Wildlife endures a constant struggle for survival, where every day is a battle between life and death. In this natural balance, every action is driven by the need to survive, not by choice or malice. Yet, human intervention, particularly through practices like deer culls, adds a layer of senseless violence to this already harsh reality. Such actions are not only unnecessary but morally wrong. Killing animals for any reason other than survival is a grave sin, and those who partake in or support these actions will ultimately be held accountable by a higher power.

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) claims that culling is a method of deer management, but their track record suggests otherwise. Time and again, they have demonstrated a lack of true understanding of deer populations and ecosystems. Their approach is often riddled with misinformation about diseases and population control, leading to further disruption of nature’s balance. Every time humans interfere with the natural world, thinking they can outsmart the wisdom of creation, they end up causing more harm. Mismanagement creates problems, and further intervention only exacerbates these issues.

Wildlife management should prioritize non-lethal methods. Until the DNR adopts a 100% non-lethal approach, it is irresponsible and unethical to support any form of wildlife management. True stewardship of the earth requires us to protect and preserve life, not to destroy it under the guise of management.

If you want to stop a deer cull you will need to be prepared to go to court. This takes time so you must start preparing as soon as you become aware that a deer cull is being considered.

If you are not claiming economic damages that are provable you will be challenged on standing by the defense. As a resident of the area you will have standing but must have done the following.

1. Challenge to proposed cull very way you can, for example at city council meetings and at private meeting with the appropriate  officials.

2. express your concerns  By Email and by letter

3. Run advertisements against the cull in local publication

4. Write letters to the editors to local newspapers or online publication.

5. You must separate yourself from the general public's interest. The following information you should find helpful in formulating your arguments, as it is a motion to deny a motion for summary judgment based on standing.

Motion in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Disposition of Plaintiff’s complaint
and Preliminary Injunction.

 1. Plaintiff respectfully moves this honorable Court to deny the Defendant’s motion for summary disposition of the Plaintiff’s complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

 2. Plaintiff respectfully submits this response to the Defendant's motion for summary disposition of the Plaintiff's complaint, brought forth under Michigan Court Rule 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10).
Firstly, regarding Rule 2.116(C)(8), it is imperative to note that the Plaintiff's complaint sufficiently states a claim upon which relief can be granted. The allegations contained within the complaint outline a coherent legal basis for the relief sought, providing specific facts and legal theories that warrant adjudication. Dismissing the complaint under this rule would be premature and unjustified.
Furthermore, with respect to Rule 2.116(C)(10), the Defendant asserts that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and thus, they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. However, upon careful review, it becomes apparent that there are indeed factual disputes that necessitate further examination. The purported lack of genuine issues is contested by the Plaintiff, and the determination of such issues warrants a thorough examination of the evidence and legal arguments presented.
To start with Ordinance 494-22 authorizing the culling of deer states:
1. Section 1: APPROVAL. Pursuant to Section 8.10 of the Charter of the City of Ludington, the City Council hereby approves the City Manager and City Clerk to sign a three (3) year Cooperative Service Agreement between the City of Ludington and United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services to provide lethal removal of white-tailed deer in areas with high numbers of complaints and damage.
2. ARTICLE 1 – PURPOSE The purpose of this Cooperative Service Agreement is to assist the City of Ludington by providing lethal removal of white-tailed deer in areas with high numbers of complaints and damage.
3. There are no complaints or reports of damage caused by deer in Cartier Park.
In conclusion, Your Honor, the Defendant's motion for summary disposition should be denied. The Plaintiff's complaint has adequately stated a claim for relief, and genuine issues of material fact remain unresolved. Granting the Defendant's motion at this stage would prejudice the Plaintiff and undermine the principles of fairness and justice upon which our legal system is founded.
Brief In Support of Request to Deny Defendant’s Motion for summary Disposition.
1. The Plaintiff is a resident of Ludington who has presented evidence to the city council on numerous occasions regarding the folly of urban deer culls in general. A complaint was filed reluctantly as a last resort to protect the city from what the Plaintiff believes to be a serious lack of judgement regarding expending taxpayer resources while exposing persons to unnecessary numerous potential dangers. The complaint was not filed to prevent the city from conducting deer culls but rather to delay a deer cull in Cartier Park until the concerns related to the potential consequences of the cull in Cartier Park could be resolved.
2. The Defendant by its attorney has misrepresented many claims made by the Plaintiff in support of delaying any cull in Cartier Park until such time as these concerns can be addressed in his verified answers to the complaint.
3. In response to Michigan Court Rule 2.116(C)(8), I would like to clarify and address the concerns raised by the plaintiff regarding my involvement in this matter and the basis of the complaint. Firstly, it is important to note that my expression of concern regarding the deed containing a reversion clause in Cartier Park does not stem from any claim to assert the rights of the heirs of the Cartier family. Rather, my concern is rooted in the potential consequences of a cull in Cartier Park triggering the reversion clause. This concern is not contingent upon my membership or lack thereof in the Cartier family.
4. Furthermore, the basis of the complaint extends beyond the reversion clause and encompasses several factors that warrant consideration. These factors include: The ineffectiveness of urban culls as a means of population control. The absence of evidence provided by the city demonstrating the necessity of a cull in Cartier Park. Concerns regarding the possibility of chemical contamination in the park and the consequences associated with the cull. Safety hazards posed by using high-powered rifles near a residential area. Alleged violations of city ordinances prohibiting firearms in and around Cartier Park.

5. Compliance with Michigan state law requiring written permission for hunting within 450 yards of residences.
6. The plaintiff's familial connection to Mary Elizabeth Cartier, which may underscore Plaintiff’s interest in the preservation and welfare of the park. While I am a blood relative, and I am in communication with Mary regarding Cartier Park and other properties I have never and do not now claim to be acting on Mary’s behalf.
7. It is imperative to recognize that these concerns collectively contribute to the foundation of the complaint, rather than solely relying on the existence of the reversion clause. Therefore, my involvement in this matter is not aimed at asserting familial rights but rather at addressing legitimate apprehensions regarding the proposed actions in Cartier Park. See Exhibit #18
8. Firstly, with regard to the Defendant's assertion of lack of standing, the Plaintiff maintains that they have a direct interest in the matter at hand due to their status as a resident of the community affected by the Defendant's actions. As a resident who frequents Cartier Park, the Plaintiff has a vested interest in ensuring the preservation of its natural resources and the protection of its wildlife population. Therefore, the Plaintiff does indeed have standing to challenge the Defendant's planned wildlife population management activities. And contrary to the Defense attorney’s assertion that I am not related to Mary Elizibeth Cartier I am in fact a blood relative.
9. Additionally, while the Defendant claims that the Plaintiff has failed to cite applicable law prohibiting the Defendant's actions, it is important to note that the Plaintiff's concerns are grounded in principles of environmental conservation, public health, and the protection of community interests. The Plaintiff contends that the proposed wildlife management activities may have adverse effects on the local ecosystem, including potential harm to wildlife populations and disruption of the park's ecological balance.
10 Furthermore, the Plaintiff does not need to demonstrate personal harm to establish the basis for injunctive relief. The Plaintiff is seeking to prevent potential harm to the community as a whole and to preserve the integrity of Cartier Park for the benefit of all residents. The potential irreparable harm resulting from the Defendant's actions extends beyond individual interests and encompasses broader environmental and community concerns. This potential harm to the community is demonstrated by the Shoreline Food Club’s refusal to distribute venison resulting from the cull.

I trust that this clarification provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand and emphasizes the multifaceted nature of the complaint. I respectfully contest the assertions made by the Defendant and seek to clarify the grounds upon which the Plaintiff's claims are based.
In conclusion, the Plaintiff respectfully asserts that their claims are valid and well-founded, and requests that the Defendant's motion for Summary Disposition of Plaintiff’s complaint and Preliminary Injunction be denied. Additionally, the Plaintiff urges the Court to grant the motion for temporary and preliminary injunctive relief to prevent imminent harm to Cartier Park and its surrounding environment. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this honorable court deny the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint and motion for temporary and preliminary injunctive relief.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I remain available to provide any further clarification or information as necessary.

By my signature below I affirm that I have read this Verified Answer to Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses and that my responses to the contents thereof are true to the best of my information knowledge, and belief.

For additional details click here.

Are Animals Evolving Faster Than Humans?

Look At This and Decide For Yourself.

Recent ad and template for yard signs to be placed later this year.

Click Here to see what the culls kill

Short on time and just want a quick synopsis as to why we stand against deer culls click here.

Charlevoix, Michigan undertook the foolish step of starting deer culls in 2024. If they had reviewed Big Rapids, Michigan experience of dismal failure with culls having conducted them for over fifteen years Charlevoix city officials would have known they were starting to spend taxpayer money on a project that never ends. Simply put deer culls are USELESS, DANGEROUS AND EXPENSIVE. The cost of the cull was $600.00 for every deer taken. Not a very good investment. Click on links for stories on each. Learn more about the history of the relationship between the white-tailed deer and humans by reading this if you do you will not longer support culls if you do now.

To see how many deer are in Ludington use the Camera Study Analysis link to the left.

The Michigan DNR publishes a lot of information that contradicts their claims that deer culls are useful in managing deer. It takes a lot of work to find the information because this agency proliferates a lot of publications. For example they continue to claim culls are needed to control deer populations while publishing this "LANSING, Mich. (WJRT) - The Michigan Department of Natural Resources is reporting a significant drop in deer harvest numbers for the 2023 hunting season. Hunters reported taking slightly less than 275,000 deer last fall, which is about 9% less than the more than 300,000 deer culled during the 2022 hunting season". At the same time According to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, approximately 590,000 people obtained a deer tag in Michigan in 2023, which is 1% more compared to the previous year.  So deer tag sales were up 1% and the harvest was down over 9%. Does this indicate to you that there are more deer?

The DNR has a deer management plan that contains many apparent contradictions and falsehoods. It is long but if you want to understand the real reason the DNR pushes culls you need to study it. Of course it is about money "isn't everything". Get it here

Every deer hunter I talk to reports seeing fewer deer in 2023.

Jesus mentions animals in the Bible in various contexts. For instance, in Matthew 6:26, Jesus says, “Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?” This verse highlights God’s care for all living creatures. Animals play a significant role in the Scriptures, representing both God’s creation and serving as powerful symbols of spiritual truths. They demonstrate God’s care for all living creatures and provide us with valuable lessons about faith, obedience, and stewardship. There is only one justification for killing an animal and that is when it is necessary for your survival. To some extent hunting for sport in order to have the skills necessary to survive may be justifiable. But killing an animal because it eats your flowers is not.

Scripture teaches us that God tolerated animal sacrifices because of the seriousness of sin. After Christ atoned for our sins animal sacrifices were no longer welcomed by God.

Matthew 9:13 Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” Hosea 6:6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

Killing deer or any animal for that matter because they eat your flowers is evil. The people that push for culls know this and that is why they all lie about Lyme Disease, Chronic Wasting Disease and Overpopulation to justify their evil deed. Check out the facts on all of these made up excuses to murder deer and you will find they are all untrue. Add to this made-up stories about coyotes hunting deer in your city, deer attacking dogs then coming back and breaking into a house and common sense should tell you how far some people are willing to go to make someone else protect their precious flowers when for under $50.00 they could purchase a motion controlled sprinkler and do it themselves without killing anything. Lazy, stupid, evil, cheap or cruel  pick your reason but it is one of these.

Click on photo to go to our Go Fund Me Page. 100% goes to paying for advertisements to raise awareness about deer culls and DNR abuses. Or donate using PayPal below.

See Full Story Here

If you like reading fiction I suggest you read Mayor Barnett's article published in the Mason County Press on September 27, 2023. Click Here  Keep in mind that the total Mason Count deer population is estimated to be about 20,000 deer or roughly 40 deer per square mile in the 495 square miles of land in the county. The mayor seems to think there are more than twice the number of deer per square mile in the city as in the surrounding woodland.

As far as I can determine the USDA does not provide any type of notice or safety precaution notices when they conduct a deer cull near your home. You should contact the Ludington city manager's office or your council person and demand to know if there will be any cull activity near your home or where you or your children might be at risk. Go here for email and telephone contact information.

Click on photo to see our ad in the Mason County and Oceana County Press

See who voted for the cull in 2023 Click here

Watch for our new ads in the Ludington Daily News November 10th

Government bureaucrats always think they can manage wildlife better than nature, their record on this over time indicates this to be wrong. For them it is always about money and that is why they are almost always wrong. 

We do not dispute that a territory can become overpopulated with deer, likewise it can become under populated. Both conditions have serious effects on the ecology of the territory. Nature is the best source of maintaining balance but humans are usually too impatient for this. One of the main problems is that humans rarely bother to find out what the population of the deer herd is but rather rely on antidotal evidence derived from random sightings and then always resort to lethal means to correct a problem that may not even exist. There are many not lethal ways to remove deer from a territory that work much better than culls and will not destroy the natural balance.

The MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION has published an excellent study on this subject. It is not bias like what we get from the Michigan DNR or the Ludington Mayor and city council it is just factual and informative.

The following was presented to the city council on November 27th 2023. We have presented numerous common sense comments about the futility of deer culls at the Ludington City Council meetings held the second and forth Mondays at 6:00 PM at the city hall building. 

When it comes to reducing the number of deer in the city there is nothing you or anyone else can do that will accomplish that because of the way nature has responded to the threats to the White-Tailed Deer’s survival. The following data taken from DNR published information illustrates this fact.
The best estimate of the number of deer in Mason County puts the population at 20,000 to 25,000. There are more deer than people in Mason County. I guess some of you should be grateful that deer cannot vote.
1. Over 5000 deer are killed each year in Mason County by hunters and collisions.
2. Plus, an unknown number dies from other causes every year.
3. That means about 25% of the deer population is killed off each year.
4. Notwithstanding this the deer reproduce at a rate that allows the deer population to remain steady or even increase.
5. Despite these facts the Ludington City Council appears to believe that killing a few more deer, a maximum of 40, will make a difference in the urban deer population.
6. The only reduction a deer cull will make is to the city treasury.
7. Urban deer culls are useless, dangerous, and expensive.
8. Do we know who the so called “Sharpshooters” are. Do you know their names? Have you seen proof of their qualifications? Or are you inviting armed men to shoot high powered rifles in our town based on something the government told you? We all know how reliable that is!
9. Please rethink this deer cull and then vote no on wasting our money and putting us in danger.

Finally there is good news. The city at a recent court hearing announced that there would be no more deer culls in Ludington. Then on July 8th at the city council meeting repealed the ordinance authorizing the cull. Hopefully they are persons of character who will keep this promise.

We continue to work to protect our deer and Cartier Park.

For updates on the case email us and make the subject lone Case Update.

The hearing on the defendant's motion for dismissal is scheduled for June 13, 2024 at 2:30 pm

Read about the biggest lie told concerning the Ludington Deer Cull:

Click Here

Michigan Law applies to you but not to the DNR or the USDA, WHY?

When you cull a doe in January, February or March what are you really killing.

The following information illustrates that chemical ground water contamination can and does result in venison that is unsafe to eat.

Since no surface water, soil or vegetation in northwest Ludington have been tested and that this area has significant ground water contamination of trichloroethylene (TCE), hexavalent chromium, and cyanide I urge that all venison resulting from the deer cull in Ludington be tested for contamination until such time as the other surface test can be completed.

“The Michigan departments of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) and Natural Resources (DNR) Thursday issued a ‘Do Not Eat’ advisory for deer taken within approximately five miles of Clark’s Marsh in Oscoda Township.”

The advisory is due to high levels of PFOS (perfluoro octane sulfonic acid) found in a single deer taken about two miles from Clark’s Marsh, which borders the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base.

Scientists first discovered toxic PFAS contamination at the former Wurtsmith Air Force base in Oscoda, Michigan, over two decades ago. From the 1970s until at least the base’s closure in 1993, the Air Force sprayed PFAS-laden AFFF at Wurtsmith during training exercises to extinguish fires, and regularly disposed of spent AFFF in grassy areas of the base. It should come as no surprise that these activities caused massive groundwater contamination — contamination that is running largely unchecked through the Oscoda area due to the Air Force’s failure to control and clean up the PFAS plumes from the base.

The question to cull or not to cull is complex and there are reasonable arguments for both sides of the debate. But one thing is clear, irresponsible wildlife management by governments at all levels created the problem in the first place. Now worldwide governments are using the same bogus arguments to justify culls in a vain attempt to placate an unhappy citizenry albeit a small but vocal minatory. In Michigan the DNR is handing off the responsibility for managing deer herds to local communities by promoting culls and making a profit by doing so. And gullible local officials are buying it. Culls come at a high price with no guaranteed results. So the cost can be $500.00, $1000.00, $2000.00, or more for each deer harvested. If humans stayed out of it nature would eventually restore the balance but that takes time and one thing we do not have is patients.

This is an issue all over the world, not just in Ludington or Michigan or the United States. Read this article about deer culls in Scotland. It clearly demonstrates why it is futile for a community like Ludington to waste precious resources trying to do what an entire nation cannot.

At the local level there is no chance that any effort will have any meaningful effect on deer population. The DNR knows that they created a problem that they cannot solve so  they are passing it down to us and others and making money doing so.

Deer culls are a political knee jerk reaction to an issue that requires a far more complex strategy than just killing the perceived culprit. I could go into what I suspect is the real reason culls are advised or suggested as good or suitable by the USDA/DNR but that is not the reason for this report. Our concern is for the well-being of the citizens of Ludington, Michigan. Urban deer culls do not contribute to this, they derogate it.

Title: Analysis of the Ineffectiveness of White-Tailed Deer Culls in Michigan.
Executive Summary:

White-Tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) populations in Michigan have been subject to culling programs as a means of managing their numbers and mitigating the associated ecological and agricultural impacts. However, this report aims to explore and highlight the reasons behind the apparent ineffectiveness of White-Tailed deer culls in the state. Various factors contribute to the challenges faced by culling programs, including ecological dynamics, social aspects, and the practical difficulties associated with large-scale culling efforts.

1. Ecological Complexity:
• White-Tailed deer populations are influenced by various ecological factors such as food availability, predation, and weather conditions. The complexity of these interactions makes it challenging to predict and control population numbers through culling alone.
• Culling programs often fail to address the root causes of overpopulation, such as habitat loss and alteration, which can lead to increased reproductive rates and deer-human conflicts.

2. Reproductive Rates and Migration:
• White-Tailed deer are known for their high reproductive rates, and culling efforts may not be able to keep up with the natural increase in population.
• Migration patterns of deer populations can also complicate culling programs, as individuals from neighboring areas may replenish the culled populations.

3. Social Resistance and Ethical Concerns:
• Culling programs often face significant social resistance from communities and animal welfare advocates. Public opposition can lead to legal challenges, limiting the effectiveness of culling initiatives.
• Ethical concerns surrounding the killing of wildlife, especially charismatic species like White-Tailed deer, can erode public support for culling efforts.

4. Inadequate Funding and Resources:
• Culling programs require substantial financial resources and manpower to be effective. Inadequate funding may result in insufficient monitoring, data collection, and enforcement, reducing the overall impact of culling on deer populations.

5. Lack of Comprehensive Management Strategies:
• Successful deer management requires a holistic approach that includes habitat restoration, public education, and community engagement. Culling programs, when implemented in isolation, may fail to address these broader aspects of population control.

6. Monitoring and Evaluation Challenges:
• The effectiveness of culling programs is often difficult to assess due to inadequate monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. Lack of accurate data on population dynamics and ecological impacts hinders the ability to refine and improve culling strategies.

Recommendations:
1. Integrated Management Approach:
• Implement comprehensive deer management strategies that address not only population control through culling but also habitat restoration, public education, and community involvement.
2. Public Engagement and Education:
• Develop and implement public awareness campaigns to educate communities about the ecological impacts of overpopulation and the need for comprehensive management strategies.
3. Adaptive Management:
• Employ adaptive management practices that allow for continuous monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment of culling programs based on scientific evidence and community feedback.
4. Collaboration with Stakeholders:
• Foster collaboration between wildlife agencies, researchers, local communities, and advocacy groups to build consensus and support for effective deer management strategies.
5. Research and Innovation:
• Invest in research to better understand the ecological dynamics of White-Tailed deer populations and explore innovative, non-lethal methods for population control.
In conclusion, addressing the challenges associated with White-Tailed deer overpopulation in Michigan requires a multifaceted and adaptive approach that goes beyond culling. By considering ecological dynamics, social factors, and ethical considerations, a more sustainable and effective deer management strategy can be developed and implemented.

The White-Tailed Deer is immune to Lyme disease so obviously cannot spread it. A tick may hitch a ride but if the deer is alive, you will not get close enough to it for the tick to jump onto you. The recorded Lyme disease numbers are very low for Mason County but just because a case is recorded here does not mean the infection originated here and vice versa. So it is very difficult to be accurate about how many cases originate in Mason County.
There has never been a case of Chronic Wasting Disease in Mason County and very few anywhere in Michigan (the last count I could find prior to 2022 was 18) most of these are farm raised deer in Southeast Michigan, not in a wild heard. According to the CDC there has never been a case of a human having it. In 2022 a total of 10200 deer were tested for CWD and there were 16 positives, 13 of these positive deer came from Gratiot, Ionia, Jackson, Kent, and Montcalm counties, most from farm raised animals. This may be part of the 18 referred to above or additional to them I am not sure.
The only way to get an accurate count of the deer population in an area is a fly over, using Infar red equipment. Grand Haven did this a few years ago because of claims of hundreds of deer in the city and they counted fewer than sixty. You cannot accurately calculate the number of deer in an area.
Comparing crop damage to flower damage is not valid, a yard can be protected by a $50.00 motion sensor sprinkler. Crops are a farmer’s livelihood, yet many will not kill the deer. Hazing works much better for farmers and would for the city but does require some work.
Of course, the current deer in Ludington were not here before us, most only live five or six years in the wild, a few will live to ten or more years but historical photographs show many deer taken around here over a hundred years ago. And I have seen these photos and that is more than I can say about other photos referred to. When I requested them, I was told there were none.
Culls are expensive and do not result in fewer deer, once started they last forever so your tax dollars will be paying for this year after year while the streets and sidewalks continue to deteriorate. Most of us and many tourist visit the state park and it is loaded with deer that the DNR will never allow to be culled. This combined with the entire area surrounding Ludington being heavily populated with deer makes the idea of a Ludington cull ludicrous.

Revision of the "NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT Act 451 of 1994 - (7) An individual shall not hunt with a firearm within 150 yards of an occupied building, dwelling, house, residence, or cabin, or any barn or other building used in connection with a farm operation, without obtaining the written permission of the owner, renter, or occupant of the property".

By replacing the word hunt with use a firearm and change 150 yards to 400 yards.

Or at the very least mandating that the DNR obey the existing law.

If you live in Michigan District 2 contact Senator Jon Bumstead senjbumstead@senate.michigan.gov and Congressman Curt VanderWall
CurtisVanderWall@house.mi.gov and tell them you want the DNR to follow the law or change the law so they must follow it.