See our right-hand column for announcements and news briefs. Scroll down the right-hand column to access the Archives -- links to articles posted in the main column since 2007. See details about our site, including a way to comment, in the yellow text above the Archives.
Showing posts with label Endangered Species Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Endangered Species Act. Show all posts

Friday, December 30, 2022

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/

Thursday, March 18, 2021

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.

Saturday, July 29, 2017

Michigan Tech Professor John Vucetich testifies before Senate Committee: S. 1514 would weaken Endangered Species Act, strip wolves of protection

By Michele Bourdieu

 Michigan wolf. (File photo courtesy National Wolfwatcher Coalition)

HOUGHTON -- John Vucetich -- Michigan Tech professor in the School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science and co-director, with Michigan Tech Professor Rolf Peterson, of the Isle Royale Wolf-Moose study -- recently returned from Washington, DC, after testifying before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works at the July 19 Legislative Hearing on S. 1514, the Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation (HELP) for Wildlife Act.

This bill would strip wolves in Michigan, Minnesota, Wyoming, and Wisconsin of all of their Endangered Species Act protections and prevent judges from ever reviewing that action. It has now passed out of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and could be voted on at any time.

The bill is co-sponsored by a bipartisan group of senators taking aim at these wolves and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Senators Barrasso (R-WY), Boozman (R-AR), Capito (R-WV), Cardin (D-MD), Baldwin (D-WI), and Klobuchar (D-MN) have signed onto this legislation that would put these wolves in the crosshairs of hunters and weaken the ESA.

In his testimony before the committee, Vucetich, a population biologist who is interested in the philosophy and ethics of ecological and conservation science, stated several reasons why this bill, S. 1514, should be opposed or amended.

"It includes some positive provisions, but its most important effect would be to undermine the Endangered Species Act and subvert the conservation of wolves," Vucetich told the Senate committee. "Wolves are valuable to ecosystems and most people recognize that wildlife -- including wolves -- possess value in their own right. Public support for wolves and wolf conservation, in particular, is very high. Public support for the Endangered Species Act is also high -- among both liberal and conservative constituents."

In his 15-page, well documented written statement to the committee, Vucetich states that wolf conservation in the United States is vital -- not only for the health of ecosystems but also for what they represent.

"If the bald eagle is sacred as a symbol of our national spirit, then wolves are sacred as a symbol of our relationship with nature on the whole," he writes.

Public support for wolves, ESA

Vucetich refers to sociological research showing that fewer than 10 percent of Americans are very opposed to wolves and that attitudes toward wolves have become increasingly positive over the past several decades. He also cites data that confirm strong support for the Endangered Species Act.

Vucetich gives examples that show why people have false impressions about wolves, including the misconception that they threaten human safety, while the truth is that wolves avoid people.*

"Incidents of wolves harming people are incredibly rare," he notes. "In the 21st century only two known deaths have been attributed to wild wolves in all of North America."

No deaths from wolves have been reported in the conterminous United States and more Americans are killed by bees or dogs or deer-car collisions than by wolves, he adds.

Vucetich also mentions some hunters are opposed to wolves because they feel wolves reduce the number of deer for them to hunt. He points out that, in fact, deer are too plentiful and more of a danger to human safety because of the number of deer-vehicle accidents.

Deer threaten human safety, property, agriculture

"For example, in Michigan, deer kill eight humans and injure another 1300 in deer-vehicle collisions each year," Vucetich says. "Deer ruin private property through more than 100 deer-vehicle collisions each day. Deer also cause significant damage to two important sectors of agriculture -- crop production and forestry. There are also rising concerns about chronic wasting disease in deer. Whatever effect wolves would have on deer would be an overall benefit."

While wolves have been a threat to livestock, Vucetich cites statistics that show these threats are often exaggerated; for example, a 2011 US Dept. of Agriculture report showing wolf depredation of cattle represents less than half of one percent of all losses. He also mentions the case in Michigan where a F.O.I.A. request and investigative journalism showed that most wolf depredations of livestock were attributable to one livestock owner who was eventually charged with violating animal welfare laws.**

Nonlethal vs. lethal control

Vucetich notes that nonlethal methods for controlling wolves have been effective, while lethal methods may be less effective than supposed and are controversial.

"There is a suite of nonlethal methods and strategies that have been effectively used," he says. "These include: nonlethal predator deterrents such as livestock guarding dogs, fencing and fladry; increasing human presence on the landscape through range riders; use of scare tactics and alarms; best management practices for livestock and land such as changing grazing strategies and removing carcasses."***

Wolf hunting not scientific

According to Vucetich, wolf hunting, motivated in part by state game and fish agencies’ interest to satisfy deer hunters, does not make sense. He challenges several reasons people give for wanting to hunt wolves: hatred of wolves, trophy hunting, protecting livestock and competition for deer.

Vucetich says both hatred and trophy hunting are bad reasons for hunting wolves, since wolves have ecological value. Hunting wolves to protect livestock is not scientific, he adds.

"Michigan’s government promoted wolf hunting through egregious misuse of science and disdain for basic principles of democracy," Vucetich writes. "Voting records indicate, in part, that citizens are aware of and do not support such abuses in the service of wolf hunting."

As for competition for deer, Vucetich notes, "Put simply, wolves do not represent significant competition with hunters for deer. Hunter success is influenced by factors aside from wolves, such as winter severity."

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

In December 2011, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) delisted gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes region from the ESA. In December 2014 a federal court rejected that delisting and ordered FWS to restore Endangered Species Act protections to those wolves.

"The broader pattern of court decisions indicate that the ESA requires a species to be well distributed throughout its historic range," Vucetich says. "Today wolves occupy about 15 percent of their former range (in the lower 48 states)."

In a recent interview with Keweenaw Now, Vucetich explained that the legal definition of an endangered species is "a species that is at risk of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."

A second interpretation of the ESA, favored by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and state governments, is that ESA requirements have nothing to do with geographic range but just the risk of extinction, Vucetich added.

"What we're talking about is that we -- as Americans -- cannot agree on whether wolves should be considered endangered or not," he said. "The reason there is uncertainty is that we -- the American people -- are uncertain about the law."

For Vucetich, the reason wolves should not be delisted is the 15 percent -- indicating wolves are not well distributed throughout their historic range.

In his statement to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Vucetich states the following: "Addressing this concern would require the FWS to:

(i)    Develop policy on 'significant portion of range' that is consistent with the ESA. I believe the courts will eventually decide that the current Fish and Wildlife Service policy on this topic is inconsistent with the ESA. ('Significant portion of its range' is a key phrase in the legal definition of endangered species.)
(ii)    Develop a robust national plan for wolf conservation and recovery."

In his conclusion, Vucetich calls for support of the ESA and wolf conservation.

"Our relationship with wolves is a bellweather for our relationship with nature and the nation’s natural resources," Vucetich writes. "For similar reasons, our treatment of wolves through the U.S. Endangered Species Act, 1973 (ESA) is also a bellweather for how we will treat the ESA in general and for the hundreds of species whose well-being depends on ESA protection."

In a July 26, 2017, press release, the Center for Biological Diversity also states reasons for opposing Senate Bill S. 1514.

"The bill weakens the Endangered Species Act by blocking any further judicial review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2011 decision to end federal protections for wolves," the Center says. "Since they were driven to near-extinction by hunters and trappers in the early 20th century, gray wolves still occupy only 15 percent of their historical range in the contiguous United States. And between 2011, when their protection was removed, and 2014, when a federal court restored that protection, more than 1,500 animals were killed."

Inset photo: Professor John Vucetich. (Photo courtesy Michigan Technological University)

Editor's Notes:

* In his July 19 testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (article 3.2), John Vucetich gives examples from Michigan of a state senator and a state official who gave false accounts of wolves threatening humans in order to gain support for their anti-wolf agenda. Click here to read Vucetich's entire testimony.

** For background on this issue, see research on wolf depredation in Michigan by Nancy Warren, National Wolfwatcher Coalition Great Lakes Regional director, in our Aug. 25, 2013, article, "Wolf advocates kick off second petition drive, seek referendum on Michigan wolf hunt law."

*** According to Wikipedia, "Fladry is a line of rope mounted along the top of a fence, from which are suspended strips of fabric or colored flags that will flap in a breeze, intended to deter wolves from crossing the fence-line."