ROADKILL DEBATE County eyes disposal options -- including dissolution of road commission

Patti Brandt Burgess, The Record-Eagle, Traverse City, Mich.
·4 min read

Jun. 23—TRAVERSE CITY — The Grand Traverse County board approved a motion to have the county administrator make a list of options for disposal of roadkill, including possible dissolution of the county road commission.

The action came Wednesday after an update on the roadkill debate by road Commissioner Haider Kazim. The motion was made by county Commissioner Scott Sieffert and was approved on a vote of 6 to 3, with commissioners Rob Hentschel, Brad Jewett and Darryl V. Nelson voting "no."

"(Roadkill) is an issue that shouldn't be an issue," Sieffert told the Traverse City Record-Eagle after the meeting. "A mountain is being made out of a molehill."

County Administrator Nate Alger said he understands Sieffert's frustration, as well as that of other commissioners who approved the action.

"It kind of feels like we're in the movie 'National Lampoon's Vacation.' It goes round and round and round," Alger said.

Alger said he believes roadkill is the responsibility of the road commission. "Common sense tells you it's their job to maintain the roadways and keep them safe," he said.

Denise Donohue, CEO of the County Road Association of Michigan, when contacted Thursday, said if the road commission was dissolved, roads would become a department under county control. Of the state's 83 counties, 76 of them have road commissions and seven have road departments, she said.

Donohue said the ongoing roadkill debate, which she has been following, is not a good reason to dissolve the road commission. "There have to be a lot more reasons than a problem with roadkill," she said.

Donohue said what to do with deer carcasses needs to be hashed out with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy and road commissions across the state so that everyone is operating under a statewide policy.

In the meantime, Brad Kluczynski, road commission manager, got a copy of a letter from the DNR that has been circulating around the state since June 13. The letter says road commissions have to deal with EGLE to determine what to do with roadkill.

"We're still waiting to hear from EGLE," Kluczynski said Thursday.

He declined to comment on the dissolution motion, saying he's not sure what that would mean.

County board members continue to question why road commission officials believe they face some threat of prosecution for moving dead deer, while road commissions in neighboring counties do not. The road commission has never been cited for moving deer carcasses, they say, adding that, in other counties, it's still business as usual.

The issue started in December, when the state DNR instructed the road commission not to leave the carcasses of dead deer on state land, but to instead pull them off the road and place them in the road rights-of-way to decompose naturally.

DNR officials said they got several complaints of a deer pile near a trailhead. The road commission has said it is not depositing dead deer on state lands, but leaves them on the rights-of-way of roads adjacent to state land.

The road commission has disposed of roadkill for more than 50 years and picks up about 500 deer per year.

Kazim told county commissioners that DNR has told them that roadkill is exempt under the Bodies of Dead Animals Act — as long as the deer is left at the roadside.

"But the minute we pick it up and relocate it, DNR interpreted it to mean the dead animal was no longer exempt under BODA," Kazim said.

According to a spokesperson for the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, under which BODA regulates disposal of livestock, the act does not apply to roadkill.

County attorney Matt Nordfjord said there is a reference that a road commission could act as animal processor under BODA to deal with roadkill.

The road commission and Alger are seeking to contract with a company that would take the carcasses to a landfill, which is allowed by EGLE, but would be costly.

Alger said they have been talking about sharing the cost, but said he is not sure it would be an allowable expense by the county.