Judge upholds constitutionality of Michigan law that enables commission to allow wolf hunting

From the Associated Press

MARQUETTE, Michigan — The Michigan Court of Claims has upheld a law empowering an appointed panel to allow hunting of wolves.

The state Legislature approved the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act last August. It gave the Michigan Natural Resources Commission the authority to classify animals as game species. The commission already had given wolves that designation, which led to the state’s first authorized wolf hunt in 2013.

The law nullified two citizen votes last fall that would have prevented wolf hunts. A group called Keep Michigan Wolves Protected filed suit, saying the law violated the Michigan Constitution.

In a ruling issued Friday, Court of Claims Judge Mark T. Boonstra disagreed, writing that the group’s suit “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” He said the court was not taking a position on whether wolves should be hunted or not.

“That policy judgment is properly left to the Legislature and the people of the state of Michigan,” Boonstra said. “Rather, the sole question before this court is whether the legislative enactment in question violates the Michigan Constitution as alleged.”

A state spokesman praised the ruling.

 

MI Wolves (1)

“The citizen-initiated law gives authority to the Natural Resources Commission to regulate sport fishing in Michigan, aligning with the NRC’s authority to regulate the taking of game,” John Pepin, a Department of Natural Resources spokesman in Marquette, told The Mining Journal (http://bit.ly/1e0Sdwz ). “The act gives the NRC the authority to name game species. All of this supports sound scientific management of natural resources in Michigan.”

The Michigan United Conversation Clubs, a leading hunting and fishing group, also praised the decision.

“The court recognized that the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act was about just what its title says, managing fish, wildlife and their habitats with sound science,” spokesman Drew YoungeDyke said in a statement.

The wolf protection group said it will appeal.

“The judge was clearly hostile to our case, and did not seriously address the key issues of the complaint,” said Keep Michigan Wolves Protected Director Jill Fritz. “We have good legal arguments and our next step will be to the Court of Appeals.”

Michigan DNR Completes Latest Moose Population Survey

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources  announced the results of its 2015 moose population survey in the western moose range of the Upper Peninsula, an important tool in managing the species.

The 2015 population estimate in the western U.P. is 323, compared to an estimate of 451 in 2013. From 1997 to 2007, surveys of prime moose habitat in Baraga, Iron and Marquette counties suggested the U.P.’s moose population was growing at a modest rate of about 10 percent per year. From 2009 to 2013, survey results showed an apparent change in that trend, with the growth rate slowing to about 2 percent per year.

It would seem that a decline of more than 25% from 451 moose in 2013 to 323 in 2015 is more than just a trend and is in stark contrast to the “2% growth rate experienced from 2009 to 2013.” Something is obviously wrong to cause that kind of decline in a population.
The MDNR sites “Back-to-back severe winter weather that negatively affected moose condition, survival and reproductive success”, and “year-round climatic changes, especially warmer temperatures, that led to increased parasite loads on moose, weakening their overall condition.” The MDNR finally gets around to stating that “A possible increase in wolf predation on moose calves due to the region’s lowered deer population” may be a factor.”
Imagine that.
Moose                                                                                                                                                                Image by gnatoutdoors.com
Winters do not affect moose populations like deer. Moose have evolved over thousands of years with long legs to negotiate snow depths and reach ample browse. Moose thrive in Canada where winter conditions are more severe. Brain worm is one parasite that can affect moose survival, but has been present in the moose population since the beginning. One variable that has not been present is wolves. Wolf numbers have tripled in number in the UP in the last five years. The combination of serve winters and burgeoning wolf population has extirpated white-tailed deer from the western UP. Moose are next. 
MI Wolves (1)
Chad Stewart, deer, elk and moose management specialist for the DNR said “However, coupled with survey records that show a decrease in the number of moose calves seen with cows this year, it’s quite possible that we’re looking at a considerable drop in numbers.”
Really? I doesn’t take a rocket scientist, or even a wildlife biologist, to figure that out.
“There is inherent uncertainty with any population survey, and due to the fact that the 2013 and 2015 estimates have some overlap in confidence intervals, the potential remains that the state’s moose population has remained steady rather than declining.”
Who are they trying to kid? I’m betting that by the time the next survey is done in 2017 that there are less than 200 moose left. 
MI Wolves (7)
“Future surveys will be needed to identify any long-term trend for Michigan’s moose population. Other states and provinces have reported declines in moose populations near the southern edge of North America’s moose range, yet other populations are holding steady or increasing. Researchers in Michigan have hypothesized several potential causes for a possible decline of moose numbers in Michigan.” Among potential factors:

“The moose range in the western Upper Peninsula covers about 1,400 square miles. Every other year, DNR staff members survey most of that area from the air. In 2015, the flights covered all survey plots within the core moose area – where 80 to 90 percent of the western U.P. moose population is located – along with a sampling of the non-core plots as well.”

Ironic that the highest number of wolves also exist in the western Upper Peninsula.

“The survey is completed by flying transects over prime moose habitat to count moose seen from the air. The number counted is then extrapolated by a computerized population modeling program to attain the final estimate. The next moose population survey is planned for early 2017. However, given moose population trends, the DNR will again recommend to the Michigan Natural Resources Commission that there be no moose hunt in the state.”

For more information about moose in Michigan, visit www.michigan.gov/moose.

Contact: Chad Stewart, 517-282-4810 or Dean Beyer, 906-227-1627

Living With Michigan Wolves

Fred Kirchner is died-in-the-wool Yooper who grew up in the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan near Wakefield. As a kid, he loved doing what kids do in the UP- fishing for walleyes and brook trout, hunt grouse, deer and snowshoe hares, skiing, trapping and surviving a UP winter. It basically set his course in life.

Kirchner migrated south to the Lower Peninsula as a teenager and went on to get a degree in fisheries and wildlife at MSU. He toiled for 30 years with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service in Alcona, Mason and Lake counties. The position suited him perfectly. He was in the out-of-doors a good deal of the time working with agriculture, wildlife, habitat management and interacting with landowners and other wildlife and land professionals. The contacts gave him the opportunity to hunt and fish tracts of private lands and discover nooks and crannies of public holdings that others overlooked, ignored or failed to identify.

Trapping was one of Kirchner’s favorite pastimes. He enjoyed matching wits with wily coyotes, fox and other predators and trapping beavers for fun and removing problem animals for landowners. Kirchner retired in 2005 and moved back to his beloved UP and Wakefield to do the things he enjoyed as a kid, especially trapping. But as a bona fide Yooper again, he soon discovered that things had changed, and not for the good.

 

MI Wolves (7)

“Wanted to tell you about an interesting fall we had here,” Kirchner wrote me.  “I continue to trap each fall. I trap coyote and fox in late October. When I first started trapping after I got back up here, I thought it would be cool to have some encounters with wolves. I would catch an incidental wolf in my traps, which I would release. I also enjoyed some pretty good deer hunting and great beaver trapping. Each year the deer numbers (what I would see in a week or two of bow hunting and in our hay fields) has gone down. My beaver numbers have also gone down.”

“This fall (2014) I trapped coyotes for two weeks. This is the first year since we have been back (to the UP), that I caught more wolves than coyotes and fox. I trapped eleven wolves in that two-week period. Seven had to be released; four were able to pull out. I still think wolves are pretty cool, but I’m convinced we have way too many. Deer are essentially non-existent in many areas of Gogebic County.”

Kirchner shared that wildlife managers “estimated” that there were 93 wolves in Gogebic County in 23 packs in 2007. Kirchner said he trapped five wolves in one week that year and wasn’t targeting wolves. That equates to a single trapper capturing more than 5% of the total wolf population in the entire county in a single week. Not likely!

Kirchner continued, “The other interesting thing last fall is that the coyotes I caught were all adults. Usually 3/4 of my catch is young of the year.” Wolves and coyotes are mortal enemies and only one thing could impact coyote populations that way short of a disease outbreak. The same goes for fox and anything else wolves can catch including your hunting dog. Bobcats are lucky they can climb.

The western UP has never had a lot of deer compared to other locations in Michigan. The populations were always boom or bust depending on the severity and duration of the preceding winters. Deer have survived UP winters for thousands and thousands of years and evolved under these adverse conditions. UP deer evolved a survival mode that involved yarding or gathering in cedar swamps where the canopy of trees would deflect the heaviest snowfall, provide thermal protection and life-saving browse when conditions got the worst. Some years, losses were still substantial. Other years the losses were not so severe and white-tailed deer numbers bounced back in subsequent years. Some deer always survived. But that was without wolves being present.

 

MI Wolves (10)

It doesn’t take a wildlife degree to know that deer restricted and confined by deep snow to a yard are sitting ducks for a voracious pack of wolves. Wide, thick pads make it easier to traverse deep snow than spindly legs and sharp hooves. It’s a slaughter waiting to happen.

Deer that aren’t killed are likely to be stressed to the point where they may not give birth in the spring. “There’s little doubt that yarded deer are subjected to more predation,” said MDNR wildlife biologist Kevin Swanson. “The lack of mobility makes them vulnerable.”

Deer hunting in the western UP is different than in most places in Michigan. Stand hunting can be productive near agricultural lands, but in the expansive tracks of pubic forestlands deer are few and far between. Still-hunting is a proven method of covering ground and finding the widely scattered deer. Kirchner enjoys still-hunting for deer around his farm and in the Porcupine Mountains. The technique involves cutting a track and then dogging the buck until he presents a shot. Nearly every year hunting hard would result in an opportunity. The final question always was, “Was the deer a trophy? And did he really want to go through the trouble of dragging a buck that was often miles off the road?” Many years the deer was allowed to walk. In recent years, the opportunity to harvest a buck has been non-existent. Deer sightings have been few and far between. Last year, Kirchner hunted hard for two weeks during prime time of the Michigan bow season. He saw four deer total.

Seeing deer anytime in the western UP has become a rarity. Kirchner was shocked and elated when six adult does strolled through his back yard early last fall. Seeing any deer was a welcomed sight, but the fact that there was one fawn between the six does was disturbing. Normally, the does would have had at least a half dozen fawns between them.

What could possible cause the obvious and continued decline in deer numbers? There had always been severe winters and fawn predation by coyotes and bears in the UP. Only one new variable could account for the drastic decline and disappearance of the deer population since Kirchner returned to the UP- wolves.

 

GNAT-024-033

In December of 2014, Judge Beryl A. Howell wiped out several years of successful management in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin by returning wolves to the Endangered Species List. In her ruling, Judge Howell overlooked the region’s robust population by stating wolves in the Great Lakes cannot be considered recovered until they are re-established across their widespread historic range covering much of the United States. I’m sure there were wolves in Detroit, Saginaw and Grand Rapids at one time. What do wildlife biologists do in the meantime?

Wildlife managers estimate that there were 636 wolves in the UP of Michigan during their most recent winter survey. After pups are whelped in April, the population will more than double to 1,200 or more wolves from spring through early winter. Researchers will acknowledge that this is still a very conservative estimate. Population estimates in Wyoming placed the wolf population there at 307 animals in 43 packs in 2013 and that is where they are legally hunted. An estimated 3,700 wolves currently live in the Great Lakes region, far exceeding minimum population objectives. Sixty-five percent, or an estimated 2,423 wolves, live in Minnesota.

70% is a key number. It’s a proven fact that a population will not decline until 70% of the population is removed. During a study conducted in Michigan in 2013-2014, 70% of the collared does were lost. That means the deer population is in decline. Wildlife mangers and researchers will tell you that they don’t agree with wolves being on the endangered specie list and see a “definable population” for Michigan of 200 animals. By next fall, Michigan will have at least six times that many wolves.

Even if wolves are taken off the endangered specie list how do you control their numbers in an environment like Michigan? The one attempt at hunting wolves in Michigan resulted in 22 animals being killed of the 45-wolf quota. Hunting is just not practical in the forests of Michigan even with the use of bait. Otherwise, the only way to reduce their numbers is by trapping. Pro-wolf advocates will immediately tell you that foot-hold traps are inhumane and cruel. A number of studies have been done in which wolves are radio collared and monitored. Those wolves were captured using foot-hold traps. All of the wolves Kirchner trapped were released unharmed. He’s a better man than me.

Unless the Washington bureaucrats get their heads out of the sand and let the professionals manage wildlife populations, they’ll be adding another animal to the Endangered Specie List in the western UP- the white-tailed deer.

 

-30-

Michigan DNR Appeals Federal Court’s Wolf Decision

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has filed an appeal of a December 2014 federal district court ruling that returned wolves in Michigan and Wisconsin to the federal endangered species list and wolves in Minnesota to federal threatened species status.

The appeal – filed by the Michigan Attorney General in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia – asks the court to uphold the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s December 2011 decision that removed the Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of wolves from the federal endangered species list.

“Returning wolf management to wildlife professionals in the state of Michigan is critical to retaining a recovered, healthy, and socially-accepted wolf population in our state,” said DNR Director Keith Creagh. “Michigan residents who live with wolves deserve to have a full range of tools available to sustainably manage that population.”

MI Wolves (7)

Wolves in Michigan are 15 years past the population recovery goals set by the federal government. The DNR will argue against the federal district court’s ruling that wolves must recover across their historic range – which includes the lower 48 states and Mexico – before Michigan’s wolf population can be removed from the federal endangered species list.

In addition, the state will argue against the district court’s conclusion that the USFWS failed to demonstrate that Michigan’s laws and regulations adequately protect the wolf population within Michigan.

“Wolves in Michigan and the other western Great Lakes states are fully recovered from endangered species status, which is a great success story,” said DNR Wildlife Division Chief Russ Mason. “Continuing to use the Endangered Species Act to protect a recovered species not only undermines the integrity of the Act, it leaves farmers and others with no immediate recourse when their animals are being attacked and killed by wolves.”

Michigan’s wolf population numbers approximately 636 in the state’s Upper Peninsula. With the return to federal protection in December 2014, the DNR lost the authority to use a variety of wolf management methods, including lethal control, to minimize wolf conflict with humans, livestock and dogs. The change in status also suspended state authority that allowed livestock and dog owners to protect their animals from wolf depredation when wolves are in the act of attacking those animals.

MI Wolves (10)

The federal district court’s December 2014 decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by the Humane Society of the United States, in which the State of Michigan participated as a defendant-intervener arguing against returning the Great Lakes DPS of wolves to the endangered species list.

Michigan joins the USFWS and a number of hunting and conservation organizations in appealing the ruling.

For more information about Michigan’s wolf population and management plan, visit www.michigan.gov/wolves.

Contact: Debbie Munson Badini, 906-226-1352Call: 906-226-1352 or Ed Golder, 517-284-5815Call: 517-284-5815

Arizona Game and Fish votes to take legal action to support federal officials’ new 10(j) rule for Mexican wolves

PHOENIX — The Arizona Game and Fish Commission voted recently to intervene in a lawsuit filed by environmental groups earlier this year against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The lawsuit is over the Service’s recently-revised 10(j) rule that governs the management of Mexican wolves in Arizona and New Mexico.
MI Wolves (7)
“The Game and Fish commission took this action to defend the Service’s new 10(j) rule for Mexican wolves. The rule relies on sound scientific principles and helps address critical stakeholder concerns that have long challenged the Mexican wolf reintroduction effort,” said Commission Chair Robert Mansell. “It’s important that this action is not confused with the department’s recent action meant to encourage the Service’s development of a new recovery plan. The 10(j) rule and the recovery planare designedto address very different aspects of Mexican wolf recovery.”The regulations implementing the Endangered Species Act require the Service to work with a state’s wildlife agency to develop an acceptable rule revision. The negotiations that took place between the Service and the Game and Fish sought to balance the needs and interests of the Mexican wolf reintroduction project, local stakeholders and all other wildlife species held in trust by the department. The department provided its points of concern with possible resolutions to the Service in December 2013, allowing the Service sufficient time to incorporate the changes into the preferred alternative before issuing the draft Environmental Impact Statement. The lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity last month considers the Service’s cooperation with Arizona Game and Fish Department a violation of federal law.

“The department is committed to reestablishing wolves in Arizona and the new 10(j) rule will help us do that through the use of valid science, accurate historical perspective and consideration for the changes to the modern landscape that make it impractical to recreate a wolf population as it was a century ago,” said Jim deVos, assistant director for wildlife management at the Arizona Game and Fish Department.

 

MI Wolves (9)
The new 10(j) rule lays out some of the steps guide Mexican wolf conservation on the ground, while the recovery plan provides a broader approach to guide the program to a defined recovery goal. The department notified the Service that it intends to take legal action to try to pushthe development of a recovery plan for Mexican wolves as the current plan is more than 30 years old and so outdated that it fails toprovide a necessary framework for the program.One of the points criticized in the new 10(j) rule concerns expansion of the Mexican wolf population. The department used extensive biological studies to guide the recommendation for westward expansion of wolves in Arizona. Studies clearly indicate a relatively sparse ungulate population in western Arizona that is inadequate for supporting wolves. To allow wolves in the initial phase of expansion to disperse and occupy areas with limited prey is likely to lead to more conflicts between wolves and humans and domestic animals. The department recommended against initial expansion into these areas to avoid conflict that may necessitate the removal of wolves.

Critics of the new 10(j) rule also disagree with the population objective defined in the new rule. The population objective for Arizona is only a part of Mexican wolf recovery. Arizona is an important component of Mexican wolf recovery, but full recovery must incorporate Mexico as well. Historically, Mexico held 90 percent of the habitat for Mexican wolves and it still contains significant areas that could support wolves. True recovery can only occur if both Mexico and Arizona have viable, sustainable wolf populations. The new rule will allow wolves a corridor to disperse into Mexico. Interconnection between wolves in Mexico and those in the Arizona-New Mexico population will increase genetic diversity.

For more information on Mexican wolves, visit www.azgfd.gov/wolf.

RMEF Files Appeal in Great Lakes Wolf Ruling

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation joined a coalition of partners by filing an appeal to remove wolves in the Great Lakes region from federal protection and return them to state management.

In December of 2014, Judge Beryl A. Howell wiped out several years of successful management in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin by returning wolves to the Endangered Species List. In her ruling, Judge Howell overlooked the region’s robust population by stating wolves in the Great Lakes cannot be considered recovered until they are re-established across their widespread historic range covering much of the United States.

MI Wolves (4)

“Plain and simple, state agencies –not the federal government– are best qualified and equipped to manage wolves just as they manage all other wildlife,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “The judge did not rule that the Great Lakes wolf population is ailing. On the contrary, it’s thriving—a fact that is echoed by wildlife scientists.”

“The science clearly shows that wolves are recovered in the Great Lakes region, and we believe the Great Lakes states have clearly demonstrated their ability to effectively manage their wolf populations,” said Greg Shire, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman.

An estimated 3,700 wolves currently live in the Great Lakes region, far exceeding minimum population objectives. Sixty-five percent, or an estimated 2,423 wolves, live in Minnesota.

“The (Minnesota) wolf population is absolutely in no danger of extinction or even undue decline,” said David Mech, renowned researcher and founder of the International Wolf Center. “It’s doing great and if the public decides through the legislature, and the democratic process thinks wolves should be hunted or taken, the population can sustain a high level of take on an annual basis without any concern or endanger to the population.”

The judge’s ruling put an end to wolf management hunts. It also stipulated that people can only kill a wolf in self-defense but not to protect pets or livestock.

MI Wolves (1)

“The Fish and Wildlife Service has the ability to interpret and implement its own rules in determining what constitutes a recovered species. It should not be up to animal rights groups that file lawsuit after lawsuit and claim the states seek to push populations toward extinction. In this case, wolves are firmly recovered in a significant portion of their native range. The judge made a ruling that went too far,” added Allen.

About the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:
Founded over 30 years ago, fueled by hunters and a membership of more than 205,000 strong, RMEF has conserved more than 6.6 million acres for elk and other wildlife. RMEF also works to open and improve public access, fund and advocate for science-based resource management, and ensure the future of America’s hunting heritage. Discover why “Hunting Is Conservation™” atwww.rmef.org or 800-CALL ELK.

RMEF Joins Wyoming, Feds in Next Step Toward Possible Wolf Appeal

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, along with the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the State of Wyoming, filed a notice of appeal in the Wyoming wolf case issued by the District Court of the District of Columbia. In essence, the legal move preserves RMEF’s ability to go forward with an appeal, if it is decided to do so.

MI Wolves (10)

“We maintain that state agencies, not the federal government, are in the best position to manage our wildlife-that includes wolves in Wyoming,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “The judge removed that responsibility from Wyoming wildlife managers on a technicality that has since been addressed.”

U. S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson recently disagreed with most of the environmentalists’ claims. She ruled that wolves in Wyoming are not endangered, are recovered as a species and that there is plenty of genetic connectivity. However, she rejected Wyoming’s wolf management plan that took effect in 2012 by stating the USFWS should not have accepted Wyoming’s nonbinding promise to maintain a population of at least 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs outside Yellowstone Park and the Wind River Indian Reservation.

The latest wolf count as of December 31, 2013, indicates a minimum of 306 wolves in 43 packs in Wyoming, and a minimum of 320 packs and 1,691 wolves in the Northern Rockies.

Almost immediately after Judge Jackson’s ruling, Wyoming Governor Matt Mead addressed the technicality by signing and filing an emergency rule that established his state’s commitment to the management plan as legally enforceable.

MI Wolves (7)

“Going forward, we will continue to monitor the situation and explore all avenues that return management of wolves to the state of Wyoming,” added Allen. About the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation: Founded over 30 years ago, fueled by hunters and a membership of more than 200,000 strong, RMEF has conserved more than 6.5 million acres for elk and other wildlife. RMEF also works to open and improve public access, fund and advocate for science-based resource management, and ensure the future of America’s hunting heritage. Discover why “Hunting Is Conservation™” at www.rmef.org or 800-CALL ELK.

Media Contact: Mark Holyoak, RMEF, 406-523-3481 or mholyoak@rmef.org.

Court Denies Early Legal Challenge to Idaho Wolf/Elk Management

On Friday, January 17, 2014, an Idaho federal court judge denied an attempt by animal rights and wilderness groups to stop the removal of two wolf packs from the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness Area in central Idaho.  Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, Western Watersheds Project, Wilderness Watch and others filed the suit to challenge the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s decision to hire a hunter/trapper to lethally remove two wolf packs in the Wilderness area.  The state action will help stem a 43% decline in the area’s elk population.  Because of strict filing deadlines imposed by the Court, Safari Club had to move quickly to join the case to defend IDFG’s management decision.  elkbuglefirstforhunters012014Thanks to several SCI members who worked with SCI’s legal team through the weekend to prepare their sworn statements, SCI was able to file a motion to intervene, provide the voice of the hunting community and help oppose the Plaintiffs’ attempt to stop the wolf removal. Thank you to those members that offered their help.  SCI Legal Task Force member Paul Turcke, of Moore Smith Buxton & Turcke in Boise Idaho, is assisting SCI in this litigation.