A Michigan wolf hunt has been authorized for this fall.
(AP file photo from DNR)
on May 19, 2013
That’s when she heard the growling, gnashing and nipping of three or four animals disturbing the quiet near the heart of Wakefield – a town of roughly 1,850 in Michigan’s western Upper Peninsula.
Lutz rustled her dogs back inside, hopped in her car and drove around the block toward the noise. Roughly half a football field from her house, she came upon wolves making a meal of a whitetail deer.
“You could see them ripping and tearing, and the deer was still kicking,” Lutz said. “The gory, gruesome details.”
And another sign that wolves are coming too close for comfort for some U.P. residents.
Attacks killing livestock and pets – along with residents’ safety concerns -- are among the issues prompting Michigan wildlife officials to approve a gray wolf hunt for this fall.
The Department of Natural Resources plans to limit the hunt to the killing of 43 wolves – a limited, targeted taking designed to thin out numbers specifically in three areas of the U.P. where animals are causing problems.
Will it work? The DNR says it should help the situation, but some question the rationale behind allowing the hunt, scheduled to begin in November. And the prospect of a public wolf hunt has sparked fiery debate over the role of democracy in Michigan wildlife management.
The Upper Peninsula wolf population is estimated at a minimum of 658 – down from 687 a couple of years ago, but up from roughly 500 in 2008 and roughly 200 in 2000. The state counted just three wolves in 1989.
Michigan is becoming the sixth state to authorize a wolf hunt since federal protections were removed over the past two years in the western Great Lakes and the Northern Rockies, according to The Associated Press. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming are the others.
Patience is wearing thin in Lutz’s neighborhood and in other U.P. locations where close encounters are leaving residents on edge.
‘In amongst houses’
Lutz, 35, doesn’t live in the middle of nowhere. She lives in a residential neighborhood near the center of Wakefield, and she’s nervous about wolves encroaching closer to where her 6-year-old daughter plays with other neighborhood kids.
“You can hear them outside howling at night,” Lutz said of the wolves. “You can’t let your pets outside, you can’t leave your kids outside, because you never know where these animals are going to be.”
Snow and flooding forced deer into Wakefield early this spring. It appears wolves followed them in.
“These wolves are going through probably three-quarters of a mile to a mile worth of populated area. They are walking right through town,” says John Siira, Wakefield’s city manager. “They are in amongst houses. … It’s sorta scary.”
A DNR memo outlines some of the issues in a portion of Gogebic County including the city of Ironwood: “Since 2010, we have recorded 91 complaints of nuisance wolf behavior including wolves traveling within the city limits, wolves chasing dogs in residential areas, and wolves traveling in close proximity to children waiting for buses or at day care facilities.”
Several local governments in the western U.P. have approved resolutions that say “overpopulation of wolves is threatening the tourism, recreation and business industries in the Western U.P.” and “this situation has become a public safety issue for our citizens.”
There haven’t been any documented wolf attacks on people in Michigan. But some U.P. residents say they should be proactive and not take the chance that there might be one someday, particularly if the wolf population grows.
“I don’t want to see on TV the first person that gets attacked by a wolf,” said Duane Kolpack, 44, a farmer from Ontonagon County. “So far we’ve been lucky that it’s been limited to animals.”
Kolpack says the DNR has documented 10 to 15 livestock lost on farmland that he manages through wolf attacks in the past couple of years. The actual number of livestock taken might be closer to 50 to 80, he said, but in most cases there’s no evidence left behind for documentation.
In other cases, Kolpack has come upon wolves eating newborn calves on the farm of nearly 2,000 acres. And in one particularly bold attack, a wolf walked into his barn – located roughly 100 feet from his house – and snatched a goat out of a pen. It happened in broad daylight last spring.
“My wife chased that wolf with a goat hanging out of its mouth for almost a quarter-mile through the field,” Kolpack said. “It would run a little bit, turn around and look at her, then run a little bit more.”
Framing the debate
Kolpack was able to get permits to shoot nuisance wolves, and five were killed. The last two were the toughest to get, Kolpack said, as it appeared wolves became more wary after the first few were shot.
In Ironwood, city manager Scott Erickson says “wolves were becoming more comfortable around people” and creating potentially dangerous situations. Things improved last year after permits were obtained and six wolves were killed in the area. But some problems persist, Erickson said, and more needs to be done in the long term to keep wolves afraid of people.
The Natural Resources Commission voted this month to allow a hunt. Chairman J.R. Richardson called the wolf’s population recovery a “remarkable success story” – but added that “ongoing scientific management” of the species is needed.
Eliminating 43 wolves, the NRC says, “is not expected to impact the overall wolf population trajectory.”
Critics say the wolf hunt isn’t needed – at best it’s premature, and at worst an affront to democracy.
Gov. Rick Snyder this month signed Senate Bill 288 – a bill that critics say sidesteps an effort from a coalition called Keep Michigan Wolves Protected to block a hunt. The coalition, backed by the Humane Society of the United States, was formed to overturn an earlier state law that designated the wolf as a game species. The group collected more than 250,000 signatures aimed at qualifying a wolf hunt referendum for the November 2014 ballot, but the effort may be moot or largely symbolic now that Snyder has signed the new law giving the Natural Resources Commission power to designate game species on its own.
The Humane Society of the United States says Senate Bill 288 “nullifies the voice of voters” both on the wolf hunting issue and on future wildlife debates.
Jill Fritz – Michigan’s director of the Humane Society of the United States and the leader of Keep Michigan Wolves Protected – said the coalition plans to move forward with its ballot referendum and is “still considering other options” related to the newer law, Senate Bill 288.
The coalition opposing the hunt says there’s no reason to hold one, and some question whether the wolf population could handle it.
Some critics also argue that wildlife is held in the public trust, so all citizens – hunters and non-hunters alike -- are stakeholders in its management.
Rolf Peterson and John Vucetich, wolf researchers from Michigan Technological University, oppose the public wolf hunt in part because of the issues related to democracy. The researchers wrote to the NRC that “the best available scholarship clearly indicates that good wildlife management is a judicious balance between science and democracy.”
The researchers added: “Advocates of wolf hunting claim that wolf hunting is supported by the best-available science. This misrepresents the role of science. The best-available science clearly indicates that we have the technical ability to manage a wolf hunt without endangering the population viability of Michigan wolves. But there is no science that concludes it is necessary to hunt wolves in Michigan.”
The researchers argue that in some instances, depending on which wolves are killed and which ones move in afterward, livestock losses could be exacerbated. As for human safety: Those issues should be dealt with immediately if they arise. “Protecting human safety cannot wait until the upcoming hunting season, with the subsequent hope that some hunter has the good fortune to kill the offending wolf,” the researchers wrote.
The hunt is opposed by some of Michigan’s Native American tribes. Aaron Payment, chairperson of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, has said the tribe opposes the wolf hunt for cultural reasons and that there is “no rational justification for killing the wolf.”
Sen. Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba, and others supporting Senate Bill 288 argue it is consistent with voter intent. They say it is in line with Proposal G approved by Michigan voters in 1996, a measure giving the Natural Resources Commission authority to regulate hunting in the state based on scientific management.
And wolf hunt supporters say there also are issues of proportional representation.
The Upper Peninsula has just 3 percent of the state’s human population but virtually all of its wolves. The Lower Peninsula has the vast majority of Michigan voters but none of the problems associated with wolves. Rep. Ed McBroom, R-Vulcan, has said Upper Peninsula residents would be “disenfranchised” if wolf hunting were left up to a statewide vote alone.
“It’s a lot easier to like wolves with your whole heart and soul if they’re 500 miles away from you, 400 miles away from you,” said Andy Tingstad, 68, of Bessemer. “They’re very pretty. If they’re sneaking through town in the alleys at night, it’s not so cool anymore.”
source
No comments:
Post a Comment