Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Deer Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grand Haven presenters say deer overabundance is preventing forest regeneration; council hears drone, street counts
Summary
A Sustainability & Energy Commission subcommittee presented drone and street-count estimates of city deer and urged a multi-year deer management program; about two dozen residents urged action during a packed council meeting.
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Deer Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jean Madden, a member of the Sustainability and Energy Commission and co‑founder of Save Our Forest Grand Haven, told the City Council on Aug. 18 that the city’s forests are failing to regenerate because deer are eating tree seedlings and native understory plants. "My name is Jean Madden, and I live on Gladys Avenue in Grand Haven. I'm the cofounder of the group, Save Our Forest Grand Haven, but I'm here as a member of the Sustainability and Energy Commission," she said during a work session presentation.
The commission’s Forest Management Subcommittee presented the results of a January 2025 deer census that combined thermal‑imaging drone flights over 200 acres of public forest (Duncan Woods, Mulligan's Hollow and Lake Forest Cemetery) and a concurrent street count by a contracted crew. The drone produced 68 verifiable deer sightings and 44 possible sightings (68–112 estimated in the surveyed forest area); Berg’s Pest Control recorded 55 deer on streets and yards. The presenters combined those numbers to estimate a citywide total in the range of 123 to 167 deer, while noting the figure is likely an undercount because private properties, parts of Highland Park and other inaccessible parcels were not included.
Madden said the city approved a forest stewardship plan in November 2022 and has since funded disease treatment and the removal of hazardous trees, but "the forests are not regenerating naturally because the deer are eating tree saplings before they are able to mature." She showed photos taken July 31, 2025, from three sites within a half‑mile that she said illustrate a sparsely vegetated understory and repeated browsing by deer.
Nick (last name given in the presentation as Kaljes), a wildlife biologist with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, answered technical questions. He told the council that successful population management requires focusing on the impacts (loss of plant diversity, landscape damage, safety concerns) rather than an arbitrary head count: "I think the better way to look at the issue of deer numbers is really what is the impact on the community, honestly." He also said Michigan DNR does not reimburse municipalities for deer removal and that wildlife are collectively owned by state citizens: "We do not reimburse cities. ... We, again, all wildlife resources are defined as being collectively owned by the citizens of the state of Michigan."
City staff and presenters emphasized limits and caveats. Drone flights were restricted by privacy rules to public property; the January count covered roughly 200 acres of public forest, and flights were flown at the same time on three sequential mornings to reduce double‑counts. Drone analysts cross‑checked thermal clips with color images to eliminate heat sources such as light poles and people. Presenters also cited a 2018 city thermal flyover (mentioned in the meeting by a resident) that recorded about 167 deer as a historical comparison.
Public comment following the work session filled the council chamber and hallway. Roughly two dozen residents and community members urged the council to adopt long‑term, recurring deer management, citing ecosystem collapse (loss of trillium and other natives), public safety concerns (daytime deer crossings, ticks/Lyme disease), property damage and the need to restore native understory. Several speakers asked council not to delay further action; others urged a multi‑year program with annual monitoring and public reporting.
Councilmembers thanked the presenters for data and said they intend to review the material. No formal council action on deer management occurred at the Aug. 18 meeting; presenters and some councilmembers described the materials as a basis for future policy decisions.
Ending: The meeting closed its work session and resumed the regular council meeting; members of the public were invited to speak again during the regular meeting’s call to the audience, where several additional commenters continued to press for city action on deer management.

