Hamilton Reef
08-23-2007, 03:47 AM
Same debate, different town.
Deer control plan not quick enough, some GH residents say
http://www.grandhaventribune.com/paid/289642388497319.bsp
Aug 21, 2007 BY MARK BROOKY mbrooky@grandhaventribune.com
While the city is working on an Urban Deer Management Plan, some Grand Haven residents don't think it's happening fast enough.
"I think they're beautiful, and I love seeing some of the deer, but this has gotten to the point ... this is just not right," said Ann Brugger, 136 Crescent Drive. "It's not right for the deer and its not right for the population."
Assistant City Manager Lisa Sutterfield has been leading an initiative to control the burgeoning deer population in Grand Haven for the past year. She's been meeting with wildlife experts, led a public session on the subject in January and arranged a flyover of Grand Haven and Ferrysburg in conjunction with the Whitetails Unlimited group to attempt a count of deer in the two cities.
Sutterfield said 156 deer were counted in the flyover, but that was probably an underestimation.
On Monday, Sutterfield and Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division Supervisor Sara Schaefer presented to Grand Haven City Council a six-step approach for the city to create and implement a deer control plan.
As outlined by Schaefer, the plan would kick off with three public sessions in September — two in the evening and one in the afternoon. From there, a task force would be formed to further study the issue and create a solid plan of action. The group would be asked to report its findings at council's Dec. 3 meeting.
The plan would be fine-tuned over the winter and presented to the public in March. The timeline has City Council adopting the plan in April.
But several residents who addressed City Council at Monday's special work session said it's taking too long.
"If we wait until February of next year, the flowers are going to be gone again next spring," said Glenn Berg, 1025 Sheldon Road.
Brugger said she now brings her bird feeders in every night to keep them from the deer. She said her garden has been repeatedly "tormented by deer" at a cost of hundreds of dollars.
"I would like to either have something done or have my whole yard fenced in by the city," she said.
Dave Klaassen, the owner of a local funeral home, said the deer are destroying gravesites and memorials at Lake Forest Cemetery.
"One family I've talked to had to change the flowers 10 times this summer," he said. "So I have a concern about this, and I appreciate that it takes time and I appreciate all you people that are working on this, but this is a long time. Why do we have to wait until next February or March?
"We have a major problem that has to be taken care of, and I would hope that you as a City Council would consider this to be sooner (than next year) and not spend a lot of money," Klaassen added.
Berg said he has put up plastic netting and a 6-foot-high fence to keep the deer out of his yard, which has mostly been successful, but some deer are still able to jump the fence.
"These deer are really 'citified' — they're not afraid of humans," Berg said.
The DNR's Schaefer said the first step in creating an Urban Deer Management Plan is awareness and education. She said the planned three public meetings in September will encourage an exchange of ideas and be used to make it clear that control must take "a multi-pronged approach" to be successful.
Councilman John Naser asked that the task force formed to take the public input and formulate a plan be comprised of people on both sides of the issue — "specifically those who are in favor of culling the herd and those that are not favor of culling."
Sutterfield said the MSU Extension Office in Grand Haven has agreed to facilitate the planning process for the city, and will act as an unbiased party.
While the task force is at work, the community could introduce a management plan with a prohibition on feeding deer in the city and discourage interaction, Sutterfield said.
A list of common techniques for urban deer management developed for a similar problem in Stevens Point, Wis., was included in the approach plan presented to council Monday, with their respective pros and cons:
— Contraception: allowing the deer to eat fertility control products. While it is the most humane of the listed techniques, it is costly and has not proven to be very effective.
— Bowhunting, professional: deer removed by professional archers hired by the city. This can be expensive and a lengthy process, but safe for residents.
— Bowhunting, recreational: deer removed by licensed amateurs. An inexpensive approach that's relatively safe for residents, but may take a long time.
— Rifle hunting: deer removed by professional sharpshooters hunting over set bait piles. This can also be expensive to the city, but it would remove the most deer in the shortest time; however, the public does not generally consider it safe.
— Trapping and relocation: deer are trapped in the city and released in rural areas. This is expensive and considered inhumane because the trapped deer suffer from stress of relocation, and many die.
— Trapping and euthanasia: deer are euthanized at the site of the trap. A more humane approach, is fairly effective but expensive. This can also be done closer to homes.
Deer control plan not quick enough, some GH residents say
http://www.grandhaventribune.com/paid/289642388497319.bsp
Aug 21, 2007 BY MARK BROOKY mbrooky@grandhaventribune.com
While the city is working on an Urban Deer Management Plan, some Grand Haven residents don't think it's happening fast enough.
"I think they're beautiful, and I love seeing some of the deer, but this has gotten to the point ... this is just not right," said Ann Brugger, 136 Crescent Drive. "It's not right for the deer and its not right for the population."
Assistant City Manager Lisa Sutterfield has been leading an initiative to control the burgeoning deer population in Grand Haven for the past year. She's been meeting with wildlife experts, led a public session on the subject in January and arranged a flyover of Grand Haven and Ferrysburg in conjunction with the Whitetails Unlimited group to attempt a count of deer in the two cities.
Sutterfield said 156 deer were counted in the flyover, but that was probably an underestimation.
On Monday, Sutterfield and Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division Supervisor Sara Schaefer presented to Grand Haven City Council a six-step approach for the city to create and implement a deer control plan.
As outlined by Schaefer, the plan would kick off with three public sessions in September — two in the evening and one in the afternoon. From there, a task force would be formed to further study the issue and create a solid plan of action. The group would be asked to report its findings at council's Dec. 3 meeting.
The plan would be fine-tuned over the winter and presented to the public in March. The timeline has City Council adopting the plan in April.
But several residents who addressed City Council at Monday's special work session said it's taking too long.
"If we wait until February of next year, the flowers are going to be gone again next spring," said Glenn Berg, 1025 Sheldon Road.
Brugger said she now brings her bird feeders in every night to keep them from the deer. She said her garden has been repeatedly "tormented by deer" at a cost of hundreds of dollars.
"I would like to either have something done or have my whole yard fenced in by the city," she said.
Dave Klaassen, the owner of a local funeral home, said the deer are destroying gravesites and memorials at Lake Forest Cemetery.
"One family I've talked to had to change the flowers 10 times this summer," he said. "So I have a concern about this, and I appreciate that it takes time and I appreciate all you people that are working on this, but this is a long time. Why do we have to wait until next February or March?
"We have a major problem that has to be taken care of, and I would hope that you as a City Council would consider this to be sooner (than next year) and not spend a lot of money," Klaassen added.
Berg said he has put up plastic netting and a 6-foot-high fence to keep the deer out of his yard, which has mostly been successful, but some deer are still able to jump the fence.
"These deer are really 'citified' — they're not afraid of humans," Berg said.
The DNR's Schaefer said the first step in creating an Urban Deer Management Plan is awareness and education. She said the planned three public meetings in September will encourage an exchange of ideas and be used to make it clear that control must take "a multi-pronged approach" to be successful.
Councilman John Naser asked that the task force formed to take the public input and formulate a plan be comprised of people on both sides of the issue — "specifically those who are in favor of culling the herd and those that are not favor of culling."
Sutterfield said the MSU Extension Office in Grand Haven has agreed to facilitate the planning process for the city, and will act as an unbiased party.
While the task force is at work, the community could introduce a management plan with a prohibition on feeding deer in the city and discourage interaction, Sutterfield said.
A list of common techniques for urban deer management developed for a similar problem in Stevens Point, Wis., was included in the approach plan presented to council Monday, with their respective pros and cons:
— Contraception: allowing the deer to eat fertility control products. While it is the most humane of the listed techniques, it is costly and has not proven to be very effective.
— Bowhunting, professional: deer removed by professional archers hired by the city. This can be expensive and a lengthy process, but safe for residents.
— Bowhunting, recreational: deer removed by licensed amateurs. An inexpensive approach that's relatively safe for residents, but may take a long time.
— Rifle hunting: deer removed by professional sharpshooters hunting over set bait piles. This can also be expensive to the city, but it would remove the most deer in the shortest time; however, the public does not generally consider it safe.
— Trapping and relocation: deer are trapped in the city and released in rural areas. This is expensive and considered inhumane because the trapped deer suffer from stress of relocation, and many die.
— Trapping and euthanasia: deer are euthanized at the site of the trap. A more humane approach, is fairly effective but expensive. This can also be done closer to homes.