Guest article: Michigan's latest 2022 Wolf Management Plan

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

Western Upper Peninsula wolf. Note the collar and red ear tag in right ear indicating she was collared in Michigan. Click on photo for larger version.

In order to understand the latest updated Wolf Management Plan for Michigan, you may wish to review these Fast Facts:

• Federal protections, under the Endangered Species Act, were restored on February 10, 2022, for wolves in most of the US, including Michigan. Wolves in those states covered by the court order cannot be killed for any reason except defense of human life.
  
  
• In 2011, wolves in Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon and Utah lost their federal protections when a rider was attached to a "must-pass" federal budget bill. However, due to the egregious hunting and trapping practices in the Northern Rockies, a formal petition was filed by many conservation groups, including the National Wolfwatcher Coalition, to restore protections. A decision by US Fish and Wildlife Services is expected soon.
  
  
• The Michigan wolf population has remained stable for more than 12 years -- between 600 and 700 wolves. No wolves have been detected in the Lower Peninsula.
  
  
• Michigan’s UP has about 1,000 working farms, with 50,000 head of cattle. In 2022, only three farms experienced a conflict with wolves and only one farm experienced more than one event. Six calves were killed.
  
  
• Producers were reimbursed the fair market value for those animals killed as determined by the Michigan Department of Agriculture. Total amount paid was $3357.
  
  
• The low number of conflicts is consistent with prior years with only a handful of farms experiencing a conflict.
  
  
• Wolf-Dog conflicts are also low and consistently involve hunting dogs in pursuit of game such as bear, bobcat and hare.
  
  
• Upon delisting, livestock producers and dog owners can use lethal control if a wolf is "in the act" of attacking their animals; livestock producers can also be issued permits to use licensed hunters to kill wolves at chronic farms.
  
  
• Weather -- not wolves -- has the greatest impact on deer populations. Research shows that in the UP, nearly 70 percent of the wolf predations of adult does occurred in the late winter and spring months when body condition of deer was at its poorest. Further investigation into the body condition of adult does killed by wolves in the high snowfall zone found that nearly half (43 percent) were in extremely poor nutritional condition and likely would not have survived the winter even if they were not preyed upon.
  
  
• Before a wolf hunting and trapping season can take place, wolves need to be federally delisted. Then, DNR must engage in tribal consultations and consider input from stakeholders, department biologists, and the general public. Ultimately, the Natural Resources Commission will decide whether a hunting/trapping season will occur.

2022 Wolf Management Plan Update

Having served on the council for developing the guiding principles for the 2008 and 2015 plan updates, I understand what must be considered in a wolf management plan. Do wolves even need to be managed? There are different interpretations of what it means to "manage" wolves. There are competing values. Some believe the only good wolf is a dead one; others believe no wolf should be killed for any reason.  Some question the ethics of collaring wolves. Fortunately, those extremes represent a very small minority.

What role should politics, lawsuits and the media play?

We learn more and more about wolves as evidenced by the more than 100 new scientific citations referenced in this updated plan. There is still so much more to learn. GPS collars and other technology have given us insight into pack dynamics, territory size, dispersal and mortality.

There is a role playing exercise I do with high school students with each team studying the position of a different stakeholder -- including the farmer who lost livestock to wolves, the hunter, the biologist, the politician, the Native American, the "protectionist," etc. Then a stuffed wolf is placed on a ring with cords attached to it while each student holds a piece of cord.  They are tasked with lifting the wolf and walking with it and balancing the wolf and ring on a ball which moves. If one side pulls too hard, the wolf falls.

In this role playing exercise students learn how stakeholders need to work together to balance wolf management. (Photo courtesy Nancy Warren)

Wolf management is a balancing act. Michigan wolves do not live in isolation. They do not understand state boundaries. We all need to work together for the wolf to survive and thrive in Michigan and elsewhere.

I believe the updated 2022 Michigan Wolf Management Plan, which was recently signed, accomplishes that goal.

Consistent with the 2008 and 2015 plans, the update provides guiding principles for wolf management and utilizes the most current biological and social science complied in the White Paper  "Review of Social and Biological Science Relevant to Wolf Management in Michigan."

The four goals remain the same as described in the earlier plans:
•    Maintain a viable population
•    Facilitate wolf-related benefits
•    Minimize wolf-related conflicts
•    Conduct science-based and socially responsible management.

Also unchanged, the update does not identify a target population size, nor does it establish an upper limit for the number of wolves in Michigan.

The plan also recognizes the cultural and religious values regarding wolves important to many Native Americans.

In general, statewide, public attitudes towards wolves have improved since the 2006 Survey.

The present Wolf Management Plan indicates the estimated percentage of people who desire a reduced wolf population is 24.0 percent while 49.9 percent desire an increase.

Majority of respondents do not support killing wolves in the event of wolves killing a pet, hunting dog or livestock; only 35 percent support lethal control to address predation on livestock, even less for hunting dogs and pets.

Statewide, less than half support a wolf hunting season (down from the 2015 survey).  70.2 percent of the general public strongly or moderately agreed that wolves are an important part of ecosystems. 80.2 percent strongly, moderately, or somewhat agree that wolves have an inherent right to exist. 49.9 percent desire an increase in the wolf population (24 percent prefer fewer). Support for compensation for livestock producers declined, only 48.5 percent indicated it was somewhat, moderately, or highly acceptable to use tax dollars for compensation (2015, 58 percent).

49.2 percent of state residents support and 30.4 percent oppose a legal, recreational hunting season for wolves, if biologists and the DNR believed the wolf population could sustain it.

2022 Plan Highlights

The Plan places a strong emphasis on the need for education and stresses the importance of non-lethal measures to resolve wolf conflicts.

It states, "To the extent non-lethal methods are effective at eliminating or minimizing depredation problems, lethal control of wolves will not be necessary. However, when such practices prove to be ineffective, are not expected to be effective, or are infeasible, lethal control may be necessary to prevent problems.
 
"Lethal control will be a management option in situations where loss of livestock has been documented or where a wolf is in the act of depredating livestock; it will not be used as a preventative measure in areas where livestock depredation has not yet occurred."

Western Upper Peninsula wolf.

Some groups, lawmakers and even members of the Natural Resources Commission have often incorrectly interpreted the definition of a "viable" population of wolves, even though the prior plans clearly stated 200 wolves is not a target population size. Therefore, the updated plan further defines a viable population by explaining wolves are "an integral part of the natural resources of the State and are a component of naturally functioning Michigan ecosystems. In the context of the DNR’s mission and its implicit public trust responsibilities for the State’s wildlife, natural communities and ecosystems, the maintenance of a viable wolf population is an appropriate and necessary goal."

The Plan does not oppose or support a wolf hunting season.  Rather, it addresses under what circumstances a hunt may take place for the purpose of reducing conflicts versus a recreational hunt.

For addressing conflicts through the use of hunters and trappers, the plan states, "If it is determined that the number of conflicts are correlated to wolf abundance, or the spatial extent of the conflicts indicate it involves multiple pack territories, it may warrant the consideration of reducing wolf numbers in areas that span multiple pack territories to reduce the risk of future conflicts. Such consideration could be necessary if a high density of wolves in an area, rather than the behavior of individual wolves, is determined to be responsible for problems that could not otherwise be addressed through non-lethal or individually directed lethal method."  Further, it explains, "There is scientific uncertainty relative to the use of wolf harvest as a conflict management tool because most wildlife managers do not have experience with this approach for wolves."

When considering a wolf hunting / trapping season for recreational purposes, the DNR is committed to evaluating the biological effects of a season and public attitudes. The plan states, "If biologically sustainable, legally feasible, and socially responsible, develop recommendations to the NRC to offer opportunities for the public to harvest wolves for recreational purposes."

To address ecological, social, and regulatory shifts in a timely manner, the DNR will review and update this plan at 10-year intervals.

The wolf management plan is 74 pages (plus appendices and cited references). I highlighted just a few of the most controversial aspects of wolf management. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at nancy@wolfwatcher.org

Editor's Note: For more information and news from the National Wolfwatcher Coalition, visit their Web site: https://wolfwatcher.org/

Federal proposal to de-list gray wolves from Endangered Species List opposed by Attorneys for Animals, Michigan wolf experts, many scientists, Michigan AG Dana Nessel

By Michele Bourdieu

Photo courtesy National Wolfwatcher Coalition.

CANTON, Mich. -- Attorneys for Animals (AFA), a Michigan non-profit, has submitted a response to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposal to de-list gray wolves from the Endangered Species List in all the lower 48 states. 

It was December 2014, when a U. S. District Court ruled to overturn an earlier USFWS decision to strip federal protection for Great Lakes wolves. In 2011 wolves had been left unprotected after being removed from the federal Endangered Species Act. Once again, wolves are in danger.

Strongly opposed to the removal of federal protection for the majestic species, Attorneys for Animals cites the considered opinion that Michigan, one of a handful of states most impacted by the proposed legislation will ignore input from the scientific, natural resource, conservation and animal welfare communities, and disrespect the deafening public outcry from citizens to protect the wolves within its boundaries.

"Of the estimated 1.8 million comments submitted in response to the USFWS proposal, we believe that AFA has an important perspective to offer in opposition to the plan to de-list gray wolves," said Kate Brindle, JD, and board secretary of AFA, who researched and assisted in drafting the AFA response.*

"As a Michigan non-profit of legal professionals and animal advocates, AFA has actively followed legislation for many years," Brindle said. "We have carefully observed the divisive issue of wolf de-listing in Michigan and have taken positions in support of continued federal protection. We therefore are in a unique position to provide a critical assessment of how the de-listing of wolves, followed by a likely opening of this species to a hunt, would affect both Michigan and its gray wolves," Brindle said.

John Vucetich, distinguished professor from Michigan Technological University's School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, expressed agreement with the AFA response.

"In alignment with Attorneys for Animals, I believe that wolves have not met the legal requirements to be delisted," Vucetich said.

Earlier this year, Vucetich led the development of a letter that came to that conclusion. The letter was signed by more than 100 scientists and submitted to the Fish and Wildlife Service.**

Nancy Warren, National Wolfwatcher Coalition director, noted that the wolf is subject to over-utilization for commercial and/or recreational purposes and states lack initiatives that would protect wolves. Wolfwatcher also opposes delisting and has submitted comments to USFWS.

"The threats to wolves have not been sufficiently reduced to allow delisting," Warren told Keweenaw Now. "Delisting will expose wolves to inconsistent and unwieldy state management. State programs seek to reduce wolf populations to levels just above the numerical quota to prevent federal relisting. Research shows these low population levels are not sustainable and will not provide the ecological benefits of a thriving population. Policies governing wolf management in states where delisting has occurred are based on misinformation, fear and hatred -- not peer reviewed scientific data."***

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel recently submitted a comment letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service urging it to abandon its flawed proposal to remove the gray wolf from the endangered and threatened wildlife list, saying, "The Service’s strategy to delist the gray wolf seems to be 'if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.'"

This is the 10th attempt to remove the gray wolf from the endangered list by the Service in less than 20 years. The gray wolf species has a population of less than 16,000 nationwide, 11,000 of which are in Alaska.

In its proposal, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fails to analyze whether the gray wolves living in 13 other states -- Washington, Oregon, California, North Dakota, Utah, Colorado, Nevada, Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, Nebraska, and Kansas -- are in danger of extinction. Instead, the Service only asks whether the gray wolves in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin can survive if all the other gray wolves die off.

"That is neither responsible, nor lawful," Nessel said.

The Service’s proposal uses the same flawed methodology the D.C. Circuit Court ruled it could not use to justify delisting the species.

"Simply put, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not adequately accounted for why this species should be removed from the endangered list," Nessel added. "This flawed proposal is the first step toward allowing gray wolves to be hunted to near extinction once again."****

In support of its position, AFA also submitted a Timeline of Efforts to Protect Wolves in Michigan, from late 2011 through late 2016. A summary of the Timeline indicates the following:
• The Michigan legislature passed four different bills, all with the purpose of authorizing a wolf hunt. Of the four,
two were overturned by a clear majority of Michigan voters in November 2014 after successful referendum campaigns against the wolf hunt. One was held unconstitutional by Michigan courts in 2016. One, still on the books awaiting de-listing decision, was made referendum-proof by adding appropriation language.
• A wolf hunt was held in 2013, killing 22 wolves; further hunts have been halted by the 2014 federal court decision overturning the 2011 agency action to de-list the wolves.
• Investigative reports expose deceptive methods used to promote and justify a wolf hunt in Michigan, including
false, exaggerated "scare stories" about wolves; irresponsible, criminally negligent ranching methods behind a claim that wolves were destroying livestock; and destruction of public comments by government officials.

Notes:

* AFA’s comment is available on the federal regulations.gov website here.
 
** Click here for details on the scientists' letter to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. See also our July 29, 2017, Keweenaw Now article, "Michigan Tech Professor John Vucetich testifies before Senate Committee: S. 1514 would weaken Endangered Species Act, strip wolves of protection."

*** See comments from Wolfwatcher here. See also our 2013 article on Nancy Warren's presentation "Co-existing with Wolves": "Video report: Presentation on wolves offers facts, petition signing opportunity."

**** A copy of Attorney General Nessel's comment letter can be read here.

National Wolfwatcher Coalition to NPS: Modify Plan B on Isle Royale wolves to insure sustainable wolf populations

[Editor's Note: March 15, 2017, is the deadline for comments to the National Park Service (NPS) on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to Address the Presence of Wolves on Isle Royale.* The following are comments submitted to NPS by Nancy Warren of the National Wolfwatcher Coalition.]

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

We appreciate the effort put forth in the development of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for addressing the presence of wolves at Isle Royale National Park by utilizing the best available scientific data in consultation with researchers and biologists.

While, the National Wolfwatcher Coalition is supportive of Alternative B -- Immediate Limited Introduction, the preferred alternative, we suggest that Alternative B be modified to include a contingency plan should a catastrophic event occur during the life of the plan.

Under Alternative B, wolves may be supplemented for an additional two years if an unforeseen event impacts the wolf population. But, after five years, no additional wolves will be placed on Isle Royale.

Research is clear that wolves must be present in sufficient numbers to fulfill their ecological role.

There must be sufficient flexibility to insure genetic diversity for wolves in the unlikely event disease or mortality reduces the population to less than 12 individuals or less than 3 breeding females. We recommend that, at a minimum, the plan be evaluated every five years to insure there are sustainable populations of wolves for the foreseeable future. Any remedial actions should be based on the advice and recommendations of researchers and biologists.

Under the best possible scenario, wolves will not be translocated to Isle Royale until late 2018. The island is already showing signs of degradation due to over browsing by moose. The moose population continues to increase. No ice bridge formed this year and it is unlikely that the two remaining wolves will successfully breed. It is unknown how much longer these two wolves can hang on.  

We ask that the NPS make every effort to expeditiously review the DEIS comments, evaluate the scientific data, issue the final plan/EIS and consider placing wolves on Isle Royale sooner, rather than later.

Inset photo: Nancy Warren of National Wolfwatcher Coalition. (Keweenaw Now file photo.) 

*Note: Click here to access information on the Draft EIS and to comment.

Video report: Wolf hunt based on politics, not science -- why vote "NO" on Proposals 1 and 2

By Michele Bourdieu
Videos and photos by Allan Baker for Keweenaw Now

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. (Photo by Allan Baker for Keweenaw Now)

HANCOCK -- Nancy Warren, Great Lakes regional director and executive director of the National Wolfwatcher Coalition (NWC), presented "POLITICS OR SCIENCE? THE HUNTING OF WOLVES! at the Finnish American Heritage Center in Hancock on Oct. 21, 2014. Her talk covered the efforts of citizens to challenge wolf hunt legislation in Michigan and reasons to vote "No" on Proposals 1 and 2 -- legislation allowing a wolf hunt in Michigan -- on the Nov. 4, 2014, ballot.

Introduced by Diane Miller, Finlandia assistant professor of communication and English, who collected many signatures to the two petitions challenging the wolf hunt legislation, Warren, a resident of Ewen, Mich., who lives in an area that was one of three in the Upper Peninsula designated for the wolf hunt, began her talk with facts about wolf management in Michigan -- based on her own experience serving on a roundtable to establish a Wolf Management Plan.

Nancy Warren, Great Lakes Regional Director and Executive Director of the National Wolfwatcher Coalition (NWC) presents "POLITICS OR SCIENCE? THE HUNTING OF WOLVES! at the Finnish American Heritage Center in Hancock, Mich., on Oct. 21, 2014. (Videos by Allan Baker for Keweenaw Now)

Warren also showed a video of John Vucetich -- Michigan Tech associate professor, wildlife expert and co-director of the Isle Royale Wolf-Moose study -- in which he explains his own philosophical reasons for voting "No" on Proposals 1 and 2.*

Before wolf hunt legislation was proposed, Warren demonstrates, legal methods -- both lethal and non-lethal -- have been used successfully to control problem wolves and the state has reimbursed farmers for losses of livestock caused by wolf depredation:

Nancy Warren explains how non-lethal methods such as donkeys and electric fencing have been provided by the State of Michigan to help farmers protect livestock from wolves. In some cases, when lethal methods are necessary, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has the authority to kill problem wolves. The law also allows livestock producers and dog owners to kill a wolf attacking their animals and farmers can enlist the aid of hunters in certain circumstances, Warren notes.

Warren also related how one Upper Peninsula farmer, who reported a large number of wolf depredations (used as statistics to justify the wolf hunt), was exposed as having mistreated his own animals and left dead animals, including donkeys supplied to him by the DNR, on his property. Fencing that was given to him disappeared as well. He received a total of $35,835 in aid from the State of Michigan -- 62 percent of all compensation paid in the U.P.**

In this slide, Warren shows how the Koski farm's reported depredations, a result of poor animal husbandry practices, inflated statistics and distorted reasons for the 2013 wolf hunt. Several articles in the media exposed the facts about this farm.**

Warren then produced information she had obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that reveals how DNR staff and the State Senate removed scientific language from the proposed wolf hunt bill in 2012 and, with the support of certain groups, including the MUCC (Michigan United Conservation Clubs) pushed the legislature to pass PA 520 in December 2012:

Nancy Warren points out how Michigan DNR staff took science out of wolf hunt legislation and pushed the legislature to pass a wolf hunt law, PA 520, by December 2012.

With very little time allowed, Warren explains, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected and other groups organized a statewide effort to collect signatures for a petition demanding a referendum on PA 520 in early 2013. They collected 256,916 signatures -- more than the minimum number of signatures -- in only 67 days:

Warren explains how, early in 2013, concerned citizens collected enough signatures for a referendum on Michigan PA 520, wolf hunt legislation that has become Proposal 1 on the Nov. 4, 2014, Michigan ballot. The National Wolfwatcher Coalition and other environmental groups, as well as the Humane Society, are asking voters to vote "NO" on Proposal 1 in order to repeal this law.

Shortly after that petition was accepted, the state legislature passed PA 21, which gave the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) the authority to designate any species (except mourning doves) as game. The NRC, with their new found authority, quickly designated the wolf as game and authorized a public hunt for Nov. 15 to Dec. 31, 2013, with a quota of 43 wolves to be killed in three designated Wolf Management Units (WMUs), or areas -- labeled A, B and C -- of the Upper Peninsula.

Here Warren talks about Michigan Public Act 21, which gives the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) -- a body of 7 political appointees with little or no scientific background -- the authority to schedule a wolf hunt. Concerned citizens collected signatures a second time (though not in time to stop the 2013 wolf hunt), and PA 21 is now on the November ballot as Proposal 2. Warren asks for a "No" vote on it to repeal the law.

Warren noted the 2013 wolf hunting season did not result in the death of "problem" wolves. The wolves that were killed, except for one, were not even near any farm.

Wolf hunt proponents next introduced the misnamed "Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act," attaching a million-dollar appropriation to prevent any referendum. It did not even require the Governor's signature and, according to Warren, may be proved unconstitutional.

Warren notes that most of the 22 wolves killed during the 2013 wolf hunt in Michigan were killed in places where wolves are actually beneficial. Only one was ever near a farm, and there was no evidence of any of them being involved in depredations. She also describes how a group of pro-wolf-hunt groups introduced the "Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act," which did not require the Governor's signature and cannot go to the voters for referendum because of an appropriation attached.

In concluding her talk, Warren points out how the DNR has failed to educate the public about wolves and their role in balancing the ecosystem:

Nancy Warren of Wolfwatchers speaks about wolf management, the need for education abut the positive aspects of wolves, and the ballot proposals concerning the Michigan wolf hunt. She points out that the Michigan DNR has done nothing to promote eco-tourism about wolves, while the International Wolf Center in Ely, Minn. brings in $5.5 million.

Diane Miller commented on her Finlandia University students' reactions to Warren's presentation.

"Nancy's talk, which draws on decades of experience with wolves, counteracted a lot of misinformation that has been promoted out of fear and the desire to trophy hunt," Miller said. "Several students told me that they appreciated Nancy's talk because it offered them what they needed to fully understand the wolf hunting issue and thus have a more informed response to a referendum question as they vote for the first time."

To access the text of Proposals 1 and 2, click here.

Notes:

* Click here to see the video with John Vucetich.

** See our June 27, 2013, article by Nancy Warren: "Nearly half of wolf depredations attributed to one farm with poor animal husbandry practices."

National Wolfwatcher Coalition to present "Politics or Science? The Hunting of Wolves!" Oct. 21 in Hancock

Photo of wolf courtesy National Wolfwatcher Coalition. Reprinted with permission.

HANCOCK -- Nancy Warren, Great Lakes Regional Director and Executive Director of the National Wolfwatcher Coalition (NWC) will present "POLITICS OR SCIENCE? THE HUNTING OF WOLVES!" at 7 p.m. TONIGHT, Tuesday, Oct. 21, at the Finnish American Heritage Center in Hancock.

Warren will explore the role of politics in the decision to hunt wolves. Where is the science? Is there any scientific evidence to support the recreational hunting of wolves?

Voters will see two important proposals on the November ballot:

1. Should wolves be a hunted game species?

2. Should the Natural Resources Commission, an unelected political body, be authorized to designate any species (not just the wolf) as game?

NWC believes the answer to both is NO. The public is invited to this discussion.

The Finnish American Heritage Center is at 435 Quincy Street, Hancock.

(Inset photo of Nancy Warren by Allan Baker for Keweenaw Now)

Will voters be allowed to decide the fate of Michigan wolves?

[Editor's Note: Yesterday, Aug. 13, 2014, the Michigan Senate voted in favor of the "Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act," which, if approved by the Michigan House, which reconvenes on Aug. 27, will nullify the November ballot proposals that are to allow voters to decide whether Michigan needs another wolf hunt. An earlier version of the following article appeared on wolfwatcher.org in June 2014. The following is an updated version, reprinted here with permission.]

By Nancy Warren, National Wolfwatcher Coalition Great Lakes Regional Director

The Michigan Constitution affords individuals the opportunity to challenge new laws by gathering signatures through the veto referendum process.  It is also possible for citizens to initiate legislation through a petition process.

Public Act 520 designates wolf as game animal

In December 2012, Governor Rick Snyder signed into law Public Act 520, which designated the wolf as a game animal. A coalition of organizations, including the National Wolfwatcher Coalition, supported the effort to challenge this law.

Volunteers collected more than 253,000 signatures from across the state in less than 70 days. The signatures were certified -- suspending the implementation of PA 520 until voters could decide in the November 2014 election.

Public Act 21 and Natural Resources Commission

However, legislators, with the support of hunting organizations, circumvented the initiative by passing a new law, Public Act 21, signed on May 8, 2013. Public Act 21 rendered the referendum for Public Act 520 meaningless and granted the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) the authority to designate any species (except mourning doves) as a game animal. Previously, only legislators could designate species as game.  The NRC, a politically appointed body, with no scientific background, acted quickly. They designated the wolf a game animal and established the 2013 hunting season.

An investigation by Mlive.com revealed that false or incomplete data was used to justify the need for a wolf hunt.*

Petitions gathered for second referendum

The National Wolfwatcher Coalition joined forces with many other organizations to challenge Public Act 21. Keep Michigan Wolves Protected submitted nearly 230,000 signatures.

We were not able to stop the 2013 wolf hunt. In October 2013, while signatures were still being gathered on the 2nd referendum, Michigan’s first wolf hunt in almost 50 years began. 22 wolves were killed in this first hunt.

But of the nearly 230,000 signatures, a sufficient number of signatures were certified to also place a second referendum on the November 2014 ballot. This referendum would restore voters' ability to weigh in on not just wolves, but almost any protected animal the NRC may wish to add to the list of game species to be hunted and trapped for sport.

BOTH LAWS NEED TO BE REJECTED BY VOTERS OR THE OTHER BECOMES EFFECTIVE.

"Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act" challenges citizen right to vote on wildlife issues

BUT, a ballot committee funded by hunting organizations with deep pockets collected signatures advocating for a citizen-initiated law called the "Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act." The law is not science-based and it has nothing to do with conservation.

Rather, it is a mirror image of Public Act 21 except it also includes an unnecessary appropriation of $1 million dollars related to Asian Carp control. Because the Act includes an appropriation, it cannot be challenged through a petition initiative. The purpose of the appropriation is to prevent a challenge through the veto referendum process.

This initiative recycles language from the second law (Public Act 21) allowing the NRC to designate game species, thus allowing the wolf hunt to continue. This group is handing the initiative to the legislature for quick passage rather than letting it go to the ballot for a citizen vote.

It also allows for free licenses for active military personnel (they currently pay $1).

The signatures for this law were certified in July 2014, sending the act directly to legislators for passage. The Governor's signature is not required for this act to become law.

Senate approves "Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act"

Now that the Michigan Senate has voted "yes" for this law, it goes to the Michigan House of Representatives for a vote. The House will reconvene on Aug. 27.

This is another a blatant attempt to silence the voice of voters.

If the House does not approve the "Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act," it will go to the voters to decide, along with the first two November ballot proposals.

Michigan residents should contact their State Representative. Tell him or her that the nation is watching. Let the people decide on the "Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act."

It is important that citizens be afforded the right to vote on wildlife issues.

Click here to find your Michigan State Representative, or, if you know your District, find your Representative by clicking on the District number here.

* See "Michigan's wolf hunt: How half truths, falsehoods and one farmer distorted reasons for historic hunt," by John Barnes.

Photo inset: Nancy Warren of National Wolfwatcher Coalition. (Keweenaw Now file photo)

Editor's Notes:
If you are in the 110th District contact Rep. Scott Dianda at ScottDianda@house.mi.gov or call toll-free (888) 663-4031.

If you are in the 109th District contact Rep. John Kivela at johnkivela@house.mi.gov or call toll-free (888) 429-1377.

If you are in the 108th District contact Rep. Ed McBroom at edmcbroom@house.mi.gov or call toll-free (855) 347-8108 [855 DIST108]

Out of state residents should contact: Speaker of the House Jase Bolger, JaseBolger@house.mi.gov, and Minority Leader Tim Greimel, TimGreimel@house.mi.gov.   

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.

Informational presentation on wolves to be offered Feb. 15 in Iron River, Mich.

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

IRON RIVER, MICH. -- The public is invited to an informational/educational presentation on Michigan wolves from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. TODAY, Saturday, Feb. 15, in the J. Patrick White Conference Room at the West Iron District Library in Iron River, Michigan.

Wolf topics will range from basic biology, beneficial importance, Native American cultural significance, the recent wolf hunt, the legislative process that led to the wolf hunt, the mistruths that have been spread, and what citizens can do to restore their constitutional right to participate in the political process. A question and answer session will be part of the main presentation.

Nancy Warren from the National Wolfwatcher Coalition and Keep Michigan Wolves Protected will be the main speaker. Elder Earl Ojiingwaanigan will speak about the Wolf and its connection to Native American culture.

There will be two programs. The first presentation will be held from 1 p.m. until 2:30 p.m. It will be repeated from 3:30 p.m. until 5 p.m. Central Standard Time. During an intermission between the programs, refreshments will be served.

Native American Music Awards recipient Bobby Bullet, accompanied by Pamela Nesbit, will play and sing during part of the intermission.

The views expressed at this event do not necessarily reflect those of the West Iron District Library. For more information, please contact Richard Sloat at 906-265-0751.

Photo inset: Nancy Warren of National Wolfwatcher Coalition. (Keweenaw Now file photo by Allan Baker)

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: MLIVE series on Michigan Wolf Hunt exposes violations, asks questions

Letter received Nov. 5, 2013. Reprinted with permission.

Author's Note: The message below was sent to Ontonagon County Prosecutor Jim Jessup and the Ontonagon County Sheriff:

MLIVE reporter John Barnes, has exposed several issues in his series about the Michigan Wolf Hunt.*  There are also several sidebar articles at www.mlive.com.  The series has been picked up by at least 9 papers and illustrates many violations that should/must be investigated. 

1.  Violations of dead cattle not being buried (reporter said he saw one in October). This has been an ongoing problem, pictures werepublished in May. Photos that appear in these articles show bones across the field.
2. Possible animal neglect (I have called about this at least 10 times going back to last year when the donkeys were still alive but in poor condition).** Now, two of the donkeys are dead and one was removed in poor condition. I am once again attaching the DNR report from earlier this year.
3. Using deer parts to bait wolves (Koski admitted to the reporter).

Also exposed is the cozy relationship Judge Tingstad has with Koski and Tom Casperson.  I know personally that Andy was one of the shooters at the Koski farm and therefore, would have had first hand knowledge of the violations at the farm.  Could this be the reason nothing is being done to enforce the law? Are you being told by Casperson, the judge or the DNR not to enforce the law? The public demands answers.

Nancy Warren**
Ewen, Michigan

* (UPDATED) Click on each of these links for the series of MLIVE articles on the Michigan Wolf Hunt by John Barnes:

"The Michigan myth: How lawmakers turned this true wolf story into fiction."

"Michigan's wolf hunt: How half truths, falsehoods and one farmer distorted reasons for historic hunt."

"John Koski, Part 1: Tour the farm with more wolf attacks than anyone in Michigan's Upper Peninsula."

"John Koski, Part 2: See how Michigan is cracking down on the cattle farmer with the most wolf attacks."

"Crying wolf: Michigan's first hunt heavily influenced by outside interests; follow the money."

"Michigan wolf hunt: Rolf Peterson, globally known wolf expert, argues a hunt is ill conceived."

** Editor's Notes: Nancy Warren, author of this letter, is National Wolfwatcher Coalition Great Lakes Regional director.

See also our June 27, 2013, article by Nancy Warren: "Opinion: Nearly half of wolf depredations attributed to one farm with poor animal husbandry practices."

Wolf advocates kick off second petition drive, seek referendum on Michigan wolf hunt law

By Michele Bourdieu

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

HOUGHTON -- Keep Michigan Wolves Protected -- the organization that sponsored a successful petition drive (collecting more than 255,000 signatures) for a referendum on Michigan PA 520 of December 2012 -- a law that allowed the legislature to designate wolves as a game species and authorized the Michigan Natural Resources Commission (NRC) to establish a wolf hunting season -- has now launched a second petition drive to put on the November 2014 ballot a referendum on PA 21, passed in May 2013 to circumvent the first petition.

PA 21 extends to the NRC the authority to designate any species (except mourning doves) as game. The NRC, with their new found authority, quickly designated the wolf as game and authorized a public hunt for Nov. 15 to Dec. 31, 2013, with a quota of 43 wolves to be killed in three designated Wolf Management Units (WMUs), or areas -- labeled A, B and C -- of the Upper Peninsula.

Nancy Warren, National Wolfwatcher Coalition Great Lakes Regional director, says this law is not just about the wolf.

"They (NRC) can designate anything (except mourning doves) as game -- the lynx, sand hill cranes etc," Warren says. "Their decisions cannot be challenged through the referendum, but PA 21 can since it is a new law. Therefore the second petition drive. If successful -- and based on the outpouring of support I am confident we will get the signatures -- two measures will be on the ballot: the repeal of PA 520 and the repeal of PA 21." (Inset: Photo of Nancy Warren by Allan Baker for Keweenaw Now)

On July 24, 2013, Warren and representatives from Keep Michigan Wolves Protected came to Houghton to rally concerned citizens wishing to help collect these signatures.

Warren, who had just flown in from Arizona, where she was doing work to help the Mexican gray wolf, kicked off that meeting with a presentation on how recent legislation has overruled Michigan's Wolf Management Plan and how the NRC, a politically appointed, unelected body -- only one of whom has a natural resources background -- has the authority to designate a game species and establish a hunt that is not based on science. Here is an excerpt from the first part of her presentation:

During  a July 24, 2013 kick-off meeting in Houghton, Mich., for the second petition drive calling for a Michigan referendum against recent wolf hunt legislation, Nancy Warren, National Wolfwatcher Coalition Great Lakes Regional director, speaks about Michigan legislation involving wolf management and the current PA 21, a law allowing the Michigan Natural Resources Commission decision to designate a wolf hunt in the fall of 2013. (Videos by Allan Baker for Keweenaw Now unless otherwise indicated.)

In the same presentation, Warren introduced some new information on wolf depredation she recently received from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) -- information she has been requesting under the Freedom of Information Act to determine the actual number of depredations in each Upper Peninsula unit designated for a wolf hunt. Here is a video clip in which Warren speaks about that information and what it reveals about the disconnect between depredations and the authorized wolf hunt:

At the July 24 meeting for the petition drive on PA 21, Nancy Warren continues her presentation on Michigan's wolf legislation, noting some recent DNR information on wolf depredations in the Upper Peninsula. She points out that federal funding is now available for farmers who lose livestock, and she explains how wolf management without a hunt has allowed both non-lethal and lethal means of dealing with problem wolves.

During the public comment period of the July 15, 2013, meeting of the Western Upper Peninsula Citizens Advisory Council in Ewen, Warren spoke to DNR officials about how her FOIA requests had been refused.

During the July 15, 2013, meeting of the DNR Western Upper Peninsula Citizens Advisory Council in Ewen, Nancy Warren (standing, center) speaks about her difficulties in obtaining information about wolf depredations through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the fees she was asked to pay for what she believed should be public information. Later, through an appeal, she received the information requested, as indicated in the interview above. Present at the meeting also is 110th District State Rep. Scott Dianda, second from left, who voted for the bill that became PA 21. (Photo by Keweenaw Now)*

At that July 15 meeting, Terry Minzey, DNR Wildlife Division, brought Citizens Advisory Council members up to date on the wolf legislation, the petitions for referenda and the authorized hunt for fall 2013. He noted that trapping will not be allowed except on a case-by-case basis under certain circumstances. He also attempted to answer some of Warren's questions on why her FOIA requests were refused.

At the July 15, 2013, (Michigan) Dept. of Natural Resources Western Upper Peninsula Citizens Advisory Council meeting in Ewen, Mich., Terry Minzey, DNR Wildlife Division, summarizes the legislation and the actions of the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) that resulted in the approval of a public wolf hunt for certain areas of Michigan's Upper Peninsula -- scheduled for the fall of 2013. J. R. Richardson, NRC chair, of Ontonagon, is present at this meeting (Minzey refers to him as "J.R.") A council member asks a question on trapping. (Video by Keweenaw Now)

Here Minzey attempts to answer Nancy Warren's questions:

During the July 15, 2013, meeting of the DNR Citizens Advisory Council in Ewen, Terry Minzey of the DNR Wildlife Division attempts to answer questions posed by Nancy Warren, National Wolfwatcher Coalition Great Lakes Regional director, concerning FOIA requests she made for statistics on wolf depredation events in areas of the Upper Peninsula now designated for a public wolf hunt. (Video by Keweenaw Now)

Following the July 15 DNR Citizens Advisory Council meeting, Warren sent the DNR her appeal on the FOIA refusals. In the appeal, dated July 16, 2013, she writes as follows:

"The Wildlife Conservation Order does not provide a breakout of the depredations for each of the years, only the totals.

"I requested a breakout for the number of livestock depredations (calves/adult cows) for each of the years 2010-2013 for each of the units; the amount of payments made in each of the years; the most paid to any one producer for each of the years. Since the DNR tabulated the final figures for the Order (example 80 for WMU B) and stated the problems continue, the figures for each individual year should be readily available. The breakout for the years is critical, since (in) 2010 and 2011, lethal control was not allowed, but in 2012 and 2013, lethal control was allowed."

At the July 24 meeting on the second petition, Keweenaw Now's Allan Baker interviewed Nancy Warren about the new information she recently received from the DNR on wolf depredations in the U.P. Warren explained how her FOIA requests were at first refused, but finally answered when she appealed the DNR decision not to release information.

In an interview during the July 24 a kick-off meeting in Houghton for the petition drive for a referendum on PA 21, Nancy Warren speaks about her efforts to FOIA information about wolf depredation from the Michigan DNR. She also gives more details on how, since wolves in Michigan were removed from the Endangered Species List in 2012, lethal control has been used to manage problem wolves. 

Warren has since been analyzing the information she received on wolf depredations in the three units designated for a wolf hunt. She is especially concerned that 73 percent of ALL livestock depredations in Unit B for the period 2010-2013 occurred at one farm with a history of poor animal husbandry practices.**

"This producer was provided non-lethal tools, yet failed to utilized them. Wildlife Services have killed wolves at this property and this producer was given permits to kill wolves," Warren says. "For the years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 the Koski farm had 18 of the 22 verified depredations in Ontonagon County. The 2009 data shows he had the only 4 depredations in the county and in 2008 the only other depredations were some rabbits and another farm with ducks/geese."

A February 2013 DNR report on the Koski farm, whose owner had failed to dispose properly of dead animals, which can attract wolves and other predators, indicated to Warren that the justification for a wolf hunt used by the DNR and NRC (to reduce conflicts) is misleading.**

"It resonates well with the public if they are led to believe a wolf hunt will make wolves more wary and that will reduce conflicts. The true intent of the hunt has nothing to do with livestock conflicts and is purely to satisfy a vocal minority who just want a trophy hunt," Warren says. "It is interesting to note that since delisting (January 2012), lethal control of wolves responsible for depredation was implemented; and, so far, there have not been any depredations within any of the Units where the wolf hunt is planned. So the combination of lethal and non-lethal measures do work."

At a June 7, 2013, town hall meeting in Calumet, State Sen. Tom Casperson (R-Escanaba), who sponsored the bills that eventually became PA 520 and PA 21, told an audience made up mostly of his supporters that PA 21 passed the legislature thanks to votes from House Democrats who added their support to the wolf hunt legislation and the Republican majority -- including 110th District Rep. Scott Dianda (D-Calumet) and 109th District Rep. John Kivela (D-Marquette).***

State Senator Tom Casperson, sponsor of both bills that led to legislation for a wolf hunt in Michigan, speaks about that legislation during a town hall meeting on June 7, 2013, at Calumet High School. (Photo by Allan Baker for Keweenaw Now)

"I was in a position that if I got it done a lot of my people would appreciate that. They would respect that," Casperson said. "I think we did a pretty good job of working together and not playing the party line, bickering or anything like that."

Volunteers collect signatures statewide for second petition

Also speaking at the July 24 meeting on the petition was Jill Fritz, Michigan director of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), who summarized the legislature's approval of both PA 520, passed in December 2012, and PA 21, passed in May 2013. She described the successful petition effort that put PA 520 on hold, only to be followed by the NRC's decision, under authority given to them by PA 21, to hold a wolf hunt in the fall of 2013 -- thus the need for this second petition drive.

At the July 24 meeting for volunteer petition signature gatherers, Jill Fritz, Michigan director of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), describes how 255,000 signatures succeeded in putting a referendum on the Dec. 2012 wolf hunt legislation on the November 2014 ballot in Michigan. She also explains why a second referendum is needed. (Video by Allan Baker for Keweenaw Now)

Local resident Diane Miller attended the July 24 meeting and is now collecting signatures for a referendum on PA 21. Miller says she believes she has to work to end the wolf hunting season since none of the reasons given for it is sound.

"Rather," Miller notes, "the hunting season seems to be based on hate and misinformation, as well as a desire to shoot for sport. That is, farmers already have the right to shoot problem wolves and access to alternate methods of protecting livestock and dogs from wolves, whose territory is constantly shrinking. I hope that by gathering signatures I can participate in a process that reminds people that while there are many documented cases of domestic dogs biting humans every year, the number of Michigan wolves harming humans EVER is zero. As a citizen, it's important for me to participate in the act of creating a meaningful referendum question -- a democratic process that Public Act 21 blatantly seeks to block."

Miller adds she has found that some citizens who care least about wolves are livid about that democratic process being constrained in such an underhanded way.

 "Over the past several weeks as I have been gathering signatures at public places across the state, I've been heartened by the support our residents are showing for this effort," Miller says. "Even people who are not necessarily fond of wolves or are frank about NOT liking them see that the hunt is not a good idea, and they are especially angry about Public Act 21."

Miller said local residents who wish to sign the petition can call her at 906-370-1069 and she will arrange to get their signatures.

"It occurs to me that people might be especially interested in knowing that, in a way, they represent their county in an additional way when they sign the petition," Miller added. "KMWP (Keep Michigan Wolves Protected) is keeping track of the top signature gatherers in the state, and I am number four. I'm rather proud of this, since the top three are in Kalamazoo, where there is a much higher population." 

Ellie Hayes, campaign manager for Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, spoke at the July24 meeting and explained the procedures for collecting signatures on the petition.

Ellie Hayes, campaign manager for Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, explains to volunteers at the July 24 petition meeting the correct procedures for collecting signatures. (Photo by Allan Baker for Keweenaw Now)

More recently, Hayes reports, "We just concluded our 15-stop kick-off tour through Michigan. We traveled to Detroit, Houghton, Sault Ste. Marie, St. Joseph, Kalamazoo, Flint, Harbor Springs, Grand Rapids, Marquette, Traverse City, and many more cities to meet volunteers eager to keep Michigan's wolves protected and put a stop to the legislature's egregious power grab from the voters."

Michigan resident Kristi Lloyd, who collected signatures for the first petition, is enthusiastic about collecting them again to support this effort for a referendum on PA 21. In fact, she finds people are even more willing to sign this petition because of the way the legislature went about disregarding, nullifying, and silencing the 255,000 Michigan voters who signed the first petition.

"I'm collecting signatures for the petition because the wolf hunt in Michigan, as in other wolf-hunting states, has nothing to do with the wolves," Lloyd says. "The 'hunts' are all about politics from federal and state levels. In Michigan we are fortunate to have the right to referendum our state government to change laws with which we disagree. The non-hunting, non-consumptive users of our wildlife in MI have the same right to contribute to the preservation of our wildlife and do have a say in how it is 'managed,' but we have no way to financially support the preservation of our wildlife -- unlike hunters or trappers or anglers who pay to take our wildlife via licenses, tags, taxes on guns and ammunition. Gov. Rick Snyder and MI's GOP-led legislature took only the well-financed, high-powered organizations into consideration in proposing and signing SB 288 into law (PA 21)."

Lloyd, who also has experience with wolf issues in Yellowstone National Park and other areas of the West, says she has found that hunting wolves does not necessarily reduce their numbers in a certain area.

"Wolves need room to roam and where there is space, they (or other animals) will move in," Lloyd notes. "Shooting or killing wolves teaches them nothing. And wolves ARE still afraid of humans -- otherwise we would have many, many reported attacks on people and that just is not happening. Even hunters and trappers that go IN to the woods where wolves live have never been attacked. And neither have researchers, biologists, hikers, fishermen/women. "

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC) member Charlotte Loonsfoot, who also collected signatures for the first petition, plans to collect them again in Baraga for this petition against PA 21.

"Wolves are not for hunting and stripping them of their hides," Loonsfoot says. "If you Don't Eat it, Don't Kill it! Our little rodents and small game will overflow in the forests if this hunt happens, and we will definitely be infested when those rodents come into our towns."

Loonsfoot sees both the wolf hunt and excess logging of the forest as facilitating access for mining companies now doing drill testing in many areas of the Upper Peninsula.

"They (the mining companies) will have easier road access for extracting the minerals from the ground," Loonsfoot notes. "The map of mining companies buying up mineral rights in the western UP is outrageous, and I bet they are cutting (forests) close to these mineral right properties or right on top them."

In Houghton, Chris Alquist, Community Program director at Portage Lake District Library, is also volunteering to collect signatures for this petition. Stop in at the library or call the library at 482-4570 and ask for Chris. She'll provide a petition form for you to sign. Petitions must be signed in person.

Petition signing events are posted on the Keep Michigan Wolves Protected Web site under Events. Click here to find an event near you.

Tomorrow, Aug. 26, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected will host a petition signing event beginning at 11 a.m. and at 1 p.m. in the Academic Mall at Northern Michigan University, 1401 Presque Isle Ave. in Marquette.

If you would like to help collect signatures for this petition drive click here for the Keep Michigan Wolves Protected online form to volunteer as a signature gatherer.

You can also email info@keepwolvesprotected.com if you have any questions about how you can help volunteer or just questions about the campaign in general.

Nancy Warren is traveling at present, but you can email her at nancy@wolfwatcher.org if you need more information about upcoming petition signing events.

Notes:
* See our May 8, 2013, article, "Michigan legislators offer views on hunting bills, signed into law today; NRC may establish wolf hunting season despite public opposition."

** See the June 27, 2013, article by Nancy Warren, "Opinion: Nearly half of wolf depredations attributed to one farm with poor animal husbandry practices."

*** State Sen. Tom Casperson participated in a "Media Meet" broadcast, "Wolf Hunt in the U.P," on Public Radio 90, WNMU-FM, Aug. 11 and 12, 2013. The panel also included wildlife advocate Adam Robarge and Michigan Department of Natural Resources wildlife biologist Brian Roelle. Click here for the podcast.

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.