# Welcome to this new forum!



## Fierkej

Hello forum users!
I would like to welcome you to this new forum on bovine tuberculosis in Michigan's wildlife. MDNR personnel will be monitoring this forum daily and will repond. For information on the disease in Michigan, please also visit our website either by using the buttons at the very top of this page, or by going to www.bovinetb.com
Thanks.
Jean



> The Michigan Department of Natural Resources is committed to the conservation, protection, management, use and enjoyment of the state's natural resources for current and future generations.


----------



## marty

Hi jean Marty here from greenbush and thanks for showing up here. I'm sure you get a lot of questions about TB. Thanks for all your hard work and happy holidays to you.......marty


----------



## trout

Hello Jean!
This should be a huge asset to all the people in Michigan.
Hopefully we all can learn whats going on in Michigan with the TB issues.
Lots of great people here!
Seasons Greetings,
Trout


----------



## The Nailer

Hello and welcome. I'm happy to see you have joined us and especially that your able to address a topic as controversial and complex as Bovine TB.


----------



## Airoh

Hi Jean,
Welcome to the Michigan Sportsman.


----------



## Pinefarm

Now we're gettin' somewhere! Welcome aboard and thanks. If you read a lot of posts on the whitetail hunting forum, you'll see a lot of debate going back and forth and some complaining. Sometimes you'll see my name by the post that starts the pi$$ing match. What I usually don't make clear is that I like DNR personnel and I think they are on our side. However, my biggest complaint is the lack of info and even silence we often get from the DNR. We serious hunters are starved for any deer info. And we're grown ups and can handle hard news. You'll probably see many posts about hunters questioning the amount of antlerless permits. I think we basically talk amongst ourselves because we don't hear enough from the DNR. I think a lot of us would be more apt to quiet down if we were to see a cohesive treatise on what the next 5 years hold for the Michigan deer herd and TB. Do you see what I'm getting at? If someone was to spell out something like "the DNR will need to reduce the deer herd by 50% in counties x,y,z and by up to 70% in counties m,n,o, and we understand that the hunting will suffer in the short term, but we need your help." But then to add "once we have the herd lowered to where TB is not found, we will attempt to allow the herd to be at it's carrying capicity and will create new rules to improve buck to doe ratio and age class. But we will not be able to even consider something like this until 2003. Until then, please bear with lower numbers and let's get rid to TB. Also, at the end of 2003, we will revisit the idea of a statewide ban on deer baiting so this disease does not return". Plus back everything up with research and let us know what the plans are for each county. That's it. I think that's all a lot of us are asking. Just let us know what's going on and what the plans for the future are. Because, if we are left in the dark, then you hear people saying that the DNR wants to eradicate the whole herd. Without keeping hunters involved and abreast, the conspiracy theories start to pop up. It's either, A., the DNR doesn't know what it's doing, B., the DNR knows exactly what it's doing and made a smoke filled/backroom deal with the farm bureau and insurance lobby or C., both. Maybe all the DNR needs is a great PR press person. It's impossible to give us enough info. Honest info with plans for the future. Thanks for your time on this site and I hope that I helped explain where some of us are coming from. Bob


----------



## Pinefarm

I just found this from the whitetail forum. Jimbos posted it. It is from Minnesota. But if you read it, you now can get the feel of what we're looking for. It's below...

More bucks for your bucks 

How the DNR uses your hunting license dollars to produce more deer and better hunting across the state 

In the fall of 1971, the DNR was forced to close Minnesota's entire deer hunting season. The reason? To protect the state's deer herd, which had been ravaged by severe winters in the late 1960s, an overharvest of does, and habitat loss. 

"It was devastating," recalls Roger Holmes, Division of Fish and Wildlife director, who was then the state's assistant wildlife chief. "We agonized over the decision, but back then, closing the season was the only option we had to protect the deer herd." 

Fast forward 26 years to the fall of 1997. Consecutive brutal winters in the previous two years have decreased Minnesota's deer population. Yet hunting is open throughout the state, and more than 450,000 hunters have the opportunity to take part in the fall deer hunting seasons. 

The difference between then and today?Certainly one factor is that aspen logging has increased deer habitat in northern woods over the past 20 years. But the primary difference is the DNR's new deer management program, which can allow hunting seasons even in regions ravaged by severe weather. 

Other payoffs from this complex, science-driven program: 

* more deer harvested (198,193 in 1995 compared to 63,604 in 1975) 
* more deer hunters (461,000 firearms hunters in 1995 compared to 328,000 in 1975) 
* higher hunting success rates (40 percent in 1995 compared to 19 percent in 1975) 
* better solutions for landowners beset by depredation problems 
* healthy deer populations throughout the state, not just in the northern forests. 

These improvements combine to make deer and deer hunting one of Minnesota's greatest wildlife management success stories. 

Yet in recent years, much political and media attention has focused on the complaints of those who disagree with DNR whitetail management. The DNR should feed deer in winter, say some northern hunters and recreational feeders. The DNR should produce more trophy deer, says another group of hunters in the southeast. The DNR should do more for farmers losing crops to hungry deer, contend some landowners. The DNR should pay less attention to deer and more to songbirds that need older forests, argue some citizens. 

Balancing these and other demands is no easy task. But by using the best scientific information available and management strategies that benefit the deer population over the long haul, DNR wildlife managers have been able to meet their goal of maintaining a sustainable deer population across Minnesota. "Our deer program needs to maintain harvest rates and habitat conditions that ensure a healthy deer herd well into the future," says Jim Breyen, regional wildlife supervisor at Bemidji. "This means looking beyond the year-to-year status of the deer herd and making decisions now that benefit deer populations down the road." 

According to Breyen, the most important things the DNR does for deer are gathering biological information (on herd size and reproductive potential), protecting habitat (by acquiring land or by working with foresters and other land managers to improve conditions for deer on public land), and helping farmers whose hay bales, standing corn, or orchards are eaten by wintering deer. 

"If we want to keep deer populations at their present levels in the agricultural parts of the state, we have to spend the time working with people having depredation problems," says Breyen. "This is work many hunters don't know about but it has major implications on their sport." 

Little control 
It used to be that wildlife managers had little control over Minnesota's overall deer population or over smaller herds within the state. Only two tools existed then for managing deer: varying season length or closing large areas to hunting until the deer there could repopulate. 

In these so-called "good old days," an unlimited number of deer licenses were available to hunters, who could take a doe or a buck. But the deer populations fluctuated according to harvest, weather severity, and the effects on habitat by timber production, rural development, and agriculture. Wildlife managers lacked the <http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fish_and...phics/rdeer.jpg> tools to readily rebuild struggling local deer populations or to reduce local populations that had grown too big. 

"Back then, the whitetail population just more or less happened," says Dave Schad, DNR Forest Wildlife Program manager. 

As a result, various parts of Minnesota (mostly in farm country) were closed to deer hunting almost every year. Another result was that deer populations plummeted when winters turned nasty or habitat deteriorated. DNR wildlife managers could do little more than drastically shorten the season to allow the herd to rebuild, which often took years. 

The shortcomings of this management system came to a head in the late 1960s, when the combination of several severe winters, the overhunting of does, and long-term habitat quality declines led to a catastrophic crash in deer numbers. Young hunters may not believe it, but Minnesota's entire firearms deer season actually had to be canceled in 1971. 

"In those days, we lacked the legal authority to regulate hunter numbers or the antlerless kill," says Holmes. "It was either close the season or see the deer population crash." 

More deer for the dollar 
Things have changed mightily over the past quarter century. Even after two consecutive severe winters, Minnesotans throughout the state are able to hunt deer in the fall of 1997. And the total harvest will likely rank as one of the 10 highest ever?without thwarting the deer population recovery. 

How can the DNR provide statewide hunting even after two brutal winters? Because today it uses a science-based system that can provide hunting recreation while still allowing for population growth through the careful regulation of doe harvest. The population crash nearly 30 years ago forced biologists and hunters to recognize that Minnesota needed more careful, more scientific, and more responsible deer management. 

Today's whitetail management program not only provides more deer, but more bang for the buck. DNR wildlife managers have crafted a whitetail program that manages for the long haul, producing more deer and improved hunter success rates (see graph at right). 

Instead of just fiddling with bag limits and season frameworks, wildlife biologists now use four major management tools, listed here in order of their importance to managing the state's deer population: 

1. harvest regulation (based on ongoing population monitoring) 
2. deer research 
3. coordinating deer habitat needs into timber sales 
4. direct habitat improvements. 

1. Harvest regulation 
Most hunters know about the antlerless permit system, which the DNR has used for 20 years to regulate the doe and fawn harvest. The system has effectively rebuilt depressed deer herds in some areas and reduced high deer numbers in others. 

Until recently, wildlife managers had no way of knowing how many deer lived in various parts of the state. In the mid-1970s, they made rough estimates by counting deer pellets in the spring, but the practice was abandoned in 1989 because biologists could never sample enough pellet "routes" to get an accurate population estimate. 

Wildlife managers now use computers to create population models, which predict how deer herds in permit areas would change based on various numbers of antlerless permits issued. Modeling can also help predict how weather will affect deer populations. For example, when two severe winters hit back to back, as was the case in 1995 and 1996, wildlife managers were able to determine to what extent those conditions decreased deer numbers. Then they were able to adjust the number of antlerless permits issued to facilitate a rapid recovery of the deer population. 

The DNR's computer-generated population simulations are verified each year with "real" information, such as aerial counts of deer in wintering yards and the number of bucks killed by hunters. 

Without accurate models, Schad explains, wildlife managers would have to be more cautious about issuing antlerless permits to ensure that too many does aren't harvested. 

"Many hunters think computer models are some mysterious thing," says Schad. "But it's just basic stuff, just answering the ?what if' questions so we can provide as many permits as possible." Schad explains that much of the math could be done with pencil and paper, but computers do it much faster. 

Yet computer models are only as good as the information fed into them. Biologists gather the results of the previous year's harvest, including the age and sex of all deer killed. They also factor in winter severity. Another factor is the deer population's reproductive potential, which biologists determine in part by examining hundreds of does killed by cars each spring. 

"This is the data we need before we decide how many antlerless permits to issue in each area," says Schad. "Without it, we're just guessing." 

2. Deer research 
Just as few people would buy a car without first studying prices and model features, deer managers don't make important decisions without solid scientific information to back them up. Providing that data is a team of forest and farmland deer research scientists whose work is used for population modeling and to answer specific management questions. 

One problem managers face when modeling populations is that mortality and reproduction vary according to the age of the deer, from one year to the next, and from one area to another. Because it's too expensive to measure all these parameters, deer managers use indices such as the Winter Severity Index (WSI) and fetus surveys to predict how deer will be affected in permit areas across the state. 

Improving the accuracy of these indices are studies such as one by researcher Glenn Del Giudice on how conifer logging affects deer survival in winter. "Glenn's project is providing us information to devise a better WSI, which helps us determine deer mortality in various winter conditions," says Mark Lenarz, who heads the DNR's Forest Wildlife Populations and Research Station at Grand Rapids. 

A study by researcher Jay McAninch is determining how deer move among central Minnesota permit areas. The information is vital to managers who will try to provide as many antlerless permits as possible to non-band hunters as Indian band members begin exercising their court-approved rights to hunt in the 1857 Treaty area. 

Deer research also helps answer specific management questions. For example, Del Giudice and other researchers working on the deer wintering study are learning the importance of twigs and other winter food to the overall condition of deer. The information they are gathering will shape the way biologists manage browse to improve deer herd health. 

Research by McAninch on urban deer populations is uncovering information needed to control dense deer populations in suburbs and other areas where people don't want so many whitetails. 

3. Forest habitat coordination 
The quality of habitat greatly influences how well whitetails can survive a winter?a season that can drastically reduce deer numbers. And in the state's forested region, what determines deer habitat is logging. If timber production is done in a manner that provides deer with the right mix of green summer foods (grasses, buds, and leaves), winter cover (usually spruce or other conifers), and winter food (woody browse), the animals can better withstand the rigors of deep snow and brutal cold. 

While logging and deer can go quite well together, research proves that the wrong kind of cutting can diminish habitat and, thus, deer survival. That's why forest wildlife managers spend a great deal of time working with DNR foresters to ensure that logging plans produce more habitat for wildlife, including deer, as well as wood products for industry. 

"For years, cutting has been based on timber age," says Tim Quincer, DNR wildlife habitat specialist at Cloquet. "That often left us with lots of forest of the same age. But deer need a mixture of old and young trees. Now we are working with foresters to design timber sales in ways that vary the age structure for the long-term needs of deer, or to insure that young conifers [future deer yards] are given a chance to grow." 

Some hunters believe that license dollars should only pay for on-the-ground habitat activities and not on coordination, which involves meetings and discussions. But the fact is that $100,000 of deer license dollars spent for on-the-ground work can help only a few hundred acres of deer habitat. Spending that amount on timber sale coordination can benefit several thousand acres. 

"We're trying to do as much for deer as we can with a limited budget," says Jeff Lightfoot, regional wildlife supervisor at Grand Rapids. "Hunters need to know that, given the rapid growth of logging in northern Minnesota, our work with foresters is one of the most important things we can do to help deer and other wildlife and to provide future hunting opportunities." 

4. Local habitat improvements 
Given the limited money available to improve habitat, wildlife managers have learned that small-scale habitat work can't significantly benefit the larger statewide deer population. It also can't restore deer numbers as quickly after severe winters as manipulating the doe harvest can. 

Nonetheless, local habitat work is still vital to the state's deer management program. Wildlife managers conduct prescribed burns, shear brushlands, establish corn food plots, work with private landowners, and do other small-scale habitat work that's important in local areas. Many of these local habitat improvement activities help deer where logging either isn't feasible or is planned for several years in the future. Other targeted habitat projects boost deer (and other wildlife) numbers in farmland areas by providing critical food and cover. 

In the final analysis, what best benefits Minnesota's deer and deer hunters is information. Biologists have learned that the most effective way to boost deer numbers where desired (and to reduce them where necessary) is to gather accurate population information so that the appropriate number of antlerless permits can be issued. It's also critical to acquire other information from research on the biological and habitat needs of deer. And because logging can affect entire landscapes of deer habitat over long periods of time, deer biologists need to work closely with state foresters. 

It's this combination of work?keeping track of deer populations, conducting ongoing research and computer modeling, coordinating with forestry, and making local habitat improvements?that hunters are funding when they buy a deer license. And it's the combination of more deer, more hunting opportunities, and higher hunting success rates that verifies the success and wisdom of the DNR's deer management program. 

[SIDEBAR] 

What the DNR does for Minnesota's deer and deer hunters 

Regulates harvest 
Wildlife managers keep close tabs on the deer herd to accurately assess its size. Ongoing population surveys also help them predict how an increase in antlerless tags or winter severity will affect the state's overall deer population, as well as herd size in local areas. 

Conducts vital research 
Research tells wildlife managers how deer populations respond to variations in hunting pressure, habitat changes, and weather. The managers use this information when deciding which activities will work best to improve deer habitat, deer populations, and hunting opportunities. 

Coordinates forest habitat 
DNR foresters and wildlife managers develop future timber sales to meet the needs of both the forest industry and wildlife such as deer. Wildlife managers point out how timber cuts can produce more forest openings, wintering yards, and other vital deer habitat. 

Improves local deer habitat 
On public land, DNR managers boost deer habitat primarily by conducting controlled burns and shearing brushlands. This work is done on wildlife management areas, state forests, and other public lands, often with the help of conservation groups such as the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association. On private land, DNR wildlife managers sit down with landowners and discuss how to improve deer habitat. Wildlife managers also work closely with farmers and growers to reduce depredation problems, thus improving relations between private landowners, who often want to see fewer deer in an area, and hunters, who want to see more.


----------



## Guest

I'm not sure if I should post this question here or on the regular deer thread.

On average, how many acres of timber is cut and sold with deer management being the priority for the cutting?
Has the number of acres of cuttings been reduced in the last few years due to the State's goal of reducing the deer herd numbers?


----------



## Whit1

JimB,
Your question is excellent. It may be in the wrong forum, but it is still a great guestion. I've been wondering the same thing.


----------



## boehr

If Fierkej can answer that, great, I know I have no idea. I think that you would probably have to ask a biologist about cuttings for habitat purposes. I doubt if cuttings have just one species in mind for habitat, probably a combination of different species.


----------



## Tom Morang

Hi Jean, 

Welcome to the site! As you can see there are plenty of interested people that frequent this site and they are always asking some interesting questions.
Thanks for taking the time to come here to help us all out.


tm


----------



## kingfisher 11

I see the town in Minnesota named Bemidji, is where Jim lives. I have some vivid memories of that town while going to Saskatchewan this fall. On the trip up through and on the way back, the deer were everywhere. I almost hit a buck as big as the one I took in SK. It was a scary drive through the area.

I hunted with a guy from MN last week in Kansas. I asked quite few questions about that area.


----------



## NEMichsportsman

Welcome to the site Jean!

I am still a little unsure about certain aspects of this new forum...
I am hoping you can help "connect the dots" please excuse me if this sounds like an interogation.

Could you further explain your role and how you came to be involved here at MichiganSportsman?

and what your

1)personal and 2)professional, attitudes are in respect to the*issues as well as the science relating to Bovine TB.* 


I am one of the frequent critics of the current management program, and would like to know where you stand. 

Thanks alot


jp


----------



## Fierkej

FYI.....

Due to the holiday many DNR personel are out of the office unit January 2nd. The site will be monitored, although some issues on the forum may not be addressed until after this date. 

Happy Holidays!

Julie


----------



## Fierkej

Well, these are challenging questions! I wish I could post a copy of an article about me that was in Septembers Woods and WaterNews, written by Betty Sodders. What I will do is quote parts of it to try to answer your questions. 

Could you further explain your role...

Allow me to introduce Jean Fierke, Laboratory Scientist employed by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, who works out of their Rose Lake Wildlife Disease Laboratory located near East Lansing. Jean serves a vital role in the entire bovine TB eradication program. She describes her involvement as follows: 
Presently, my job responsibilities are almost exclusively related to bovine TB surveillance and communication. I compile information collected on TB tags attached to deer heads. This data is kept in the form of Excel and Access database files and contains nearly 64,000 (now 86,000) records. I also maintain files of Michigan Department of Community Health and Michigan State Universitys Animal Health Diagnostic Laboratorys gross lesion, histopathology, and culture results (of the TB tests). Once results are received, I see that notifications are sent to every submitter, letting them know if their animal tested negative, suspect, or positive. I supervise ordering and distribution of supplies needed for the Michigan DNRs collection of nearly 30,000 deer heads annually. I participate in planning the actual collection. This involves ordering trucks and coordinating drivers and routes (for the UP and the southern half of Michigan). 
I am also involved in the communications plan for the Bovine TB Eradication Project. I have planned and maintained the bovinetb.com website which has been well received with over 10,000 visits during the fall (of 2000) alone. One of the most popular features is a entry form that enables hunters to learn of their lab results right over the internet. Other communications I am involved in include production of bovine TB handouts, slide shows and displays for use at public and scientific meetings (world-wide). 

and how you came to be involved here at MichiganSportsman? 

Sometime around 1997 I jumped on the opportunity to create a website for the Wildlife Disease Lab. A disease question forum was a part of this site and received a lot of use. It was separated into TB questions and other disease questions. A couple of years ago, we were required to pull all of the Labs website into the DNRs website, where it is now. At that time, we were also required to use the DNRs FAQ page as our forum instead of the old forum on the Labs site. The FAQ page only lists Frequently Asked Questions and does not allow for discussion. 
In 1999, myself and representatives from MSU, MDCH, MDA and USDA got together to create a unified website for the BovineTB Program. This site went live in the fall of 2000. All agencies have the ability to administer the site, all have portions that they keep updated. A forum for TB discussion was made a part of this site, but it is not user-friendly and received very little use. 
A couple of weeks ago, I thought that maybe the forum could use some kind of advertising. An assistant and myself surfed the web using NorthernLight and Metacrawler search, trying to find websites well used by Michigan sportsmen, where the bovinetb.com forum could be advertised. One of the first sites I found was the MichiganSportsman. I was very impressed with the type of forum used, how user-friendly it is, and by how much use it was getting. Instead of trying to send people with TB questions to our forum, I thought it would be a much better idea to see if MichiganSportsman.com might create a bovineTB discussion area, which they very gratiously did. Internet forums and email allow a closeness with the public that cant be ignored, and should be and is used by agencies. 

and what your 1)personal and 2)professional, attitudes are in respect to the issues as well as the science relating to Bovine TB. 

First, I am a lab scientist for the Michigan Dept of Natural Resources. I have committed my life to the conservation and protection of wild land and animals of Michigan. I am a public servant. I work first for the public by providing my bosses; Steve Schmitt, Becky Humphries, John Urbain, Dale Rabe, KL Cool, Elaine Carlson; and any other DNR, MDA, MSU, MDCH, USDA scientists and researchers with the most accurate numbers they can use to understand this disease. For example, I provide them the following numbers: deer, elk, carnivore tested by area; deer, elk, carnivores testing positive by area; the sex and age of these animals; just to mention a few. I do very little analysis of the numbers. I stand behind the decisions of the MDNR, the NRC, and the USDA. I will not become involved in discussions about policy or the issues. 
All I can say is that seeing deer carcasses with disseminated lesions in a starved condition is very disheartening for all biologists, hunters, farmers and also for us at the lab. A sleek, healthy wild animal; and taking it further, sleek, healthy populations of wild animals should be desired by every Michigan citizen. No one should be willing to let this disease simmer in either the deer or the livestock. The disease does not survive at all in populations of wild deer that live in truly wild conditions. This is a disease that does well in livestock conditions. 

Jean


----------



## Guest

First of all Thank You for being here Jean!!!!

Second; nice pic of you with all the deer heads and guts in the WWN.... LOL

I am glad that you are here to answer questions, but you stated that you would'nt get involved in the "issues". Am I to take that as you dont want to be the 'scapegoat for everybodys complaints????? If so, I dont blame you......

I really only have one question; I know that alot of people in the Ossineke area are disgruntled about the baiting ban, and I understand why the ban "might" help, but while in the woods watching deer, I constantly see deer, expecially does and fawns, nuzzleing one another. I is my understanding that the baiting ban was instituted to try and prevent contact from infected deer. If they do it naturally in the wild, why the ban???????????

Thanks, and if this was answered in another post, please tell me where so I can find it, rather than wasteing your time repeating yourself.


----------



## Fierkej

Hi, 
I'm also excited about being a part of this forum. 
You have a very important concern that is related to what I said about the disease not existing in wild deer in truly wild conditions. Deer in these conditions must not have the type of exposure to each other that is needed for tuberculosis to exist. This is really a question for one of the lab's vets to answer, either Dr. Steve Schmitt (vet in charge of the lab) or Dr. Dan O'Brien (vet specializing in TB epidemiology). During the deer seasons of 1999 and 2000, a professor at MSU and his many assistants took neck muscle tissue samples from every deer submitted for TB testing. With these tissues, they are working on a DNA study of TB positive and TB negative deer relationships. Their results should do a great deal to answer questions like yours.
When I get back to work on the 2nd, I'll get your message to one of the vets.
Thanks,
Jean


----------



## Fierkej

Hi,
Here is a summary of Minnesota deer facts I copied from the Minnesota website at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fish_and_wildlife/deer_fact.html

Estimated Deer Populations :
Estimated Statewide Deer Population: 800,000 (fall, 1997) 
Estimated Nationwide White-tailed Deer Population: 29 million 

Related Articles:
Vehicle vs. venison F-'96 
More bucks for your bucks F-'97

Estimated Deer Losses :
Estimated Annual Car Kills: 15,000 (4,000 in 7-county metro area) 
Estimated Deer Killed by Wolves Each Year: 40,000 (fawns and adults) 
Estimated Deer Taken by Other Predators (coyotes, bears, bobcats, fisher) Each Year: 60,000 (Mostly fawns) 
Problems Associated with High Deer Populations: 

Car Kills 
Damage to gardens, ornamental vegetation 
Increased risk of disease transmission (Lyme Disease) 
Damage to agricultural crops 
Damage to forest vegetation and rare plant communities 
Strategies Used to Reduce High Deer Populations or Reduce Damage:

Legal Hunting (archery, firearms, muzzleloader) 
Sharpshooting or Trapping and Shooting Deer (shooting done by police, park rangers, private contractors) 
Highway Reflectors 
Fencing and Repellants 
Strategies Not Allowed in the State: 

Trap and Relocation (stressful to deer, no suitable relocation sites, not effective) 
Birth Control/Chemical Contraception (no product legally available for use on wild deer) 

I'll see if John Urbain can rig up a similar fact sheet for Michigan so we can compare.
Jean


----------



## Guest

Thanks Jean,
I look forward to hearing what he has to say..... By the way, did you know you are in the latest WWN playing with the deer heads again?????? LOL....


----------



## Fierkej

RE: On average, how many acres of timber is cut and sold with deer management being the priority for the cutting? 
Has the number of acres of cuttings been reduced in the last few years due to the State's goal of reducing the deer herd numbers?

Hi Jimbos,
When I get back to work on the 2nd I'll forward your question on to personnel who could answer that. Probably John Urbain or Brent Rudolph (deer specialists with the DNR in Lansing).
Jean


----------

