# UP law makers weigh in on wolf ruling.



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

This from TV 6 news! Starts at about 5 minutes 30 seconds into interview.





 

GET INVOLVED!!!!

Dave


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

The number one problem with wolves in the UP is that they can only provide an economic loss. No matter how you look at things the wolves cost the UP and the State of Michigan money. The only ones to have an economic gain of sorts from the wolves are the feds. Thus the reason that the feds want to keep them protected.
If there are only 700 wolves in the UP and approximately 7000 bears why is it that I see about 3 bears per year and about 15 wolves per year? I think that the wolf numbers are much higher. Look back about 10 years the wolf count was about 600. Do the math 70 breeding females X 7 pups that is 490 pups per year at a 20 percent survival rate gives us 98 new wolves per year. Assuming mortality of 50 wolves per year we still gain 48 wolves.


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

Robert Holmes said:


> The number one problem with wolves in the UP is that they can only provide an economic loss. No matter how you look at things the wolves cost the UP and the State of Michigan money. The only ones to have an economic gain of sorts from the wolves are the feds. Thus the reason that the feds want to keep them protected.
> If there are only 700 wolves in the UP and approximately 7000 bears why is it that I see about 3 bears per year and about 15 wolves per year? I think that the wolf numbers are much higher. Look back about 10 years the wolf count was about 600. Do the math 70 breeding females X 7 pups that is 490 pups per year at a 20 percent survival rate gives us 98 new wolves per year. Assuming mortality of 50 wolves per year we still gain 48 wolves.


 
There is 1200 animals minimum in the UP. 

Dave


----------



## Jager Pro (Nov 8, 2013)

Well I feel a lot better now, the video said everything I've been thinking for a while now. 




Midalake said:


> There is 1200 animals minimum in the UP.
> 
> Dave


^^is that sarcasm or do you mean 1,200 wolves? Just want to clarify


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

Jager Pro said:


> Well I feel a lot better now, the video said everything I've been thinking for a while now.
> 
> ^^is that sarcasm or do you mean 1,200 wolves? Just want to clarify


Not sarcasm. Full truthful estimate 1,200 animals UP wide.

Dave


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Midalake said:


> Not sarcasm. Full truthful estimate 1,200 animals UP wide.
> 
> Dave


Based on what ?

L & O


----------



## U of M Fan (May 8, 2005)

Thanks for posting this Dave.


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## MrFysch (Feb 9, 2008)

Wish all elected govt officials were in tune with the issues that affect the people who put them in office like these gentlemen. Sad to think people that never set foot in the great UP can have such a major influence on issues that effect the everyday life of people and wildlife that they have never took the time to try and understand. Thanks for sharing that Dave.


----------



## J D (Jan 19, 2011)

Very nice glad you shared this Dave


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

Thanks for posting Dave. You are right everyone needs to get involved.


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

Liver and Onions said:


> Based on what ?
> 
> L & O


There is 16,377 square miles of land in the UP.

For 5 years I have documented 5-7 wolves working my property. 1 sq/mile 

IF these 5-7 wolves rotate through 40 Square Miles of land. 

16,377 divided by 40 Sq/miles = 409 parcels that are 40 Sq miles in size.

THUS lets use the Five [5] wolf figure [conservative]..........

That would allow 5 times 409.........EQUALS 2,045 Possible wolves.

Now we have to account for water mass and some Sq miles of land that will not hold wolves.

I am GIVING the benefit of the doubt that 1,200 NOT 2,045 is the correct figure.

ALSO it is important to note the DNR does not even consider my property "wolf" territory. 

So the numbers could even skew higher.

ANY Questions?


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Midalake said:


> There is 16,377 square miles of land in the UP.
> 
> For 5 years I have documented 5-7 wolves working my property. 1 sq/mile
> 
> ...


Wow. So you believe that you can accurately estimate the numbers of wolves in the UP based on the number of wolves that use your little piece of paradise. While you're at it, you might as well tell us how many deer and bears there REALLY are in the UP based on the number of those animals on your property.

L & O


----------



## BFTrout (Sep 27, 2002)

In the central U.P. I am aware of 3 packs of wolves for sure. That area is encompassed by Delta county alone. There is a pack of 12-15 animals in the Rock area, another pack the same size along the Whitefish river (whitefish pack, also one of the larger packs in the U.P.) and finally what I believe to be a satellite pack in the Rapid River area. I suspect the Rapid pack consists of 5-7 animals that most likely broke off of the Whitefish pack. Just in central Delta County, you are looking at 35-40 animals alone. If that average holds true to the 15 counties in the U.P., the population estimate is around 600 animals; unfortunately population estimates are not entirely accurate. 
I would hope that we will start to hear more information on reversing the court decision when the next NRC meeting is held. 
BFT


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

There could very easily be 1200 wolves in the UP. When a wolf count is done it is a visual count. There are places in the UP that are so dense with cover that daylight never hits ground level. They can hide pretty good and not be counted. Look at it this way how hard is it to do a census when all someone has to do is knock at your door? 
It won't be long, the backstreets of Detroit will be safer than the backwoods of the UP. I am surprised that no warning signs are posted anywhere in the UP. 
There have also been a few mountain lion sightings in Mackinac County.


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

Liver and Onions said:


> Wow. So you believe that you can accurately estimate the numbers of wolves in the UP based on the number of wolves that use your little piece of paradise. While you're at it, you might as well tell us how many deer and bears there REALLY are in the UP based on the number of those animals on your property.
> 
> L & O


This is where you post [ here ] the way anyone else calculates the wolf population.

Since I have 5 years of data it is a very plausible theory.

A theory that no one else can debunk..........as I cannot debunk anyone else's population estimate.

Maybe you have data for your own theory?


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Midalake said:


> This is where you post [ here ] the way anyone else calculates the wolf population.
> 
> Since I have 5 years of data it is a very plausible theory.
> 
> ...


Data ?? You call the observations that you have of your property data that can then be expanded to estimate the wolf population of the entire UP ? That's ridiculous.

I'm sure you believe your methods are more accurate, but here is how biologists have estimated the population.

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153--327081--,00.html

L & O


----------



## Jager Pro (Nov 8, 2013)

Midalake said:


> This is where you post [ here ] the way anyone else calculates the wolf population.
> 
> Since I have 5 years of data it is a very plausible theory.
> 
> ...


Well I've seen one wolf track in Marquette County, and there are 15 counties in da Yoop, therefore there are a total of 15 wolves in the entire UP, however that's a little conservative estimate. I believe there is closer to 25


----------



## stagliano (Nov 10, 2006)

Midalake said:


> This is where you post [ here ] the way anyone else calculates the wolf population.
> 
> Since I have 5 years of data it is a very plausible theory.
> 
> ...


The court ruling to relist the wolf is very unfortunate and undercuts a lot of hard work done by wildlife managers in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. There is no doubt that wolves have recovered in the Upper Great Lakes region. There is also no doubt that the states are able to manage the wolf populations on a sustainable basis. Unfortunately, where there are a lot of rational, intelligent people making legitimate arguments for state management of wolves, we get absolute blowhards like you and Robert Holmes. 

You population estimate could not be more flawed. The idea that you can take your personal observations (which may or may not be accurate) and apply them to the entire UP is ludicrous. Your extrapolation of one small area and application to the UP as a whole doesn't take into account for all kinds of variance such as: prey densities, habitat types and human activity. Here is my population estimate based on your parameters. It is based on my observations it a particularly low wolf density area. I hunt on 2000 private acres. 

2000 acres is 3.125 square miles but we are going to throw that out for this estimate (disclaimer: should I have extended the population to area ratio out it would result in an even lower population estimate) and pretend my numbers with regards to area are equivalent to yours. In five years I have one confirmed set of wolf tracks on the property, no trailcam photos, no other tracks, no kills, nothing. Just that one wolf. Over five years, that gives me 0.2 wolves. So here is the math plugged into your formula:

0.2 wolves x 409 (40 mile parcels of land)= 81.8 wolves. 

That is obviously an incorrect estimate. You can't apply your area to the entire UP, it's just not accurate. Are there more animals than what the DNR title's a "minimum population estimate"? Almost certainly as it's a MINIMUM estimate. Are wolves recovered? Yes, they are a huge conservation success story. They can be managed my the states and hunted/trapped and still maintain sustainable populations but goal of getting them back there is seriously hindered by people like yourself applying your personal emotions and junk science to the discussion.


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

Liver and Onions said:


> Data ?? You call the observations that you have of your property data that can then be expanded to estimate the wolf population of the entire UP ? That's ridiculous.
> 
> I'm sure you believe your methods are more accurate, but here is how biologists have estimated the population.
> 
> ...


"The wolf population survey is completed by DNR Wildlife Division and U.S. Department of Agriculture-Wildlife Services staff, who search specific zones for wolf tracks and other signs of wolf activity. While the survey is primarily a track survey, it also utilizes radio-collared animals and aerial observation, which when combined with the information from the field work produce a minimum population estimate and confidence intervals. In 2014, approximately 63 percent of the Upper Peninsula was surveyed."

[/COLOR] 
OK  So they missed 40% of the population.....How nice...


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

stagliano said:


> The court ruling to relist the wolf is very unfortunate and undercuts a lot of hard work done by wildlife managers in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. There is no doubt that wolves have recovered in the Upper Great Lakes region. There is also no doubt that the states are able to manage the wolf populations on a sustainable basis. Unfortunately, where there are a lot of rational, intelligent people making legitimate arguments for state management of wolves, we get absolute blowhards like you and Robert Holmes.
> 
> You population estimate could not be more flawed. The idea that you can take your personal observations (which may or may not be accurate) and apply them to the entire UP is ludicrous. Your extrapolation of one small area and application to the UP as a whole doesn't take into account for all kinds of variance such as: prey densities, habitat types and human activity. Here is my population estimate based on your parameters. It is based on my observations it a particularly low wolf density area. I hunt on 2000 private acres.
> 
> ...


Actually you did not read well enough as your calculation is incorrect.

I made numerous allowance's, and you did not factor in my final population estimate of 1200 wolves. WHICH you would need to re-extrapolate to a different outcome. 

1200 divided by 409/- 40 square mile segments Equals what genius?

2.933 wolves for every 40 Square mile block in the UP.

How far off do you think I am now genius?

BTW You can have 1 wolf on your 40 sq, mile block......but the next one has 5  

Sheeeeeeeesh...............Trolls and non-stake holders bore me........

ALWAYS amazing how fast WI and MN wolf seasons hit their quotas......How can that be?


----------



## stagliano (Nov 10, 2006)

Midalake said:


> Actually you did not read well enough as your calculation is incorrect.
> 
> I made numerous allowance's, and you did not factor in my final population estimate of 1200 wolves. WHICH you would need to re-extrapolate to a different outcome.
> 
> ...


I used your formula and I didn't even cut the number in half like you did just to be "conservative." 

0.2 wolves x 409 (40 square mile parcels of land representing that animals territory) = 81.8 animals. 

Your inability to see how this example illustrates your flawed logic only further illustrates your obtuseness. I am a resident of the Upper Peninsula and I am a stakeholder as I care about wildlife management and participate in it as an avid hunter. You cannot invalidate me by calling me a "troll" or "nonstakeholder."


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

I don't know why you UP deer hunters complain about deer numbers.

Next door to my NWLP property, I can consistently see 40+ deer using the 80 acre hay/alfalfa field at any time.

There are (8) 80 acre parcels in a square mile.

8 x 40 = 320 deer per square mile

There are 58,110 square miles of land in Michigan.

58,110 x 320 = 18,595,200 deer

You UP deer hunters should shut your pie-hole over low deer numbers


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

From the link L & O posted:



> Since wolves returned to the Upper Peninsula in the 1980s, the population steadily grew until recent years when growth began to level off, which is what wildlife biologists expect to see when a recovered population approaches its biological carrying capacity. In the past few years, Michigan's minimum population estimate has hovered between 600-700 wolves.


Here is a link to a presentation from Brian Roell:

Wolf Management History

Note the graph on page 5 - as the wolf population increases, annual population growth decreases. Once the wolf population reaches a certain threshold there is very little growth in the population which is the biological carrying capacity of wolves.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Midalake said:


> .............
> . In 2014, approximately 63 percent of the Upper Peninsula was surveyed."
> 
> [/COLOR]
> OK  So they missed 40% of the population.....How nice...




Midalake, you seem very determined to continue to embarrass yourself. 
You are criticizing the DNR for surveying 63% of the UP and then expanding that number to arrive at a final number, but yet you are happy with your survey of 1/16000 of 1% of the UP land mass ???
Just to throw out some round numbers Midalake, the DNR survey estimates for 63% of the UP would indicate about 400 wolves. Expanding that number the biologist would then arrive at an estimate for the entire UP.
You do realize that multiple people have a hand in this project and all of them have been trained in estimating wildlife numbers, right ?

Probably the 2 things that we can agree on are that (1) there are too many wolves if the UP wants to have a higher deer population, and (2) a harvest needs to include trapping because hunting just did not get it done in '13.

L & O


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA (Dec 13, 2003)

Midalake said:


> Not sarcasm. Full truthful estimate 1,200 animals UP wide.
> 
> Dave


Yep, the DNR said maybe 4 or 5 years ago that the minimum had been 1,000 so 1,200+ would be around the number now.


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA (Dec 13, 2003)

Liver and Onions said:


> Wow. So you believe that you can accurately estimate the numbers of wolves in the UP based on the number of wolves that use your little piece of paradise. While you're at it, you might as well tell us how many deer and bears there REALLY are in the UP based on the number of those animals on your property.
> 
> L & O


Why not? That is the same exact way the DNR does wolf surveys and deer surveys. They only look over a certain percentage of U.P. areas and use that for their formula. I think they only walked or flew over 1/3 of the total mass of the U.P. They count deer pellets within a certain parcel of land, say maybe 40 acres and then while looking at all those different piles of deer dookie they come up with ages , sexes and health and how many deer are in that 40. Sounds kind of far fetched to me. Reminds me of Cheech and Chong. Smell like dog $***? Uhh, tatste like dog $***? Uh huh.


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA (Dec 13, 2003)

MrFysch said:


> Wish all elected govt officials were in tune with the issues that affect the people who put them in office like these gentlemen. Sad to think people that never set foot in the great UP can have such a major influence on issues that effect the everyday life of people and wildlife that they have never took the time to try and understand. Thanks for sharing that Dave.


We started this over 15 years ago with the legislatures, past and present. There were over 1,000 of us all over the U.P. that met with them when ever they came to a town. We, meaning myself and a few other people drafted the two laws that are now on the books back in 2007.


----------



## Thirty pointer (Jan 1, 2015)

Wolves and coyotes are like rats if you see one there is probably 10 more nearby


----------



## sourdough44 (Mar 2, 2008)

I was just up riding snowmobiles in the U.P.. In this area most of the deer have moved to thicker cover closer to the big lake.

We saw one dead deer the eagles and ravens were finishing off. There were a spattering of deer tracks in this area. The wolves liked the packed tracks from the snowmobiles. There were at least the two that used the tracks for easier walking.


----------



## jafurnier (Jun 7, 2008)

I doubt 'Lake thinks his estimate is accurate.

Did anyone read the post about the "Germans attacking Pearl Harbor"? I was waiting for someone to forget who Mr. Blutarsky was.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

The biggest wolf problem is that way too many people have to get their 2 cents in on the situation. Many of the people that make crucial decisions have never stepped a foot onto soil that is inhabited by wolves. They have never witnessed a wolf kill or saw a kill site. They have never been alone in the woods surrounded by wolves. They have never had a pet or livestock killed by wolves. In my opinion this leaves them with little or no true knowledge about wolves. They make decisions based on little or no knowledge of an issue. 
Protection of wolves is nothing other than a money grab. The feds gain money by protecting wolves where the states that have wolves have absolutely no economic gain. HSUS and other animal rights groups gain money and support if they influence our rights to hunt, fish and trap. 
Now that the Feds have taken over they can have their cash grab again and leave the DNR to do their dirty laundry at the expense of the outdoors person. The DNR will still have to manage wolves and investigate poaching and so on. You will still be paying for it out of your license money.


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

jafurnier said:


> I doubt 'Lake thinks his estimate is accurate.
> 
> Did anyone read the post about the "Germans attacking Pearl Harbor"? I was waiting for someone to forget who Mr. Blutarsky was.


Well I could be wrong. It might be closer to 1400-1600. 

Had 4 friends out sledding yesterday........not one deer spotted in 189 miles.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Midalake said:


> Well I could be wrong. It might be closer to 1400-1600.
> 
> Had 4 friends out sledding yesterday........not one deer spotted in 189 miles.


If the deer population gets too low and the wolf population gets too high in any given area there is going to be a big problem. Could be the deer were not moving. I drove 90 miles of back roads yesterday through deer country and did not see a track. It was blowing 40 mph and snowing too.


----------



## Josh R (Dec 4, 2010)

I ask this because I don't know. How do the feds make money protecting the wolves? I see the states losing a bunch of money for sure. 
Josh


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Josh R said:


> I ask this because I don't know. How do the feds make money protecting the wolves? I see the states losing a bunch of money for sure.
> Josh


This creates an excise tax originally on firearms and ammunition I believe that it now includes trapping supplies and fishing gear. It is all a federal tax that creates a cash cow for endangered species. The more animals that are under the endangered species act the more of a cash grab the feds have. It creates jobs such as wolf biologist, wolf land manager, wolf ear tagger, wolf tracker and so on. Most are jobs for people fresh out of college or still in college. A prime example is just look at all of the USFWS employees that chase lampreys. Now the feds can tap that fund (paid for by sportsmen not HSUS) to hire a bunch of wolf chasers. Many of these jobs are for the most part meaningless and most of the employees will never see a wolf. 
If the wolves are not on the endangered species list the money just sits and piles up. You put wolves on the endangered species list and millions of dollars are suddenly available to spend. The feds could care less about the economic problems that states have. The feds could care less about the economic hardship that wolves create.
Even though the wolves are on the endangered species list and protected it is still up to the DNR to manage them and do law enforcement work. So the sportsmen are getting double dipped and the deer population is not gaining any ground.


----------



## Musket (May 11, 2009)

Once again little Robert riding hood you are clueless. FWS had nothing to do with the relisting of wolves. Perhaps only in the fact that they segregated the great lakes wolf and this is the heart of the issue. NOT LOW NUMBERS. It's was all in the WORDING at the time of delisting. I am positive asking you to read and understand the judges order would be asking a bit to much. I am sure you will find this unbelievable but the court rejected the argument from FWS, the state of MI,WI,MN and several sportsman and stakeholders not to relist but allow them to go back and rewrite the delisting. But you go a head and just keep on loud mouthing what you know nothing about. Nothing new I guess.


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

Musket said:


> Once again little Robert riding hood you are clueless. FWS had nothing to do with the relisting of wolves. Perhaps only in the fact that they segregated the great lakes wolf and this is the heart of the issue. NOT LOW NUMBERS. It's was all in the WORDING at the time of delisting. I am positive asking you to read and understand the judges order would be asking a bit to much. I am sure you will find this unbelievable but the court rejected the argument from FWS, the state of MI,WI,MN and several sportsman and stakeholders not to relist but allow them to go back and rewrite the delisting. But you go a head and just keep on loud mouthing what you know nothing about. Nothing new I guess.


So we just have incompetent people speaking for sportspeople...... .... Got it thanks........


----------



## Thirty pointer (Jan 1, 2015)

Too much bashing on how many there is we all know there is plenty enough of them to have a season and control them .They are way over the dnrs target goal and have yet to expand in some areas of the u.p. I am a part time resident of southeastern schoolcraft county neighbors just started to see them last year .We also know deer numbers are very low in most of the u.p.this is setting up for a disaster .No deer means the probability of human attacks more likely.I personally would not let my grandchildren play out back as I did a few years ago.


----------



## Musket (May 11, 2009)

Yes and no Dave. The judge ruled that FWS did not have the authority to separate and designate the Great Lakes Wolf as it's own from all of the wolves in the lower 48, so any decision in delisting them would have to of been done in respect to all not just those in the great lakes region. However, if we are to have sound science come into play, a separation of wolves was in order by FWS.


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

Musket said:


> Yes and no Dave. The judge ruled that FWS did not have the authority to separate and designate the Great Lakes Wolf as it's own from all of the wolves in the lower 48, so any decision in delisting them would have to of been done in respect to all not just those in the great lakes region. However, if we are to have sound science come into play, a separation of wolves was in order by FWS.



What is common knowledge is State and Federal agencies often find their own documents and documenting full of holes after a team of lawyers get done reviewing them.

There is a reoccurring phrase in the State of Michigan Wolf Plan that should have NEVER been put in the plan. WHOEVER wrote it should have their head examined.

I feel our ability to have a deer hunting season will be challenged.........and we may lose!

Everything that has happened so far shows how far the wack jobs will go!


----------



## bapotter (Aug 20, 2014)

Robert Holmes said:


> This creates an excise tax originally on firearms and ammunition I believe that it now includes trapping supplies and fishing gear. It is all a federal tax that creates a cash cow for endangered species. The more animals that are under the endangered species act the more of a cash grab the feds have. It creates jobs such as wolf biologist, wolf land manager, wolf ear tagger, wolf tracker and so on. Most are jobs for people fresh out of college or still in college. A prime example is just look at all of the USFWS employees that chase lampreys. Now the feds can tap that fund (paid for by sportsmen not HSUS) to hire a bunch of wolf chasers. Many of these jobs are for the most part meaningless and most of the employees will never see a wolf.
> If the wolves are not on the endangered species list the money just sits and piles up. You put wolves on the endangered species list and millions of dollars are suddenly available to spend. The feds could care less about the economic problems that states have. The feds could care less about the economic hardship that wolves create.
> Even though the wolves are on the endangered species list and protected it is still up to the DNR to manage them and do law enforcement work. So the sportsmen are getting double dipped and the deer population is not gaining any ground.


For Josh R's sake and others interested, there is only one accurate statement in the above quote. There is an excise tax on hunting and fishing equipment. The rest is extremely inaccurate. 

The excise tax dollars are collected at the federal level and then provided back out to the states to manage fish and wildlife. None of these dollars are used to fund endangered species conservation unless the STATE chooses to do so. Since most states DNRs are nearly completely funded by hunters and fisherman, most of the money gets spent on fish and game conservation. 

Here is a well developed fact sheet from a source you may trust:
http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/PittmanRobertsonFacts.pdf 

Better yet, you can find the actual act with a google search.

Federal threatened and endangered species conservation is funded by congress via the Endangered Species Act and the federal budget. There is no incentive for the USFWS to increase the number of threatened and endangered species. In fact, quite the opposite. Recovering and removing species from the list shows that the USFWS is doing their job and therefore likely to receive an increase in funding. 

The USFWS is the agency that approved delisting wolves, thus putting control into the states hands. Political pressure on a single judge has overturned that decision.

Carry on with the discussion, but please use accurate statements and facts.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

bapotter said:


> ........
> 
> Carry on with the discussion, but please use accurate statements and facts.


I don't believe you realize the inconvenience of that request.

L & O


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Musket said:


> Yes and no Dave. The judge ruled that FWS did not have the authority to separate and designate the Great Lakes Wolf as it's own from all of the wolves in the lower 48, so any decision in delisting them would have to of been done in respect to all not just those in the great lakes region. However, if we are to have sound science come into play, a separation of wolves was in order by FWS.


If I am reading this right the Great Lakes wolf is a breed all of its own. It may not even be the same breed of wolf that inhabited Michigan 200 years ago. Thus for all practical purposes it would be an invasive species. If it is an invasive species they need to be killed off and start the whole process all over with the right species. As far as I know the wolves in Michigan are the same breed of wolves that are in Alaska and the western states. If these wolves are plentiful in Canada and Alaska they don't need to be on the endangered species list.


----------



## Thirty pointer (Jan 1, 2015)

Exactly, Think that argument was made but fell on deaf ears.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Thirty pointer said:


> Exactly, Think that argument was made but fell on deaf ears.


Why don't the politicians from the UP use "invasive species" as a means to get them delisted ?


----------



## Thirty pointer (Jan 1, 2015)

Too many anti groups with too much money.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

I think it is getting to the point where normal law abiding people are going to take matters into their own hands. A farmer needs to be able to protect their livestock. People who have thousands of dollars invested into their hunting dogs cannot sit and watch wolves chew them up. A group that owns a camp pays taxes on the property and perhaps a loan for a reason. That reason is probably not to provide a domicile for a wolf pack.


----------



## Thirty pointer (Jan 1, 2015)

Agreed they will start to do what was done many years ago with coyotes and wolves and poison them to the brink before they will loose their livelihood or hunting opportunities or the ability to let their children outside.It was not that many years ago coyotes had a bounty on them .Wolves were exterminated way before we had a functioning dnr.


----------



## ausable riverboat (May 10, 2010)

A friend of mine lives in Rapid River , and he ran into a trapper in a gas station who live traps them to put collars on them when my friend asks him how many wolves are in the up his answer was over 3000.


----------



## multibeard (Mar 3, 2002)

bapotter said:


> For Josh R's sake and others interested, there is only one accurate statement in the above quote. There is an excise tax on hunting and fishing equipment.



There are actually two separate excise taxes. 

The one on hunting stuff is the Pitman/Robertson act (name might not be totally correct). All moneys funneled to the states must be used for Hunting related uses.

I do not know what the one on fishing tackle is called but moneys funned to the states must be used for fishing related uses.

The moneys are paid by the manufacturer of the product. the tax does not sow to the final consumer but has been paid.


----------



## bapotter (Aug 20, 2014)

Dingle Johnson is the fishing equipment related tax. Works in the same manor. Both acts are typically discussed together as PR-DJ acts.


----------



## sourdough44 (Mar 2, 2008)

The next round is being cued up. That is a bill being introduced in congress to let the Great Lakes States control the wolf numbers, including hunts.


Proposal Remove Gray Wolf from Endangered Species List to be Introduced
Posted: Jan 13, 2015 1:55 PM PST
Updated: Jan 13, 2015 1:55 PM PST


A Wisconsin congressman is leading efforts to take the gray wolf off the endangered species list in four states, including Michigan.

Representative Reed Ribble and several other congressmen plan to introduce the legislation.

It would take the animal off the list in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

This comes after a recent decision by a federal court to put the species back on the list.

Sponsors of the bill are working to get support from both sides of the aisle.

Sign In or Sign Up for an account.
Comments

Be the first to comment


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

9&10 news had a little blurb about it.
http://www.9and10news.com/story/278...from-endangered-species-list-to-be-introduced


----------



## NonTypicalCPA (Feb 16, 2007)

Hope they can get it passed. Enough is enough.


----------

