Glen Wunderlich writes at ammoland.com:
To the dismay of animal-rights extremists, Michigan’s House of Representatives voted 69-39 last week to authorize the state to define wolves as a game species . If this seems like deja vu, there’s a simple explanation: It is! This is the fourth time state legislators have addressed wolf-hunting laws. What has prompted this round of political football relates to a recent ruling by the state appeals court declaring the current law unconstitutional because an attached provision providing free hunting licenses to military members was deemed not to be related to scientifically managing wildlife.
Just how we arrived at such a precarious juncture in this Wolf mess is worth recalling.
Michigan completed a Wolf Recovery and Management Plan in December 1997, which was revised in 2008. The Michigan plan recommends managing for a minimum of 200 wolves on the Upper Peninsula. The DNR’s goal is to ensure the wolf population remains viable and above a level that would require either federal or state reclassification as a threatened or endangered species.
This sensible plan, however, was rejected by an asinine federal court ruling that placed western Great Lakes states gray wolves back on the endangered species list in 2014, even though agreed-upon recovery goals have been far exceeded. This decision is being appealed.
While the issue of hunting wolves remains in limbo in our region, Michigan’s legislature has paved the way to manage its wolf population according to sound science with the same sustainability that has been built in with every other game animal hunted.
The elephant in the room is the struggle between unaffected voters and those citizens living with the devastating effects of wolf conflicts with livestock and companion/hunting dogs. Never will the residents of the sparsely populated Upper Peninsula garner enough votes to overcome the fallacies of city-slicker voters; if wolves roamed the streets of Detroit, sentiment would certainly be different.
The plight of our Upper Peninsula residents would not be unlike that of our nation, had our forefathers not had the insight to adopt the Electoral College. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.”
Little does all of this matter to groups like the Humane Society of the United States, which supports no hunting whatsoever because it views the lives of animals as being equal to that of humans.
Senator, Tom Casperson, an Escanaba Republican who sponsored two earlier wolf hunting laws overturned by voters in 2014 following petition drives largely backed by the Humane Society of the United States had this to say:
“We didn’t have the money to counter, but we still have the problem up there,” Capserson said last week, referencing fears of human safety and livestock attacks in the Upper Peninsula, home to all of the state’s estimated 618 wolves. “It’s severe. Something’s going to happen one way or another.”
“Anti-hunting extremists will never accept a hunt for wolves, no matter how much damage the species does to other wildlife, livestock or pets,” said Evan Heusinkveld, president and CEO of the Sportsmen’s Alliance.
Hats off to the brave politicians who understand the misdirected enemies of common sense.
———
About Glen Wunderlich:
Charter Member Professional Outdoor Media Association (POMA). Outdoor writer and columnist for The Argus-Press (www.argus-press.com) and blog site at www.thinkingafield.org Member National Rifle Association (NRA), Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC), member U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA), Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA), Commemorative Bucks of Michigan (CBM).
Ehh, I find wolf hunting a hard sell at the best of times. Especially given that most areas just barley have them off of endangered list. Outside of individual problem animals I tend be against unnecessary killing of predators. :/
Obviously you have never hinted in the UP pre and post wolf explosion. They’re running out of food, guess what’s next- live stock, pets and you.
Well then there you go. If you’ve got a half way decent reason then do so.
My feelings on this are more on the side of stewardship of the land when it comes to this sort of stuff, not just because the ‘cute and fuzzy’ wolves. It’s just that most places don’t have very large wolf populations. And hey, if they’re being managed properly, then so be it. I just still tend to be hesitant given how rarely government seems to do it right.
The whole point of this exercise is that anti hunting extremists are preventing all efforts at management.
If you’re arguing for reasonable management, then you’re arguing for Department of Natural Resources controlled hunting.
Well then, why don’t we transplant some of these non-native wolves to your backyard, and see how you like it?
Several years ago I became so disgusted with the anti-wolf, pro-murder, pro bloodlust groups that I made plans to open a small time wolf sanctuary on part of the farm when I have the financial security to do so. Once the rest of the welded wire is up, the 9′ chain-link goes up around several acres. So sure, when the fence goes up, I’ll take in a small pack.
When the ‘ranchers’ and ‘hunters’ want the blessing of the local government to kill wolf pups before their eyes open, mass kill packs, and In Kentucky, wipe out the last 60 red wolves (even if they are hybrids) in the world, they make themselves ever more disgusting in my eyes, the eyes of joe-public, and it pushes me to become hard-line against ALL hunting. I hate being hard-line on anything, but with compromise on subjects like this, leaves the door open to workarounds, loopholes, and permits, making legislation null.
The bloodlust groups only hurt the legitimate hunting community and they would find much more public support if they annexed the repulsive elements from their ranks.
On a side note, I’ve had many ideas for what to do with my life, military career, mercenary, farming, but after reading this article and all the comments from those who get joy out of killing animals, becoming becoming an activist and putting my vote, voice, and money behind legislation and groups that support my views is as good a plan as any.
Now I’m starting to think like a liberal, thanks.
You haven’t the slightest idea how Farming/Ranching works, have you?
Pro murder groups? You’re going to build fences around Planned Parenthood clinics?
If you’re calling hunting murder you need someone court appointed to handle your affairs.
See comments at the bottom for facts from http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CattDeath/CattDeath-05-12-2011.pdf
Michigan doesn’t have a wolf problem at all, they have a people, coyote, and dog problem, all of which can be solved with fencing. The majority of losses come from Coyotes, wild dogs, and other, wolves weren’t even statistically relevant enough to be listed by name.
I knew ranchers were essentially ‘crying wolf’ (pun very much intended), but after looking at the facts of total predator deaths 5.5% of losses, and of predator losses, losses to wolves, 3.7% (round 3.68%) and of total us cattle losses, 0.2% are from wolves. zero point two percent, the whole “problem” of wolves isn’t just overblown, its a full blooming hoax.
A small group of bloodthirsty ranchers and “hunters” use this facade to get their trophies wolves, cheap thrill kills, and selfies in under the guise of doing good, protecting livestock, and otherwise being white knights out to save you from the big bad evil wolf.
Theft (15,100), Poisoning (36,100) are both bigger issues but these concerned livestock owners show no outcry over these compared to (8,100) from wolves.
Not good enough?
Respiratory issues (1,055,000), Digestive issues (505,000), weather related – probably inadequate shelter aka greed and laziness (489,000) other diseases (179,500) lameness / injury (140,900)
Compared to wolves, a whole whopping 8100. Your bubbles need bursting. There is absolutely zero problem with the wolves, especially when so many other issues caused by people, greed and bad farming practices, **issues within control of ranchers**, grossly outweigh a paltry 8100 death from wolves.
Humans are cruel and greedy by nature, it goes back to the original sin in the Garden of Eden. Then again that is my personal belief and you can believe whatever you want.
The facts however are physical and measurable and the numbers point to one conclusion, there is no wolf problem but there is a people problem, cruel people want something to kill and the more intelligent and sentient it is the better. They figured out they can kill wolves with no fines, jail time, or even punishment and actually be praised for it.
It’s not possible to “murder” an animal you moron, even if it’s not justified. That term applies morally and legally to humans only. You don’t get to redefine something that serious because you FEEL a certain way. You don’t bring in non-native animals to an area such as the U.P. and think it will be successful. Humans do a just fine job keeping other game animals in check in the U.P. There is no need for wolves to do that, and they certainly don’t have a right to roam the real estate. There are enough wild wolves in Canada that there is no chance of extinction, and no reason for the U.S. to pursue such ridiculous reintroductions of predators, based on hundreds of years old historical habitat. That is NOT their habitat anymore, the world has changed, get used to it. Like I said, Canada has plenty of wolves, and they allow hunting of them, and the hunters aren’t depleting the population. If I lived in the U.P. instead of 400 miles south, I would make sure there weren’t any wolves threatening my livestock or family, PERIOD!
“if wolves roamed the streets of Detroit, sentiment would certainly be different.”
Wolves do roam the streets of Detroit. It’s just that they roam on two legs.
Coyotes are moving into Oakland County, Sterling Heights and Warren. The liberal sissies are soiling themselves and losing pets. I can probably take a major chunk out of the yote population, but no hunting areas.
Not from MI, but I read that bears are moving into the city along with the coyotes. Any truth to that?
We’re definitely seeing a lot more of them here in the Lower Penninsula. I went 20 years without seeing a bear in the LP, but in the last 5 or so I have seen more then a dozen.
Whoops, figured I’d see if anyone made that crack before I did… didn’t take long.
Wolves would never populate an urban area, they are too shy and prefer thick forest. Coywolves on the other hand will be more than happy to find their way into neighborhoods.
The problem being, of course, that wolves are a charismatic species (as such things go). One doesn’t see such emotional resistance to the hunting of, say, feral pigs.
Yeah, but bacon tastes good!
And pork chops taste good.
Hey, sewer rat may taste like punkin pie, but I never know cause I never eat the filthy mothaf*cka.
Coywolves do very well in urban areas. Let’s see what the residents of places like Ann Arbor say when their pets start disappearing except for some bloodstained tufts of fur.
Some of the large, European breeds (e.g. Great Pyrenees) have been used successfully as guard dogs for livestock. They live outdoors along with the animals they protect. I don’t know whether the dogs’ presence simply discourages the predators or whether they attack and kill them.
Both.
The dogs that are put out to protect bands of sheep in the western US often have large, spiked collars on them to prevent the wolves from killing the dogs easily. Thus armed, the dogs can then take a chunk out of the wolves at times.
Here’s some background on typical collars:
http://www.cobankopegi.com/collar.html
Breeds involved in guarding livestock (esp. sheep) include: Pyrs, Maremma, Pyr/Maremma crosses (very popular in the Great Basin), Kuvasz, Kommondors (rare, but very hard dogs), Anatolians, Cuvacs, etc. They’re all large, aggressive dogs, but none of them alone is a match for a half-dozen wolves at the same time. Here in Wyoming, where we do have wolves (and not just in the areas that the Feds’ propaganda says there are wolves), it is typical to see a dozen or more dogs with a band of 2500 sheep.
We dont have wolves, but coyotes are an issue for some. But not around our herd of 100 dairy goats, because of our Pyrs. Those dogs, from the same working breedstock for the last 30 years, make very short work of any coyote or stray dog that comes near the herd. Happy, lovable dogs, until another dog gets near the herd. We tell people not to bring their dogs to the farm. If they get near the goats, there’s not much we can do about it.
Sensible folks in the UP go armed when they go into the woods due to wolves, but until wolves are eating house cats in Grand Rapids and AnnArbor, none of the “Trolls” (Anyone who lives under the Mackinac bridge) see it as a problem. I guess when there’s no more deer or livestock to eat in the UP, starvation and disease will control the wolves.
It’s already a problem in the Lower Peninsula. Ask any Grouse hunter and he’ll tell you. I carried a pistol with me every day this season and there are areas that I used to hunt that I just don’t go into anymore. That’s as far south as Benzie county.
So its a “problem” because its encroaching on your recreational time and not your lively-hood, got it.
So wolves are okay, and it’s not bad for them to be killing all the grouse? You don’t concern yourself with other people’s hobbies. Don’t the grouse have the same rights as the wolves?
judg724, animals killing animals is nature’s business. Men wanting to go on a mass extermination spree of any predator they don’t like, and of all excuses, because it makes their damn HOBBY A HOBBY a little bit harder? That is absolutely unacceptable.
Aren’t we animals too?
Who first came up with this strange distinction between animals and humans or humans and “nature?” Are we not part of nature? Anything humans do is just as natural as anything animals do.
Also judg724, every legitimate hunter in my area is more than happy to go hunting, it doesn’t mean they are always coming back with something. You are not guaranteed to *always* come back with something, otherwise it would be called ‘pickingupsomewildmeatrealquick’ or, likely a more adequate term.
If you absolutely must fill your bag with grouse, go to a canned hunt and make up the difference, if there actually is any. Grasping for straws and excuses to feel high and mighty posing for selfies with a big bad wolf isn’t helping your cause, or the hunting community at all.
Wolves will not eat all of any prey up, the majority will starve out by course of nature and the population of game animals will rebound as it always has. What would nature do if we weren’t here to manage it!?
On an off note, in the days before I had a fence up, I got to clean up after your kind and all the coyotes that are shot at out here ‘for fun’. So many came to my porch looking like week old carcass and sure enough, they where shot with a plinker bullet. Dumped from their and left to wander around for weeks until getting desperate enough to seek food / water the only place able.
Hey, don’t lump all trolls into one category. Some of us have brains and understand the need for this.
The days of poison and helicopter control of predators is over. The wolves have all the advantage in a ground game against hunters. Their population will likely not be adversely effected by an open season.
Tell that to alaska
I think I saw two foxes (actual four-legged furry kind, not what Yortek and Georg Festrunk were chasing) run across the street in my neighborhood last night. Ok, not the same thing but… um, I just… thought… I’d… share?
I used to have yotes, foxes, deer and groundhogs running around my backyard in Rhode Island. The yotes were huge. If you had dogs or cats, you did not let them roam or they’d end up as dinner.
Here in Wyoming, back in 2008, Dave Freudenthal was our governor. He’s a Democrat, BTW, just to set the stage. He’s a Democrat for whom I’d vote in a New York Minute – he’s got that much common sense in his head.
Gov. Dave had sued and won against the environmentalists to get wolves in Wyoming covered by a state management plan.
The plan was to have wolves managed in two zones: Around Yellowstone, they’d be managed very closely, in small areas, only where they were reported to have been a nuisance that past year. The ability of hunters to take a wolf around Yellowstone was to be very tightly controlled, managed in concert with wolf pack population considerations inside Yellowstone proper, and to eliminate problem wolves depredating livestock on ranches surrounding Yellowstone.
But outside of that zone, wolves were to be managed with a quota system, much as mountain lions currently are. The F&G managers look at the population, look at hunter success rates, set a quota and a hunting season. The Big Horn Basin was chopped up into a couple of zones, and each zone had a quota. Once the quota is reached, the season is closed in that area. If the season ends before you fill your tag, too bad.
The environmentalists were split into two camps: there were the bunny-huggers and shrub snugglers who wailed about the idea of even one wolf being killed.
Then there were the “professionals” – the people with PhD’s and extensive government experience in “managing” wolf and wildlife predator populations. They tut-tutted and said that they highly, highly doubted that the quotas would be filled in the areas in the rest of the Big Horn Basin before the season ended, because:
a) there were no or very, very few wolves out there beyond that zone around Yellowstone, and
b) and even if there were wolves significantly outside the Yellowstone zone, wolves were “so reclusive” and so reticent around human populations that most hunters would be lucky to “even catch a glimpse of one.”
This latter group, interviewed on Wyoming NPR, had voices dripping with contempt and intellectual superiority. Oh, how deluded and foolish those advocating the hunting of wolves were. The ranchers who kept making claims of wolves on their lands were just a bunch of deplorable rednecks.
Sooooo, what was the result?
The quotas that were supposed to take 8+ weeks to be filled were completely filled in one weekend – two days.
When interviewed, several hunters told NPR and newspapers things about like this: “It wasn’t difficult at all. I’ve been seeing these damn wolves every day for the last several years. I knew right where to be, at what time to be there, so I just finished breakfast, took my boy and we drove over there, shot the wolf, then loaded up the body, drove over to the F&G office to get the kill registered as the law requires, we chatted with the F&G fellas for an hour or so over a couple cups of coffee, then I took him over to my buddy the taxidermist to drop off the body for a mount. I was done with the whole process before noon. It was as easy as shooting deer in a hay field.”
That’s how big the lies the wildlife managers and environmentalists are telling people about wolves are. Unless you actually live in these wolf re-introduction areas, you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
The PhD wildlife managers and their university big-shot conspirators shut up after that, and then the environmentalists venue-shopped a new lawsuit into a federal court in Montana to get our state-controlled wolf control program suspended. That’s where we sit today.
I studied wolf ecology during my undergraduate career at UW-Madison. The sources I read likely had some of the same Phd’s that poo-pooed wolf hunting. At the time in 1995-98, I could not locate any incidents were wolves attacked people. The chance of wolves attacking livestock was virtually unheard of. Many were concerned that Grey wolves were headed for extinction.
I remember thinking that wolves, as crafty predators, could certainly be capable of doing the same damage as coyotes and wild dogs to game populations, livestock, and people. Extinction of the grey wolf struck me as alarmist. These thoughts occurred in a very left wing college campus, and I basically kept them to myself, for fear that “greater minds” would ridicule me mercilessly.
Today, I support responsible wolf hunting. If I was a rancher or farmer like my uncle, I would take whatever means necessary to protect my investments. The fact that the Left opposes sensible hunting and management of the wolf, based upon charisma instead of ecology, makes my blood boil.
Reminds me of what happened up in Modoc County, California. Modoc is located in the extreme north east corner of California, butting up against the Nevada and Oregon borders. It is a high desert plain, and the industries up there are mostly agriculture (potatoes) and cattle ranching, with a little bit of logging. Every year they held a coyote hunting competition which lasted a number of days, with the prize going to the hunter who got the most pelts. At least until the animal rights orgs got wind of it and shut it down as in humane. As far as I know, even in California it is open season on yotes, but that doesn’t stop people from trying to protect them.
But of course there is a balance. The reintroduction of wolves has been ecologically sound in Yellowstone, as the wolves have culled herds, and the reduction of hooved species has reduced erosion in the river. Film shows a substantial change in the river channel from a straight, high erosion channel to a meandering river that provides reduced erosion and better forage. Herds are healthier since wolves kill off the old and the weak. I think that history has shown us that the eradication of predatory species is the principle rason that hunting and game management is so critical; humans have had to replace the predators they eliminated. It will be interesting to see how this progresses, since there seems to be a reduction in the interest in hunting, an increase in animal activists interfering with needed herd reductions, and thus a need in many areas for replacement of the apex predator.
I’ve found that the majority of pro-wolf and pro-coyote and pro “ebil vermeeeeen” ‘hunters’ are bored with paper targets and want something living to go shoot at, its the lowest hanging fruit on the tree and disgusting. Not just disgusting, its fucking shameful and embarrassing to be even remotely associated through the same gun culture. I have never had any problems with coyotes, but I also don’t go screw up their pack structure by shooting at them because its “fun”. Deer do not bother my crops because, heres the big bubble shattering shocker, my crops are fenced in!
People should be required by law to build a fence at a minimum of 5′ high out of welded wire or chainlink before being permitted to shoot at wild life on their property.
If ranchers and farmers are too incompetent and inept to close in their livestock then they deserve to lose them.
This seems like a weird venue to spew your anti hunting BS…..Democratic Underground would seem to fit your rants much better, there you could let your closeted Liberal freak flag fly free…..
Arc has decided that the majority of people who aren’t like him are just wrong in the head.
Then he can declare his prejudice as a self serving fact, via the greatness of circular logic.
That’s a lot simpler than trying to actually think about how the world works, isn’t it?
I killed a yote with my truck once. Am I guilty of vehicular homicide or something lessor, like man slaughter?
Five foot fence? Deer will go over that they way you step over a two foot fence. Try twelve or fifteen feet.
If your crops are the only thing in sight, sure, they will easily jump a 5′ fence, but if there is plenty of open space, ex, a field that is cut for cattle hay, they have absolutely zero incentive to try and jump it. That fence has been up about two years now and I haven’t found any destroyed plants or prints. Now the canned hunt place just up the road has a ~8′ vinyl fence with lean-outs (to keep people out of the hunting area) but its mainly for liability, inspections and permits.
Its comical that I’m labeled a closet liberal for having one *1* single stance that is left wing when every single comment I’ve ever made on this blog is right wing. Rather than ask me what my solution is, they sling mud, well here it is anyway.
In a perfect world my solution would be have the individual states conduct studies to find their own sustainable population and mark any conservation land with tin signs and purple trees. (See purple tree law) Keeping costs down. State run management can allow for adequate permits on a for-bid basis with a minimum starting bid. Meaning individuals bid on a limited number of tags, assisting in paying for habitat upkeep, anti-poaching patrols, breeding programs, etc. Dare I say I would like to see government turn a profit on its programs, or have the taxpayer cost cut down by those who use the program, ex, those who want their trophy wolf. Tag counts would be limited to the amount of bringing the wolf population to sustained numbers and cost enough to sting anyone who wants to go hunt. Any unsold tags can be handled by animal control and localities. Poaching and thrill kills should see long jail sentences and harsh fines.
It would be state government run and managed (not federal), and culling would be at the discretion of the state. Not on the whim of some greedy rancher too cheap to fence in his cattle, or JohnDoe looking for cheap thrills. Fencing in several hundred acres is not going to put them out of business when dealing with several hundred thousand dollars to several million in cattle. Fencing that kind of acreage is an incremental thing, you don’t buy all the fencing at one time or pay a contractor to build it for you. If you have cedar trees, the posts are at the cost of gas, bar oil, and labor. The posts, if you chose good ones, will last 40-60 years before needing replacement.
But that is an ideal scenario for an ideal world, but we live in reality, not an ideal world. In reality, the tags and permits will be issued in a candy bowl at the nearest taxidermy or LE office for pennies if not free, just like bobcat tags are. On a bobcat note: They climb trees, jump fences, and aren’t shy *AT ALL* around people and pose a legitimate danger, especially to children. Even if a management program starts out well, its a few half-steps (aka compromise, something all gun owners should be intimately fairly familiar with) to an unregulated open season with no bag limit or what the overwhelming majority of ranchers jack off too, total extinction. This is why after reading all the pro-killing comments, I’ve now gone full hard-line against this and will vote accordingly. I don’t want the door open at all for the people claiming to be hunters to be able to go out and get their cheap thrills.
On the subject of hogs, I don’t have a problem with them, many other people in the county have big problems but their shit isn’t fenced in, go figure. Hogs also seek out farms, pose a severe danger to people, and supposedly breed more than rabbits, while wolves are believe it or not, shy animals, likewise with coyotes, they hate being around people and high traffic areas and they surely aren’t going into cities unless its a sub 2,000 population town in the middle of nowhere.
Off topic: I’ll compare it to amnesty, you allow for legal residency, the next and ultimate path is citizenry and the ability to vote you out of your own country. Zero tolerance is the only answer to it in this climate.
“coyotes are shy animals that avoid large cities”
Tell that to the dozens (maybe hundreds) of coyotes running around L.A, N.Y, and Chicago……
I’ve seen yotes in the San Francisco bay area in broad daylight. Mountain lions are routinely spotted here and every once in a great while the law kills one.
I suppose it must be our fault for not putting predator proof fences around our kids.
You should read up on what a coywolf is as its most likely what you are seeing run amuck.
Arc, you should have stayed quiet. Your fencing diatribe proved you know nothing of either farming, ranching, or wildlife.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CattDeath/CattDeath-05-12-2011.pdf
219,900 Total head loss from predators, this includes coyotes( largest count at 116,700 ), bobcats, wolves, bears, wild dogs, etc, making up the rest of the deaths.
3,773,000 Total non-predator loss, the biggest killer being 1,055,000 from respiratory issues. Gee, wonder why? followed by weather 489,000 losses (again greed and laziness) In some states, tress are considered shelter for cattle. 494,000 from calving problems.
Check this out. 36,100 died from POISONING, aka not removing harmful vegetation from grazing land or deliberate poisoning. and 15,100 were lost to theft.
Theft: 15,100, Poisoning: 36,100, respiratory issues:1,055,000
Wolves: 8,100… Who in the what? (3.7% of all predator related deaths)
People steal more cows than wolves do, by rancher logic, we need to cull people.
Michigan Lost 59.5% to yotes, 25.0% to dogs, 15.5% to ALL other predators, wolves didn’t even kill enough to get listed.
No, I will not stay quiet, I will get louder, and louder, until my voice is heard and action is taken. It worked on November 8th and it will keep working. I will vote with my wallet, and yes, predator friendly meat is a real thing, and many are willing to buy it at a higher price. No you may not hide behind “citation needed” because the source is cited at the top and it damn well is respectable.
You are the one who should keep quiet rather than slinging insults.
Well crap I wasn’t finished yet. Michigan doesn’t have a wolf problem, they have a coyote problem, and that is easily solved with low grade welded wire fencing.
Guard dogs and fencing are the most common, non-lethal methods used to prevent losses. I heard there is a study done in Europe about playing wolf pack noises over a loud speaker (cheaper than a gun) will keep them at bay as well.
Removing livestock carcasses, likely deaths that are non-predator related, 15.4% of operations. Of operations, 24.7% are culling 14.5% frequent checks.
The bottom line appears to be that livestock losses are a guise for wiping out wolf populations to extinction and not about preventing losses. The total loss of cattle in the US in 2010 was 5.5 to all predators, mostly dogs and coyotes.
0.2% total cattle deaths from wolves, yes, I ran it through a calculator.
3.68% (rounded to 3.7% above), total percent of predator deaths from wolves.
Michigan doesn’t have a wolf problem at all, they have a coyote, dog, and people problem, all of which are solved by fencing. Its also small group of bloodlusts that want extinction, not the entire hunting community, but since the hunting community harbors this detestable group, the poor reflection can fall on all of them.
Had a similar problem in Maryland. Black Bear were overpopulated in the remote western part of the state. The eastern urban state representatives wanted to shut down the hunting season. A western lawmaker in response entered a bill to reintroduce black bear into every county of the state, since they were such a valuable natural resource. Surprise, we have black bear hunting to this day.
Used to live in Munising……while the town is a hive of drug use, political corruption and cronyism on a small scale, its a beautiful place, minutes from pictured rocks and grand island….. maybe someday the U.P. will gain enough power to break away from the mitten and make the state of Superior a reality…… but then that would entail a massive increase in population that would destroy the region’s rich cultural heritage…….:(
Comments are closed.