U-M agrees to participate in Ann Arbor’s deer-management program

Topics:

At the request of Ann Arbor officials, the University of Michigan has agreed to make university-owned property available for possible inclusion in the city’s 2017 deer-management program.

U-M’s participation comes after the city successfully completed a 2016 program, culling 63 deer across 14 city parks and nature areas throughout January and February.

Jim Kosteva, U-M director of community relations, says the university’s participation is an act of good citizenship toward the community and another example of what being a good neighbor looks like.

“The city has graciously undertaken the bulk of the legwork involved — researching, doing its homework and completing the first year of the cull. Now that they have the experience, they said the cull could be more successful with our participation and we want to do our part by being a good neighbor in this way, while ensuring the safety of university-based constituents,” he says.

The timing and precise locations of the deer cull this winter are still to be determined. The university has indicated four campus locations where, under certain conditions, lethal cull methods using firearms will be considered. They are:

• Nichols Arboretum.

• Acreage between the Huron River and the railroad, south of Fuller-Mitchell fields.

• Acreage south of Glazier Way and east of Fuller Road.

• Acreage south of Hubbard and west of Huron Parkway.

If the company hired by the city decides to use any university property for the cull, the property will be closed to the public from 4 p.m. until 7 a.m. during specified weekdays.

University officials also have indicated a willingness to consider the city’s non-lethal deer-management approach on other North Campus property if the activity takes place during the university’s mid-winter break, Feb. 25-March 5. The campus will be significantly less populated during that week.

Kosteva says allowing the city access to Nichols Arboretum is especially important because both the city and the university own portions of the property. He says it would have been difficult for the city to be effective in its attempts to carry out the cull in the area if it was limited by property lines.

The university has agreed to contribute approximately 15 percent of the total cost of the cull, not to exceed $25,000, which is the approximate percentage of university-owned property within Wards 1 and 2 of the city.

The dates, times and locations of the cull have not been made final. Once details are final, U-M’s Division of Public Safety and Security will ensure the university community is properly notified and that signage is posted prominently in the designated cull areas.

Tags:

Comments

  1. Patrick Broyer
    on November 22, 2016 at 3:00 am

    I don’t have a problem with the deer cull, it’s closing the park all night that’s a problem. In the winter I work all of the daylight hours and use the parks at night.

  2. Mick Kennedy
    on November 22, 2016 at 7:51 am

    I live and work in the North Campus community in an area directly affected by this policy. I have lived with deer for ten years and they are a wonderful part of our lives here. They hurt no one. I strongly urge the University to reconsider this decision. I have been opposed to the City cull program and glad that UM has not participated up until now. Let the deer alone. Let them live.

    • Marilyn Berling
      on November 23, 2016 at 4:09 pm

      I agree with Mr. Kennedy. Killing, “culling”, is unnecessary and promoted by hunters.
      We are against this plan and are shocked that the University is thinking of this. “Leave the deer alone. Let them live”. Everywhere, the people who endorse killing wildlife are having their way. They say it is to preserve habitat and wild plants and that the deer are “starving” but usually there is no scientific objective evidence or studies paid for.

    • nancy zebracki
      on January 6, 2017 at 10:05 am

      deer hurt no one
      what a shame u. of m. got in on the killing
      will turn my support to Michigan state now

  3. Thomas Cook
    on November 22, 2016 at 9:35 am

    I love them too, all 1.75 million of them, which was the estimated Michigan deer population in 2015, but too much of even a good thing is still too much. It doesn’t strike me as unreasonable to safely manage them within the city limits, the same as we do in the rest of the state, by means other than hitting them with my car. Put up really good signs warning folks what days the hunt will take place, get some really good sharpshooters, take a ton of does, and serve up the venison in the dorms as a seasonal treat.

  4. Jim Raines
    on November 22, 2016 at 10:09 am

    I think the deer are a nice part of North Campus life and I don’t see a reason to cull them. In the 17 years that I have worked on North Campus, I have not seen any real problems created. They do cross in front of cars at times, but I have never even heard of a collision with a car. (Drivers do well to pay attention, but that is always good advice.) I wholly support wildlife management through hunting in general, but since I have not seen nor heard of any problems created by the North Campus segment of the population (except maybe some slightly chewed landscaping), I don’t see a reason to get rid of them.

    • Tracy Grogan
      on November 22, 2016 at 11:31 am

      Hi Jim – Deer have a fairly large range in which they roam, even though they maintain a very specific home site. That’s why they cross streets and highways. So deer that live in North Campus may end up in collisions in other areas. (Injury accident) But, staying close to home, there have been three injury accidents (where humans are injured) in the past 12 years. (Chewed landscaping) Their impact is much greater than that. They eat what is low to the ground in our nature areas. They wipe out habitat for other animals and create an environment that is increasingly homogenous. And they eliminate whole generations of new, replacement trees.

      • chris Evans
        on January 9, 2017 at 10:12 pm

        This was the Deer land first & again not their fault To many humans took over their homes!

  5. Eleni Gourgou
    on November 22, 2016 at 11:28 am

    So, the University of Michigan, shares the opinion that when there is an overpopulation issue (let’s say there is, for the sake of the argument), the way to go is to kill the animals we think are in excess. What a marvelous idea, derived from years and years of conservation ecology and population ecology studies, wildlife management experience and wildlife zoology wisdom. And all this on campus, too! Congratulations.

  6. G. P. Steinmetz
    on November 22, 2016 at 11:38 am

    I like the deer very much, and have had no problem whatsoever with them, even while driving carefully in and around Ann Arbor. I would strongly urge the university to avoid opening the door to firearms anywhere, for any purpose; this a slippery slope. Finally, the Arboretum and other parks are a core part of the UM community and are used by everyone (including the deer), including between 4 p.m. until 7 a.m.– and by some people especially at those times. Even a single incident involving a sharpshooter would be a disaster; equally harmful is introducing the gun culture to the campus. The UM has the resources to try the more scientific and safer policies of sterilization of deer.

    UM officials should run a referendum of all UM students staff and faculty , who are the “stakeholders” in this issue, before making a move in this direction.

    • chris Evans
      on January 9, 2017 at 10:18 pm

      JUST WAITED TIL THEY KILL SOME ONE PET N OR A HUMAN!!! ANN ARBOR IDIOTS NOW NEED BIRTHDAY CONTROL FOR ALL THESE HUMANS! I SEE THEIR MILLION DOLLAR HOUSES. IT’S SICK! DRIVE FROM ANOTHER CITY TO SEE THESE BEAUTIFUL CREATURES OF GOD N CITY HALL, WELL I BEEN TO THESE MEETINGS! SHAME ON ALL YOU MURDERERS!!

    • chris Evans
      on January 9, 2017 at 10:18 pm

      JUST WAITED TIL THEY KILL SOME ONE PET N OR A HUMAN!!! ANN ARBOR IDIOTS NOW NEED BIRTHDAY CONTROL FOR ALL THESE HUMANS! I SEE THEIR MILLION DOLLAR HOUSES. IT’S SICK! DRIVE FROM ANOTHER CITY TO SEE THESE BEAUTIFUL CREATURES OF GOD N CITY HALL, WELL I BEEN TO THESE MEETINGS! SHAME ON ALL YOU MURDERERS!!

    • chris Evans
      on January 9, 2017 at 10:18 pm

      JUST WAITED TIL THEY KILL SOME ONE PET N OR A HUMAN!!! ANN ARBOR IDIOTS NOW NEED BIRTHDAY CONTROL FOR ALL THESE HUMANS! I SEE THEIR MILLION DOLLAR HOUSES. IT’S SICK! DRIVE FROM ANOTHER CITY TO SEE THESE BEAUTIFUL CREATURES OF GOD N CITY HALL, WELL I BEEN TO THESE MEETINGS! SHAME ON ALL YOU MURDERERS!!

    • chris Evans
      on January 9, 2017 at 10:18 pm

      JUST WAITED TIL THEY KILL SOME ONE PET N OR A HUMAN!!! ANN ARBOR IDIOTS NOW NEED BIRTHDAY CONTROL FOR ALL THESE HUMANS! I SEE THEIR MILLION DOLLAR HOUSES. IT’S SICK! DRIVE FROM ANOTHER CITY TO SEE THESE BEAUTIFUL CREATURES OF GOD N CITY HALL, WELL I BEEN TO THESE MEETINGS! SHAME ON ALL YOU MURDERERS!!

  7. SangHyun Lee
    on November 23, 2016 at 9:38 am

    The deer on North Campus are a part of our life and community here. I understand that there can be a reason for the deer cull, but killing them with firearms on the campus? Killing these loved ones with firearms is really an act of good citizenship toward the community?

  8. Cody Winchester
    on January 6, 2017 at 11:16 pm

    Why can’t we live in harmony with nature and wildlife? Why is the answer to just kill them? Let’s at least try the non lethal ways of managing the population first.

    • chris Evans
      on January 9, 2017 at 10:21 pm

      Exactly! These rich fool’s going to do what they want anyways! It’s not about what needs to be done it’s about CONTROL! I HATE YOU CITY HALL ALL OF YOU!

  9. Anthony Palazzolo
    on January 9, 2017 at 10:08 pm

    Not necessary

  10. Stephanie Macey
    on January 13, 2017 at 9:41 am

    This seems unecessary and cruel to harm the deer. I don’t see them being a problem, other than inconvenience to people. I am not in support of this kind of cruelty.

    • Jerome Hiniker
      on January 16, 2017 at 7:03 am

      Have a majority of the University’s Regents officially approved this? (when and where) Has this issue been discussed at an announced public meeting of the Regents (when)?

  11. Jerome Hiniker
    on March 9, 2017 at 6:08 am

    It’s been a good while since I asked a pair of questions (Have a majority of the University’s Regents officially approved this? (when and where) Has this issue been discussed at an announced public meeting of the Regents (when)?)

    I assume you do not normally answer questions posted in the COMMENT section; however these questions are, I believe, of sufficiently broad general interest to the area of Regental Decision Making that many members of the UM community would benefit from their being answered in the Record.

Leave a comment

Commenting is closed for this article. Please read our comment guidelines for more information.