From “The Living Landscape,” Rick Darke and Doug Tallamy:

5 Oak planted today (or not eaten by deer) will sequester 216,000 lbs of carbon dioxide in 55 years, they will sequester 426,000 pounds in 75 years.  Older trees are far more effective at this.  

The stewardship and sustainability of the Ann Arbor’s entire urban forest needs to be on the radar of the Environmental Commission, then the City for quite some time, via an outreach program.  

The City’s Natural Features Master Plan, adopted in 2004, call for exactly that.   It should be noted that the typical city property in the US (Ann Arbor does better) uses only 10% of its available land area for tree biomass that they could be.

What happens when cities refuse to manage their deer herds effectively?

Case 2. Rochester Hills, Michigan

Rochester Hills was presented numerous times at Ann Arbor’s deer forums five years ago as the poster child for effective non-lethal deer management. Rochester Hills had had a significant deer-vehicle collision problem, and residents had been complaining about deer damage to plants. Lethal deer management was defeated by an angry group of animal defenders who maintained that educating residents about avoiding deer accidents, adding (movable) deer crossing signage, advising home owners to use deer repellents and “deer resistant” plants would take care of the apparent deer overabundance problems somehow, ignoring the basic fact of deer biology that in the absence of hunters or predators – or disease – a deer population doubles about every two years..

When the Rochester Hills deer population plunged temporarily due to EHD, a deer disease, traffic accidents dipped and the anti-cull advocates loudly proclaimed their non-lethal program a huge success at reducing deer crashes. Fast forward to 2018 and we find that as a collision-prevention program the education and signage measures seem to have been singularly ineffective. Rochester Hills, as it often has been, is at the top of the Michigan list for deer-vehicle collisions, the number one municipality in the state.

Furthermore, according to Rochester Hills naturalist Lance DeVoe in his talk in Ann Arbor during one of the deer forums, their woodland understory

in their public lands is now mostly invasive Japanese barberry, which will prevent the trees and the whole forest ecology from regenerating. The invasive barberry is “deer resistant,” and therefore survives where everything else dies, but by replacing native species it is hostile to many plant and animal species, including pollinators, that would be sheltered in the woods.

Here’s an excerpt from a recent interview with Rochester Hills naturalist Lance DeVoe, a Rochester Hills city employee:
By: Mary Beth Almond | Rochester Post | Published December 5, 2018
www.candgnews.com/news/naturalist-gives-tips-on-how-to-deal-with-wild-neighbors-111051
“Deer, by far, have become the most difficult wildlife problem in our city,” DeVoe said during the presentation. “I keep thinking that there has to be a correction at some point, because our city is not what I would call an ideal white-tailed deer habitat, and it shouldn’t be able to keep as many deer as we have here healthy, but unfortunately, that correction hasn’t happened yet.”

Anytime there’s an overabundance of deer in a suburban area, the risk for deer-related car crashes increases. Although Rochester Hills saw a slight dip in deer-related car crashes last year, dropping from 176 in 2016 to 161 in 2017, DeVoe said the city still leads the state in deer-related car accidents.

“There’s car-deer accidents everywhere in the city. It’s all over,” he said. “And we know that there’s a significant number of car-deer accidents that don’t get reported.”

Tienken Road has historically led the city’s roads as far as the number of deer-related car accidents, followed by Avon and Adams roads, and Walton Boulevard. If a deer dies on a road governed by the Road Commission for Oakland County, DeVoe said, the animal is picked up by the county; if it dies on a city road, it’s picked up by the city’s Department of Public Services; if it dies on public property, it’s picked up by the city’s Natural Resources Department to be delivered to the DPS.

“There are deer being dropped off at our Department of Public Services virtually every day,” DeVoe explained.

An overabundance of deer can also wreak havoc in parks and neighborhoods by reducing vegetation, particularly native plants, thus reducing food and shelter for other animals and also damaging landscaping.

Repellents — such as Liquid Fence, Deer Away — can help discourage deer from entering property, according to DeVoe.

“Some of them do work if you’re persistent and diligent enough with applying them after it rains and after a heavy dew,” he said. “You can deter (deer) to some extent. It just takes a lot of effort.”

DeVoe also suggests that people scare deer away when they come to their yard and removing the vegetation they like to eat from the landscaping. He said a list of plants that deer seldom eat is available on the city’s website.

“We’re not trying to encourage more deer, and feeding them helps to keep that population abnormally high,” he said.

What happens when cities refuse to manage deer herds effectively?

Case 1. Staten Island, New York City

Deer swim across the Arthur Kill channel from New Jersey, start to reproduce, begin to be noticed.
In 2008 the deer population of Staten Island was estimated at just 24. Now it’s soared to around 2,000, according to the NYC Parks Department. Oct 12, 2018
Traffic accidents, vegetation destruction, black-legged (“deer”) ticks, and previously-absent Lyme disease follow.

The NYC government, with Mayor de Blasio known to be beholden to animal rights groups, refuses to use lethal methods recommended by wildlife experts. NYC spends millions of dollars on a highly questionable buck vasectomy program which at best would reduce the deer population slowly over time and seems to be failing to do so. Yes, White Buffalo (who else would dare to approach the tender parts of antler-bearing bucks?) is the contractor.

Borough President of Staten Island James Oddo – Thoughts on Lyme Disease and Ticks August, 2018

Lyme disease surge: Why our deer problem really matters (local commentary from Staten Island) April, 2018

The birds and the bees are bucking NYC’s deer-control program New York Post April 3, 2018

Rising deer population colliding with Staten Island Drivers Oct 10 2018

Limits to free speech

Even Justice Scalia —that strict constructionist — said that there are limits to free speech. Allowing these anti-cull people to use the pretext of the First Amendment to break the law seems like an abrogation of the Council’s responsibility—both legally and fiscally. They have a legal duty to allow their contract with White Buffalo to be fulfilled and not waste taxpayer money. Is Ann Arbor going to be one of those towns/cities which had a cull, then gave into to protests, and then 10 years later were overwhelmed with Lyme Disease, DVCs, the natural areas filled with barberry—and stiltgrass?

Act 451, NREPA: the Law

RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 451 of 1994
324.40112 Obstructing or interfering in lawful taking of animals or fish; prohibited conduct;
petition; injunction; violation as misdemeanor; penalties; section inapplicable to peace
officer.
Sec. 40112. (1) An individual shall not obstruct or interfere in the lawful taking of animals or fish by
another individual.
(2) An individual violates this section when the individual intentionally or knowingly does any of the
following:
(a) Drives or disturbs animals or fish for the purpose of disrupting a lawful taking.
(b) Blocks, impedes, or harasses another individual who is engaged in the process of lawfully taking an
animal or fish.
(c) Uses a natural or artificial visual, aural, olfactory, gustatory, or physical stimulus or an unmanned
vehicle or unmanned device that uses aerodynamic forces to achieve flight or that operates on the surface of
the water or underwater, to affect animal or fish behavior in order to hinder or prevent the lawful taking of an
animal or a fish.
(d) Erects barriers to deny ingress or egress to areas where the lawful taking of animals or fish may occur.
This subdivision does not apply to an individual who erects barriers to prevent trespassing on his or her
property.
(e) Interjects himself or herself into the line of fire of an individual lawfully taking wildlife.
(f) Affects the condition or placement of personal or public property intended for use in the lawful taking
of an animal or a fish in order to impair the usefulness of the property or prevent the use of the property.
(g) Enters or remains upon private lands without the permission of the owner or the owner’s agent, for the
purpose of violating this section.
(h) Engages in any other act or behavior for the purpose of violating this section.
(3) Upon petition of an aggrieved person or an individual who reasonably may be aggrieved by a violation
of this section, a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a showing that an individual was engaged in and
threatens to continue to engage in illegal conduct under this section, may enjoin that conduct.
(4) An individual who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not
more than 93 days or a fine of not less than $500.00 or more than $1,000.00, or both, and the costs of
prosecution. An individual who violates this section a second or subsequent time is guilty of a misdemeanor
punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not less than $1,000.00 or more than
$2,500.00, or both, and the costs of prosecution. In addition to the penalties provided for in this subsection,
any permit or license issued by the department authorizing the individual to take animals or fish shall be
revoked. A prosecution under this section does not preclude prosecution or other action under any other
criminal or civil statute.
(5) This section does not apply to a peace officer while the peace officer performs his or her lawful duties.
History: Add. 1995, Act 57, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995;¾Am. 1996, Act 316, Eff. July 1, 1996;¾Am. 2015, Act 12, Eff. July 13, 2015
.

Cull protesters are wasting our money

The deer cull protesters are wasting our taxpayer money.

Per MLive, they are showing up at the cull sites and “When they see sharpshooters, they yell, “Stop the shoot! Save the deer!” …. FAAWN member Lisa Abrams said they’re exercising their right to peacefully protest.”

What they are doing is actually illegal. Sec. 40112 of Michigan law says, “An individual shall not obstruct or interfere in the lawful taking of animals or fish by another individual.” The city has a legal permit to remove the deer. The protesters’ intent is to scare off the deer, or annoy the sharpshooters, or both. Deer aren’t going to walk into a site with a lot of unusual noise. That means that for the sharpshooters to do the job they were hired to do, they need to work more hours and charge the city more. Or they don’t get the target number of deer. A small group of protesters seek to undo the will of Council and undermine the deer management program. This is not how democracy works. Hopefully, the law can be enforced. A few fines will make the point – it’s $500 for the first offense and $1000 for the second offense. Here is the relevant statute: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(uee4jcftxfjoawse0vyqz2wq))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-324-40112

From NextDoor

Drat those deer

Wildlife in the city

August 16, 2015

Why should gardeners who are simply trying to live ecologically and sustainably be held hostage by animal populations that are wildly out of balance? Why should dangerous wild animals range freely through yards and streets without fear? Why should walkers be threatened by stags on public sidewalks? Why should the entire ecosystem of perennials, shrubs, tree seedlings, birds, small mammals and insects be adversely impacted by unsustainable numbers of herbivores?

Read the full post in Stories by Carol
https://storiesbycarrol.wordpress.com/2015/08/16/drat-those-deer/

The Culture War over the Deer Cull – A Divergence in Values

deer Ward 2 ann arborThe Culture War over the Deer Cull, The Ann, Feb 2016Ann Arbor is struggling through a “nature war.” White-tailed deer have invaded yards and natural areas throughout the city. In response, and in spite of protests led by the Humane Society of Huron Valley, the City Council voted on Nov. 5 to hire sharpshooters to kill 100 of the city’s deer. This article describes the process that resulted in the cull, compares it to the struggle over “accessory dwelling units” in 2002, and, from the comparison, draws lessons about how to sway City Council.

Nature Wars


From Jim Sturba’s home page– www.jimsterba.com

The trouble was that baby boomers and their offspring had increasingly withdrawn from the natural world. They spent most of their time indoors, got anthropomorphized versions of wild nature from films and TV, and were encouraged to treat pets like children and wild animals like pets. They discarded their grandparents’ hard-won knowledge of the working landscape and forgot obligations of responsible stewardship. Their Earth Day instincts told them to save creatures and trees. But as wild species multiplied and trouble with them grew, they faced a new reality: too much of a good thing. Conflicts erupted over how to deal with it. People divided into species partisans, staged demonstrations, went to court, and raised and spent fortunes to save geese, beavers, cats, coyotes, bears, deer and other creatures from people who wanted to harm or kill them. A growing chorus of environmentalists and wildlife biologists, meanwhile, argued that ecosystems needed protection from some of the very creatures that species partisans sought to save, and that means responsibly managing local landscapes for all their inhabitants, including people.