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!