An Uncertain Future for Michigan Wolves

By Nicholas Wilson*

The Gray Wolf, recently removed from the Endangered Species List, is now in danger of a potential wolf hunting and trapping season in Michigan. (Photo © Wolf Conservation Center, Salem, NY, and courtesy Nancy Warren)

On January 4, 2021, the Gray Wolf was officially removed from the Endangered Species List. Delisting eliminated the federal protections provided to wolves by the Endangered Species Act and returned management authority to the states. Now, Michigan is considering a wolf hunt.

State Senators Ed McBroom and Jon Bumstead introduced a non-binding resolution to the Michigan Senate (Senate Resolution 15) urging the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) to authorize, and the DNR to organize, a wolf hunting and trapping season in 2021. The NRC Consists of seven members appointed by the Governor, and has "exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game and sportfish, and is authorized to designate game species and authorize the establishment of the first open season for animals through the issuance of orders."

On March 9, the Senate adopted Senate Resolution 15 (SR15), bringing Michigan one step closer to a wolf hunt. Following this adoption, the Michigan DNR reiterated its position on wolf hunting and trapping. The DNR affirmed that before considering a wolf hunt Michigan’s Wolf Management Plan should be updated, a new wolf public attitude survey should be conducted, and Native American tribes should be consulted.

Wolfwatchers' Nancy Warren dispels myths about wolves

On February 25, the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition (UPEC) held a virtual event featuring Nancy Warren, Executive Director of the National Wolfwatcher Coalition (NWC). Warren’s presentation -- titled "The Big Bad Wolf; Or is it?" -- provided scientific information on the Gray Wolf and discussed the consequences of delisting and the potential for a 2021 Michigan wolf hunt. After sharing background information on wolf physiology, behavior, and identification, Warren addressed several common myths about wolves.

Nancy Warren's slide presentation for UPEC questions myths about wolves and presents scientific facts. (Photo © and courtesy Nancy Warren)

The first of these myths is that wolves are dangerous to people. Warren explained that, despite frequent media portrayals of wolves as aggressive and violent, in reality the majority of animal-related human fatalities are caused by livestock, dogs, insects and deer rather than wolves. Human hunters are actually far more dangerous to people than wolves are.

This slide illustrates Warren's explanation of why wolves are mostly afraid of people. (Photo © and courtesy Nancy Warren)

"100 people are killed annually in the country by hunters," Warren said. "We’ve had two fatal attacks by wolves in all of North America in the last century and none in the continental United States." Inset photo: Nancy Warren. (Keweenaw Now file photo by Allan Baker)

Many people also believe that wolves are a great risk to livestock and domestic animals. But again, the data says otherwise. In 2018, 2019, and 2020, the total number of cattle taken by wolves in the UP was 6, 5, and 6 respectively.

"The risk to livestock is extremely low especially when compared to other losses experienced by producers such as weather and medical issues," Warren explained.

In this slide Warren notes how humans can take responsibility to keep wolves at a distance and respect their habitat. (Photo © and courtesy Nancy Warren)

Additionally, Michigan law guarantees that the State will compensate farmers for missing livestock if the farmer has any prior verified wolf depredation.

Another common misconception is that wolves are overpopulated in the Upper Peninsula and the Midwest. Warren presented DNR data on wolf populations in Michigan and Wisconsin from 1980-present. This data indicates that there are between 1018 and 1041 wolves in Wisconsin, and about 700 wolves in Michigan (found almost exclusively in the UP). Warren explained that the Michigan wolf population has remained stable for the past 10 years.

She also dispelled the myth that wolves are devastating the UP deer herds.

"Even though our number of wolves has gone up, the number of deer killed is staying pretty consistent. It’s weather not wolves that has the greatest impact on deer populations," Warren said. "I believe, and the statistics show, and the science shows, that there are enough deer on the landscape for both wolves and human hunters." 

Warren cited statistics to show that UP deer herds are not being devastated by wolves. (Photo © and courtesy Nancy Warren)

Despite their often-negative public perception, wolves play an important ecological role. Wolves manage the beaver population (their second favorite food), and strengthen the deer herd by eliminating the weak, sick, and injured. In doing so, wolves may also help to prevent diseases like CWD (Chronic Wasting Disease) and EHD (Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease) from establishing in the UP deer population. By keeping deer herds moving, wolves also create better habitat for plants and animals of all kinds.

Warren shows in this slide how wolves actually strengthen the health of the deer herd. (Photo © and courtesy Nancy Warren)

"They alter the deer movements -- which allows forest and habitat regeneration simply because the deer spend less time in one place," said Warren. "It creates a rippling effect throughout animal and plant communities."

Wolves can also provide an economic benefit to the areas that they inhabit.

"In Minnesota, the International Wolf Sanctuary adds about $3 million to the local economy and created the equivalent of 66 full-time-jobs," Warren noted.

Ojibwe cultural views of the wolf

In addition to ecological and economic value, wolves have great cultural significance to the Ojibwe people. Dr. Jonathan Gilbert, Director of the Biological Services Division at the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC), explained the importance of wolves in Ojibwe culture.

"The Ojibwe people think about Ma’iingan, the wolf, as a brother or sister. Their stories say that whatever happens to one of them will happen to the other," Gilbert said.

"When we think about wolves and wolf management in our modern-day view, we talk about population goals or objectives. We talk about potential for harvest seasons. That’s our western science way of looking at it," Gilbert continued. "But when you put that into the cultural context of the tribes, you start to think: what should your population goal be for your brothers and sisters, for your family? What should your harvest quota be for your relatives? How many of your relatives should we kill?"

The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community recently issued a Resolution opposing Senate Resolution 15 and calling for consultation with tribes according to the 2002 Government-to-Government Accord. The Resolution states, in part, the following:

WHEREAS: The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community believes the gray wolf is not an appropriate species to harvest for subsistence purposes, its numbers cannot withstand a rapid depletion by recreational hunting and trapping without danger of being relisted as threatened or endangered, and depleting numbers of wolves will upset the ecological balance between predator and prey; and ...

WHEREAS: The 2002 Government-to-Government Accord gives Michigan and the twelve Federally Recognized Indian Tribes the right to consultation, which provides the opportunity for tribes to provide input and recommendations on proposed actions to governmental officials responsible for the final decision, and also provides the right to be advised of the rejections (and basis for any such rejections) of such recommendations, and the state of Michigan has yet to provide the tribes the chance for meaningful consultation regarding issues surrounding a 2021 gray wolf hunt; and

WHEREAS: Michigan law already contains adequate means to address and remediate depredation and conflict involving gray wolves; and

WHEREAS: Ma'iingan, the wolf, is our brother. We believe our lives are parallel to one another, a shared destiny, as the wolf and the Ojibwe people have suffered the same fates. What shall happen to one of us shall also happen to the other. Each of us will be feared, respected and misunderstood by the people that later joined the Earth. History has proven that both Ma'iingan and the Ojibwe have lost our lands; we both have been persecuted and pushed close to destruction and hunted for our hair.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Tribal Council formally states their opposition to Michigan Senate Resolution No. 15 and any change in the laws of the State of Michigan by which a 2021 wolf hunting and/or trapping season is allowed.**

Wisconsin wolf hunt: "outright slaughter"

In neighboring Wisconsin, a 2021 wolf hunt already occurred. Unlike Michigan, Wisconsin has a law that mandated that a wolf hunt be conducted as soon as the species was delisted. Despite objections from Native American groups, widespread opposition from the public (a majority of public comments submitted to the Wisconsin Natural resources board opposed the hunt), and legal challenges, Wisconsin approved the hunt after the group Hunter Nation won a legal battle that effectively forced the state to do so. On February 22, the Wisconsin wolf hunt began.

Wisconsin’s DNR set a quota of 119 wolves for the weeklong hunt, but ended the hunt early after 216 wolves -- about 20 percent of the state’s total wolf population -- were killed in just 3 days.

"It was an outright slaughter," said Warren. "Every zone was exceeded. 119 was the quota and they went over it by almost 100 wolves."

Notably, the Wisconsin hunt occurred during the wolf breeding season.

"As a biologist, I would never advocate for having a wolf season during the breeding season. That just doesn’t make any sense," said Gilbert. "They arbitrarily put a hunting season into place. The science was definitely not followed and they did not honor their obligations to talk with the tribes."

Gilbert noted GLIFWC members reported at a recent meeting that half the wolves killed in the Wisconsin hunt were female.

"They were talking about mothers and babies being killed," he added.

SR15 would allow 2021 Michigan wolf hunt

With delisting and the introduction of SR15, Michigan now may implement its own wolf hunt. The Michigan DNR Wolf Management Plan stipulates that hunting and trapping can be used  "as a management tool for addressing conflicts that cannot otherwise be resolved" and recommends "evaluating local situations on a case-by-case basis, and then applying the assistance of hunters and trappers, as prudent to reduce wolf-related risks to acceptable levels."

"If a problem on a farm can’t be resolved in any other way, then we could use hunters on a case by case basis," Warren clarified. "But it wasn’t quite applied that way when we had our only wolf hunt."

In 2013, wolves were temporarily delisted and Michigan held a 45-day wolf hunt during which 23 wolves were killed in the Upper Peninsula. 

"One (wolf) was killed within 5 miles of a farm that last had a depredation in 2011. Three were killed 5 miles from a farm that last had a depredation in 2012," Warren explained. "When there is a depredation it needs to be addressed timely. Killing an animal 5 months after the event is not going to resolve that farmer’s problem."

Although the 2013 hunt was initiated largely because farmers alleged that wolves were killing their livestock, many of the reported wolf depredations were questionable. One farmer, John Koski, accounted for 96 of the total 147 livestock losses that were used to justify the wolf hunt. But later investigations revealed that Koski failed to utilize good animal husbandry practices and did not properly dispose of animal carcasses. Multiple unburied cow carcasses as well as deer limbs were found on Koski’s farms. Koski received thousands of taxpayer dollars and over 2,500 hours of DNR support to help avert wolf attacks. In 2014, Koski was charged with animal cruelty for starving three guard donkeys that were provided to him by the DNR to deter wolf attacks.

Senate Resolution 15 also frames the potential 2021 hunt as a population management tool, saying, "A managed wolf hunt in the state is a viable means of ensuring stable wolf population numbers." But this claim, and several others in the resolution, are not based on science.

Dr. Rolf Peterson, Michigan Tech Research Professor and the principaldic investigator of wolf-moose relations on Isle Royale National Park for 50 years, responded to some of the claims made in SR15.

"Wolf numbers in Michigan have been stable for the past decade, in the absence of significant managed wolf hunts (with the exception of one year)," Peterson said. "It is likely that a managed wolf hunt would actually reduce stability by affecting wolf density, age structure, territorial relationships, and reproductive rate."

SR15 states, "Wolf hunting allows the wolf population to be kept at levels that ensure the overall survival of the animal but limit potential wolf and human conflicts."

Peterson disagreed, saying, "It is contrary to logic that wolf hunting will ensure…survival of the wolf. The 2015 Wolf Management Plan stipulates that the basis for a wolf harvest should be to reduce conflict. There is no indication that that goal was achieved by the one legal hunt held in Michigan several years ago."

SR15 also suggests that there is no need for a statewide public attitude survey or study before initiating a hunt.

Peterson replied, "Worldwide, public attitudes about wolves are one of the most polarizing issues in wildlife management. The stated intent of the Department of Natural Resources is to assess current public attitudes about wolves, which would be an obviously prudent next step. There is no wolf population crisis or pressing human need that would argue toward anything but an informed, measured process."

Dr. Peterson also recommended that interested individuals read the principles of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which is frequently used by states in making wildlife management decisions. Inset photo: Dr. Rolf Peterson (Photo courtesy Michigan Tech University)

Friends of the Land of Keweenaw (FOLK) recently noted in their Spring 2021 Newsletter that they signed a Resolution in Opposition to a Michigan Wolf Hunting/Trapping Season, presented by Nancy Warren to the Michigan DNR and Natural Resources Commission (NRC) in February. FOLK's Annual General Membership Meeting will be held via Zoom from 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Thursday, April 15, with the International Wolf Center in Ely, Minnesota. The program will be "How to live with Wolves."***

At the March 11 meeting of the Michigan Natural Resource Commission (NRC), the commissioners listened to almost two hours of public comment regarding wolf hunting and management. Many of the comments came from hunters and trappers in support of a wolf hunt. These proponents cited a variety reasons for an imminent hunt. Several commenters claimed that wolves are overpopulated, that they are detrimental to the deer herds, that human-wolf conflicts are increasing in Michigan, and that an imminent hunt is necessary to preserve a healthy ecological balance. These claims are not supported by data or scientific studies.

Several commenters voiced opposition to the wolf hunt, noting the positive ecological and economic impacts of wolf populations. Some commenters also advocated for collecting more data and public input before implementing a hunt.

Jeffrey Towner, a resident of Negaunee Township and a wildlife biologist, who served as field supervisor for the North Dakota U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service field office from 2002 to 2014, objected to Senate Resolution 15 calling for a wolf management plan but also calling for a wolf hunt before that plan can be completed and without allowing public input from the people of Michigan.

"There is no credible scientific study I am aware of that indicates a wolf hunt is necessary to the effective management of the gray wolf population of Michigan. Wolves are a keystone species in an ecosystem that serves to improve the fitness of prey populations such as white-tailed deer," Towner said. "Also human-wolf conflicts are extremely rare."

Towner noted DNR Director Daniel Eichinger has said a revised wolf management plan should be completed by June of 2022.

"That is a responsible timeline. There should be no rush to judgment on a wolf hunt," Towner said. "The DNR should be encouraged to carry out their work, including data collection, analysis, public input and informed management decisions."

During the same March 11 NRC meeting, Molly Tamulevich, Michigan State Director of The Humane Society of the United States, also expressed opposition to wolf hunting and trapping as well as her concerns about the Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) being selected to represent conservation groups on the Wolf Management Advisory Commission.

Commenting on the recent wolf hunt in Wisconsin, Tamulevich said, "Michigan truly cannot afford to become the next Wisconsin. Following the delisting decision, our DNR stated that before a hunt would even be considered, 'the legal status of wolves should be more permanently settled,' and the agency plans to update the state’s 2015 wolf management plan, hold a public opinion survey and consult with tribal nations. Michigan must hold true to those commitments of transparency, public input, and consulting sound science."

Tamulevich added, "Allowing wolf hunting and trapping at any level has dire consequences like destroying pack structure and leaving yearling pups to starve."

As for the MUCC, Tamulevich pointed out that they really do not represent conservation groups, since most of their member organizations are hunters and anglers.

"Their website specifically states that they are, 'the foremost power in Michigan protecting the rights to hunt, fish and trap,'" she noted. "There is no reason why this wolf advisory committee should be so disproportionately represented by an organization that has repeatedly stated that its objective is to override the clear mandate of Michigan voters and open a wolf hunting and trapping season in our state."

Warren shared her own comments with NRC committee members, noting there is no scientific basis or need for hunting and trapping wolves in Michigan: "The Michigan DNR has made it clear that before a wolf hunting season will take place, they want to update the Wolf Management Plan using the best available science, conduct a public attitude survey (even though Michigan voters, by an overwhelming majority, said no to a wolf hunt) and consult with the tribes. This resolution (SR15) circumvents the DNR’s planned actions and contradicts the current wolf management plan. There is no scientific need for a wolf hunt. Livestock losses have been extremely low. The population has remained steady for the past 10 years and weather, not wolves, has the greatest impact on deer survival."

Like Tamulevich, Warren also expressed her concerns about the imbalance of representation on the Wolf Management Advisory Commission, since not one wolf organization is represented -- although they were in the past -- and MUCC is essentially a pro-hunting organization.

The members appointed to the present Commission are the following:

Dick Pershinske -- Farm Bureau
Bee Friedlander -- Attorneys for Animals
Miles Falik -- GLIFWC
Amy Trotter -- MUCC
Mike Thorman -- Hunting Dog Federation
Dan Kennedy -- DNR

Warren concluded her UPEC presentation saying, "We need science-based management decisions, not management through legislation based on fear and misinformation."****

Editor's Notes:

* Keweenaw Now guest writer Nicholas Wilson is a Keweenaw resident and free-lance journalist.

** For the full text of the KBIC Resolution, see the Anishinaabek Caucus Facebook page post by Andrea Pierce.

*** Watch for a future announcement on how to access the April 15 FOLK meeting.

**** Click here for a video recording of Nancy Warren's UPEC presentation.

Concerned citizens opposed to SR15 are encouraged to contact State Senator Ed McBroom by phone at (517) 373-7840 or by email via his Web site.

Wolf supporters file suit challenging law intended to undermine will of Michigan voters

Logo courtesy Keep Michigan Wolves Protected.

LANSING -- Keep Michigan Wolves Protected has filed a lawsuit in Lansing in the Michigan Court of Claims to overturn the so-called Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act on the grounds that it violates the state’s constitution. The lawsuit challenges an underhanded legislative effort intended to overturn the result of two 2014 ballot measures through which Michigan voters soundly rejected sport hunting of wolves.

"The proponents of this misleading legislation combined several unrelated issues into the law such as funding for the control of Asian carp and free hunting licenses to members of the active military," said Jill Fritz, director of Keep Michigan Wolves Protected. "It was a cynical and veiled attempt to prevent Michigan voters from having a say on hunting of wolves and other animals."

In November 2014, Michigan voters overwhelmingly rejected two wolf hunting measures, including Proposal 2, which would have transferred authority to open new hunting seasons on protected species such as wolves to the unelected, politically-appointed Natural Resources Commission. Unlike laws enacted by the legislature, decisions of the Commission cannot be overturned by voters. Proposal 2 was rejected in 69 of Michigan’s 83 counties, and in all 15 congressional districts. It received more than 1.8 million "no" votes -- more votes than any statewide candidate who won election.

Title slide for the Oct. 21, 2014, presentation by Nancy Warren, Great Lakes regional director and executive director of the National Wolfwatcher Coalition, at the Finnish American Heritage Center in Hancock. (Keweenaw Now file photo by Allan Baker)*

Tucked in among the many provisions of the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act was language reenacting Proposal 2 if rejected by voters, thereby transferring decision-making authority on important wildlife management issues to a panel of bureaucrats that is not accountable to the public. This purpose of the law was obscured by the law’s proponents in violation of the Michigan constitution.

Fritz said the lawsuit is necessary even though in December 2014, the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., reinstated protection of Great Lakes wolves under the Endangered Species Act, a decision resulting in a current ban on wolf hunting and trapping in Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

"Some members of Congress are attempting a forced delisting of wolves and renewed hunting and trapping. It’s important to prevent the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act from taking effect so the decisions made by Michigan voters are honored once and for all, and that wolves remain protected. This unconstitutional law also gives the Natural Resources Commission unilateral authority over many protected species -- not just wolves," said Fritz.

The proponents of the misleadingly named Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act include the same politicians and state officials who exaggerated and even fabricated stories about wolf encounters with people in Michigan in order to justify opening a wolf hunting and trapping season. Nearly two-thirds of all wolf incidents in the U.P. occurred on a single farm, where the farmer baited wolves with cattle and deer carcasses.**

This goes much further than wolves -- it’s a power grab by politicians to eliminate public participation in decisions relating to wildlife management. As a result of overreaching and unconstitutional law, new hunting seasons on sandhill cranes and other vulnerable and protected species could be created -- and Michigan citizens would be powerless to reject such action.

FACTS:

• In December 2012, the Michigan legislature passed a wolf-hunting law (Public Act 520 of 2012) that was approved during the 2012 lame duck session and was based on fabricated stories about wolf incidents in the U.P. 
• In March 2013, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected submitted more than 255,000 signatures to place Public Act 520 on the November 2014 ballot. This halted implementation of the law pending voter approval or disapproval.
• In May 2013, the Michigan legislature, ignoring the people, passed a second law (Public Act 21 of 2013) to give the political appointees on the Natural Resources Commission the power to designate game species and thereby effectively eliminate citizens’ right to vote on important wildlife management issues.
• In March 2014, Keep Michigan Protected submitted more than 225,000 signatures to place Public Act 21 on the November 2014 ballot. This halted implementation of the law pending voter approval or disapproval.
• In August 2014, the Michigan legislature approved the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act to prospectively reenact Public Act 520 and Public Act 21 in the event that voters rejected these laws in the November 2014 election.
• Public Act 520 and Public Act 21 were placed on the November 2014 ballot, as Proposal 1 and Proposal 2, respectively. Voters repealed Proposal 1 (moving the wolf to the game species list) with a 55 percent "no" vote, and they defeated Proposal 2 (giving the unaccountable NRC the authority to decide which species can be hunted), with a 64 percent "no" vote.

Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, The Humane Society of the United States, Detroit Zoo, Detroit Audubon Society, the Sault Sainte Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians and others have petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to downlist the wolf from endangered to threatened status. This would retain protections for wolves, which Michigan voters said they want, but also allow more flexibility in dealing with the occasional problem wolf that threatens livestock.

Editor's Notes:

* See our Nov. 2, 2014, report on the presentation by Nancy Warren,Great Lakes regional director and executive director of the National Wolfwatcher Coalition, "Video report: Wolf hunt based on politics, not science -- why vote "NO" on Proposals 1 and 2."

** Click here to read about wolf incidents at this farm with poor animal husbandry practices.

Guest article: The case against Props 1 and 2

On Nov. 4, 2014, voters in Michigan will have the opportunity to vote NO on Proposal 1 and Proposal 2 to end the needless wolf hunt and restore Michiganders' right to have a say on wildlife policy. (Photo of wolf courtesy Keep Michigan Wolves Protected) 

By Jill Fritz, Director of Keep Michigan Wolves Protected*
Published in the Lansing State Journal on Oct. 18, 2014
Reprinted here with author's permission.

This November, Michigan voters will find two referendum proposals that, if passed, would strip voting rights and declare a trophy hunting season on wolves. But, we’re confident that when Michiganders review the facts carefully, they’ll say "no" to the trophy hunting of wolves and "no" to this power grab to take away their voting rights.

Proposal 1 would designate gray wolves as a game species and allow a hunting and trapping season on them. There are fewer than 650 wolves in Michigan, and they’ve just come off the endangered species list. After being shot, trapped and poisoned nearly to the brink of extinction, the wolf has been protected in Michigan for almost 50 years. But they’re still recovering. Since their protected status was removed in 2012, more than 1,000 wolves have already been killed in aggressive hunting and trapping seasons in the Great Lakes states.

Responsible hunters eat what they kill, and nobody eats wolves. The use of painful steel-jawed leghold traps, hunting over bait and even using packs of dogs to chase down and kill wolves all may be in store for Michigan’s wolves if Proposal 1 is approved. Let’s not let that happen.

Politicians and state officials exaggerated and even fabricated stories about wolf encounters with people in Michigan to justify opening a wolf hunting and trapping season. Nearly two-thirds of all wolf incidents in the U.P. occurred on a single farm, where the farmer baited wolves with cattle and deer carcasses. And genuine threats to human safety by wolves are extremely rare -- stories of wolves stalking U.P. residents have independently been exposed as false -- and no physical attack has ever occurred in Michigan.

Wolves already are effectively managed in Michigan. It’s already legal to kill wolves when they threaten livestock, pets, or human safety. Non-lethal measures, including guard donkeys, dogs and fencing, have also been effective. All told, even before Michigan’s first wolf hunt began last fall, wolf/livestock conflicts in the U.P. had reduced by more than 80 percent. Simply put, there is no scientific justification to hunt wolves to address conflicts. A hunt would be driven by a desire for a trophy, or out of fear or hatred. There is nothing scientific about that.

Proposal 2 would grant the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) the power to designate wolves and other animals as game species to be hunted, without legislative approval. The members of the Natural Resources Commission are not scientists or experts -- they are political appointees, unaccountable to the public. In a contemptuous move to circumvent a public vote, the Legislature passed this law, giving the unelected NRC unprecedented power to open new hunting and trapping seasons on wolves and almost any other protected species. If Proposal 2 is approved, the NRC can make decisions without any input from citizens. There is no referendum process when it comes to the NRC’s decisions.

A group calling itself "Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management" -- backed by trophy hunting, hounding and trapping lobby groups and businesses -- submitted an initiative that was rubber-stampeded by the Legislature to circumvent the public’s right to vote. This law is unconstitutional and we plan to pursue legal action to strike it down, ensuring that wolves remain protected and that voters keep their constitutional rights. Michigan lawmakers have voted for wolf hunting three times in the last two years, and Michigan residents have twice stopped these laws by placing the referendums on the ballot. Now, voters can demonstrate the importance of maintaining checks and balances on wildlife management matters by voting "no" on Proposals 1 and 2.

Wolves are safe from a hunt this year, but it is imperative that Michigan residents reject the two referenda with "no" votes. Between now and Nov. 4, there will be a lot of rhetoric and fear tactics designed to confuse voters. We trust that the people of Michigan will sift through it all and reject Proposals 1 and 2.

The voters of Michigan should have their voices heard on whether our state’s fragile wolf population of 650 is needlessly hunted. The wildlife of our state belong to all of us. Facts -- not fear, anger and hatred -- should dictate proper wolf management. Our task is to win the ballot measures for November, to save the lives of wolves in Michigan and restore rights of voters to weigh in on wildlife decisions.

Vote "no" on Proposals 1 and 2.

*Editor's Note: Guest author Jill Fritz is also Michigan Senior State Director, The Humane Society of the United States.

Guest article: Why all the howling?

By Nancy Warren, Executive Director and Great Lakes Regional Director, National Wolfwatcher Coalition

Photo of wolf courtesy wolfwatcher.org. Reprinted with permission.

The wolf is neither saint nor villain. It is simply an animal that inhabits Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and fills a valuable niche in the ecosystem. Should wolves be a hunted game species? Should Michigan residents have a voice in wildlife decisions? Will Michigan voters be allowed to decide?

Based on last winter’s population survey, there are an estimated 658 wolves spread across the U.P. There has not been one credible human threat by wolves in Michigan. In 2013, only 13 individual livestock animals were verified to have been killed by wolves, and each of these producers was reimbursed the fair market value of their losses. Of the approximately 900 working farms in the U.P., only  10 experienced a confirmed livestock loss to wolves.

Since federal delisting of wolves in January 2012, livestock and pet owners in Michigan are permitted to kill any wolf in the act of attacking their animals. Further, when there is a confirmed wolf attack, the Department of Natural Resources issues a permit to landowners allowing them to kill any wolf on their property. In 2013, 11 wolves were killed in control actions by government officials and private citizens.

In December 2012, Public Act 520 was signed into law adding the wolf to Michigan’s list of game species. The Michigan  Constitution affords citizens the right to challenge newly-enacted laws through the veto referendum process, so a coalition of Michigan wolf advocates exercised their right to do just that and gathered more than 250,000 signatures of registered voters calling for a referendum on the issue in the November 2014 general election.

Upper Peninsula wolf. (Photo courtesy Nancy Warren, National Wolfwatcher Coalition)

But in an appalling response to this strong citizen opposition to designating the wolf a game species, the Legislature quickly passed, and Gov. Rick Snyder signed, Public Act 21 of 2013, authorizing the state’s Natural Resources Commission (NRC) to designate almost any species as game. The NRC, which is a politically-appointed body with strong ties to those who support the hunting of wolves for recreation, quickly designated the wolf as game and authorized a wolf hunting season for November 2013. Decisions of the NRC cannot be challenged by the public. P.A. 21 is a blatant attempt to silence the voices of Michigan  residents and it takes away the rights of citizens to challenge game designation decisions.

But citizens responded by conducting a second referendum petition challenging P.A. 21, which is currently underway.*

The purpose of these two referendums is clear: one challenges whether wolves should be a game species, and the other challenges the authority of the NRC to designate new species as game and restores the right of citizens to challenge wildlife laws enacted through legislation.

Neither referendum affects any species, designated as game, other than the wolf. And let me be clear: These two referendums do not impact anyone’s right to hunt deer, bear, waterfowl or any other species currently hunted or trapped, and they have no impact on any hunting, trapping or fishing regulations currently in place. They are referendums to overturn those two newly-enacted laws. Period.

The referendums also have no bearing on the state’s existing ability to manage problem wolves. Absent a wolf hunting season, producers will still be reimbursed for any livestock losses verified to have been killed by wolves. Producers and dog owners will still be able to kill, without a permit, any wolf that is in the act of attacking their livestock or pet. And livestock producers and dog owners will still be issued permits to kill any wolf on their property following a confirmed loss by wolves.

There is a lot of misinformation and fear-mongering being propagated by groups trying to counteract these two referendums. Get the facts about wolves and the truth about the Keep Michigan Wolves Protected campaign at www.keepwolvesprotected.com.

Inset photo: Nancy Warren. (File photo by Allan Baker for Keweenaw Now)

* Editor's Note: See our Aug. 25, 2013, article, "Wolf advocates kick off second petition drive, seek referendum on Michigan wolf hunt law," with video clips of Nancy Warren's testimonies concerning the facts about the wolf issue in Michigan.

Letter: Restore our right to vote on wildlife management issues

Dear Editor:

I sure am having a hard time understanding how people can object to the participation of an animal protection group in Michigan's wolf hunt issue, while at the same time endorsing the involvement of large, avid pro-hunting groups such as Safari Club International, U.P. Whitetails, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. This is neither fair nor logical.

For argument's sake, let's pretend we can eliminate all organizations from lobbying for or against the hunt. What would we have left?

Individuals, of course! Voters!

What started as a disagreement over how to handle wolves in Michigan has turned into something even more serious than the fate of a single species. Misled by Senator Casperson -- our state Legislature, Governor, DNR, and Natural Resources Commission have terminated the right of Michigan voters to challenge wildlife management decisions. Groups supporting the recreational hunting/trapping of wolves have organized themselves into a coalition that aims to make this permanent, claiming their right to hunt is being threatened, but by whom? Voters?

Opposition to the wolf hunt, both in Michigan and elsewhere, does not come solely from animal or wildlife protection groups. On the contrary, it includes individual wildlife watchers, deer hunters, Native American tribes (whose culture, incidentally, is based on hunting), and some of the country's leading wolf experts. Others have joined in as they've seen the process politicized, corrupted, and based on incorrect information.

Hyperbole and scare tactics have no place in this debate. This is not about taking away your right to hunt and fish, or removing science from wildlife management. The issue here is that many people believe that it is currently neither necessary nor appropriate to hunt wolves in Michigan.

Repealing PA 21 will restore our right to vote on wildlife management issues. Put it on the ballot.

Catherine Parker
Marquette

DNR reviewing land transaction application for state forest for potential limestone mine in Mackinac County

LANSING -- The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has received a land transaction application outlining a proposal by Graymont, Inc., seeking to acquire more than 10,000 acres of state-managed forest in northern Mackinac County near the town of Rexton for the purpose of developing a limestone mine.

The proposal includes the acquisition of approximately 7,820 acres for an underground mine; approximately 1,780 acres for two separate surface mines; and an option to purchase 840 acres for the potential development of a limestone processing plant.

It also includes the DNR retaining a state-managed surface easement on the underground mine portion (with the exception of 1,500 acres that will be used for mine support infrastructure) so that the property continues to be managed for timber resources and open for public recreational uses such as hunting, fishing, hiking, snowmobiling and wildlife viewing.

"In the coming weeks, the DNR will process the application and it will be reviewed following standard DNR policy and procedure," said Kerry Wieber, forest land administrator with the DNR’s Forest Resources Division (FRD). "The procedure entails the review of the proposal by staff at multiple levels in each of the resource-managing divisions within the DNR -- including Forest Resources, Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks and Recreation.

"The process is detailed, and feedback from the public is a critical component of the review process and will be taken into consideration before any decisions are made," Wieber added.

A review of the application will also be conducted by the DNR's Minerals Management. As a result of this review, staff will make a recommendation to DNR Director Keith Creagh, who has the authority to make a final decision on the proposal. Creagh will make his decision at a future Natural Resources Commission meeting.

The DNR notes that approval of the sale would not necessarily mean approval of mining. Any mining proposal from Graymont will have to go through regulatory review by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

Wieber said that because public input is so important, there are multiple ways people can provide comments about the proposal.

The public will have an opportunity to make comments at an upcoming Natural Resources Commission meeting. Additionally, the DNR will host a public meeting to discuss the proposal and recommendation prior to the director's decision and has also established an email address in order to allow ample opportunity for the public to comment. Interested parties may also provide comments to DNR-GraymontProposalComments@michigan.gov. Comments will be accepted until a final decision is made.

For more information about how the DNR manages Michigan’s state forest land, visit www.michigan.gov/forestplan.

Click here for more info on the Graymont proposal.

National Wolfwatcher Coalition: State officials ignore, destroy comments opposing Michigan wolf hunt

Photo of wolves courtesy Wolfwatcher.org. Reprinted with permission.

EWEN, MICH. -- The National Wolfwatcher Coalition was shocked to learn that the Michigan Natural Resources Commission (NRC) disregarded public input prior to deciding the rules and regulations for this year’s wolf hunt, which begins tomorrow, Friday, Nov. 15. This is in sharp contrast to other recent wildlife decisions which have been swayed by public opinion.

DNR officials admit to having never categorized the thousands of comments received.  Many were never even opened. Through a Freedom of Information request (FOIA), the National Wolfwatcher Coalition obtained the comments. They gathered a pool of volunteers and after deleting all duplicates sorted through 4,904 comments.

"Every way we looked at it, there was strong opposition to the wolf hunt," says Nancy Warren, National Wolfwatcher Coalition Great Lakes regional director. Over 3,600 comments opposing the hunt came from other states and even foreign countries, "so, we honed in just on Michigan residents," Warren adds.

Photo insert: Nancy Warren. (File photo by Allan Baker for Keweenaw Now)

1,206 Michigan residents expressed opposition to the wolf hunt or aspects of it (99 percent) and only 13 Michigan residents wrote comments expressing support for the wolf hunt.

"Many individuals who we knew had submitted comments asking for a delay in the hunt were not shown in the database, so we dug further," Warren explained.

Buried among the messages was one in which J.R. Richardson, NRC Chairman, admitted to destroying thousands of comments prior to their becoming part of public record. There was also an email from Adam Bump, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) bear and furbearer specialist, who instructed a DNR employee to place the comments in a "shred" folder -- which is a type of delete file that cannot be recovered.

"We will never know how many individuals submitted personal comments," Warren notes, "but we know that in their rush to push through the wolf hunt, the basic principles of democracy were ignored."*

The National Wolfwatcher Coalition is an all-volunteer, nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting positive attitudes about wolves through education. This nationwide organization represents not only Michigan residents but others who recreate in the state and purchase Michigan products.

*Editor's Notes:
See "Guest column: Is Michigan's wolf hunt necessary?" by Nancy Warren, published this morning, Nov. 14, 2013, on MLive. In this article, Warren gives details on wolf depredations in Michigan and how they have been handled through wolf management without a wolf hunt.

On Nov. 11, 2013, the Center for Biological Diversity, a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 20,000 Michigan members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places, sent a letter to Michigan Governor Rick Snyder and DNR Director Keith Creagh concerning these same incidents in which comments from their supporters opposing the wolf hunt were destroyed. They refer to the facts reported by MLive's John Barnes in his article, "Crying wolf: Michigan's first hunt heavily influenced by outside interests; follow the money," Michigan Live (Nov. 6, 2011).

In the letter to state officials, Collette L. Adkins Giese, Center for Biological Diversity staff attorney, writes, "Wolves are a public natural resource and the public deserves a voice in how Michigan wolves are managed. We are very disappointed that comments from our members and supporters appear to have been disregarded by Michigan state officials. We would appreciate a response from you."

Letter: Support petition drive for referendum on PA 21 and wolf hunt

Photo of wolf courtesy wolfwatcher.org. Reprinted with permission.

Please support the petition drive to help repeal Public Act 21.

It’s not just about the wolves. Passage of PA 21 means that Michigan voters can no longer appeal the naming of any animal as a game species, a right we’d held since 1908. How did we get to this point?

In December 2012, the Michigan legislature enacted PA 520 designating the wolf as a game animal and authorized the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) to establish a wolf hunt. More than 255,000 signatures were collected from citizens opposed to the hunt and were submitted in March of this year, earning PA 520 a place on the November 2014 ballot. This also meant there could be no wolf hunt before the votes were in.

Senator Tom Casperson introduced SB 288 in April, crafting a bill that would allow the Natural Resources Commission, in addition to the legislature, to add animals to the list of game species. As a politically appointed, regulatory body, NRC’s decisions cannot be subjected to a referendum. Governor Snyder signed SB 288, now known as PA 21, into law on May 8, enabling the NRC to reinstate the hunt, which they have done.

The citizens of Michigan have a constitutional right to challenge any recently passed legislation, with the exception of instances where the attached appropriations are vital to the functioning of our state government. The escalating use of appropriations to subvert the ability of citizens to utilize this important system of checks and balances, with notable examples being the Emergency Financial Manager and Right-to-Work laws, is a huge concern.

With the introduction of SB288/PA 21, Casperson found yet another way to undermine democracy. He said he did it to protect Michigan citizens from special interest groups like the Humane Society and to ensure that the people of the Upper Peninsula are heard. He neglected to mention that groups like Safari International lobbied for a wolf hunt, and that he has effectively silenced the voices of the more than 255,000 Michigan residents who signed the petition to subject PA 520 to referendum.

Our choices now are to lie down and take it, or dust ourselves off and fight for our right to vote on wildlife management issues. Repealing PA 21 and PA 520 will restore that right.  What we cannot do is repeal the current wolf hunt so speedily established by the NRC.  There will be wolves killed in Michigan this fall. Whether or not you think wolves should be "harvested," this is an outrage. And with their new found authority, we can expect the NRC to add the sandhill crane and possibly lynx to the list of game species to be hunted.

During First Friday events in Calumet on Sept. 6, 2013, Diane Miller, left, collects signatures on the petition for a referendum on PA 21 -- the second petition drive to allow Michigan voters to decide whether a wolf should be a game species. Signing the petition on Fifth Street in Calumet are, from left, Nancy Sprague, Bill Sewell and Oren Tikkanen. See below to learn how you can sign the petition. (Photo by Keweenaw Now)

The repeal of PA 520 will be on the November 2014 ballot and the petition drive to repeal PA 21 is underway. To learn more about the current campaign, go to http://keepwolvesprotected.com/. If you wish to help by gathering signatures, click on  Gather Signatures so you can obtain petition sheets. It is not necessary to write a letter of endorsement. If you are in the Marquette area and wish to sign the petition, please email me at brinkleycourt@yahoo.com. You just need to be a Michigan voter to sign it.

Catherine Parker
Marquette, Michigan

Editor's Notes:

Several people in the local area are collecting signatures for the petition on PA 21. You may contact Diane Miller in the Houghton / Hancock area by calling her at 906-370-1069 and she will arrange to help you sign the petition. She will also be at the Parade of Nations on Sept. 14 collecting signatures from Michigan voters.

UPDATE: In addition, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected will have a table during the Parade of Nations events at the Dee Stadium from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Saturday, Sept. 14, for Michigan voters who wish to sign the petition there.

Chris Alquist, who works in the Portage Lake District Library in Houghton, also has petition sheets you  may request to sign in the library.

In the Marquette area, Jackie Winkowski of Gwinn, Great Lakes advisor for Wolfwatcher, is also collecting signatures. You may email her at jwsnowyplains@yahoo.com.

Other petition gathering events are listed on the Keep Michigan Wolves Protected Web site. Click here to find an event near you.

UPDATE: Anyone interested in signing a petition personally can request a petition form via U.S. mail by emailing katie@keepwolvesprotected.com, or call KMWP at 517-993-5201.

UPDATE: Charlotte Loonsfoot of KBIC is now collecting petition signatures in Baraga. You can call her at 906-235-4220 and she will arrange for you to sign it.

Jackie Winkowski has written a letter to the editor on this issue, published in the September 2013 Marquette Monthly. She gives more details on the reasons for the petition drive. Click here and scroll down to read her letter under City Notes.

See also our Aug. 25, 2013, article, "Wolf advocates kick off second petition drive, seek referendum on Michigan wolf hunt law."

Visit wolfwatcher.org for more information and articles on wolf protection.

National Wolfwatcher Coalition: Michigan DNR lacks transparency, ignores public opinion on wolf harvest

By Michele Bourdieu

Photo of wolves courtesy Wolfwatcher.org.

LANSING -- Nancy Warren, National Wolfwatcher Coalition Great Lakes Regional director, made the trip from Ewen, Mich., down to Lansing for the July 11, 2013, meeting of the Natural Resources Commission (NRC). On their agenda, for the second time, was the question of a public harvest of wolves. In May the commission approved a wolf hunt under Public Act 520 of 2012; but that decision was suspended because of the approval of a statewide referendum on PA 520 -- petitioned by more than 250,000 Michigan voters.

At the July 11 meeting the NRC voted under a new law, Public Act 21, which gives the NRC authority to name an animal (including the wolf) a game species.

Before the vote, Warren presented to the NRC the National Wolfwatcher Coalition position in a statement that is now posted on wolfwatcher.org.* The statement addresses the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Wildlife Order 13 and Wildlife Order 14 -- Designation of Wolf as Game and Wolf Regulations.**

"The National Wolfwatcher Coalition supports the management of wolves when sound scientific methods are used," Warren's statement/letter begins. "We support non-lethal measures to manage wolf conflicts and the lethal removal of wolves when non-lethal methods fail despite the best efforts of producers to follow good animal husbandry practices."

Warren points out specific statements in the Michigan Wolf Management Plan that call for educating the public about wolf-related conflicts. She quotes the Plan as saying, "'Providing prompt and professional responses to information requests is one way to increase individual understanding, dispel misconceptions, and generate support for wolf management efforts.'"

Noting some of her own experiences in trying to obtain information from the DNR and high fees she was charged for FOIA requests as well as the DNR's blatant refusals to release information, Warren continues, "However now that politics and lobbying groups have largely replaced science, we are seeing a renewed lack of transparency within the DNR. Requests for information are now being stonewalled. The public is being charged excessive fees for information that is in the public’s interest to know. It appears the delays are a deliberate attempt to withhold information because if the truth was known, the DNR could not justify a hunting season as proposed. How many verified livestock depredations have there been since lethal control was implemented? How many verified wolf complaints that meet the standard of human safety concerns have there been since the eight wolves were removed in Ironwood Township? What are the Michigan Nuisance Wolf Management Guidelines? We could not obtain the answers prior to this meeting but it seems reasonable to expect the NRC would want this information, too."

Warren added she was finally able -- after much delay and payment of a $58 fee -- to obtain 7000 public comments sent to NRC about the wolf issue.

"Based on a random sample they appear to be overwhelmingly opposed to a wolf hunt," she said.

Still, for the second time, the NRC ignored public opinion and at their July 11 meeting took action to name the wolf a game species in the state and approve a limited public wolf harvest in three distinct regions of Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

"Public Act 21 affirms the critical importance of managing natural resources in Michigan on the firm foundation of science," said Natural Resources Commission Chair J.R. Richardson on July 11. "Today's decision supports ongoing scientific management of wolves, just as voters intended when by an overwhelming margin they approved Proposal G in 1996. Managing wildlife through science is far better than managing wildlife through ballot questions, which some organizations support for Michigan. The conservative public harvest proposal approved by the NRC ensures the long-term presence of wolves while providing a valuable tool for managing conflicts between wolves and human populations."

According to the July 11, 2013, DNR press release on the NRC decision, "the regulations establish a limited target harvest of a total of 43 wolves in three areas of the Upper Peninsula where wolf-human conflicts -- including depredation of livestock and pets and human safety concerns -- have been persistent despite employing a number of control measures."***

In her statement to the NRC, Warren notes many unanswered questions about the DNR claims of depredation and human safety concerns.*

Warren told Keweenaw Now she found the NRC decision "very disappointing." Nevertheless, she noted the Michigan Board of State Canvassers has approved the language of a second petition form -- this one seeking a referendum on PA 21.

The DNR Western Upper Peninsula Citizens Advisory Council will meet at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, July 15, at Cloverland Community Center, 102 S. Cedar Street in Ewen, Michigan. Click here for the agenda, which includes public comment as well as a wolf bill update from the DNR Wildlife Division.

Notes:

* Click here to read Nancy Warren's July 11 statement to the NRC.
** Click here for Wildlife Order 14: Wolf Regulations as Game Species.
*** Click here for the DNR's July 11 press release on the NRC decision.

OPINION: More on wolf regulations

By Jack Parker *

The original title of this article was simply "MORON wolf regulations," but the Editor considered that to be indelicate so we modified it, thus illustrating the Power of the Press.

That original title wasn’t a typo. Just a spontaneous comment.

But first here’s a thank you for Nancy Warren and her tireless efforts to keep us informed about wolves and the attempts to "manage" them. Her latest contribution in Keweenaw Now, concerning the wolf depredations described in a Detroit Free Press article that is no longer available on line, should pave the way to better legislation. At the same time I thank her for bringing to us Rory Linnane’s similar observations from the Wisconsin front.**

The time has come, as they used to say, to stop playing this silly political game and to throw the bastards out of office, then to replace them with honest individuals. I will expand upon that proposal very soon -- before they do more damage.

Google, always sniffing the wind, has acknowledged the commercial connections already by inserting an ad on my screen, as follows: "A Thermal Rifle 'Scope for $3995." The connections are that obvious.

I find no fault with Nancy’s opinion but would like to reinforce it. If anything she is too gentle with the brutal facts. I quote from her and the DNR that during the period 2010-2012 48 percent of the UP depredations occurred on one farm, the John Koski farm near Matchwood.

If you can find the report by specialist Brian Roell you will see that the depredations have been going on for years, and DNR knows it and has supported it and, according to Mr Koski, who holds the record, he has had more than 119 cattle killed or injured by wolves in the past three years. Government-paid trappers and shooters "have killed dozens of the wolves." You must agree that lethal measures have done little to discourage the wolves -- explained by a photograph in the FREEP (Detroit Free Press) article showing cattle carcasses left in the field for months -- an obvious invitation to the feast. That is illegal.

I think that you will come away from that report, (which Nancy paid for, thru the DEQ FOIA program) understanding that Brian wrote a good, honest report but that his "superiors" hid it, covered it up -- and used the staged depredations for their own evil political purposes -- to arouse public fears and hatred against the critters -- and to promote wolf hunting. You will see that paying people to shoot wolves did not stop the predation.

So the Koski farm shoots a big hole in the promoters’ arguments. Forty eight percent of them. Not done yet. Another large bunch of complaints, favored especially by Mr. Casperson, came from around Ironwood. The wolves are not to be faulted there either. They were lured into the city by well-meaning folks who fed the deer -- which were followed by their natural predator. I have heard of no tickets for baiting. How many wolves were shot because of those misdeeds? More than a dozen.

Dog depredation, incorrectly reported to have taken place "in Atlantic Mine," was the other big headline. However, very little was said about two of the dogs running loose in wolf habitat.

That’s enough for now, I think. It serves to illustrate the lying tactics used to support the plans of the wolf hunters and those who would exploit and profit by it -- and the fact that they are not suited for public office.

Next I would like to examine how much expertise has gone into Michigan wolf management. The legislators, from the governor on down, wouldn’t know a wolf for sure if attacked by a large sharp-eared, bushy-tailed canine, and are far from familiar with world-wide research literature. Am sure that a four-hour written test could be arranged before hiring. A good place to start would be the NRC (Natural Resources Commission) -- a seven-piece sample. A sample question: How many Michigan wolves are killed illegally every year? Don’t forget those which were targeted after Mr K failed to protect his cattle.

Surely we should also examine the mind set of persons who kill for fun, such as those who consider that baiting and trapping followed by gang-style execution constitutes "sport." They should be locked up. That will come later.

Editor's Notes:

 * Keweenaw Now guest author Jack Parker is from Toivola, Michigan.

** This article is a commentary on our June 27, 2013, article, "Opinion: Nearly half of wolf depredations attributed to one farm with poor animal husbandry practices," by Nancy Warren, National Wolfwatcher Coalition Great Lakes regional director.

Opinion: Nearly half of wolf depredations attributed to one farm with poor animal husbandry practices

By Nancy Warren, Great Lakes Regional Director
National Wolfwatcher Coalition 

Photo of wolf courtesy WolfWatcher.org. Reprinted with permission.

EWEN, Mich. -- According to DNR (Department of Natural Resources) records, for the period 2010-2012, 48 percent of wolf depredations occurred on one farm. This farm, the
Koski farm, is located in Wolf Management Unit B where DNR has proposed 19 wolves be taken through a hunting season. The primary objective given by DNR for this unit is to reduce the number of chronic livestock depredations.

The justification states, "Despite the extensive management responses in this area, livestock depredations have continued."

Over time, we have argued that many of the problems at the Koski farm were due to poor animal husbandry practices.

Most recently, in our comments to the NRC (Natural Resources Commission) dated June 13, 2013, we stated, "Wolf Management Units -- We have repeatedly asked for the data to support the need for a wolf hunting season. Specifically, how many verified wolf complaints have been received since lethal measures were taken to  remove  problem wolves?  One producer, with a history of poor animal husbandry practices and nearly 50 percent of all depredations should not be used as justification for a hunting season."

According to a Feb. 4, 2013, DNR report obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, in an attempt to reduce depredations through non-lethal means, DNR provided Mr. Koski with three donkeys at a cost of $1650. Two of those donkeys died while in Mr. Koski’s care. The third donkey, removed Feb. 1, 2013, was in very poor body condition.

The report states, "This animal was very weak and likely dehydrated since there is no water provided to the livestock."

In addition, the report notes there is a $882 vet bill for the trimming of hooves. Mr. Koski was also provided $1315.73 of fencing material, which is now gone.

The Detroit Free Press in its May 19, 2013, edition published an article with the headline, "MI UP: War over wolves: U.P. residents say hunt will control a killer."  (The article has since been taken off the Free Press website along with a photo showing a pile of carcasses under a blanket which Mr. Koski claimed were the latest casualties in his ongoing war with wolves. However, this was an unsubstantiated claim, since DNR stated it was never verified that the animals were killed by wolves.)

The Free Press article mentions Koski's wolf depredation problem but does not describe his neglect of his own animals, as reported by the DNR.

The article does say, "Government-paid sharpshooters and trappers for years have killed dozens of the wolves who’ve taken a liking to Koski’s cattle."

The article also quotes John Vucetich, Michigan Tech associate professor of wildlife ecology and co-director of the Isle Royale Wolf-Moose Study, as follows: "'It’s dubious to say we’re going to take a county or a portion of a county and we’re going to remove 10, 20, 30 wolves and resolve a livestock depredation issue,' [Vucetich] said. 'These wolves are territorial, and they are going to keep other wolves away. They are like the landlords. The thing you can hope for is to train the wolves not to harm livestock in the area. But if you are shooting these wolves, the pack gets disrupted, the wolves get dispersed, and other wolves come in. There’s a good chance you can make things worse.'"

The Bodies of Dead Animals Act, Public Act 239 of 1982, as amended, establishes guidelines for the proper disposal of dead animals, to protect human, animal and environmental health.

It states, "In general, all dead animals must be disposed of within 24 hours after death."

Although the DNR report is dated Feb. 4, 2013, it is apparent the problem with dead animals was continuing when the reporter visited the Koski farm in mid-May.

Editor's Notes:

 Click here to read the minutes of the May 9, 2013, meeting of the Michigan Natural Resources Commission (NRC). The meeting includes extensive comments from the public (many opposed to the wolf hunt) and the NRC discussion and approval of the proposed wolf hunting season. The public comments include the testimony from Roger LaBine, chairman of the conservation committee of the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, who, according to the Free Press article, "traveled nearly seven hours to the Natural Resources Commission’s May 9 meeting in Roscommon, urging the commission not to approve a wolf hunt just before they did."

Nancy Warren, author of this article, also reports that the Natural Resources Commission (NRC), at their June meeting, reviewed Wildlife Conservation Order 13, which designates the wolf a game animal, and Wildlife Order 14, which outlines the rules and regulations for a wolf hunt. The NRC will vote on these two Orders at their July 11, 2013, meeting. To implement the law (in this case, PA 21), DNR needs to create a Wildlife Order giving their recommendations. Click here for Wildlife Order 14.

Natural Resources Commission to meet May 8-9 in Roscommon; meeting to precede vote on wolf harvest

LANSING -- The Michigan Natural Resources Commission (NRC) will hold its regular monthly meeting over two days -- Wednesday and Thursday, May 8-9, at the Ralph A. MacMullan (RAM) Conference Center, 104 Conservation Drive, in Roscommon.

Wednesday’s session begins at noon in the Au Sable Room with a meeting of the Policy Committee on Wildlife and Fisheries. The meeting will be devoted entirely to a proposal for a public harvest of wolves in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. The committee will receive information in preparation for a Thursday vote of the full commission on a wolf harvest. The committee will hear presentations from the Wisconsin and Minnesota departments of natural resources.

Following the presentations, the committee will consider written testimony from outside experts.

Thursday begins in the Manistee Room with a 9 a.m. meeting of the State Parks Advisory Committee. The committee will receive an overview of the committee’s task force retreat; review the draft land management plan; receive reports on Recreation Passport research, the new central reservation system vendor and the Globe Building project; and hear an update from Parks and Recreation Division.

At 10 a.m. in the Au Sable Room, the Policy Committee on Wildlife and Fisheries will receive updates on Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Fisheries and Wildlife divisions’ activities, discuss furbearer and deer regulations, and receive reports on cormorants and moose.

At 2 p.m., the new Harry H. Whiteley Conservation Education Building on the RAM Center grounds will be dedicated.

The Committee of the Whole meets back in the Au Sable Room at 3 p.m., starting with DNR Director Keith Creagh’s report, followed by a legislative update.

Immediately following the Committee of the Whole, the NRC will hear comments from the public. Those wishing to make public comments before the NRC should contact Deb Whipple, executive assistant to the NRC, at 517-373-2352 or whippled1@michigan.gov to register.

Following public comments, the NRC is scheduled to approve regulations for Deer Management Assistance permits, the Hunting Access Program, fall turkey regulations and quotas, and wolf regulations and quotas.

There is one land transaction that is eligible for director’s action.

For more information about the Natural Resources Commission, including full agendas and meeting minutes, visit www.michigan.gov/nrc.

Scientists, wildlife advocates ask legislators to consider science in wolf management

By Michele Bourdieu

Rolf Peterson, Michigan Tech professor emeritus of wildlife ecology, co-director of the Isle Royale wolf-moose study, and internationally known expert on wolves, presents "The Wolves of Isle Royale" during the 2010 "Celebrate the U.P.," in Marquette, sponsored by the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition (UPEC). Peterson says Michigan legislators need to pay attention to science in managing wolves. (Keweenaw Now file photo)

MARQUETTE, HOUGHTON -- According to an April 26, 2013, article on Great Lakes Radio News (WKQS FM, Sunny 101.9), the amended version of SB 288 that passed the
Michigan House last week did not include the controversial appropriation that would have disallowed a referendum. A petition signed by more than 250,000 voters against PA 520 -- a December 2012 law making the wolf a game animal -- would not apply to this bill should it become law, but voters could organize a new referendum, the article notes.*

In addition, the Michigan House has now proposed their own version of the bill, HB 4552, which at present still has the appropriations attached. It is not certain when it will come up for discussion in the House Natural Resources Committee.**

Adam Robarge of Marquette, now director of Wildland Guardians -- a Marquette-based grass-roots group advocating for wildlife and wildlife habitat -- was one of the leaders of the petition effort in the Upper Peninsula and attended the April 23 rally in Lansing along with members and supporters of Keep Michigan Wolves Protected and the Humane Society of the U.S.

While in Lansing Robarge spoke with several U.P. legislators in their offices, including 32nd District Rep. Andrea LaFontaine, chair of the Michigan House Committee on Natural Resources; State Sen. Tom Casperson (R-Escanaba), State Rep. John Kivela (D-Marquette); and 110th District Rep. Scott Dianda's aides, Elise Matz and Danielle Stein, about SB288 and HB4552

Robarge will be speaking on the Sunny 101.9 (FM) Morning Show in Marquette at 8 a.m. this morning, Monday, April 29. He will be discussing SB 288/HB 4552 and the idea of citizen participation.

John Vucetich, Michigan Tech associate professor and wildlife ecologist and co-director of the Isle Royale Wolf-Moose Study, spoke at the rally in Lansing on April 23, as Robarge reports in his recent guest editorial on Keweenaw Now.*** A video clip of Vucetich's speech is now available through Drop Box.****

Following an April 18 presentation by Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Director Keith Creagh at Michigan Tech, Keweenaw Now had an opportunity to speak with Rolf Peterson, Michigan Tech professor emeritus and co-director with Vucetich of the Isle Royale Wolf-Moose study. These two wildlife researchers are internationally known for their scientific knowledge about wolves.

On the subject of a wolf hunting season, Peterson said, "I don't see the best science surfacing at the level of legislation."

As for attaching appropriations to these bills to prevent a referendum, he noted, "It's an obvious effort to subvert democracy."

In the past, Peterson explained (when the wolf was a federally protected species) professionals from the U.S. Department of Agriculture would respond to farmers' complaints about wolf depredation. Those federal Wildlife Services were equipped to address that problem immediately, and the response could include lethal control.

"It's been extremely successful," Peterson said of that program.

Since the wolf was removed from federal protection, however, depredation control is under the states, not federal agencies.

Both Peterson and Vucetich have pointed out that wolf depredation is likely to happen in the summer. Control of these problems really can't wait until a hunting season in the fall.

Peterson said he wished legislators would pay attention to this fact and to the previous success of professional Wildlife Services.

He also noted the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) receives funding from taxes on sportsmen's firearms and ammunition -- dispersed to the states based on land and the number of hunters.

"Michigan does well," he said. "It's been an enormously successful model for providing the money for wildlife conservation."

The DNR could pay the bills for Wildlife Services personnel to do the job of wolf depredation control, Peterson noted.

"This hunt is not going to substitute for the previously successful Wildlife Services depredation management," he added. "There are professionals able to respond to this problem."

Concerning the plan for a public wolf hunt, Peterson asked, "How do you plan to assess this hunt to determine whether you've succeeded? Probably depredation will never disappear completely."

Keweenaw Now attempted to interview J. R. Richardson, Natural Resources Commission chair, who was also present at the DNR Director's presentation at Michigan Tech.

Richardson, however, did not appear willing to answer questions about wolves. Instead he provided a written statement -- dated April 11, 2013 -- on a DNR plan for a public harvest of wolves in Michigan.

Here is an excerpt from his statement, commenting on a recent proposal from the DNR for a public harvest of wolves:

"The Natural Resources Commission takes seriously its obligations under the law to determine the method and manner of take for game species in the state, including the wolf. This (DNR) proposal is a good starting point for commission conversation. The commission will review the proposal and seek expert advice from inside and outside the department to determine what would be best for the people of the state and for the wolf population and other wildlife populations in Michigan.

"Consistent with the legal authorities vested in the commission that assure scientific game management, this proposal sets the framework for an initial wolf season and allows for the long-term viability of Michigan's wolf population."*****

* See "Wolf Hunt Legislation Passes in Senate with Major Changes."
** Click here to read about HB 4552. Click here for SB 288.
*** See "Guest editorial: There and Back, Again."
**** To access the videos of the rally, click here and sign in to Drop Box. The videos are courtesy Kent County Water Conservation.
***** Click here for the DNR's April 2, 2013, Memorandum to the Natural Resources Commission on Wolf Regulations and Wildlife Conservation Order Amendment No. 6 of 2013.

UPDATE: Click here for the DNR's summary of questions and answers from four public meetings they held in March 2013 across the state to provide information on the potential public harvest of wolves in Michigan and to gather input on the issue.