Send Comments for Wolf Management Plan

[ridge]

Contacts: Kevin Swanson, 906-226-1357 or 906-458-1889





Comments sought for update of Wolf Management Plan



The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is updating the 2008 Michigan Wolf Management Plan and is seeking comment on the implementation of the plan. The plan, and more specifically the four principal goals within the plan, has guided wolf management in Michigan for the last six years.



During this time, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the wolf population in the western Great Lakes region (including Michigan) had recovered and the species no longer required the protection of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). After the removal from the ESA, the State of Michigan had full management authority for wolves.



The Wolf Management Plan was created using extensive public input to identify important issues and assess public attitudes towards wolves and their management, as well as a review of the biological and social science on wolves. The four principal goals within the plan are:

maintain a viable wolf population;

facilitate wolf-related benefits;

minimize wolf-related conflicts;

and conduct science-based and socially acceptable management of wolves.

These goals will remain the same in the updated plan. The update will include reviewing scientific literature and including of new information, evaluating implementation based on the action items in the plan, updating action items, and addressing outdated information or clarifications that may be needed.



The DNR is seeking comment from those interested in wolf management to aid in the evaluation of plan implementation so far. Review of the plan update will occur in two distinct phases. The first phase will consist of a 30-day period in which interested parties, DNR staff members and Natural Resources Commission members can provide comment on the implementation of actions in the 2008 Plan. The second phase will be a 30-day period to comment on the Draft Updated Plan before it goes to the Natural Resource Commission for endorsement and the DNR director for signature.



The Phase 1 electronic survey is now open (www.surveymonkey.com/s/wolfplanupdate). The survey is structured around 12 strategic goals and corresponding actions within the 2008 plan. Those interested in wolf management are encouraged to provide input. Comments will be accepted from Nov. 12 to Dec. 11. Those unable to participate in this survey electronically are asked to contact the DNR Wildlife Division at 517-284-9453 to receive a paper survey.

The DNR hopes to have the wolf plan update completed by spring of 2015.

[daappleknocker]

MY THOUGHTS AND OBSERVATIONS ON
WOLF MANAGEMENT IN MICHIGAN
By Curtis Stone

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources in conjunction with the Natural Resources Commission are AGAIN collecting input on our wolf resource from the public. This seems to be a source of job security or career path for some in our Wildlife Division. Again, “social science” is overriding any biological science in determining management practices for our wolf resource.

I have never seen anyone run so hard and get nowhere than those responsible for wolf management in Michigan. After several opinion surveys and countless plans (Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery and Management Plan 1997; MSU General-Public Survey, Your Opinions About Wolves in Michigan 11-05; Review of SOCIAL and Biological Science Relevant to Wolf Management in Michigan 6-06; Recommended Guiding Principles for Wolf Management in Michigan, Roundtable Report 11-06; Michigan Wolf Management Plan 5-08) they are no farther ahead than they were when they left the gate.

Management plans are not worth the paper they are written on if they are not followed or if they are so poorly written or overly complicated that they cannot be followed. One only has to read these plans to see the folly of trying to manage a resource with the opinions of two diametrically opposed groups. One group believes that, “the only good wolf is a dead wolf”, while the other opposes any “organized public hunt” at all. These two groups should NOT have been invited to the table, their opinions proved to be disruptive and detrimental to the management plan. There is no way to reach consensus without doing total damage to the end result, the “Wolf Management Plan”.

The killing of problem wolves is not a management plan, it’s just common sense. Predation of farm or domestic animals in any situation morally calls for the removal of the problem animal. This goes back thousands of years, where has our common sense gone as we do not need a management plan for predatory animals.

In the 1997 the “Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery and Management Plan”, hunter support for wolf recovery was measured at 76%. This support dropped to 69% Statewide in the 2005 MSU General Public Wolf Survey, only 39% of U.P. hunters. Where is the level of hunter support for the wolf recovery today? In November 2014, I surveyed 39 hunters who hunted the 007 DMU and found that 100% of them would shoot a wolf on sight if presented the opportunity, and dare I say that many have been presented the opportunity. Because of the failure of the MDNR Wildlife Division to manage the wolf population in a responsible way the hunters are taking this responsibility seriously. Predation on wolves is replacing the predation by wolves. The SSS (shoot, shovel and shut up) mentality has been replaced by the SS (shoot and shut up) mentality. This will soon become the S (shoot) mentality as this behavior is becoming widely accepted in the U.P.

Why is this behavior so widespread amongst hunters in the Northwest Upper Peninsula? Our U.P. hunters perceive over predation on our white tail deer resource and the lack of concern shown by our wildlife managers. In both the 1997 WMP and the 2008 WMP the MDNR promise to keep pray animals, including white tail deer, at levels to support a growing wolf population. This has not happened. This can NOT happen. With the natural mortality that occurs in the U.P., it was irresponsible for the architects of the WMP’s to even include this ridiculous statement.

The success of a wolf recovery and management plan depends on support from people who live and hunt in the Michigan wolf range. By your equivocation you have totally lost this key element for success.

Both WMP’s attribute “Benefits of Wolves”. They include, “Cultural Values, Tourism and Recreation, Personal Appreciation, Nature Appreciation and Ecological Benefits”. These all sound good on paper until you think about them. About all they amount to is some fancy “word smithing” to fill some space in the plan. All are negligible to the wolf management plan outlined in these documents.

If you want to maintain a viable wolf resource in Michigan you absolutely need to have the support of hunters. This is not possible when you show no concern for deer populations, prey animals as you call them, in much of the NW U.P. which is prime wolf range. The MDNR makes a big deal of the fact that they have stopped selling “antlerless tags” in most of the U.P., but maintain the slaughter of antlerless deer with the discriminatory use of archery equipment in DMU’s that can NOT sustain such harvest. They have managed our white tail deer resource by a wing and a prayer for years. They pray for back to back mild winters. Their prayers were answered this year by a record early snowstorm of over 40” in many areas. How did this help them? They can blame the low harvest numbers on the weather.

All wolves must be on the table for hunting not just wolves in problem areas. The U.P. should be divided up into several Wolf Management Units, WMU’s. Quotas should be set for each WMU. The call in system used in 2013 was very successful and could be used again. Therefore wolf kill tags could be unlimited and sold at a lower cost to allow all hunters the privilege to hunt wolves not just the affluent.

Next the Wildlife Division should be more transparent with the population counts and actual resource numbers. “NO FEWER THAN” just doesn’t cut it anymore. Hunters do not believe the 636 number and need to know the “NO MORE THAN” number. For an example, Michigan has no fewer than 636 wolves and no more than 1024. That would mean an average of 830, a number that most hunters would believe and respect.

Stop managing our Wolf resource using “social science” as it has so far been a disaster. Your involvement with the MUCC and the Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management and their manipulation of the process has done irreparable harm to Michigan’s wolf management. If these groups would have put their hatred for the anti-hunting groups aside and saved their war chest to fight the first proposal at the ballot box, they could have won the right of Michigan hunters to hunt wolves. Instead, they manipulated the system, spent their wad, took the ballot box out of the equation and if this goes to court as I think it will, maybe lost the right to hunt wolves forever.

I support the lawsuit that may result from the manipulation of these above mentioned groups as I believe, “All political power is inherent in the people”. That power has been usurped by a lawless Legislature influenced by a small affluent powerful group of “lobbyist”. The voters have spoken, as ignorant, uninformed and uneducated as we are.

Curtis Stone
12-9-14

[ridge]

While I wholeheartedly support a wolf hunt and wolf trapping, it is my opinion that the entire process has been botched from square one.  Instead of managing the increasing amount of wolves preying on other wildlife and domestic animals, the DNR conducted a hunt that was destined to fail in having any real impact on the numbers of wolves and it also restricted the hunt to the wealthier hunters.  No effort was made to include local hunters that know the area and that know the animals.  Special interests on both sides won the first round and now they will fight each other in court.