# Wolf in Lapeer County???



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

pescadero said:


> A lot of people do.
> 
> ...but a lot of people don't decide on regulation, the USFWS do.


Right. And strongly influenced by....?


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

sureshot006 said:


> Right. And strongly influenced by....?



Science and the endangered species act.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

pescadero said:


> Science and the endangered species act.


Put me down for skeptical on that one.

Every time (I believe it's up to 3 now) they try and de-list the wolf here in Michigan, Peta/Humane Society, etc. takes it to court and they don't get de-listed. Did the science change for some reason?

I assume it was the social science that changed


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

pescadero said:


> Science and the endangered species act.


More like PETA


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

"Science and the endangered species act."

"Science" said they could be de-listed and we could have a season. We did. Briefly.

Yet now we don't have a season.

Why?


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

FREEPOP said:


> Put me down for skeptical on that one.
> 
> Every time (I believe it's up to 3 now) they try and de-list the wolf here in Michigan, Peta/Humane Society, etc. takes it to court and they don't get de-listed. Did the science change for some reason?
> 
> I assume it was the social science that changed


No - the court keeps finding that the USFWS regulators proposing de-listing haven't met the requirements of the law.

The USFWS has a very specific process and requirements to meet. They failed to meet them according to multiple federal courts.

In the most recent decision -

B. The FWS’s Interpretation Of The ESA Is Unreasonable And Therefore Not Entitled To Deference
1.A DPS Cannot Be Identified To Delist A Vertebrate Population
a) The FWS’s Interpretation Of The ESA Is Erroneous
b) The Western Great Lakes DPS Did Not ExistPrior To The Final Rule

2.Designating And Delisting A DPS Of A Broader Listed Species Violates The ESA
a) Use Of The DPS Tool To Delist Healthy Populations of Broader Listed Species Subverts The Purposes Of The ESA
b) Use of DPS Tool to Delist Populations Of Broader Listed Species Subverts Operation of ESA Provisions
c) The FWS’s Finding That The Western Great Lakes Wolves Are Gray Wolves Is Fatal To The Final Rule

C. The Delisting Of The Western Great Lakes DPS Was Contrary To The Evidence Before The Agency
1.Failure To Explain Why Territory Suitable For Wolf Occupation Is Not A Significant Part Of The Gray Wolf’s Range
2.Failure To Explain Impact Of Combined Mortality Factors
3.Failure To Explain The Adequacy Of Non-Existent State Regulatory Schemes
4.Failure To Explain How A State Plan To Allow Virtually Unregulated Killing Of Wolves In More Than Fifty Percent Of The State Does Not Constitute A Threat To Species


"In light of the finding that the challenged Final Rule violates the ESA and the APA, the APA requires the Court ordinarily to 'hold unlawfuland set aside [the] agency action, findings, and conclusions.′"

https://www.endangeredspecieslawand...v.-Jewell_-2014-U.S.-Dist.-LEXIS-17524....pdf


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Far Beyond Driven said:


> "Science and the endangered species act."
> 
> "Science" said they could be de-listed and we could have a season. We did. Briefly.
> 
> ...


Because there is certain necessary science required to remove protections. USFWS did not have that science.

It's like y'all never even bothered to look at the court rulings.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

I was too busy reviewing my neighbor's salaries. Or maybe actually being outside doing sportsman stuff.

Wolf population has essentially flat lined in the UP. That tells me they've hit their carrying capacity and thus should be hunted. I don't need court rulings to tell me yeah or no on that.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Far Beyond Driven said:


> I was too busy reviewing my neighbor's salaries. Or maybe actually being outside doing sportsman stuff.


Well - some people just don't have enough free time for whatever reason.
Sorry for your situation.

It does seem a bit odd to comment authoritatively on something you admittedly haven't even bothered to read though.



Far Beyond Driven said:


> Wolf population has essentially flat lined in the UP. That tells me they've hit their carrying capacity and thus should be hunted. I don't need court rulings to tell me yeah or no on that.



"I don't care about the law, I just want to do want anecdotes tell me are right".

Not a big "rule of law" guy?

The ESA doesn't allow them to create a new subpopulation, claim that subpopulation isn't endangered, then de-list that subpopulation... that is a big part of why they lost in court for NOT FOLLOWING THE ESA.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Far Beyond Driven said:


> I was too busy reviewing my neighbor's salaries. Or maybe actually being outside doing sportsman stuff.
> 
> Wolf population has essentially flat lined in the UP. That tells me they've hit their carrying capacity and thus should be hunted. I don't need court rulings to tell me yeah or no on that.


All the wolf survey does is provide a minimum number of unique animals, does not include the young of the year plus the survey is done in half the UP. It can’t be lower but it could be much higher according to our biologists. Zero LP and Isle Royale wolves are included.


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

Far Beyond Driven said:


> "Science and the endangered species act."
> 
> "Science" said they could be de-listed and we could have a season. We did. Briefly.
> 
> ...


Citiots who don't have to deal with them in their backyard or barnyard. The same folks who have no clue on wildlife management. The same folks who think people hunting big game in Africa is destroying populations, when in reality hunters are the only reason those very animals still exist.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

"Well - some people just don't have enough free time for whatever reason.
Sorry for your situation."


You've spent a lot of time in the UP, you know, where the wolves are, hiking? Hunting? Fishing? Interacting with the locals? And not the tourist city locals, but the ones at the end of the two tracks, fishing the remote lakes? Do you know their opinions on the wolf situation?

Ever seen a wolf in the UP?

I was talking about simple biology. You should agree that when a population has hit a threshold it can probably sustain a managed amount of loss? You seem to be making quite a stretch to saying I'm not a rule of law guy - putting words in my mouth.

We won't discuss the effects of hunting an animal with a pack structure / hierarchy.

Or that the wolves we have now are not the wolves that were originally here.

Quote all the court cases you want, but your opinion of outdoor matters would have more gravitas if you spent some time outside. And that is one sorry situation, being the guy with all the answers on a sportsman website, when you barely hunt or fish.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

Science had nothing to do with not having a season. It's purely politics.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Far Beyond Driven said:


> You've spent a lot of time in the UP, you know, where the wolves are, hiking? Hunting? Fishing? Interacting with the locals? And not the tourist city locals, but the ones at the end of the two tracks, fishing the remote lakes? Do you know their opinions on the wolf situation?
> 
> Ever seen a wolf in the UP?


You're making one of the same mistake that lost the USFWS the de-listing case.

"The UP" isn't the boundary in question when looking at wolf numbers.

The ESA works on "Distinct Population Segments".

The UP is PART of a DPS. De-listing requires that population numbers be good for the DPS, not just part of it.







Far Beyond Driven said:


> I was talking about simple biology. You should agree that when a population has hit a threshold it can probably sustain a managed amount of loss?


Yes - and the courts found that populations within the DPS that contains the UP have not hit that threshold.



Far Beyond Driven said:


> You seem to be making quite a stretch to saying I'm not a rule of law guy - putting words in my mouth.


You seem to be suggesting that because you believe there is an adequate number of wolves in the UP there should be a hunting season, in contradiction to eht actual ESA law and rulings of the court.




Far Beyond Driven said:


> Or that the wolves we have now are not the wolves that were originally here.


Yep... another argument shot down by the courts -

"By 1977, the listing of gray wolves by subspecies had become '[un]satisfactory because the taxonomy of wolves [was] out of date, wolves may wander outside of recognized subspecific boundaries, and some wolves from unlisted subspecies may occur in certain parts of the lower 48 states.' Although the gray wolf, Canis lupus, as a species, 'formerly occurred in most of the conterminous United States and Mexico[,] Because of widespread habitat destruction and human persecution, the species now occupies only a small part of its original range in these regions.' In proposing to remove the four gray wolf subspecies from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and, instead, list the gray wolf at the higher taxonomic level of 'species,' the FWS 'wishe[d] to recognize that the entire species Canis lupus is Endangered or Threatened to the south of Canada, and [FWS] considers that this matter can be handled most conveniently by listing only the species name.'"




Far Beyond Driven said:


> Quote all the court cases you want, but your opinion of outdoor matters would have more gravitas if you spent some time outside.


It's not my opinion.
It's the COURT'S opinion, which holds as the rule of law.




Far Beyond Driven said:


> And that is one sorry situation, being the guy with all the answers on a sportsman website, when you barely hunt or fish.


I deer hunt 2x as many days as the average Michigan hunter. 
I small game hunt 10x the number of days as the average hunter in Michigan. 
I get in the average number of fishing days for a Michigan license holder before June.

I also understand "sportsman" isn't limited to hunting and fishing. 

I spend 3-4 hours a week in the summer mountain biking. I spend significant amounts of time every winter snowboarding. I do a bit of trail running every summer. I bird watch. I snorkel. I geocache. I kayak. I canoe. I pleasure boat.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Far Beyond Driven said:


> Science had nothing to do with not having a season. It's purely politics.


Requiring the USFWS to actually meet the ESA law before allowing de-listing is "purely politics" - but you claim to be a "rule of law" guy?


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

PunyTrout said:


> Maybe a couple yoopers made good on their threats to relocate a few down state.


If any Yoopers made good on relocating wolves, it was to bury them where they dropped.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

Luv2hunteup said:


> All the wolf survey does is provide a minimum number of unique animals, does not include the young of the year plus the survey is done in half the UP. It can’t be lower but it could be much higher according to our biologists. Zero LP and Isle Royale wolves are included.


No doubt there's wolves in the LP. As few as they may be, they exist. Just have doubt that they exist south of northern lower. When the word was out that a cougar was spotted in lower Michigan, every county in lower Michigan recorded a sighting including Wayne and other metro Detroit counties. Lots of imaginations running wild.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

johnIV said:


> No doubt there's wolves in the LP. As few as they may be, they exist. Just have doubt that they exist south of northern lower. When the word was out that a cougar was spotted in lower Michigan, every county in lower Michigan recorded a sighting including Wayne and other metro Detroit counties. Lots of imaginations running wild.


No imagination needed. 
https://mdc.mo.gov/newsroom/dna-shows-hunter-shot-canine-october-be-wandering-wolf


----------



## Vwidemann (Oct 7, 2019)

It was only a matter of time before the wolves crossed the Mackinac Straits. 
Curious how anyone would know the difference between a wolf track and a German Shepard track?


----------



## Vwidemann (Oct 7, 2019)

Far Beyond Driven said:


> I was too busy reviewing my neighbor's salaries. Or maybe actually being outside doing sportsman stuff.
> 
> Wolf population has essentially flat lined in the UP. That tells me they've hit their carrying capacity and thus should be hunted. I don't need court rulings to tell me yeah or no on that.


They're already is a wolf hunting season in the U.P.
It coincides with deer season! Brown it's down
Gray same way!


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

pescadero said:


> Correct - the USFWS failed (and failed miserably - literally trying to do things that had already been shot down in the court multiple times previously) to present a case.
> 
> The court made the decision that they have not met the criteria - because they objectively didn't even come close, and USFWS basically admitted that. The USFWS attempt to delist wolves was an attempt to get out from under the law without actually meeting the criteria necessary to do so.


I pointed that out because in your previous post, it wasn't very clear who was doing what and who was making the rulings.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

FREEPOP said:


> I pointed that out because in your previous post, it wasn't very clear who was doing what and who was making the rulings.


I think anyone who ever watched 30 seconds of "Schoolhouse Rock" is completely clear on who makes rulings as to matters of law.

Congress makes law (the ESA), the Executive enforces them (the USFWS), and the courts determine whether or not the law is being met.

The USFWS has tried repeatedly to get wolves de-listed, and has been repeatedly shot down by the courts for the failure to actually adhere to the law necessary to do so.

First in 2003...

"Specifically, the agency noted that the ESA does not provide for delisting a species in parts of its listed historical range because restoration of wolves in these areas is unnecessary, even if wolf recovery is proceeding successfully in other areas. Delisting can only occur when a species (or subspecies or DPS) is recovered, when it is extinct, or when the original data or analysis that led to the listing was in error."

then the next case:

"court found that the FWS’s interpretation turned the definition of′′endangered species′′ on its head: rather than determining, as the ESA mandates, whether a species was threatened with extinction in any significant portion of its range, the FWS was determining whether a species was viable in any significant portion of its range and, if so, finding the rest of the species’ historical range to be insignificant."

then in the most recent case:

"The FWS’s interpretation of the ESA as authorizing the simultaneous designation and delisting of DPSs - or the designation of a DPS solely for the purpose of delisting - directly conflicts with the structure of the ESA and, consequently,this interpretation is entitled to no deference under Chevron step two. The ESA is remarkably clear: the FWS must identify ′′species′′ that are '′threatened′′ or ′′endangered, ′′afford them the protections necessary to help them′′recover,′′and then re-evaluate the listed entities once such ′′species′′ are recovered. See16 U.S.C. § 1533. The ESA makes no provision for creating a DPS and removing protections from the covered vertebrates at the same time because, by definition, a DPS cannot be protected under the ESA unless the vertebrates have been identified as a ′′threatened′′ or ′′endangered′′ species first. See16 U.S.C. §§ 1536; 1538. An ′′unprotected DPS′′ is, in short, an oxymoron."


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

pescadero said:


> I think anyone who ever watched 30 seconds of "Schoolhouse Rock" is completely clear on who makes rulings as to matters of law.
> 
> Congress makes law (the ESA), the Executive enforces them (the USFWS), and the courts determine whether or not the law is being met.
> 
> ...


Not typical of school house rock: the USFWS service is the one trying to delist the wolves but also enforces the laws on them


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

FREEPOP said:


> Not typical of school house rock: the USFWS service is the one trying to delist the wolves but also enforces the laws on them



Listing and de-listing (as well as creating DPS's) are part of enforcing the ESA law.


----------



## Martin Looker (Jul 16, 2015)

Do the rest of care if you poach a wolf or three? Nope just need to keep your mouth shut about it. The courts will decide if and when we can shoot them without having a shovel handy. In the meantime take out the females first.


----------



## multibeard (Mar 3, 2002)

Even if The FWS gets every thing right on delisting the wolf you can bet your arse that the antis will find a bunny hugging judge to put a stop to any hunt.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

I've never had a genuine hatred for wolves but then again, I'm not a Yooper. I can't begin to pretend to understand their headaches with wolves. Especially the bear dog hunters or livestock farmers let alone domestic pet owners. Then there are the deer hunters that also have issues with wolves killing deer needlessly. I guess I fit into that group. I haven't had any wolf issues the last 2 years maybe even 3 years. When I did however, the problem was bad. I had 5 wolves in my bear bait pit opening night of bear season about 4-5 years ago. Then in November the deer were nearly invisible. They were on cameras at night but spooky and much more scattered. I had wolf tracks everywhere for a couple years. Then suddenly as fast as they arrived, they disappeared. Haven't had any in some time. Apparently people say they follow the deer herds. Well, if that's true, they should be back because I saw as many as 14 deer at one time feeding near my rifle stand. Saw more deer last November than any year prior to last year. I've contemplated the SSS mentality but couldn't do it. Not judging those that do as their loss is something I can't compare my experience too. Just too bad the wolves cannot be managed as most wildlife is. When your at the top of the food chain in the Northwoods, there is no way to manage other than harvest. I believe the DNR has their hands tied as well but eventually will sell tags for wolves again. Just a waiting game.


----------



## june bugger (Oct 28, 2015)

I believe your correct and I'll add the cougar sighting also. Probably like the corona virus that's probably been here longer than their admitting too.


----------



## Millennial Ben (Jan 12, 2019)

DNR does have their hands tied as of right now. What I would like to see is a plan in place for when they do get delisted. Once they do get delisted, it'll be another year for the DNR to figure out what to do and how to manage them.

Being from the UP and hunting around them all of my life - The perception that most people (who don't have to deal wit them) have on them is inaccurate or not practical. I typically don't say much as the large percentage of the population doesn't understand and like to argue you with you on it. For example: SSS - everyone talks about this as a practical way to manage, easier said than done. Most guys, if given that situation won't do it. They talk like they would, but in that situation their decision would change. Secondly, the odds of seeing one is very small. Wolves are way smarter than us and most critters out there. Spend the time reading a book on them and you'll be amazed on how they live. I have seen them over years of hunting up there, most hunters don't even see them. Along with the track as well, in my experience I can't tell the difference between a large dog and wolf track, to me they all look the same. I don't spend hours researching it though.

My family and friends have lost over 4 beagles to wolves and have had encounters hunting rabbits in the UP. When you lose hunting dogs to these large mammals, it changes your attitude to them extremely fast. Were not looking to extinct them, just give us all a fair shot at managing them. If we were hunting wolves, it would help to level the playing field and change the way wolves interact with hunting dogs, etc.

Regardless if they are downstate or not, the population won't be able to thrive as much as up north due to the dense population of people compared to the UP. That's my opinion anyways.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

Well said. All good facts. I do see wolves while on hunts up in the UP both bear hunting and deer hunting. Sometimes I wonder just how smart are these creatures and other times it is apparent how smart they are. Either way, management is needed. If anybody did any research on how many wolf tags were sold when Michigan allowed the hunt vs how many were actually killed, it would make people understand how tough they are to legally manage. I think the season would need to be longer and earlier. Many more wolves are seen earlier than later just due to travel being tough in the UP woods after Late November.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

june bugger said:


> I believe your correct and I'll add the cougar sighting also. Probably like the corona virus that's probably been here longer than their admitting too.


I'm kind of a believe it when I see it guy. That applied to the cougar in the beginning but more particularly in my area. You can't imagine how many people claimed to see cougars in my neck of the woods literally. One lady said her and family had a mother cougar with kittens on their property. Said they see them daily. Others in many other northern lower Mi areas claimed to see them also. My father in law even said he saw a big cat he thought come out of a ditch and on to the road in front of his vehicle. Said it had a long tail. He's 92 years old and pretty sharp yet. I don't think he'd make it up but his eyes aren't what they once were. The UP was a stretch to me also until proven. Now sounds like a few wondering around up there. If you listen the BFRO groups, we also have a few Sasquatch walking around up there and below the bridge as well.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

johnIV said:


> I'm kind of a believe it when I see it guy. That applied to the cougar in the beginning but more particularly in my area. You can't imagine how many people claimed to see cougars in my neck of the woods literally. One lady said her and family had a mother cougar with kittens on their property. Said they see them daily. Others in many other northern lower Mi areas claimed to see them also. My father in law even said he saw a big cat he thought come out of a ditch and on to the road in front of his vehicle. Said it had a long tail. He's 92 years old and pretty sharp yet. I don't think he'd make it up but his eyes aren't what they once were. The UP was a stretch to me also until proven. Now sounds like a few wondering around up there. If you listen the BFRO groups, we also have a few Sasquatch walking around up there and below the bridge as well.


So you didn't believe cougars were in the U.P. when they were there too right?


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

Trophy Specialist said:


> So you didn't believe cougars were in the U.P. when they were there too right?


Nope I did not. At least not in the beginning. Remember there were a few bogus game cam pics floating around up there and proven not legit. Then the real deal showed up on that real cool ridge top game camera location i think in Marquette county. Had moose, coyotes, deer and that cougar on the camera. That was when I realized cougars lived up there.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

Also if you research cougar sightings in Michigan you'll find just about every county in the state had a claim of a sighting. That's another reason. Lots of imaginations were running wild with that cougar thing.


----------



## Martin Looker (Jul 16, 2015)

I don't think there's too many cougar in the lower. I know a bunch of coyote hunters and none of them have seen so much as a track. Kind of like big footlots of talk but no tracks unless they go south for the winter.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

Martin Looker said:


> I don't think there's too many cougar in the lower. I know a bunch of coyote hunters and none of them have seen so much as a track. Kind of like big footlots of talk but no tracks unless they go south for the winter.


Well that was another huge reason I doubted cougars living in the UP. I know several bear, bobcat and coyote hunters that run dogs up there. None have ever crossed a big cat track/scent and/or tree'd one. Seems the same. If they were there, someone would have run one with their hounds. Then again if only one existed at the time, it'd be tough to make that statement.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

johnIV said:


> Nope I did not. At least not in the beginning. Remember there were a few bogus game cam pics floating around up there and proven not legit. Then the real deal showed up on that real cool ridge top game camera location i think in Marquette county. Had moose, coyotes, deer and that cougar on the camera. That was when I realized cougars lived up there.


I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt in most cases including with cougar or other animal sightings. Many, many years ago, I saw a pair of wolves in the U.P. when the the DNR (and probably you too) were still denying that they existed there. It's a pretty crappy when you know you saw something and you are told that you were seeing things.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Martin Looker said:


> I don't think there's too many cougar in the lower. I know a bunch of coyote hunters and none of them have seen so much as a track. Kind of like big footlots of talk but no tracks unless they go south for the winter.


I've been hunting and generally tromping about a lot in the U.P. for a long time and I've never seen a cougar track, but I'm not going to take a stance that they don't exist there because of that. I got one on a trail cam last year, but I've still never seen a big cat track.


----------



## Martin Looker (Jul 16, 2015)

When you drive miles of roads looking for tracks it seems like you would see them.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

Trophy Specialist said:


> I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt in most cases including with cougar or other animal sightings. Many, many years ago, I saw a pair of wolves in the U.P. when the the DNR (and probably you too) were still denying that they existed there. It's a pretty crappy when you know you saw something and you are told that you were seeing things.


It's real funny you say that. I've encountered a Lynx in Michigan. The DNR laughed but once came to my camp and noted tracks, agreed. One day many years ago in the month of June 1982 in Baraga county M28 on my way to Isle Royale, I watched a wolf trott across the road. In disbelief shocked me. I'm pretty good on wildlife ID so it definitely wasn't a domestic dog and much too large for a coyote. Never called the DNR about it. Later that year or next just can't remember today but a wolf was hit by a car in that area. Re-confirmed my sighting was accurate


----------



## on a call (Jan 16, 2010)

on a call said:


> I have not hunted Pheasant in Mi for some time...the last time I shot 15 all in S/E Mi. And that was before I knew how to shoot...I missed more than I dropped.


BTW....these were all wild pheasant

That year I shot 54 all wild between ohio, mi, and iowa


----------

