life is difficult enough for deer with winter mortalities as high
as 50% they do not need to deal with culls in addition to that. When God
gave us dominion over the earth and everything in it, that meant we were
to care for it and protect it, not to kill everything else on the planet
that inconvenienced us in the slightest.
The DNR seems to believe they own the White Tail Deer, if this is
true then they are responsible for them. Consequently, when a community
has a problem with the deer it is the DNR's job to fix that problem at
no charge to the community. It would be interesting to see how many
culls there were if the DNR could not charge for doing them. My money is
on zero!
Most pf the DNR arguments supporting culls are bogus, this
includes fear mongering about disease and overpopulation. Does anyone
bother to consider how ludicrous saying I will protect you by killing
you is!
The DNR expects us to believe deer will just starve to death if
they overpopulate an area and not just move to another area. Why would
anyone believe that? They also want us to believe high population leads
to disease spread when just the opposite is true.
Based on the research we have conducted it appears
that all of the deer population estimates are based on deduction not an
actual count. The factors that are used can and are affected by many
conditions that have nothing to do with deer population.
To know the deer population for sure would take a
study like the one conducted in Grand Haven Michigan where the use of
body heat sensing equipment was used from a helicopter to count the
deer. It was found there were only 54 deer in the city while residents
believed there were several hundred.
Many times people use the incidence of deer car
accidents as proof of overpopulation. When the truth is that it is the
increase of traffic in rural areas that cause the increase in accidents.
We all know that more and more homes are being built in the wooded areas
surrounding Ludington but we never want to consider our own
participation in the resulting deer / car collisions.
At the same time this invasion of humans into the
deer habitat results in them having less natural habitat and being
forced into more activity because of human activities around them.
|
Use the link to the right to
review the DNR's Deer Management Unit plan for Mason County.
As we research
deer culls in Michigan we are alarmed to find that many communities are
instituting this practice of deer slaughter. Is this a coincidence or is
this just a money making scheme being pushed by the DNR? Someone must be
selling this idea.
It seems unlikely
that there would be such an explosion of this idea when it is so
controversial. Is the DNR just using culls to replace the lost revenue
for the decline in hunting license sales?
If this practice
continues there will not be enough deer left to hunt.
Culls are to deer
as depth charges would be to fish!
This barbaric
practice needs to stop!
|