C

entral Student Government elections 
are currently underway. Save for the 
spammy Facebook messages you’re 

likely receiving from your 
friends — or “friends,” 
broadly 
construed 
— 

asking you to vote for 
them, you may not have 
paid much attention to the 
elections at all. Students 
on this campus certainly 
don’t face a shortage of 
challenges — but many of 
them don’t necessarily see 
CSG as the body destined 
to solve them.

That needs to change.
Over the past two years, I’ve had the 

opportunity to work with and get to know 
David Schafer and Thomas Hislop, two of 
the candidates for CSG president. Last fall, 
Schafer and I served together on the College 
Republicans Executive Board. Hislop and I 
are both in the Ford School of Public Policy, 
and have taken three classes together. 
I’ve seen firsthand how both candidates 
approach problems, develop solutions and 
implementation strategies. Both candidates 
are great people, and I have no doubt that 
they would both engage with their work as 
president at a high level.

That 
said, 
I 
had 
absolutely 
no 

reservations when I voted Your Michigan 
for CSG president and 
vice president. If you’d 
like to see a CSG that’s 
more effective, efficient 
and equitable, I’d highly 
encourage you to vote 
Your Michigan as well.

Hislop is pragmatic and 

results-oriented. 
Your 

Michigan’s platform — 
which includes tangible, 
realistic plans to expand 
and improve mental health care on campus, 
combat sexual assault through peer-to-peer 
education and increase funding for student 
efforts to recruit potential Wolverines from 
underrepresented backgrounds — reflects that.

I sat down with Hislop and his running 

mate, Cam Dotson, to discuss their priorities 
for their presidency and vice presidency if 
elected. After three years of watching CSG 
administrations spend undue amounts of 
time engaging non-actionable issues — like 
whether or not to advise the University 
of Michigan to divest from all firms doing 
substantive business in Israel — I wanted to 
know whether the duo had a realistic idea 
of what CSG could accomplish. I asked them 
what they thought, fundamentally, they 
believed to be the role of CSG on campus. 

“CSG is here to improve the day-to-day life 

of the Michigan student,” Hislop said. “That 
is their primary role — to support them, to 
make them feel safe, to make sure they feel 
comfortable here and to make sure that the 
resources they have are there for them and 
are the best that they can be.”

Your Michigan’s policies start with this 

fundamental understanding. They prioritize 
issues that matter most to students and have 
solid implementation strategies that target 
the biggest challenge to resource creation 
and program support — funding. To name 
just one example, Hislop and Dotson plan 
to relocate funding from low- to high-
impact projects by analyzing uptake rates 
of seemingly underused resources, like bus 
services at odd times.

But perhaps the best example of the duo’s 

superior issue prioritization is a policy that 
they don’t support, not one they do.

The Daily’s editorial board endorsed 

newMICH candidates Schafer and Griggs 
largely due to their plans to work toward 
creating a non-voting, ex-officio position 
for a student representative on the Board 
of 
Regents. 
The 
representative 
would 

essentially serve as a student liaison to the 
board to advocate for, well, students. They 
argue that this would be better than the 
status quo, where the CSG president attends 
and speaks at every formal regents meeting. 

Having spent a considerable amount of 

time studying the legal organization of the 
University, I can tell you that attempting to 
create this position would essentially be a 
waste of time and energy. Further, it might 
not be possible without changing the state 
constitution. 

The 
University 
is 
what’s 
called 
a 

constitutional corporation. Basically, that 
means that, though created and funded by 
the state of Michigan, the state has absolutely 
nothing to do with its operations, in the 
exact same way it has nothing to do with the 
operations of, say, Taco Bell.

But, while Taco Bell and its private 

sector 
peers 
are 
established 
through 

documents called their charters or articles 
of 
incorporation, 
the 
University 
was 

established through the state constitution. 
Just as all corporations are bound by 

their charters or articles 
of 
incorporation, 
the 

University is bound by the 
constitutional 
provisions 

that establish it. These 
provisions 
specify 
the 

number of regents and 
how they will be selected.

The state constitution 

specifically 
creates 
an 

ex-officio, 
non-voting 

position on the board for the 

student council president.

There’s little question that whatever 

position can be created on the board for a 
new student representative wouldn’t be 
a voting one. At the very least, it would 
be another ex-officio position. But even 
creating another ex-officio position for 
the new student representative would be 
“undoubtedly questionable” as the Daily 
itself admits in its newMICH endorsement. 
More 
than 
that, 
it’s 
a 
question 
of 

constitutional law. 

If this student role is possible at all, it 

would require the Regents to amend their 
bylaws to create the position. If they refuse, 
Shafer and Griggs have little recourse out 
of court. Given that the CSG president 
already has a powerful voice with the Board 
of Regents, the next CSG executive team 
would be far better served by using that 
voice to advocate for increased resources for 
students — which is exactly what Hislop and 
Dotson plan to do.

Your Michigan’s candidates understand 

University governance, and they know 
that pushing for a student on the Board 
of Regents won’t be an effective way to 
secure change that improves students’ lives. 
Instead, they prioritize tangible results and 
realistic plans for action.

If you want your CSG to make real changes 

on campus, vote for the candidates who know 
how to enact it. Vote Hislop and Dotson for 
CSG president and vice president.

 
— Victoria Noble can be reached 

at vjnoble@umich.edu.

O

n slow news days last 
semester, The Michigan 
Daily opinion staff would 

sit around the 
conference room 
table, 
scouring 

the 
Internet 

for 
anything 

interesting 
to 
talk 
about. 

Derek (my then 
co-editorial page 
editor) 
would 

enthusiastically 
break 
the 

silence: 
“Let’s 

talk about the 
deer cull!”

“Absolutely not,” I mechanically 

commanded every time somebody 
broached the subject. “We are not 
talking about the stupid deer cull. 
Keep looking.”

In August 2015, the Ann Arbor 

City Council voted 8-1 in support 
of 
contracting 
professional 

sharpshooters 
to 
decrease 
the 

number of deer in the city over the 
next four years. Two successive 
resolutions clarifying plans for 
the cull passed 10-1. In all of the 
resolutions regarding the deer cull, 
Ann Arbor Mayor Christopher 
Taylor (D) was the only voter to 
dissent, believing there was not 
enough community consensus to 
warrant the cull.

“I 
fully 
emphasize 
and 

appreciate the concerns with the 
deer-human interaction.” Taylor 
said after the initial City Council 
vote last August. “At the same time, 
there are many members of the 
community whose sense of place 
in their city will be substantially 
affected by shooting deer within 
our borders,”

To an extent, I agree with 

Taylor: 
The 
city 
government 

should not ostracize its citizens 
or diminish residents’ opinions 
through its resolutions. Hundreds 
of residents feel very strongly 
about the deer population in their 
hometown. They want the city to 
seek alternative solutions, and the 
city owes its residents a proper 
and thorough investigation into all 
issues of concern. 

But the most vocal opposition to 

the cull comes from the Humane 
Society of Huron Valley, headed 
by Tanya Hilgendorf, and local 
animal rights groups such as “Save 
the Deer.” Their main argument 
against the deer cull is based on 
ideas of nonviolence, innovation 
and the ethical treatment of all 
living things.

“I was always in awe of this 

cultural and intellectual mecca,” 
one resident said in reference to 
the Ann Arbor community during a 
November City Council discussion 
of the deer cull. “What happened 
to seeking creative, non-violent 
solutions? Where are the best and 
brightest now?” 

I 
understand 
the 
resistance 

against the deer cull — I really do. 
Personally, I am awed by our Earth. 
All living things are important 
and contribute to the lives humans 
lead; we should be respectful and 
considerate of all life; we should be 
innovative and find solutions that 
result in minimal harm.

But the belief that physically 

reducing 
the 
deer 
population 

perpetuates the most harm is a 
privileged 
(and 
slightly 
naive) 

perception.

***
Before human settlement, the 

wetlands, bogs and semi-forested 
areas of lower Michigan offered 
deer 
herds 
protection 
from 

predators and an abundance of 
vegetation to eat. However, by 1870, 
deforestation 
and 
unregulated 

hunting led to the extermination 
of deer in the southern part 
of 
Michigan. 
Meanwhile, 

deforestation in northern Michigan 
created an environment for deer 
populations to flourish.

Near the end of the 19th century, 

the 
state 
government 
began 

implementing methods to control 

deer populations. In 1915, William 
Oates, game commissioner at the 
Department of Natural Resources, 
estimated that there were only 
45,000 deer left in Michigan. Soon 
after, Oates proposed the “buck 
law” to the state legislature: A 
proposal that suggested hunters 
should only be allowed to take 
down one buck per hunting season.

With the implementation of 

strict hunting laws, coinciding 
with yet another change in deer 
habitat, Michigan’s deer population 
rebounded. In the 1930s, field 
investigators reported a shortage 
of deer food and shelter in the 
cedar-swamps they had examined. 
In 1937, Ilo Bartlett, Michigan’s 

first deer biologist, claimed there 
was a combined 1.125 million deer 
in the upper and lower peninsulas. 
Despite action to reverse the 
dramatic increase in deer, the 
population reached a peak at 1.5 
million in 1949.

Twenty-three 
years 
later, 

Michigan’s deer population fell by 1 
million. However, the major factor 
in the reduction of deer wasn’t 
the more lenient hunting laws, but 
rather an increased loss of and 
damage to deer habitats.

To remedy these losses, Wildlife 

Division 
Chief 
Merrill 
“Pete” 

Petoskey and staff biologist John 
Byelich developed the Deer Range 
Improvement Program. In 1971, part 
of the funds garnered from selling 
hunting licenses was earmarked for 
commercial forestry. Through the 
creation of 70,000 acres of forest 
openings, conservationists worked to 

improve the lives of Michigan deer.

In 1989, the DNR’s efforts — with 

the effect of several mild winters 
and the public’s feeding of deer 
— helped the Michigan deer herd 
reach a new high: an estimated 
2 
million 
deer. 
Deer-vehicle 

accidents and signs of distress 
among deer populations increased 
once again.

***
Today, the DNR and other deer 

conservationist groups aim to 
maintain a balanced doe-to-buck 
ratio. Deer management is its area 
of expertise; it has been trying 
to support ecological balance by 
monitoring wildlife. While plenty 
of mistakes have been made 
during the century that Michigan 
has been grappling with its deer 
population, the DNR and other 
conservationists 
holistically 

understand the lives of deer and 
their effects on the environment.

According to the DNR’s website, 

“State government has a legal 
mandate and moral responsibility 
to act, even if contrary to public 
will, where the integrity of the 
resource is threatened. Thus, the 
real challenge of the future of deer 
management will be to carefully 
sort out the social from biological, 
to respond to the will of the 
public for the former, and to take 
leadership, even if unpopular, for 
the latter.”

Humans 
have 
irrevocably 

interfered 
with 
the 
natural 

trajectory 
and 
populations 
of 

animals. To say otherwise is to 
ignore history and the effects it 
has on life today. To protect the 
lives of 100 deer because they are 
cute, fluffy mammals that are 
increasingly visible in urban and 
suburban lives is hypocritical.

Fences may keep deer out of 

our yards, but what about the rest 
of the ecosystem? What about the 
marbled salamander, Hungerford’s 
crawling water beetle, the barn 
owl, the smoky shrew or the 
dozens of other species currently 
on Michigan’s list of Species of 
Greatest Conservation Need? Why 
are deer — who often have negative 
effects on some threatened species 
— more important than other living 
things? Why are we questioning 
conservationists’ 
sense 
of 

ecological balance when they have 
been managing deer for decades?

In 
retrospect, 
I 
shouldn’t 

have shut down all conversation 
about the deer cull last semester. 
Editorial boards are inherently 
supposed to be democratic and my 
complete refusal to approach the 
subject was slightly dictatorial. 
However, despite all of my research 
and reading, my stance on the cull 
has yet to change.

Maybe it’s because I’m from a 

rural area where people rely on 
hunting to survive. Maybe it’s 
because all of the deer meat has 
been used to provide for hungry 
families. Maybe it’s because I care 
more about the wildflowers than 
the deer. Or maybe it’s because I 
listened to the deer experts who 
have come to a consensus: Far 
worse ecological disasters can 
happen without deer control.

—Aarica Marsh can be reached 

at aaricama@umich.edu.

Opinion

SHOHAM GEVA
EDITOR IN CHIEF

CLAIRE BRYAN 

AND REGAN DETWILER 
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS

LAURA SCHINAGLE
MANAGING EDITOR

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at 

the University of Michigan since 1890.

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s editorial board. 

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, March 24, 2016

E-mail in Chan at tokg@umiCh.Edu
IN CHAN LEE

Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Caitlin Heenan, Jeremy Kaplan, Ben Keller, 

Minsoo Kim, Payton Luokkala, Kit Maher, Madeline Nowicki,

Anna Polumbo-Levy, Jason Rowland, Lauren Schandevel, Melissa Scholke, 

Kevin Sweitzer, Rebecca Tarnopol, Ashley Tjhung, 

Stephanie Trierweiler, Hunter Zhao

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

 

— President Barack Obama, speaking in Cuba about the terrorist attacks at the Brus-

sels airport and Maelbeek metro station in Belgium.

“

NOTABLE QUOTABLE

The whole premise of terrorism is to try to disrupt 

people’s ordinary lives. And one of my most powerful 

memories and one of my proudest moments as 

president was watching Boston respond after the 

marathon. ... That is the kind of resilience and the kind 

of strength that we have to continually show in the 

face of these terrorists.”

Your Michigan 

prioritizes tangible 
results and realistic 

plans for action.

Humans have 

irrevocably interfered 

with the natural 
trajectory and 

populations of animals.

Deer culls aren’t so evil

AARICA 
MARSH
Why I voted Your Michigan

VICTORIA 
NOBLE

To protect the lives 
of 100 deer that are 
increasingly visible in 
urban and suburban 
lives is hypocritical.

