DNR Letterhead

BILL ANALYSIS

BILL NUMBER: SENATE BILL NO. 926 (2004) – AS INTRODUCED

TOPIC: Prohibition for feeding deer and elk; extend sunset

SPONSOR: Senator Michelle McManus

CO-SPONSORS: Senator Ron Jelinek

COMMITTEE: Committee on Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs

Analysis Done: February 18, 2004

POSITION

The Bill was introduced at the Department’s request and is supported by the Department.

PROBLEM/BACKGROUND

Provision of food to wildlife by humans causes a number of wildlife management and disease control problems. Until it was originally provided in House Bill (HB) 4499 (1999), the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) did not have authority to regulate the feeding of free-ranging deer and elk. House Bill 4499 included a sunset date of December 31, 2004. Thus, the current NRC authority to regulate feeding and baiting will expire at the end of the year.

DESCRIPTION OF BILL

This bill extends the sunset date on the NRC’s authority to regulate feeding and baiting of free-ranging deer and elk through 2009.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Pro

The supplemental feeding of deer and elk, and the subsequent concentration of animals because of this activity, causes many biological problems for the welfare of these species. These problems include disease transmission, effects on the traditional movements of animals, and negative impacts on habitat and the surrounding vegetation.

There are numerous diseases which are transmitted through the unnatural concentration of wild, free-ranging deer and elk by supplemental feeding. Three diseases of particular concern are bovine tuberculosis (TB), brucellosis, and chronic wasting disease. Bovine TB and brucellosis can also be transmitted to domestic livestock in certain situations. Supplemental feeding sites also produce environmental conditions that favor the survival of many disease pathogens which can infect animals.

Supplemental feeding can delay or prevent natural migration of deer and elk to traditional wintering areas, particularly in the northern part of the State.

Negative impacts on habitat and surrounding vegetation (including adjacent croplands) are the result of higher concentrations of deer and elk caused by supplemental feeding.

Con

There are people who feel that feeding of deer and elk allows for the recreational viewing of these animals, and supplemental feeding has become a recreational pastime in many areas of the State. Some commercial businesses have developed and promoted the viewing of animals, lured by supplemental feeding, as part of their operations.

There are also individuals and organizations that feel that supplemental feeding of deer is necessary to maintain deer populations at levels sufficiently high to meet their expectations. This is particularly common in the northern portions of the Lower Peninsula and in the Upper Peninsula.

The market for agricultural crops used for feeding and baiting deer and elk will be reduced, as the quantity of feeding and baiting is reduced by this legislation. Producers will have to find alternate markets for the crops raised specifically for this purpose or find alternate methods for disposal of cull crops which are presently used as deer food/bait.

Included in this Bill are conditions that regulate the placement of bait for deer.

FISCAL/ECONOMIC IMPACT

Are there revenue or budgetary implications in the bill to the --

(a) Department

Budgetary:

Feeding of deer in northeastern Lower Michigan was likely a major factor in establishment of bovine TB in the deer population. Since 1995, the Department has expended tens of millions of dollars on TB surveillance and control. Where concentrations of deer and elk cause negative impacts on habitat, additional expenditures may be required to mitigate these damages through habitat management activities.

Revenue: None.

Comments:

None.

(b) State

Budgetary/Revenue:

The costs to the State to remove/control diseases in the free-ranging deer/elk herd, as well as in livestock that share diseases with deer/elk, far outweigh the income generated by the deer/elk feed producing industry. Loss of agricultural revenue due to trade restrictions on Michigan livestock sharing diseases with free-ranging deer/elk is significant, with repercussions for the State’s entire economy.

(c) Local Government

Comments:

There are certain areas of the State, such as county and municipal parks/recreation areas, where the feeding of deer now exists as an approved activity. Local units may have to reconsider their ordinances in light of this statute.

OTHER STATE DEPARTMENTS

The Michigan Departments of Agriculture (MDA) and Community Health have concerns about the effects of deer and elk feeding on transmission of diseases shared by wildlife, domestic animals, and humans (e.g., TB, brucellosis). The MDA may also receive complaints from farmers whose crops are sold as deer and elk feed.

ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION

A briefing paper was prepared by the Department’s Wildlife Division, which provides a more complete overview of the implications of supplemental feeding of deer/elk. Other useful reviews have been published by the Wildlife Management Institute, the Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre, and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

The Natural Resources Commission has passed orders to regulate baiting of deer.

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES IMPACT

None.

_______________________________

K. L. Cool

Director

_______________________________

Date

WLD