Event/Concerns
Membership
Clean Up News
Patch
Photo Albums
The Fish of
Pontiac Lake
Pontiac Lake
Recreation Area
Links
Contact Us
Our Mission Statement
Friends of Pontiac Lake Recreation Area shall be to promote sound conservation and administrative procedures to save and defend from waste the natural resources of Michigan to promote sound environmental programs and promote, preserve and enhance the multi-use of The Pontiac Lake Recreation Area and other Michigan State Parks.
Come Join Us!
Friends of Pontiac Lake Recreation Area (FPLRA) meetings are at 7:30 p.m.,
Next Meeting Pontiac Lake State Park Office, 7800 Gale Rd, Waterford, MI 48327.
Club News
check Pittman-Robertson Act update Aug 18 2012
Fall is right around the corner which means that our annual cleanup can’t be far away. Please join us on Sunday, September 23, 2012 for 15th Annual Fall Cleanup. We will be concentrating on our two adopt-a-road areas and then other areas depending on time and of volunteers.
What: Fall CleanUp
When: Sunday September 23,2012 at 10:00 AM
Where: Meet at DNR Park Headquarters
What to Bring: Long sleeve shirt, work boots, Gloves, Hat and Etc.
More Info: Call Ron at (248) 884-9304
Volunteers of all ages are welcome. Our younger pickers will be assigned to safe areas away from traffic (within the day use area). Hope to see you there
Ron
Pure Michigan (aka Srew PLRA Again
While I was up north last week I went to the Otsego County Fair. The 'Pure Michigan' motor home was set up there. I was talking to the hosts that were volunteering for the summer to drive the RV and man the both, and told him I was from the Waterford Area. He said, proudly, that they had all the brochures for the parks even the ones down there. I started to dig through the rack and asked for where Pontiac Lake Recreation Area's Brochure was at. He came around front and checked and said that they do not have it! They even had a brochure for Wetzel Park, which is mainly a flying field, but nothing on one of the top attendance, multi-use recreation areas in southeast Michigan?
It is bad enough that the DNR Parks tried to give PLRA away to Metro Parks, only to be stopped by the public, It is bad enough that the local Park Planner has no interest in the park, who sat on project plans to replace a picnic shelter (the most popular one and helps to bring in needed park funds from rental fees) until the deadline to use the funds has past. It was only with the intervention of Michigan United Conservation Clubs that the funding was restored and the project made to be completed.
The same person whose 'Proposal P' fund recommendations that added facilities to all southeast parks (and the Waterloo Recreation Area, which is no where near S.E. Michigan and used most of the 'P' money) that is all, except for PLRA, whose plan for it was to remove one whole set of parking lots and the toilet building in that area (the only one near the handicapped accessible fishing dock). Upon inquirery It was said that the area was 'underused', I then asked if they have ever been there on a weekend to see the use and why are the park use figures were so high if it is 'under used'? They just looked at each other - dumbfounded. (That one area and its shelter has hosted huge picnics varying from a couple of hundred to 5,000 plus groups as well as part of the area use by the International Jet Ski Races 10,000 + attendance, the Regional Iron Man Triathlon, Mountain Bicycle Races, Society of Creative Anachronism gatherings, very large church groups from Detroit and so on.)
Twice when the park was supposed to get the campground rental cabins, the monies for them were shifted to other parks, the last time the District Supervisor had them go to the Proud Lake Rec. Area. Rental cabins here would offer an opportunity for the people coming out to the use park to also try the camping experience, especially those from the surrounding urban areas.
This is a busy park that gets a lot of multicultural use by all races, located in the midst of many large urban areas and is always in the top of attendance, apparently without the help of its own organization. The Metro Parks wanted it to make it their show case park, apparently the upper-management has not figured it out yet or maybe not even seen the park yet, the Metro Park people have!
When the parks were being surveyed for their ecosystems, the people running the program were amazed with the large verity of plants and ecosystems located in the is unit and said that this deftly bares further looking into.
It is tiresome to see this grand park being treated as an orphan child and in a sense neglected.
Park News from Supervisor Thomas H.Bissett
Tom and Donuts
Greetings Friends
I can’t begin to express my thanks to all the wonderful people who came to help us on the 2nd. Thank you for all of your efforts, your smiles, and your conversation. You really helped make Pontiac Lake a better place. For those of you that did not make it, you missed meeting a wonderful group of people, and a FREE lunch thanks to the Pontiac Lake Horseman’s Association!
It was great to meet you all, and I hope we can work together again. THANKS
Thomas H. Bissett
As far as in the day use area of the park, we’ve been a little spoiled with the great weather. Our buildings are up and running and the West Toilet Building is open daily. Our skid piers are in at the launch, and you’ll notice one of them this year is brand new. We are looking forward to installing some new lights in the buildings this summer and hoping to improve our looks with some fresh paint.
The First Time Camper Program is underway if you have never camped before and would like to try the park provides all your equipment, you pay a small fee to camp and enjoy the great outdoors so give us a call for more information on this exciting program (248) 666-1020.
The Park and Read Program is in its third year if you like to read books go to your local library take out a book come to the park use the hammock and relax and enjoy your book in the great outdoors. If you want more information on this program please contact us at (248) 666-1020.
75th anniversary of Pittman-Robertson Act is a perfect time to celebrate hunters’ role in conservation funding
In Michigan, money raised from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses pays for the bulk of fish and wildlife conservation – and the state’s hunters and anglers are justifiably proud of their reputation for paying their own way.
But license fees aren’t the only dollars that support conservation in Michigan. For decades, sportsmen have been paying into the pot in a manner that – although arguably a bit more obscure – is absolutely critical to successful long-term management of the state’s fish and wildlife.
This year, Sunday, Sept. 2, marks the 75th anniversary of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (or, more simply, the P-R Act), and the start of a yearlong celebration for outdoors-minded organizations and individuals around the nation.
“During this landmark year, everyone can do one simple thing – thank hunters for funding 75 years of wildlife restoration,” said Steve Beyer, research and management supervisor for the DNR’s Wildlife Division. “Thank a hunter for helping support Michigan conservation efforts.”
Thank a hunter, indeed.
Beyer said that, from 1939 through federal fiscal year 2012, Pittman-Robertson funds have provided the states and territories with $7.2 billion for wildlife conservation, restoration and hunter education. Michigan, which currently ranks fourth nationally in total P-R funding, has received $261 million since 1939.
(In 1950, the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act was enacted to do the same good things for fisheries conservation.)
Named after its sponsors Key Pittman (D-Nevada) and Absalom Robertson (D-Virginia), the P-R Act added an 11-percent excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition. The tax is built into the cost of the equipment and is paid by the manufacturers of arms and ammunition at the wholesale level.
The P-R Act has been amended a number of times over the past 75 years to expand funding sources. In 1970, a 10-percent tax was levied on pistols and revolvers, with the caveat that half could be used for hunter safety programs. In 1972, bows, arrows and their parts and accessories were added to the program at the 11-percent rate. In 1984, crossbows were also included in the mix.
Money raised by the P-R Act is allocated to states through a formula based on the total land area of the state and the number of licensed hunters in that state, Beyer said.
“The money is allocated to state conservation agencies,” he explained. “In Michigan, the Department of Natural Resources is the recipient.”
During the 2011 fiscal year, more than $371 million in excise tax was collected through the P-R Act. This money was apportioned out to states to spend during this current fiscal year. Michigan’s portion for fiscal year 2012 is $12.3 million.
It isn’t a blank check, by any means.
These dollars are made available to the DNR in the form of grants for specific projects. Grants are available on a 3-1 matching basis, meaning the DNR must come up with one dollar for every three received in P-R funds. For example, in order for the DNR to receive $750,000 in Pittman-Robertson funding for a $1 million project, it must first provide $250,000 in “match” funds.
“The most common source of matching funds is money collected from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses,” Beyer said. Although states are allowed to use other non-federal funding sources to secure matching funds, the P-R Act requires that license fees be used for conservation projects and cannot be diverted for any other use, he said.
“This is the key provision of the act, which ensures that states have matching funds on hand in order to be able to take advantage of available federal grants,” Beyer said.
Federal grants are only available for approved projects, which include land acquisition, research, acquisition and maintenance of public shooting ranges, ecological surveys, reintroduction of wildlife species, hunter education programs and habitat improvement. Over the years, the DNR has used P-R funds for all of these purposes.
One specific example: the restoration of Michigan’s wild turkey population. Wild turkeys, native to Michigan, had completely disappeared from the state around the turn of the last century due to a combination of unregulated hunting and habitat loss.
With the help of $2 million in P-R funds and $1 million in restricted turkey funds (mostly from state hunting license dollars), the turkey population was rehabilitated to what it is today – a robust, sustainable and huntable population found across most of the state.
P-R funds have also directly benefited access to prime hunting areas. The majority of Michigan’s Managed Waterfowl Hunt Areas were purchased with P-R dollars, matched with money from the sale of “duck stamps” (waterfowl hunting licenses). Recently, partner organizations, particularly Ducks Unlimited, have been providing funds as well.
Hunters, however, are not the only beneficiaries of P-R funds. P-R funds can be used for projects that restore and conserve any bird or mammal species, not just game species. Consequently, these funds have contributed to the restoration of some non-game species (such as bald eagles) and to preserve wild lands that not only benefit wildlife, but can be used and enjoyed by outdoor enthusiasts, like mushroom hunters, berry pickers, hikers, birders and others.
“The long and short of it is that P-R funds, along with license fees, have been and continue to be how we fund most wildlife management in Michigan and across the U.S.,” said Russ Mason, chief of the DNR’s Wildlife Division. “Without P-R funds along with the prevention of diverting license fees to other uses required to get them, conservation in North America would simply collapse.
“Not decline. Disappear,” Mason said. “So we celebrate and support P-R funds in every way that we can.”
As with other funding sources, P-R funds are dependent on the marketplace.
Following 2009, for example, after record gun and ammunition sales, Michigan received more than $16 million in P-R funds in 2010. “When firearms and ammunition sales decline, however, the pot of money shrinks,” Mason noted. In 2011, Michigan’s portion shrank to $12.8 million and, in 2012, dropped to $12.3 million.
Similarly, because license sales are part of the equation, Michigan may not always get as large a cut from the federal pot as it does now. If license sales continue to decline in Michigan – or in comparison to other states – the state could lose out on available federal funding in two ways:
Fewer licensed hunters equals a reduction in what the state is eligible to receive; and Fewer dollars collected from license sales equals a reduction in available matching funds for federal grants.
In that light, the contribution of Michigan hunters to conservation is two-fold: By purchasing guns and ammunition, bows and arrows, they increase the pot of federal funding available. By purchasing their hunting licenses, they ensure a portion of that federal funding comes right back to their home state.
No matter how you slice up the Pittman-Robertson pie, it is clear that the contribution made by sportsmen to conservation efforts in Michigan is truly exponential, and has been for the past 75 years.
For that, we should all thank a hunter.
Learn more about wildlife management and conservation in Michigan at www.michigan.gov/itsyournature. For more information about the Pittman-Robertson Act and the 75th anniversary celebration, visit wsfr75.com/.
MUCC News from MUCC Representative
MUCC: Court Ruling is Attack on Shooting Range Rights
Thursday, July 26, 2012
LANSING, MI -- Michigan citizens have the statutory right to operate a shooting range without fear of nuisance lawsuits. That right was granted under protections established in 1989 with the passage of the Sport Shooting Ranges Act. But a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling attempts to deny those rights to Michigan's citizens. Because of this, Michigan United Conservation Clubs has stepped in to ensure the Michigan Supreme Court rights this wrong.
MUCC has filed an Amicus Curiae brief with the Michigan Supreme Court in the case of Township of Addison v. Jerry Kline Barnhart. The brief supports defendant Jerry Barnhart’s application for leave to appeal the Supreme Court from a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling that denies the majority of sporting shooting ranges across Michigan the protections granted under the Sport Shooting Range Act (SSRA) (Public Act 269 of 1989).
The case at hand stems from earlier disputes between the two parties that were thrown out in Oakland County’s lower courts. The Michigan Court of Appeals inexplicably overruled these courts, and turned the case into a broad mandate against shooting ranges by declaring that any evidence to show that a range was being used for “business or commercial purposes” nullified SSRA protection for those ranges.
In fact, the act makes no mention of disallowing protections for any type of shooting range, whether public, private, nonprofit, or commercially run. Instead, the SSRA expressly includes ranges run by proprietorships, partnerships, and corporations – all of which are types of commercial business entities.
The Court of Appeals’ unprecedented narrowing of the SSRA would also leave in its wake shooting ranges that have been the staples of sportsmen’s clubs and conservation organizations for generations. Most clubs routinely charge fees for range use and instructional classes and sell ammunition and equipment, both to cover range costs and as a way of raising revenue for the club. In fact, most clubs and ranges would not be able to continue operating without generating revenue from the range.
All of these are types of business and commercial activity that have always been acceptable ways to run a club and shooting range that were suddenly put at risk by the Court of Appeals.
“What we have is a poorly-constructed decision by a court that's at best unfamiliar with shooting ranges or, at worst, blatantly anti-gun. The decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals flies directly in the face of what the SSRA was designed to do – protect all compliant Michigan sport shooting ranges from the bevy of junk lawsuits and burdensome ordinances against them that have followed from the expansion and development in areas around shooting ranges,” said MUCC’s Executive Director Erin McDonough. “MUCC was one of the driving forces behind the adoption of the SSRA back in 1989, and worked for the broader protections sought in the 1994 amendments because local governments and the people developing around ranges were using lawsuits and new ordinances to harass and shut down sport shooting ranges that had been established for decades."
Recreational shooting is an incredibly popular and family-oriented recreational activity both statewide and nationally, with more than 21 million Americans taking part in some type of shooting activity each year,” McDonough said. “Not only do shooting sports put hundreds of millions of dollars into our economy, but in an increasingly busy world, it is another way to get kids and families outdoors. MUCC hopes the Michigan Supreme Court will look at this case and consider not only the poor legal precedent the Court of Appeals decision sets, but also the harm done to the future of our sport shooting tradition in the state of Michigan.”
McDonough also noted that MUCC has close to 125 member clubs that maintain shooting ranges, many of whom charge membership and shooting fees, provide instruction and safety classes for fees, and sell ammunition and equipment. Nearly all of them would be denied the protections of the SSRA under the appeals court’s ruling.
The SSRA, originally adopted in 1989, was based on the Right to Farm Act for the purpose of preserving and protecting the existence of all shooting ranges from lawsuits and local ordinances brought on as urban sprawl moved new development into rural areas. The act specified that the shooting ranges covered by the act must have been in existence at the time of the amendment in 1994, and must comply with generally accepted operation practices. No other requirements are asked of the ranges in order to be protected by the act.
Shooting Ranges Talking Points
FACTS:
The Sport Shooting Ranges Act (SSRA) was enacted in 1989 (Act 269 of 1989). The SSRA provides protection to sport shooting ranges from nuisance lawsuits and exempts them from new local laws and zoning ordinances.
o There are no limits to the type of business status in the act – public, private, business, and nonprofit clubs and ranges are included in the protections.
• There are two requirements ranges must meet to be protected under the SSRA:
o (1) the sport shooting range must have been in existence as of July 5, 1994, and
o (2) must be in compliance with generally accepted operation practices (put out by the NRA).
• The SSRA would be changed by a Michigan Court of Appeals decision from the case of Township of Addison v. Barnhart.
ISSUES:
• The Court of Appeals ruling states that ranges operating for business or commercial purposes would remove the protection those ranges have under the SSRA.
• The ruling could affect the protections of all shooting ranges in the state who engage in commercial transactions.
• Removing range protections puts clubs and ranges at risk of shutting down or their operations severely restricted by lawsuits and local ordinances and zoning laws.
HOW THIS AFFECTS MUCC MEMBERS:
• Many MUCC clubs and shooting ranges charge fees for:
o shooting,
o shooting instruction, hunter and firearm safety classes, concealed carry classes, and membership,
o selling ammunition, range equipment, and supplies on site.
• This is done to both cover the costs associated with range upkeep, and to raise revenue for the club/range. Without these fees, most clubs and ranges would not be able to operate!
• If this court decision stands, it could wipe out the very purpose of the SSRA – to protect the right of existing ranges to operate free from nuisance charges – if ranges participate in everyday practices that allow them to continue to operate.
• There is a very real chance shooting ranges would be extremely restricted by new ordinances, or go out of business trying to defending nuisance lawsuits.
o In the past 3 months, MUCC has been contacted 3 times by two clubs and one former club facing lawsuits or harmful new proposed ordinances – the threat is real and ever-present.
OTHER TALKING POINTS:
• At its best this is a poorly crafted decision by a court that knows nothing about shooting sports; at its worst, this is an end-around by an anti-gun court.
• In the SSRA, the definition of a person able to run a shooting range includes individuals, proprietorships, partnerships, corporations, and clubs – all types of entities that can be either for profit, nonprofit, public, or private.
o This supports our argument that ALL sport shooting ranges are included in the plain language of the SSRA.
• MUCC has filed a brief with the Michigan Supreme Court supporting the shooting range and asking the court to take up the case and overturn the Appeals Court’s decision.
• If the court does not overturn the decision, MUCC will pursue legislative changes that clarify the intent to cover all shooting ranges operating before 1994, regardless of the type of range.
We Are ONE VOICE
!Have questions or need more information?
Call or e-mail Kent Wood at (517) 346-6462, or kwood@mucc.org
EHD in Deer: A Michigan Trend?,
December 22nd, 2011 by Amy Trotter.
Sure, we’re all familiar with what to keep an eye out for in deer when it comes to bovine tuberculosis or chronic wasting disease, but what about the less “popular” epizootic hemorrhagic disease (EHD) that was responsible for the death of an estimated 1,025 deer in 2010 in southwestern Michigan? Because of its very high mortality rate, EHD can have a significant effect upon the deer population in a local area, reducing numbers drastically.
According to the DNR website, Michigan has had deer die-offs attributed to EHD in 1974, 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2010. So far in 2011, at least 2 deer have been confirmed to have died of EHD in Cass County. Where there are two, there are probably more. But how do you know? Read on to learn how to identify a deer with EHD.
First, what is EHD and why can’t we just get rid of it?
EHD is an acute, infectious, often fatal viral disease of some wild ruminants. Characterized by extensive hemorrhages, it appears that only Michigan’s white-tailed deer populations have experienced the disease. It was identified in the 1950s and since then, die-off rates in Michigan have increased steadily throughout the years.
A small midge, specifically Culicoides, is responsible for EHD. The DNR believes Michigan is experiencing higher rates of EHD as a consequence of climate changes that favor the northward spread of these biting flies. The catch with EHD, at least thus far, is that there is no known effective treatment for, or control of the malady. Research indicates that it can be transmitted to other wild ruminants. Domestic animals, while able to be infected by the virus, rarely contract the disease. There is no present evidence that it can be transmitted to humans.
So, how to recognize it? Outbreaks are usually associated with drought and warm temperatures. A constant characteristic of the disease is its sudden onset. Deer initially lose their appetite and fear of humans, grow progressively weaker, salivate excessively, develop a rapid pulse and respiration rate and finally become unconscious. Due to a high fever, the deer often are found sick or dead along or in bodies of water.
Property owners who discover dead deer they suspect died of EHD should call the nearest DNR office to report it. MUCC is dedicated to reporting the progression of this disease, so stay tuned as more information is learned through the research of biology professionals.
update EHD July 31 2012
EHD outbreak confirmed in deer in Ionia and Branch counties
Epizootic hemorrhagic disease (EHD) has been confirmed as the cause of death in deer found in eastern Ionia and northern Branch counties, the Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Disease Lab and the Michigan State University Diagnostic Center for Population and Animal Health announced today.
The often-fatal viral disease, found in wild ruminants, causes extensive internal bleeding within deer and is transmitted by a midge, or type of biting fly. A constant characteristic of the disease is its sudden onset. Deer lose their appetite and fear of humans, grow progressively weaker, salivate excessively, and finally become unconscious. Due to a high fever, infected deer often are found sick or dead along or in bodies of water. There is no evidence that humans can contract the EHD virus.
EHD outbreaks killing deer in Michigan have occurred in isolated areas almost every year since 2006. Prior to 2006, EHD outbreaks in Michigan occurred in 1955 and 1974. The estimated mortality has varied from 50 to 1,000 deer per year in the affected areas.
“Due to the prolonged, dry, hot weather this year, we are not surprised to see EHD emerge again,” said Tom Cooley, DNR wildlife biologist and pathologist. “Mortality numbers will depend on how widespread the disease is -- die-offs usually occur within one watershed area. If multiple watersheds are involved, the total mortality is higher.”
There is no known effective treatment for, or control of, EHD. The disease has been seen for decades in most areas of the United States, especially the southeast states and Texas. It has been less commonly observed in Great Lakes and New England states, although it has now been detected in Michigan in six of the last seven years.
Where EHD is more common, deer have built up antibodies to the disease and population recovery does not take long. Michigan deer do not have the benefit of these antibodies. Losses may be severe but are typically restricted to localized areas. Population recovery may take longer than has been experienced in other states.
Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division staff members are developing plans for assessing the extent and impact of losses in the affected areas. Property owners who discover dead deer they suspect died of EHD in the vicinity of Branch County should call the Crane Pond field office at 269-244-5928, and in Ionia County contact the Flat River field office at 616-794-2658. In other areas of the state, reports of suspected EHD outbreaks should be made to the nearest DNR office.
It is acceptable to allow natural deterioration processes to dispose of deer that die from EHD. Natural deterioration will not spread the disease or cause other disease outbreaks. Property owners are responsible for the proper disposal of carcasses that they wish to remove from the site. Carcasses should be buried at a sufficient depth so that no parts are showing above ground. Carcasses also can be disposed of at landfills that accept household solid waste.
For more information on EHD, visit www.michigan.gov/wildlifedisease.
Conservation Win: Federal Decision to Delist Wolves Moves Forward
A recent statewide survey of 60 bat wintering sites in Michigan found no sign of white nose syndrome, the Department of Natural Resources said today.
White nose syndrome (WNS) is an invasive fungus fatal to bats. The fungus infects a bat’s skin and causes the bat’s energy reserves to deplete before the hibernation period is over.
The survey – con ducted by DNR Wildlife Division staff in conjunction with Dr. Allen Kurta and Steve Smith of Eastern Michigan University – involved extensive surveillance of caves and abandoned mines across the northern Lower Peninsula and Upper Peninsula . These survey locations represent the major bat colony hibernation sites in Michigan , with some colonies numbering over 50,000 bats.
“Our survey efforts focused on areas where WNS would most likely first appear,” said DNR Wildlife Biologist Bill Scullon. “Given the speed with which this devastating disease has spread across the country, we’re very pleased to have found no visible signs of WNS in Michigan this season. Unfortunately, all indications are that the disease will eventually arrive here.”
The invasive fungus Geomyces destructans (Gd) that causes WNS is believed to have originated in Europe and has spread to 19 states and four Canadian provinces since the first outbreak site was discovered in eastern New York in 2006. WNS has been confirmed in Ontario , less than 90 miles from the Michigan border, as well as in Ohio and Indiana .
The US Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that since WNS was first detected in the United States , more than 5.5 million bats from six different species have died from the disease, with the mortality rate nearing 95 percent in some affected sites.
Nine species of bats can be found in Michigan , with cave-dwelling bats, such as little brown bats, big brown bats, tri-colored bats, northern long-eared bats, and the federally-endangered Indiana bats, at the greatest risk of contracting WNS.
“These species all gather in large concentrations in caves and abandoned mines to hibernate during the winter months,” Scullon said. “Unfortunately, the cold temperatures which normally would help the bats conserve body fat during hibernation may now be part of their undoing, because the fungus that causes WNS grows optimally in these cold conditions.”
Further contributing to the rapid spread of WNS through many Eastern and Midwestern states, the WNS fungus persists in the environment even without a host and can be carried from one location to another by humans, Scullon said, adding that no known human health risks are associated with Gd, nor are any other wildlife species known to be impacted by the fungus.
Michigan ’s bat species are insectivores and are a highly-beneficial as a natural insect control mechanism. Bats help to protect agricultural crops and forests from damage done by insects such as corn ear worms and gypsy moths, and also reduce the threat of insect-borne diseases such as West Nile virus. The economic benefit of a healthy bat population in Michigan has been estimated at $508 million annually, and more than $23 billion nationwide.
“The DNR is cooperating with researchers, universities, state, federal and tribal agencies, landowners, and concerned citizens to delay the spread of WNS to Michigan , and to prepare for the arrival and aftermath of the disease once it is found here,” said DNR wildlife veterinarian Dr. Dan O’Brien. “Public support is critical to minimizing the spread of WNS, facilitating early detection efforts, and conserving remaining bat populations as they recover.”
Contact Bill Scullon at 906-353-6651 for more information about the recent statewide WNS survey or Michigan ’s bat population. Additional information about WNS, including Michigan’s WNS Response Plan and bat observation reporting instructions, is available online at www.michigan.gov/emergingdiseases.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources is committed to the conservation, protection, management, use and enjoyment of the state's natural and cultural resources for current and future generations. For more information, go to www.michigan.gov/dnr.
