Post by ridge on Apr 30, 2014 19:59:49 GMT -5
MICHIGAN WOLF HUNT
Michigan wolf hunt: From pup to aging adults, new details break down the hunt
(Note: Search this database for attacks by wolves and compensation paid.)
Michigan’s first wolf hunt killed a pup as young as half-a-year old to two older adults more than seven years old, new state information shows.
The details come as recent financial reports show both sides of the wolf-hunt battle have raised about $1.9 million combined – equal to about $2,300 for each wolf in the state, according to new population figures.
It also comes as state studies show livestock attacks, a reason for the hunt, were among the lowest in a decade last year.
Among details presented to the Michigan Wolf Management Advisory Council last week:
• The youngest of 22 wolves killed was 0.6 years old, a female pup born earlier in the year. The animals grow quickly and can appear nearly full-sized.
• The oldest two, a male and female taken at opposite ends of the Upper Peninsula, were 7.6 years. Those are aging wolves; life expectancy in the wild is about five years.
• The average age of wolves killed was 2.6 years. In all, they were equally divided between males and females, 11 each.
• The average distance from where a wolf was killed compared to documented conflicts was five miles.
WOLFSTATS.jpg
The 45-day hunting season that began Nov. 15 had little impact on one of the state’s top predators, a top state Department of Natural Resources wolf expert says.
Studies this past winter place the 2014 population at 636, down 22 from last year. That decline matches the number killed in the hunt, but is a coincidence, said Adam Bump, the DNR’s furbearing animal specialist.
He also said the slight decline from last year is a statistical wash. It is the state's second dip in two years. Robust growth since the early 1990s led to the canine's removal from federal protection.
“It is important to realize this is the initial look at the first data of the first hunt and it is going to take a while to look at all those factors and what they mean,” Bump said.
The 22 wolves killed are slightly lower than the agency’s preliminary report of 23 killed.
The number was adjusted downward after a hunter reported a kill but did produce the animal, as required, at a check station.
The DNR had hoped as many as 43 wolves would be killed in three Upper Peninsula areas with livestock and dog depredations, as well as human conflicts.
Before the hunt, 13 wolf attacks were documented on livestock in 2013, almost all cattle, the DNR reports. That’s near the lowest since 2002, and well down from 64 the year before - an 80 percent dip.
Hunt critics say that is evidence other control efforts were working, but one farm in particular stood out as problematic.
An MLive.com investigation exploring reasons for the hunt found a single Ontonagon County farm experienced more attacks than almost all other farms combined since 1996. Most attacks came them during the period the state studied to set the hunt.
Owner John Koski received nearly $33,000 in taxpayer reimbursement for the lost cattle, and more than $200,000 was spent by state and federal employees to investigate his claims and help find way stop the attacks, records show.
John Koski walks near cattle bones on his Matchwood Township farm Thursday, Oct. 10, 2013. The 69-year-old, who has a second cattle farm in Bessemer, has the highest number of reported wolf attacks in Michigan. Koski supports the upcoming Upper Peninsula wolf hunt. (Cory Morse | MLive.com)
John Koski walks near cattle bones on his Ontonagon County farm on Thursday, Oct. 10, 2013. The 69-year-old has the highest number of confirmed wolf attacks in Michigan. Critics say outdoor cattle carcasses attract wolves to his property.
(Cory Morse | MLive.com)
Koski has since been accused by wildlife authorities of leaving dead cattle in the field, drawing more wolves. Koski, 69, was charged in November, shortly after the MLive stories, with animal cruelty or neglect.
Authorities allege he allowed two taxpayer-provided guard mules to die; a third was so sickened it had to be removed.
Koski was to go to trial April 23, but a plea deal has been struck, court officials say. The scheduled April 24 plea is now reset to May 8.
Prosecutor James Jessup has not returned calls for comment. Court-appointed attorney Mathew Tingstad has said a goal is to keep Koski out of jail.
Koski’s 925 acres are now listed for sale for $489,000; about 150 cattle have also been sold or removed to a smaller farm where Koski lives in neighboring Gogebic County.
Whether that will keep wolf conflicts lower is unknown, DNR spokeswoman Debbie Munson Badini said.
“It's far too early to tell what changes might result from the removal or reduction of cattle in an area with a documented history of depredation issues,” Badini said. “However, we will be closely monitoring the wolf packs and any future reported conflicts in order to gather the best possible data, which will guide future management of the species.”
The inaugural hunt's low success rate frustrated most licensed hunters. Fewer than half - 45 percent - rated the experience as good or very good, responses to a post-hunt mail survey by the DNR showed.
No plans have been finalized for another hunt this year. The DNR hopes post-hunt studies will inform future hunts. Also, there are political issues that make it hard to plan.
“There is a lot of uncertainty between now and the fall,” Bump said.
As many as three questions could be on the ballot this November related to wolf hunting, two against and one in favor. Possible legislative action before then could render any voter decisions moot.
Campaign finance reports filed last week show the group Keep Michigan Wolves Protected has raised $1.4 million, mostly from the Humane Society of the United States.
The pro-hunt Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management have raised almost $465,000 from various hunting and conversation groups.
Michigan’s 2013 hunt was much smaller in two other Great Lakes States. Wisconsin and Minnesota hunters killed at least 10 times as many wolves in each state. There are more wolves there as well.
Minnesota’s wolf population was estimated last year at more than three times that of Michigan’s. Wisconsin, however, had only about 150 more wolves than Michigan.
-- Email statewide projects coordinator John Barnes at jbarnes1@mlive.com or follow him on Twitter.
131 comments
Sign in
Post comment as...
Newest | Oldest
PotSmokingPottyMouthAtheist
PotSmokingPottyMouthAtheist 3 hours ago
I simply fail to understand an individual who obtains pleasure from violently killing an animal with a firearm.
FlagShare2hopefulMaia_S. Abdulhalim_393LikeReply
PotSmokingPottyMouthAtheist
PotSmokingPottyMouthAtheist 3 hours ago
(And there are other ways to enjoy the natural environment. Me? I fish Michigan streams for smallies....strictly catch 'n release with all hook barbs flattened.)
FlagShare2hopefulMaia_S. Abdulhalim_393LikeReply
watchcaltwp
watchcaltwp 3 hours ago
Wow. Let's here it for the pot smoker. He flattened his barb. Pass the neddle nose.
FlagShareLikeReply
William Huard
William Huard 2 hours ago
You mean needle nose? Maybe you should give up the pot. You could have at least made a mindless hunter comment about decimated game herds or children stalked by wolves at bus stops.
FlagShare1hopefulLikeReply
William Huard
William Huard 4 hours ago
I love the anti- science hunter comments. Wolves kill elk, deer, and moose. They will also kill a fake hunters hound if they intrude on the wolf's territory. They will kill a dog or cat if people are stupid enough to leave them unguarded with known predators around. FG agencies should not be disingenuous about why they want a wolf hunt. They do it to provide selfish and paranoid hunters with hunter opportunity. Sport hunting wolves and decimating a pack's social structure so hunters feel better about themselves is hardly a science based reason
FlagShare3pogo_possumnota33Maia_S. Abdulhalim_393LikeReply
Mr_Glorious_Sunbath
Mr_Glorious_Sunbath 6 hours ago
Is it really necessary to include pictures of a wolfs bloody carcass? I have seen articles like this on MLive and they all have to include pictures of dead wolves. We get it- people are hunting them. We all don't need to see them dead with blood caked around their muzzle.
FlagShareLikeReply
msusnicknel
msusnicknel 5 hours ago
@mr_Glorious_Sunbath
Reality isn't always pretty.
FlagShare1pogo_possumLikeReply
John Barnes | jbarnes1@mlive.com
John Barnes | jbarnes1@mlive.com 5 hours ago
@mr_Glorious_Sunbath The photo was selected because photojournalism should communicate the nature of the story -- in this case the hunt. I understand what you are saying. We could have shown a more generic stock photo of a wolf, and have before, but I thought this was somewhat discreet, and is real.
FlagShare2pogo_possumMaia_S. Abdulhalim_393LikeReply
Jorj X. McKie
Jorj X. McKie 5 hours ago
@mr_Glorious_Sunbath Please avoid the meat department at Meijer.
FlagShare3pogo_possummsusnicknelRick_DavidLikeReply
Rick_David
Rick_David 5 hours ago
@mr_Glorious_Sunbath there is barely any blood in the photo. I don't see a problem.
FlagShare1pogo_possumLikeReply
watchcaltwp
watchcaltwp 3 hours ago
But they can't get the tree hugger vote without pics
FlagShareLikeReply
james macko
james macko 6 hours ago
Wolves are very dangerous animals. They not only kill people but they kill livestock and pets.one pack of wolves can attack and kill hunting dogs and as soon they start an attack they will not stop until it is dead. Not only for protecting your animals and property they can be harvested for meals and food through the winter. Wild game is a lot healthier then store bought meat.
FlagShareLikeReply
Norm Mackey
Norm Mackey 6 hours ago
@james macko, with all due respect, horse manure. Attacks on pets and livestock are miniscule compared to the number of wolves, hunting dog conflicts almost always occur when wolves are defending pups in den and rendezvous areas and a number result in mere injuries, and wolves aren't reducing the amount of game animals available to hunting.
FlagShare3pogo_possumMaia_S. Abdulhalim_393hopefulLikeReply
msusnicknel
msusnicknel 5 hours ago
@james mackoMaybe don't run your hunting dogs through wolf territory. That ever cross your mind? Lots of other hunting methods. You just find it easier to kill off an entire species rather than adapt your behavior. Same can be said for livestock. Many, MANY ways to deter wolf attacks on livestock without eliminating them.
No argument that wild game is healthier, but with a vibrant wolf population, other species will rebound dramatically. Returning the apex predator is an extremely effective and efficient way to rehabilitate an area to its natural balance. Here is an excellent link explaining how this works.
www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/how-wolves-can-save-ecosystem
FlagShare3pogo_possumNorm MackeyMaia_S. Abdulhalim_393LikeReply
kelso's mom
kelso's mom 4 hours ago
@james macko You could protect your animals against wolves without the hunt and I'd wager not one of the wolves shot in last years hunt became dinner.
FlagShare4pogo_possumNorm MackeyMaia_S. Abdulhalim_393hopefulLikeReply
guitarmahn
guitarmahn 6 hours ago
The gluttons that men are kill everything, spread out and destroy everything. Well they are infringing in our territory, where it their territory now that we take everything?
FlagShare1Maia_S. Abdulhalim_393LikeReply
mirights
mirights 7 hours ago
I am looking forward to mounting a beautiful wolf rug on my wall. I can't wait to get a chance to hunt one! Might even buy a new rifle for the hunt.
FlagShare1hunterjimLikeReply
nota33
nota33 3 hours ago
@mirights Come this Nov, there will be no more wolf hunt come this Nov. We are going to save OUR wildlife from you anti-wildlife extremists
FlagShareLikeReply
drawmt
drawmt 8 hours ago
Do we not trust the DNR? I am an avid hunter in MI. I could not kill a wolf or a bear or a bobcat. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. I may be naïve, but I have to trust the experts. Too many things go on a ballot that shouldn't. The DNR should be making this decision, not you or me.
FlagShare3mrjdsJorj X. McKiehunterjimLikeReply
msusnicknel
msusnicknel 7 hours ago
@drawmt As a governmental agency, headed up by political appointees, the DNR is as subject to political whims as it is to science. No different than the electorate.
FlagShare3MackinacIIpogo_possummirightsLikeReply
rork1
rork1 6 hours ago
@drawmt I am an avid hunter in MI. I think game management decisions should be up to the citizens, not to say they should sweat every detail (like brook trout size limits) every day. This is in keeping with the North American Model of Wildlife management's principles about how wildlife should be managed democratically, which is enshrined by many hunting organizations, even the RMEF. 100-year-old principles shouldn't get chucked under the bus just so we can hunt wolves. They were in place to protect us from the people with the most money taking over wildlife management. For example Idaho, where the ranchers own the land and the politicians (or are the politicians). A minority with money can run the whole show.
FlagShare3pogo_possumNorm MackeymsusnicknelLikeReply
nota33
nota33 3 hours ago
@drawmt Those animals do not need to be killed. Hunters hate animals. They are sick people. The people of mi should be making the decisions, not ignorant trigger happy anti-wildlife hunters.
FlagShareLikeReply
drawmt
drawmt 2 hours ago
Hunters hate animals? Really? Maybe you should come and see what I do on my property for the wildlife. I'm guessing I do more in a year then you or most anti-hunting people do in a lifetime. I spend hundreds of dollars a year in habitat on my property. Be careful with generalized statements. If you didn't have a deer/car accident last year, thank a hunter.
FlagShareLikeReply
nota33
nota33 39 minutes ago
@drawmt if you don't have a car accident with deer, thank a wolf. Wolves do more for wildlife than you hunters ever will and yes, hunters hate wildlife, but love killing wildlife. Hunters are anti-wildlife.
FlagShareLikeReply
southyoop
southyoop 31 minutes ago
Are you really that stupid? Or just don't get out of the city that much?
FlagShareLikeReply
imaflintoidbaybay
imaflintoidbaybay 8 hours ago
I'm going to answer some smarmy, sarcastic commenters here, right at the top of the page. The wolf population in Michigan consumes between 6500 to 10,000 pounds of meat PER DAY! Where do you think it comes from? No, sure, no deer, moose, grouse or turkeys are killed. Well, they sure aint eating sparrows.
FlagShareLikeReply
msusnicknel
msusnicknel 8 hours ago
@imaflintoidbaybay
Well, a 2 second google search turned up the following... Large ungulates like deer, moose, elk and caribou are a wolf's primary food source. Wolves will also eat smaller animals like beaver, rabbit, mice and ground squirrel. Wolves mature sexually at around 22 months of age.
FlagShare3pogo_possumMaia_S. Abdulhalim_393Mr_Glorious_SunbathLikeReply
imaflintoidbaybay
imaflintoidbaybay 8 hours ago
@msusnicknel @imaflintoidbaybay Your point?
FlagShareLikeReply
msusnicknel
msusnicknel 7 hours ago
@imaflintoidbaybay @msusnicknel
You asked the question, 'Where do you think it (the wolves' food) comes from. I was simply replying to your question.
I think it comes from large ungulates (in MI deer and elk,) beaver, rabbit, mice and squirrels. I think this because I took the 30 seconds necessary to do a google search, a process which would probably would serve you better than asking it on MLIVE's forum.
In other words, I answered your question because you were too lazy to do it yourself.
FlagShare7MackinacIIpogo_possumwatchcaltwpMaia_S. Abdulhalim_393LikeReply
mirights
mirights 7 hours ago
@msusnicknel @imaflintoidbaybayit was a rhetorical question used to frame his post. He answers the question, himself, in the following sentence. Your response is why public speakers are trained to avoid using rhetorical questions.
FlagShareLikeReply
gooblegobble
gooblegobble 7 hours ago
@msusnicknel @imaflintoidbaybay
I think the wolves could take care of the "deer problem", but I think there are people out there who NEED to kill things, so they're assigning themselves the job to eliminate the majority of both species. It's really sad.
FlagShare1Maia_S. Abdulhalim_393LikeReply
msusnicknel
msusnicknel 7 hours ago
@imaflintoidbaybay @msusnicknelgood thing nobody said mice were their primary food source. Are you arguing that culling 110-160/day from the herd is excessive/unsustainable?
FlagShareLikeReply
PotSmokingPottyMouthAtheist
PotSmokingPottyMouthAtheist 7 hours ago
If you enjoy wolves so much, why don't you go out and watch them drag a few deer down. you should enjoy that.
______________
It's more amusing to watch you beer-bellied "hunters" trying to shoot them before you shoot one another.
FlagShare1Mr_Glorious_SunbathLikeReply
rork1
rork1 7 hours ago
@msusnicknel @imaflintoidbaybayexactly. Those numbers are unreferenced and higher than any I've seen before (I hear 20-25K deer/year), but the annoying part is not getting to the punch line by imaflint. I gave UP buck deer hunter harvest statistics in another comment below. They do not reflect a crashing deer herd. DNR has never used the deer as an excuse for a wolf hunt yet, likely cause the evidence is not good to make such an argument. I give them credit for that.
PS: prepare for less deer in UP this year, cause of winter, the usual cause of deer decline or increase up north.
FlagShare3pogo_possumMaia_S. Abdulhalim_393msusnicknelLikeReply
Norm Mackey
Norm Mackey 5 hours ago
@mirights @msusnicknel@imaflintoidbaybay, It's called "sarcastic". Of course, "smarmy" is a matter of opinion.
FlagShareLikeReply
watchcaltwp
watchcaltwp 6 hours ago
Eat a beaver save a tree
FlagShareLikeReply
Norm Mackey
Norm Mackey 6 hours ago
@imaflintoidbaybay, to answer the question seriously, I believe studies have shown that about 55% of wolves' diet in Michigan is venison. As deer are adapted to the presence of wolves in all of their behavior and biology, much of that is young deer, which are overproduced to compensate, and old deer, mostly elderly does which when removed make room for younger, still fast reproducing younger ones.
As for moose, it is clear Michigan wolves eat virtually none. Of many, many radio collared moose whose deaths were investigated, one, exactly one, was determined to have been killed by wolves. Its condition as far as health was concerned is uncertain.
FlagShare3pogo_possumMaia_S. Abdulhalim_393msusnicknelLikeReply
hopeful
hopeful 4 hours ago
So you are saying every wolf eats between 10 and 15 lbs of meat ore day? Are you sure about that ? Seems like a lot to me but I'm no expert.
FlagShare1Norm MackeyLikeReply
Njohntackle
Njohntackle 8 hours ago
We should keep hunting the wolf and these are my reasons why . one is to keep the pack healthy .then two is the that there not endangered anymore so why shouldn't we hunt them. and art some for the farm er having problems with them so odds are there going to shout them anyway. and like deer if there populations gits to big they will have to move to closer to people. and that what i think.
FlagShareLikeReply
Norm Mackey
Norm Mackey 6 hours ago
@njohntackle, hunting wolves will not "keep the pack healthy". As apex predators, like bald eagles, wolves neither require nor or adapted to have a usual predator besides themselves. They control their own numbers by defending territories large enough that they do not limit their own prey herds, and increasing pack sizes while keeping most from breeding, usually only a pair per pack. The larger the packs the more non-breeding wolves there are.
This is a primary reason not to shoot wolves for sport or at random. It reduces the size of packs, while a pair per pack will likely reproduce anyway, and the size of the territory the packs can defend, opening habitat for new pairs of wolves to establish new packs.
As the wolf population is stabilizing well below 700 they are obviously doing a superb job of controlling their own population.
FlagShare3pogo_possumnota33Maia_S. Abdulhalim_393LikeReply
santrega
santrega 6 hours ago
@norm Mackey @njohntackle If they are stabilizing in your opinion, doesn't that indicate they've reached a saturation point to where the food source cannot support any further growth in their population? Wouldn't that indicate they have indeed depleted their food source to the point some of them are starving? Controlling their own population is in effect starving, correct?
FlagShareLikeReply
Norm Mackey
Norm Mackey 5 hours ago
@santrega @norm Mackey@Njohntackle, nope. Stabilizing according to all the evidence available, while never approaching numbers that could control their prey population. Controlling their own population by larger wolf packs excluding and preying on smaller packs, mostly, as noted.
You might want to look at the last few years in Minnesota, where a for several years stable wolf population resulted in an out-of-control whitetail deer herd the DNR there had to reduce by 25% to prevent crop and habitat destruction. Following which wolf packs expanded their territories, and the wolf numbers in the season after dropped - by 25%.
It does wolves no good to reduce their prey population and the idea that they would evolve to is frankly silly.
FlagShare1pogo_possumLikeReply
santrega
santrega 5 hours ago
Nothing you said here makes any sort of sense. Populations rise and fall similar to supply and demand in economic systems. If there is less supply (food) there will be less demand (population). You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You can't claim the population has reached its max, yet the food source has nothing to do with their dying off.
You sound as if you believe that wolves have a collective consciousness and can somehow collectively decide to stop reproducing in an area because there's just too many of themselves. It's not in their genes to control their own population, its in their genes to survive. Wolves don't do population control calculations to figure out their impact on the ecosystem. Wolves eat when they are hungry, and die when they don't find enough food, or they have a disease. Plain and simple, you are wrong. Wolves don't control their own population, nature as a whole does.
FlagShareLikeReply
msusnicknel
msusnicknel 5 hours ago
@santregaand a healthy wolf population changes nature as a whole.
www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/how-wolves-can-save-ecosystem
FlagShareLikeReply
Norm Mackey
Norm Mackey 5 hours ago
@santrega, in this case the limiting factor is the territory available to wolves, not the prey population. The worst danger, and by their behavior the worst fear wolves have is other wolves. The hate and kill wolves not of their own packs. I think it is you who seem to take the disney view that wolves make some sort of treaty or pact with other wolf pacts to tolerate each other for the purpose of reducing their prey population, and mistake the dynamics of apex predators for their prey.
Look at the reality of the stable less than 700 Michigan wolf numbers in years when the deer population was stable. Otherwise please explain the reality of the Minnesota experience in terms of your baseless theory.
FlagShare2pogo_possummsusnicknelLikeReply
santrega
santrega 5 hours ago
@norm Mackey @santrega Wolves hate each other so much they control their own population in order to avoid running into future wolves they do not like? You write in a way that shows intelligence, but your arguments are incoherent at best, and preposterous. Why would a pack control its own population because it could run into enemy wolves, wouldn't it make more sense to increase its population to deal with enemy wolves?
Very little logic in the things that you say. You believe evolution somehow built these wolves to perfectly balance themselves out based on territory. Why is this balance not in any other life? Will algae for example quit growing in a lake before it has exhausted all oxygen killing all life in the lake? The answer is no, because populations of animals don't understand how they effect other populations.
FlagShareLikeReply
Norm Mackey
Norm Mackey 4 hours ago
@santrega @norm Mackey, actually you are supporting (and apparently misunderstanding) by argument. Naturally, wolf packs increase their size and the territory they defend by adding nonbreeding members, avoid similar sized packs because they are too closely matched to safely compete, and kill or drive away packs small enough that they can. They don't "perfectly balance", they simply don't come near numbers that prevent their prey from increasing.
The problem is that the proposed "management" is what reduces wolf pack sizes (as is well documented in western states) and unnaturally increases the number of packs. Do the math: reduce the size of a large pack by two and you provide habitat for another pair of wolves to establish a pack, doubling the number of pups born in the same area.
Sane management for wolves would be the DNR, if necessary, removing whole smaller packs from an area and leaving the large, slowly reproducing packs alone to grow. Not running the natural wolf population controls bass-ackwards, as my father would have approximately put it.
FlagShare1pogo_possumLikeReply
nota33
nota33 3 hours ago
@njohntackle shooting wolves does not keep the pack healthy. We shouldn't hunt them nbecause they have the right to live. Why are hunters such psychopaths?
FlagShareLikeReply
summer
summer 8 hours ago
The 45-day hunting season that began Nov. 15 had little impact on one of the state’s top predators, a top state Department of Natural Resources wolf expert says.
That should have been obvious from the beginning. LONGER season, HIGHER quota is the only way to manage the numbers. Those few that were killed have been more than replaced with the birth of pups.
FlagShareLikeReply
msusnicknel
msusnicknel 8 hours ago
@summer
"Studies this past winter place the 2014 population at 636, down 22 from last year." and "It is the state's second dip in two years."
Sounds like NO hunt was managing the numbers just fine.
FlagShare2MackinacIIhopefulLikeReply
Norm Mackey
Norm Mackey 6 hours ago
@msusnicknel @summer, a reality to which the pro-wolf hunt crowd covers their eyes, sticks their fingers in their ears and chants "I can't hear you".
FlagShare1msusnicknelLikeReply
SlantedMedia
SlantedMedia 6 hours ago
@msusnicknel @summer Wolves reproduce from January to March and carry their pups for around 60-65 days...meaning some wolves haven't even had their litters yet as of today....How could they estimate the 2014 population?
Sound like you KNOW nothing about wolves.
FlagShareLikeReply
Norm Mackey
Norm Mackey 6 hours ago
@slantedmedia @msusnicknel, sounds like you know nothing about counting wildlife populations. The number counted is the population before young are born, and in the case of wolves the pups die from natural causes at a high rate, barely able to replace the 25% of adults dying from natural causes annually.
Michigan wolf hunt: From pup to aging adults, new details break down the hunt
(Note: Search this database for attacks by wolves and compensation paid.)
Michigan’s first wolf hunt killed a pup as young as half-a-year old to two older adults more than seven years old, new state information shows.
The details come as recent financial reports show both sides of the wolf-hunt battle have raised about $1.9 million combined – equal to about $2,300 for each wolf in the state, according to new population figures.
It also comes as state studies show livestock attacks, a reason for the hunt, were among the lowest in a decade last year.
Among details presented to the Michigan Wolf Management Advisory Council last week:
• The youngest of 22 wolves killed was 0.6 years old, a female pup born earlier in the year. The animals grow quickly and can appear nearly full-sized.
• The oldest two, a male and female taken at opposite ends of the Upper Peninsula, were 7.6 years. Those are aging wolves; life expectancy in the wild is about five years.
• The average age of wolves killed was 2.6 years. In all, they were equally divided between males and females, 11 each.
• The average distance from where a wolf was killed compared to documented conflicts was five miles.
WOLFSTATS.jpg
The 45-day hunting season that began Nov. 15 had little impact on one of the state’s top predators, a top state Department of Natural Resources wolf expert says.
Studies this past winter place the 2014 population at 636, down 22 from last year. That decline matches the number killed in the hunt, but is a coincidence, said Adam Bump, the DNR’s furbearing animal specialist.
He also said the slight decline from last year is a statistical wash. It is the state's second dip in two years. Robust growth since the early 1990s led to the canine's removal from federal protection.
“It is important to realize this is the initial look at the first data of the first hunt and it is going to take a while to look at all those factors and what they mean,” Bump said.
The 22 wolves killed are slightly lower than the agency’s preliminary report of 23 killed.
The number was adjusted downward after a hunter reported a kill but did produce the animal, as required, at a check station.
The DNR had hoped as many as 43 wolves would be killed in three Upper Peninsula areas with livestock and dog depredations, as well as human conflicts.
Before the hunt, 13 wolf attacks were documented on livestock in 2013, almost all cattle, the DNR reports. That’s near the lowest since 2002, and well down from 64 the year before - an 80 percent dip.
Hunt critics say that is evidence other control efforts were working, but one farm in particular stood out as problematic.
An MLive.com investigation exploring reasons for the hunt found a single Ontonagon County farm experienced more attacks than almost all other farms combined since 1996. Most attacks came them during the period the state studied to set the hunt.
Owner John Koski received nearly $33,000 in taxpayer reimbursement for the lost cattle, and more than $200,000 was spent by state and federal employees to investigate his claims and help find way stop the attacks, records show.
John Koski walks near cattle bones on his Matchwood Township farm Thursday, Oct. 10, 2013. The 69-year-old, who has a second cattle farm in Bessemer, has the highest number of reported wolf attacks in Michigan. Koski supports the upcoming Upper Peninsula wolf hunt. (Cory Morse | MLive.com)
John Koski walks near cattle bones on his Ontonagon County farm on Thursday, Oct. 10, 2013. The 69-year-old has the highest number of confirmed wolf attacks in Michigan. Critics say outdoor cattle carcasses attract wolves to his property.
(Cory Morse | MLive.com)
Koski has since been accused by wildlife authorities of leaving dead cattle in the field, drawing more wolves. Koski, 69, was charged in November, shortly after the MLive stories, with animal cruelty or neglect.
Authorities allege he allowed two taxpayer-provided guard mules to die; a third was so sickened it had to be removed.
Koski was to go to trial April 23, but a plea deal has been struck, court officials say. The scheduled April 24 plea is now reset to May 8.
Prosecutor James Jessup has not returned calls for comment. Court-appointed attorney Mathew Tingstad has said a goal is to keep Koski out of jail.
Koski’s 925 acres are now listed for sale for $489,000; about 150 cattle have also been sold or removed to a smaller farm where Koski lives in neighboring Gogebic County.
Whether that will keep wolf conflicts lower is unknown, DNR spokeswoman Debbie Munson Badini said.
“It's far too early to tell what changes might result from the removal or reduction of cattle in an area with a documented history of depredation issues,” Badini said. “However, we will be closely monitoring the wolf packs and any future reported conflicts in order to gather the best possible data, which will guide future management of the species.”
The inaugural hunt's low success rate frustrated most licensed hunters. Fewer than half - 45 percent - rated the experience as good or very good, responses to a post-hunt mail survey by the DNR showed.
No plans have been finalized for another hunt this year. The DNR hopes post-hunt studies will inform future hunts. Also, there are political issues that make it hard to plan.
“There is a lot of uncertainty between now and the fall,” Bump said.
As many as three questions could be on the ballot this November related to wolf hunting, two against and one in favor. Possible legislative action before then could render any voter decisions moot.
Campaign finance reports filed last week show the group Keep Michigan Wolves Protected has raised $1.4 million, mostly from the Humane Society of the United States.
The pro-hunt Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management have raised almost $465,000 from various hunting and conversation groups.
Michigan’s 2013 hunt was much smaller in two other Great Lakes States. Wisconsin and Minnesota hunters killed at least 10 times as many wolves in each state. There are more wolves there as well.
Minnesota’s wolf population was estimated last year at more than three times that of Michigan’s. Wisconsin, however, had only about 150 more wolves than Michigan.
-- Email statewide projects coordinator John Barnes at jbarnes1@mlive.com or follow him on Twitter.
131 comments
Sign in
Post comment as...
Newest | Oldest
PotSmokingPottyMouthAtheist
PotSmokingPottyMouthAtheist 3 hours ago
I simply fail to understand an individual who obtains pleasure from violently killing an animal with a firearm.
FlagShare2hopefulMaia_S. Abdulhalim_393LikeReply
PotSmokingPottyMouthAtheist
PotSmokingPottyMouthAtheist 3 hours ago
(And there are other ways to enjoy the natural environment. Me? I fish Michigan streams for smallies....strictly catch 'n release with all hook barbs flattened.)
FlagShare2hopefulMaia_S. Abdulhalim_393LikeReply
watchcaltwp
watchcaltwp 3 hours ago
Wow. Let's here it for the pot smoker. He flattened his barb. Pass the neddle nose.
FlagShareLikeReply
William Huard
William Huard 2 hours ago
You mean needle nose? Maybe you should give up the pot. You could have at least made a mindless hunter comment about decimated game herds or children stalked by wolves at bus stops.
FlagShare1hopefulLikeReply
William Huard
William Huard 4 hours ago
I love the anti- science hunter comments. Wolves kill elk, deer, and moose. They will also kill a fake hunters hound if they intrude on the wolf's territory. They will kill a dog or cat if people are stupid enough to leave them unguarded with known predators around. FG agencies should not be disingenuous about why they want a wolf hunt. They do it to provide selfish and paranoid hunters with hunter opportunity. Sport hunting wolves and decimating a pack's social structure so hunters feel better about themselves is hardly a science based reason
FlagShare3pogo_possumnota33Maia_S. Abdulhalim_393LikeReply
Mr_Glorious_Sunbath
Mr_Glorious_Sunbath 6 hours ago
Is it really necessary to include pictures of a wolfs bloody carcass? I have seen articles like this on MLive and they all have to include pictures of dead wolves. We get it- people are hunting them. We all don't need to see them dead with blood caked around their muzzle.
FlagShareLikeReply
msusnicknel
msusnicknel 5 hours ago
@mr_Glorious_Sunbath
Reality isn't always pretty.
FlagShare1pogo_possumLikeReply
John Barnes | jbarnes1@mlive.com
John Barnes | jbarnes1@mlive.com 5 hours ago
@mr_Glorious_Sunbath The photo was selected because photojournalism should communicate the nature of the story -- in this case the hunt. I understand what you are saying. We could have shown a more generic stock photo of a wolf, and have before, but I thought this was somewhat discreet, and is real.
FlagShare2pogo_possumMaia_S. Abdulhalim_393LikeReply
Jorj X. McKie
Jorj X. McKie 5 hours ago
@mr_Glorious_Sunbath Please avoid the meat department at Meijer.
FlagShare3pogo_possummsusnicknelRick_DavidLikeReply
Rick_David
Rick_David 5 hours ago
@mr_Glorious_Sunbath there is barely any blood in the photo. I don't see a problem.
FlagShare1pogo_possumLikeReply
watchcaltwp
watchcaltwp 3 hours ago
But they can't get the tree hugger vote without pics
FlagShareLikeReply
james macko
james macko 6 hours ago
Wolves are very dangerous animals. They not only kill people but they kill livestock and pets.one pack of wolves can attack and kill hunting dogs and as soon they start an attack they will not stop until it is dead. Not only for protecting your animals and property they can be harvested for meals and food through the winter. Wild game is a lot healthier then store bought meat.
FlagShareLikeReply
Norm Mackey
Norm Mackey 6 hours ago
@james macko, with all due respect, horse manure. Attacks on pets and livestock are miniscule compared to the number of wolves, hunting dog conflicts almost always occur when wolves are defending pups in den and rendezvous areas and a number result in mere injuries, and wolves aren't reducing the amount of game animals available to hunting.
FlagShare3pogo_possumMaia_S. Abdulhalim_393hopefulLikeReply
msusnicknel
msusnicknel 5 hours ago
@james mackoMaybe don't run your hunting dogs through wolf territory. That ever cross your mind? Lots of other hunting methods. You just find it easier to kill off an entire species rather than adapt your behavior. Same can be said for livestock. Many, MANY ways to deter wolf attacks on livestock without eliminating them.
No argument that wild game is healthier, but with a vibrant wolf population, other species will rebound dramatically. Returning the apex predator is an extremely effective and efficient way to rehabilitate an area to its natural balance. Here is an excellent link explaining how this works.
www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/how-wolves-can-save-ecosystem
FlagShare3pogo_possumNorm MackeyMaia_S. Abdulhalim_393LikeReply
kelso's mom
kelso's mom 4 hours ago
@james macko You could protect your animals against wolves without the hunt and I'd wager not one of the wolves shot in last years hunt became dinner.
FlagShare4pogo_possumNorm MackeyMaia_S. Abdulhalim_393hopefulLikeReply
guitarmahn
guitarmahn 6 hours ago
The gluttons that men are kill everything, spread out and destroy everything. Well they are infringing in our territory, where it their territory now that we take everything?
FlagShare1Maia_S. Abdulhalim_393LikeReply
mirights
mirights 7 hours ago
I am looking forward to mounting a beautiful wolf rug on my wall. I can't wait to get a chance to hunt one! Might even buy a new rifle for the hunt.
FlagShare1hunterjimLikeReply
nota33
nota33 3 hours ago
@mirights Come this Nov, there will be no more wolf hunt come this Nov. We are going to save OUR wildlife from you anti-wildlife extremists
FlagShareLikeReply
drawmt
drawmt 8 hours ago
Do we not trust the DNR? I am an avid hunter in MI. I could not kill a wolf or a bear or a bobcat. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. I may be naïve, but I have to trust the experts. Too many things go on a ballot that shouldn't. The DNR should be making this decision, not you or me.
FlagShare3mrjdsJorj X. McKiehunterjimLikeReply
msusnicknel
msusnicknel 7 hours ago
@drawmt As a governmental agency, headed up by political appointees, the DNR is as subject to political whims as it is to science. No different than the electorate.
FlagShare3MackinacIIpogo_possummirightsLikeReply
rork1
rork1 6 hours ago
@drawmt I am an avid hunter in MI. I think game management decisions should be up to the citizens, not to say they should sweat every detail (like brook trout size limits) every day. This is in keeping with the North American Model of Wildlife management's principles about how wildlife should be managed democratically, which is enshrined by many hunting organizations, even the RMEF. 100-year-old principles shouldn't get chucked under the bus just so we can hunt wolves. They were in place to protect us from the people with the most money taking over wildlife management. For example Idaho, where the ranchers own the land and the politicians (or are the politicians). A minority with money can run the whole show.
FlagShare3pogo_possumNorm MackeymsusnicknelLikeReply
nota33
nota33 3 hours ago
@drawmt Those animals do not need to be killed. Hunters hate animals. They are sick people. The people of mi should be making the decisions, not ignorant trigger happy anti-wildlife hunters.
FlagShareLikeReply
drawmt
drawmt 2 hours ago
Hunters hate animals? Really? Maybe you should come and see what I do on my property for the wildlife. I'm guessing I do more in a year then you or most anti-hunting people do in a lifetime. I spend hundreds of dollars a year in habitat on my property. Be careful with generalized statements. If you didn't have a deer/car accident last year, thank a hunter.
FlagShareLikeReply
nota33
nota33 39 minutes ago
@drawmt if you don't have a car accident with deer, thank a wolf. Wolves do more for wildlife than you hunters ever will and yes, hunters hate wildlife, but love killing wildlife. Hunters are anti-wildlife.
FlagShareLikeReply
southyoop
southyoop 31 minutes ago
Are you really that stupid? Or just don't get out of the city that much?
FlagShareLikeReply
imaflintoidbaybay
imaflintoidbaybay 8 hours ago
I'm going to answer some smarmy, sarcastic commenters here, right at the top of the page. The wolf population in Michigan consumes between 6500 to 10,000 pounds of meat PER DAY! Where do you think it comes from? No, sure, no deer, moose, grouse or turkeys are killed. Well, they sure aint eating sparrows.
FlagShareLikeReply
msusnicknel
msusnicknel 8 hours ago
@imaflintoidbaybay
Well, a 2 second google search turned up the following... Large ungulates like deer, moose, elk and caribou are a wolf's primary food source. Wolves will also eat smaller animals like beaver, rabbit, mice and ground squirrel. Wolves mature sexually at around 22 months of age.
FlagShare3pogo_possumMaia_S. Abdulhalim_393Mr_Glorious_SunbathLikeReply
imaflintoidbaybay
imaflintoidbaybay 8 hours ago
@msusnicknel @imaflintoidbaybay Your point?
FlagShareLikeReply
msusnicknel
msusnicknel 7 hours ago
@imaflintoidbaybay @msusnicknel
You asked the question, 'Where do you think it (the wolves' food) comes from. I was simply replying to your question.
I think it comes from large ungulates (in MI deer and elk,) beaver, rabbit, mice and squirrels. I think this because I took the 30 seconds necessary to do a google search, a process which would probably would serve you better than asking it on MLIVE's forum.
In other words, I answered your question because you were too lazy to do it yourself.
FlagShare7MackinacIIpogo_possumwatchcaltwpMaia_S. Abdulhalim_393LikeReply
mirights
mirights 7 hours ago
@msusnicknel @imaflintoidbaybayit was a rhetorical question used to frame his post. He answers the question, himself, in the following sentence. Your response is why public speakers are trained to avoid using rhetorical questions.
FlagShareLikeReply
gooblegobble
gooblegobble 7 hours ago
@msusnicknel @imaflintoidbaybay
I think the wolves could take care of the "deer problem", but I think there are people out there who NEED to kill things, so they're assigning themselves the job to eliminate the majority of both species. It's really sad.
FlagShare1Maia_S. Abdulhalim_393LikeReply
msusnicknel
msusnicknel 7 hours ago
@imaflintoidbaybay @msusnicknelgood thing nobody said mice were their primary food source. Are you arguing that culling 110-160/day from the herd is excessive/unsustainable?
FlagShareLikeReply
PotSmokingPottyMouthAtheist
PotSmokingPottyMouthAtheist 7 hours ago
If you enjoy wolves so much, why don't you go out and watch them drag a few deer down. you should enjoy that.
______________
It's more amusing to watch you beer-bellied "hunters" trying to shoot them before you shoot one another.
FlagShare1Mr_Glorious_SunbathLikeReply
rork1
rork1 7 hours ago
@msusnicknel @imaflintoidbaybayexactly. Those numbers are unreferenced and higher than any I've seen before (I hear 20-25K deer/year), but the annoying part is not getting to the punch line by imaflint. I gave UP buck deer hunter harvest statistics in another comment below. They do not reflect a crashing deer herd. DNR has never used the deer as an excuse for a wolf hunt yet, likely cause the evidence is not good to make such an argument. I give them credit for that.
PS: prepare for less deer in UP this year, cause of winter, the usual cause of deer decline or increase up north.
FlagShare3pogo_possumMaia_S. Abdulhalim_393msusnicknelLikeReply
Norm Mackey
Norm Mackey 5 hours ago
@mirights @msusnicknel@imaflintoidbaybay, It's called "sarcastic". Of course, "smarmy" is a matter of opinion.
FlagShareLikeReply
watchcaltwp
watchcaltwp 6 hours ago
Eat a beaver save a tree
FlagShareLikeReply
Norm Mackey
Norm Mackey 6 hours ago
@imaflintoidbaybay, to answer the question seriously, I believe studies have shown that about 55% of wolves' diet in Michigan is venison. As deer are adapted to the presence of wolves in all of their behavior and biology, much of that is young deer, which are overproduced to compensate, and old deer, mostly elderly does which when removed make room for younger, still fast reproducing younger ones.
As for moose, it is clear Michigan wolves eat virtually none. Of many, many radio collared moose whose deaths were investigated, one, exactly one, was determined to have been killed by wolves. Its condition as far as health was concerned is uncertain.
FlagShare3pogo_possumMaia_S. Abdulhalim_393msusnicknelLikeReply
hopeful
hopeful 4 hours ago
So you are saying every wolf eats between 10 and 15 lbs of meat ore day? Are you sure about that ? Seems like a lot to me but I'm no expert.
FlagShare1Norm MackeyLikeReply
Njohntackle
Njohntackle 8 hours ago
We should keep hunting the wolf and these are my reasons why . one is to keep the pack healthy .then two is the that there not endangered anymore so why shouldn't we hunt them. and art some for the farm er having problems with them so odds are there going to shout them anyway. and like deer if there populations gits to big they will have to move to closer to people. and that what i think.
FlagShareLikeReply
Norm Mackey
Norm Mackey 6 hours ago
@njohntackle, hunting wolves will not "keep the pack healthy". As apex predators, like bald eagles, wolves neither require nor or adapted to have a usual predator besides themselves. They control their own numbers by defending territories large enough that they do not limit their own prey herds, and increasing pack sizes while keeping most from breeding, usually only a pair per pack. The larger the packs the more non-breeding wolves there are.
This is a primary reason not to shoot wolves for sport or at random. It reduces the size of packs, while a pair per pack will likely reproduce anyway, and the size of the territory the packs can defend, opening habitat for new pairs of wolves to establish new packs.
As the wolf population is stabilizing well below 700 they are obviously doing a superb job of controlling their own population.
FlagShare3pogo_possumnota33Maia_S. Abdulhalim_393LikeReply
santrega
santrega 6 hours ago
@norm Mackey @njohntackle If they are stabilizing in your opinion, doesn't that indicate they've reached a saturation point to where the food source cannot support any further growth in their population? Wouldn't that indicate they have indeed depleted their food source to the point some of them are starving? Controlling their own population is in effect starving, correct?
FlagShareLikeReply
Norm Mackey
Norm Mackey 5 hours ago
@santrega @norm Mackey@Njohntackle, nope. Stabilizing according to all the evidence available, while never approaching numbers that could control their prey population. Controlling their own population by larger wolf packs excluding and preying on smaller packs, mostly, as noted.
You might want to look at the last few years in Minnesota, where a for several years stable wolf population resulted in an out-of-control whitetail deer herd the DNR there had to reduce by 25% to prevent crop and habitat destruction. Following which wolf packs expanded their territories, and the wolf numbers in the season after dropped - by 25%.
It does wolves no good to reduce their prey population and the idea that they would evolve to is frankly silly.
FlagShare1pogo_possumLikeReply
santrega
santrega 5 hours ago
Nothing you said here makes any sort of sense. Populations rise and fall similar to supply and demand in economic systems. If there is less supply (food) there will be less demand (population). You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You can't claim the population has reached its max, yet the food source has nothing to do with their dying off.
You sound as if you believe that wolves have a collective consciousness and can somehow collectively decide to stop reproducing in an area because there's just too many of themselves. It's not in their genes to control their own population, its in their genes to survive. Wolves don't do population control calculations to figure out their impact on the ecosystem. Wolves eat when they are hungry, and die when they don't find enough food, or they have a disease. Plain and simple, you are wrong. Wolves don't control their own population, nature as a whole does.
FlagShareLikeReply
msusnicknel
msusnicknel 5 hours ago
@santregaand a healthy wolf population changes nature as a whole.
www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/how-wolves-can-save-ecosystem
FlagShareLikeReply
Norm Mackey
Norm Mackey 5 hours ago
@santrega, in this case the limiting factor is the territory available to wolves, not the prey population. The worst danger, and by their behavior the worst fear wolves have is other wolves. The hate and kill wolves not of their own packs. I think it is you who seem to take the disney view that wolves make some sort of treaty or pact with other wolf pacts to tolerate each other for the purpose of reducing their prey population, and mistake the dynamics of apex predators for their prey.
Look at the reality of the stable less than 700 Michigan wolf numbers in years when the deer population was stable. Otherwise please explain the reality of the Minnesota experience in terms of your baseless theory.
FlagShare2pogo_possummsusnicknelLikeReply
santrega
santrega 5 hours ago
@norm Mackey @santrega Wolves hate each other so much they control their own population in order to avoid running into future wolves they do not like? You write in a way that shows intelligence, but your arguments are incoherent at best, and preposterous. Why would a pack control its own population because it could run into enemy wolves, wouldn't it make more sense to increase its population to deal with enemy wolves?
Very little logic in the things that you say. You believe evolution somehow built these wolves to perfectly balance themselves out based on territory. Why is this balance not in any other life? Will algae for example quit growing in a lake before it has exhausted all oxygen killing all life in the lake? The answer is no, because populations of animals don't understand how they effect other populations.
FlagShareLikeReply
Norm Mackey
Norm Mackey 4 hours ago
@santrega @norm Mackey, actually you are supporting (and apparently misunderstanding) by argument. Naturally, wolf packs increase their size and the territory they defend by adding nonbreeding members, avoid similar sized packs because they are too closely matched to safely compete, and kill or drive away packs small enough that they can. They don't "perfectly balance", they simply don't come near numbers that prevent their prey from increasing.
The problem is that the proposed "management" is what reduces wolf pack sizes (as is well documented in western states) and unnaturally increases the number of packs. Do the math: reduce the size of a large pack by two and you provide habitat for another pair of wolves to establish a pack, doubling the number of pups born in the same area.
Sane management for wolves would be the DNR, if necessary, removing whole smaller packs from an area and leaving the large, slowly reproducing packs alone to grow. Not running the natural wolf population controls bass-ackwards, as my father would have approximately put it.
FlagShare1pogo_possumLikeReply
nota33
nota33 3 hours ago
@njohntackle shooting wolves does not keep the pack healthy. We shouldn't hunt them nbecause they have the right to live. Why are hunters such psychopaths?
FlagShareLikeReply
summer
summer 8 hours ago
The 45-day hunting season that began Nov. 15 had little impact on one of the state’s top predators, a top state Department of Natural Resources wolf expert says.
That should have been obvious from the beginning. LONGER season, HIGHER quota is the only way to manage the numbers. Those few that were killed have been more than replaced with the birth of pups.
FlagShareLikeReply
msusnicknel
msusnicknel 8 hours ago
@summer
"Studies this past winter place the 2014 population at 636, down 22 from last year." and "It is the state's second dip in two years."
Sounds like NO hunt was managing the numbers just fine.
FlagShare2MackinacIIhopefulLikeReply
Norm Mackey
Norm Mackey 6 hours ago
@msusnicknel @summer, a reality to which the pro-wolf hunt crowd covers their eyes, sticks their fingers in their ears and chants "I can't hear you".
FlagShare1msusnicknelLikeReply
SlantedMedia
SlantedMedia 6 hours ago
@msusnicknel @summer Wolves reproduce from January to March and carry their pups for around 60-65 days...meaning some wolves haven't even had their litters yet as of today....How could they estimate the 2014 population?
Sound like you KNOW nothing about wolves.
FlagShareLikeReply
Norm Mackey
Norm Mackey 6 hours ago
@slantedmedia @msusnicknel, sounds like you know nothing about counting wildlife populations. The number counted is the population before young are born, and in the case of wolves the pups die from natural causes at a high rate, barely able to replace the 25% of adults dying from natural causes annually.