Below is a summery - followed by a series of comments on how Pro-Wolf Peps feel.
First though let's take a moment to examine some simple facts:
Is hunting season on Wolves working?
"But are the seasons working? In a solid three hours of testimony, I didn't hear a single indication that the killing of 562 wolves by sportsmen, and another 430 by government agents and landowners, and who knows how many by poachers, is having an effect at all. Or ever will."
Those are the over all numbers across the States - Here are the stats for Michigan:
What these stats tell us is that - while the population of wolves in Michigan is leveling off - the damage to livestock and dogs is decreasing. Hence hunting season is working. Remember the original goal was to have 800 wolves total in the Yellow Stone Park (save the ecology it was the call - now we've got save the dogs, elk, moose, and deer...). Now we have nearly 800 in Michigan alone.
Alright - so here's the howl - hang in there Senators:
State Senate Resolution claims wolves increasingly endanger people-
LANSING, MI. They just can’t give it up. Despite no wild wolf attacks in Michigan or any other state where wolves have been recently restored, politicians who don’t like them insist people are being increasingly threatened as shown by this story from the Michigan State Senate. The Republican Michigan State Senate just sent a resolution to Congress telling Congress take wolves off the endangered species list. They were recently added back to the list after a recent federal court ruling insisting it be done.
The matter of wolf attacks on people came up. Opponents of the resolution give the facts that there had been no wolf attacks on people in the state, but that did not dissuade use of language about an “increasing threat” of wolves to people. It seems that the myth of wolves eating people overrides the surprising docility of real wolves when people are around. Wolf attacks on people are less than attacks or injuries from any other wild large mammal in Michigan and the entire United States. Truthfully there have been no wolf attacks on people in Michigan or any documented threats. Michigan deer, however, do occasionally do attack people.
Story. Grey wolf endangered status prompts heated debate, resolution in Michigan Senate. By Jonathan Oosting.
Wolf attacks on Michigan livestock and dogs did slowly increase as the wolf population there has grown. Recently, however the number has declined after a high in 2010-2012.
What are termed “scare tactics” about wolves attacking people have also been used in Washington state, Idaho, Montana, and Oregon.
LANSING, MI. They just can’t give it up. Despite no wild wolf attacks in Michigan or any other state where wolves have been recently restored, politicians who don’t like them insist people are being increasingly threatened as shown by this story from the Michigan State Senate. The Republican Michigan State Senate just sent a resolution to Congress telling Congress take wolves off the endangered species list. They were recently added back to the list after a recent federal court ruling insisting it be done.
The matter of wolf attacks on people came up. Opponents of the resolution give the facts that there had been no wolf attacks on people in the state, but that did not dissuade use of language about an “increasing threat” of wolves to people. It seems that the myth of wolves eating people overrides the surprising docility of real wolves when people are around. Wolf attacks on people are less than attacks or injuries from any other wild large mammal in Michigan and the entire United States. Truthfully there have been no wolf attacks on people in Michigan or any documented threats. Michigan deer, however, do occasionally do attack people.
Story. Grey wolf endangered status prompts heated debate, resolution in Michigan Senate. By Jonathan Oosting.
Wolf attacks on Michigan livestock and dogs did slowly increase as the wolf population there has grown. Recently, however the number has declined after a high in 2010-2012.
What are termed “scare tactics” about wolves attacking people have also been used in Washington state, Idaho, Montana, and Oregon.
Ralph Maughan
Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University with specialties in natural resource politics, public opinion, interest groups, political parties, voting and elections. Aside from academic publications, he is author or co-author of three hiking/backpacking guides.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
http://archive.freep.com/article/20140830/OPINION01/308300023/Michigan-legsilators-roads-funding-taxes
Oh, and that article is kinda old: They are now actually are asking voters to up the sales tax to 7%, and are considering lowering the income tax – their idea of helping out the low to middle income folks is to extend one finger. PS: we have flat income taxes in MI. Hi Ho!
I’m amazed how fast Ralph picked this story up.
They’re adopting the same strategy here (reduce income tax, raise other taxes). The problem is, the sales tax is regressive–it hits people harder the less money they earn. So essentially you have yet another example of republicans structuring tax policy so that wealth moves upward. Ugh.
–
Are wolves somehow implicated in the deterioration of our state’s vital thoroughfares? Have marauding packs been impeding construction crews struggling to repair Michigan’s battered roads before another winter unleashes its fury?
Most Lower Peninsula residents have never actually seen a wolf. Yet there are apparently numerous legislative districts where the animals’ nocturnal howls are so deafening that lawmakers can no longer hear what their constituents are saying about Lansing’s continuing neglect of Michigan’s roads.
Hee!
Also interesting comment from Adrian W.
Listen to the audio version:
http://wuwm.com/post/endangered-wisconsin-gray-wolf-management-taken-congress
And, once again you can thank HSUS and their friends for sending this matter the way it is heading.
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/01/13/wolf-legislation
Some education is needed here so Congress knows that the Endangered Species Act already allows direct lethal protection of persons and their livestock under attack and also that indiscriminate hunting and trapping breaks up wolf families and leads to more livestock predation. The last thing we need is another “rider” getting attached to a “must pass” bill.
++Some education is needed here so Congress knows that the Endangered Species Act already allows direct lethal protection of persons and their livestock under attack …++
Not true. Once again you have just enough information to be a danger to yourself and others.
There is no provision to kill an ESA protected species to protect attacks on livestock – only humans- and then it is only a “defense” in court, the event the accused violator is prosecuted. Of course, defending one’s self in federal court, including all preliminaries to trial is not an inexpensive outlay. Of course the physical evidence needs to support your defense, so you better have scratches/bites or lots of footprints or torn up ground around where you took your self-defense action. And, do not destroy evidence in your favor. Of course there are also the costs of federal LEO investigations too.
The Endangered Species Act, Section 11 [16 U.S.C. 1540]:
(a) Civil Penalties-
(3)Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no civil penalty shall be imposed if it can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed an act based on a good faith belief that he was acting to protect himself or herself, a member of his or her family, or any other individual from bodily harm, from any endangered or threatened species.
(b)Criminal Violations –
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, it shall be a defense to prosecution under this subsection if the defendant committed the offense based on a good faith belief that he was acting to protect himself or herself, a member of his or her family, or any other individual, from bodily harm from any endangered or threatened species.
“Of course the physical evidence needs to support your defense, so you better have scratches/bites or lots of footprints or torn up ground around where you took your self-defense action. And, do not destroy evidence in your favor. Of course there are also the costs of federal LEO investigations too.”
I say hogwash. All they have to do is say, “I thought it was a coyote”. Ba da bing. They walk.
I usually back up what I say with some authority. So, I must be reading something? You don’t have to agree with me, but at least you know how I reached a position. Sorry you don’t like the cut and paste, but it seems to be better than just pulling something out of my ass, like some folks do here with considerable regularity, yourself included.
I’m not a wolf hater, I just don’t want as many as some.
Now you are talking about prosecutorial discretion. Apparently some legal decision-makers are finding their federal tax Justice Department dollars might actually be spent in other higher priority areas.
By the way, I have no idea how many violators have been prosecuted for killing ESA protected wolves, but not many, after the McKittrick policy. http://www.wildearthguardians.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8579&news_iv_ctrl=1194#.VNp9D8J0xD8
Nice diversion, but it simply shows my comment was correct. You know your first comment implied anyone that killed an endangered wolf would be pounced with the same fervor that Homeland Security would pounce on an an animal rights advocate. Nah, it doesn’t work that way for wolf killers.
“I thought I saw a coyote”
The laws that apply to one should apply to all, but it never works that way. Never has. How is that cattle round up on the Cliven Bundy federal land going? Did the Dann sisters ever get their livestock returned and the use of the Shoshone treaty land? Nah, you see, WM, the law just isn’t applied in the same way to all people.
Wolf killers typically walk free.
MN wolves have been in the “threatened” category, a lesser ESA classification than “endangered,” since their initial listing a very long time ago. They have sought delisting for the last 13 years or so, and HSUS has sued because they NEVER want them delisted (a formal written HSUS policy). Now that it appears the winds are changing, HSUS is seeking what THEY SAY is middle ground they have never sought before, and for MN there is nothing gained. So, expect MN to follow thru with a vengeance. WI and MI it appears are also fed up.
Do you agree that the legalized hunting and trapping of wolves is questionable and likely is no longer scientifically justified??
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/12/141203-wolves-hunting-livestock-ranchers-endangered-species-environment/
Alternatively, if hunting/trapping is in the end all about numbers of wolves and where they are, maybe this research is of little use. Probably should keep that in mind, too, Ed. So if wolves are eating too many elk or deer in the wrong place, I’d say all options for hunting/trapping are in play.
http://www.minnesotafarmguide.com/news/regional/mfbf-and-mfu-ask-for-gray-wolves-to-be-delisted/article_220160e4-b173-11e4-b081-a76104ba6c24.html?comment_form=true
To be fair, MN was just as intransigent (as HSUS) when wolves were being listed (they fought listing tooth and nail). So nothing’s really changed here except the political winds.
—
Ed: Weilgus’ data doesn’t suggest wolf hunting isn’t scientifically justified. Rather, it suggests killing wolves increases depredations–to a point. Kill enough wolves and depredations actually fall (that’s the flipside of his findings that pro-wolf folks don’t like to talk about). Nevertheless, since we apparently need to maintain wolves (probably near current levels), states should use regulated public hunts cautiously, and in most places, they shouldn’t be talking about decreased depredations as a goal of such “management”.
Yes, I agree with you that if a wolf state allows enough wolves to be killed by hunting and trapping, eventually depredations on livestock and/or other animals will go down. In fact, if you carry this scenario forward the way many politicians want, wolf states can just eliminate wolves all together so there will be no wolf depredations on anything, anywhere. This is where politics over-rules science and unfortunately, it seems to be being promoted more and more.
I think what most people who like wolves do not want is wolf hunting and trapping, and they probably agree that the rest of the legal protection from endangered status is less than critical. Therefore, they will support a downloading.
Your mistake here is is the same one made by those who take every chance to dig at hunters — both focus on people/groups rather than issues. Who cares what HSUS or RMEF or SCI or CBD has done in the past. It doesn’t matter. What matters is whether the policy that is currently being advocated is a viable alternative. The rest doesn’t matter, it amounts to ad hominem attacks. Tribalism has become the biggest barrier to agreement on wolf management policy.
—
Tribalism – ‘the behavior and attitudes that stem from strong loyalty to one’s own tribe or social group.’
I can’t speak for MN and WI, but in MI citizens did vote down both ballot proposals that would have led to another wolf season. The fact that the outcome is now moot thanks to MNRC initiative doesn’t tell me the state is fed up.
Once again, it’s just politics.
I think its tragic that the courts have been consistently remanding protections of wolves back to the federal government, whether for lack of adequate state protections or because the USFWS acted arbitrarily and capriciously, only to have protections thwarted by sleazy politicians that will do anything to advance their archaic and superstitious witch hunt like positions about predators .
HSUS v. Jewell is the perfect example of how our system is supposed to work. When legal questions about a rule or law and the way its implemented or interpreted, arise, if there is legal standing or merit then the courts consider the issue and deliberate carefully before reaching a decision.
For politicians to lie, cheat and pander to Congress to override judicial decisions and prevent judicial review is damned undemocratic.
The HSUS did its job, they are advocates and watchdogs. If they and others like them did not exist, animals and wildlife would live even more miserable lives because the world is full of some pretty despicable people.
I don’t appreciate the continuous assaults on wildlife, public lands, and protective environmental legislation by extremists that make litigation unavoidable.
“[R]idiculous” you say.
You might want to look at this Congressional report – especially beginning at page 6. There is reference to CBD and WildEarthGuardians. HSUS is in the same tier of “irritation and loathing” by this Republican change agent group, but HSUS litigation to my knowledge not been as focused as much on the West.
http://valadao.house.gov/uploadedfiles/esaworkinggroupreportandrecommendations.pdf
The R’s in the House have 4 bills in the hopper already and that was before tide began to turn with the Senate going R controlled, and they haven’t even considered the Western Governor’s agenda yet.
Hopefully, at some point soon, we can get many more politicians elected who are in tune with the public regarding nature and wildlife. In the meantime, these strong conservation organizations have to be the first line of defense, and I thank them for that.
Except for this: if congress delists great lakes wolves in some way, it will seem to be the result of the recent court “victory”.
Translation: I think he’s essentially correct. That does make it hard to have a coherent comeback.
Same for timz trolling when WM was correct about what the facts of the law now are.
And again, HSUS’ win in court may indeed result in wolves being delisted, but they were already delisted. If Congress delists wolves without amending the ESA, then HSUS still wins (because of precedent). If they don’t act when they believe the law demands more, then they admit defeat without putting up a fight.
I’m sorry, but the whole argument seems like sour grapes to me? Personally, I dislike a lot of the goals of a whole variety of interest groups, but I can’t fault them for pursuing their members’ interests in court.
“If they don’t act when they believe the law demands more, then they admit defeat without putting up a fight.
I’m sorry, but the whole argument seems like sour grapes to me? ”
sour grapes indeed
The HSUS win is like gasoline on a fire. Now the Western states have new and motivated allies in the Midwestern states, to affect change to the ESA in whatever form that might take. And it is already obvious that whatever fix(es) this R Congress may have in store for MN, MI and WI will include at least WY.
So, “sour grapes” or not, and notwithstanding your advices above, I submit still, that the issue is and remains HSUS and the decisions it makes to litigate certain issues which continues to add fuel for those who would drastically change the ESA because of their actions – even in name only. It is the balancing of lost opportunities and consequences of winning too well on principal that create the dilemma. And, for MN continuing in “threatened” status will downlisint MI and WI to “threatened” from “endangered” is no compromise whatsoever. MN gets nothing from this.
I bet Senator Franken (D-MN) has gotten an earful in recent weeks from the MN Farm Bureau which has wolf delisting as one of its 4 current top issues. They represent something like 75,000 farms in the state.
Momentum for ESA changes could go well beyond wolf recovery issues if opened up, and adversely affect hundreds/thousands of other species, because of the focus on what some have termed the “protracted silliness” of wolf recovery litigation.
and therein lies the real issue, it doesn’t matter what the courts, the general public or anyone wants for that matter long as the livestock and trophy industries are pissed off. Its not Congress that is angered about wolves its the lobbyists.
Come now, the Democrats in the Senate are not going to let the Republicans gut the ESA — they have absolutely nothing to gain from it–and much to lose! They may pass legislation to delist wolves in WY and the Great Lakes, or perhaps nationwide (though this outcome is doubtful), but the Dems might not even let that through (they fear their base as much as the Republicans, and btw, there are not many Ds left in the DFL for Franken to fear). The most likely case is that Republicans (with the help of a few Dems) use another legislative rider to delist wolves in the GLs and WY, in which case the precedent stands.
The irony here is that conservation groups are going to end up getting a huge boost in funding when/if Congress acts, which will only encourage and embolden them (just as it has groups like SFW and RMEF). And so we go ’round and ’round…
—
Louise,
A ‘reasonable compromise’ probably includes a “recreational” harvest of wolves, whether it is ethically justified or not. The fools who want blood wield too much political power, and they are not going to accept protected status.
Compromise, of course, entails giving up something you want, which many folks on either side of the issue cannot seem to grasp; then again, keeping wolves in the spotlight appears to be a good strategy to fundraise.
“…you may be thinking: Huh—70 animals lost in a year (or 107, take your pick), and this is a big honking problem?
Precisely that point was highlighted by Howard Goldman, senior state director in Minnesota for the Animal Humane Society of the U.S. He pointed out that there are 165,000 calves in Minnesota’s wolf range…I find that if Goldman’s calf count is correct, the casualties reported by Stark represent a loss rate of .00039 percent.”
—
Can you say “symbolic” issue?
http://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2014/01/does-wolf-hunt-reduce-livestock-losses-maybe-not-lawmakers-are-told
I do hope you YOUR assessment of the D’s in the Senate are right. I have my doubts especially in the next round of 1/3 Senatorial elections, and that is the cause for concern.
“Few poaching cases
Rep. Rick Hansen, DFL-South St. Paul, was curious about how much effort has been required of the DNR to address wolf poaching — which I suppose could be considered a form of reverse depredation by humans.
His question brought the DNR’s enforcement chief, Maj. Phil Meier, to the microphone, who said there were six cases in 2012, zero in 2013. Titters from the audience ensued.”
Absolute BS, as I have had written and oral communication with two MN DNR officials, one who participates in this hearing, who both said on average 10% of MN wolves illegally killed each year.
A lot can happen between now and the 2016 Senatorial election. Sadly pundits seem to be pretty much in agreement that of the 16 Senatorial seats that are up (9-R, 7-D), they are leaning toward another 2-4 current D’s going R, while the R’s hold on to the seats they already have. In play seem to be IL, NH, PA and WI.
This is pretty scary for a lot of reasons, unless something changes. And, who knows what either party will roll out on the Presidential ticket.
Maybe Ralph can tell us the last time the House, Senate, White House, and the Supreme Court were all R leaning, and what happens if the stars align for what could begin an even worse nightmare 2 years hence.
Did you ever have a chance to work with Richard Thiel? I was lucky enough to have a phone conversation with him back in the mid 80’s when wolves were starting to make a strong comeback in WI. Seemed like a decent guy from what I remember.
Is this natural fluctuation not accounted for or allowed to play out in wildlife management today? Does it have something to do with the way wilderness areas are cut off from each-other by modern cities and development? And why not relocate the excess wolves to all the places currently lacking them that are spending money trying to get rid of their excess deer/elk? I’m also wondering who determines when there are too many predators vs too many herbivores, and if it’s based exclusively on ecosystem health or partially on making sure hunters can catch enough deer/elk as well.
Why anyone even gives this any sort of serious consideration is beyond me.
Lest we forget the events of last year, there are numerous articles in the media. Other articles are in the link below:
How Half-Truths, Falsehoods and One Farmer Distorted Reasons for Wolf Hunt