BigGameHoundsmen.com

I had a bear dog killed by wolves the first day of season (Sept 15) in the Western end of the U.P. of MI. He was treed along with 4 other dogs. This happened in the Baraga Plains area. To make it even worse, he lived in the house with us and was my wifes pet as well. Needless to say, she was very upset and P****d off.

The good news is that we had no other incidents the rest of season, and ended up taking 8 bears this season with the largest being 360.

Since the wolves got de-listed in MI to threatened a few months ago, the state has to have a management plan in place. MI is in the final stages of their plan, and they are accepting public comments until Nov 14. I have read the plan and talked to many people in the MI Bear Hunters Ass., MI Hunting Dog Federation, and others.

Following is a letter that I've written, and would appreciate it if everyone would copy this letter and send it to the DNR.

The DNR email is : wolf_comments@michigan.gov


Thanks everyone for helping out. The only way things will get changed is if enough people bitch.

Tim Dusterwinkle




I have some concerns regarding the new wolf management plan. In the areas of wolf depredation of domestic animals, including free-ranging hunting dogs, there are areas of the plan that are too vague. The language lacks specificity to provide assurance for domestic animal owners that action will be taken against problem wolves.

The current draft of the plan reads, “As necessary, update and refine management responses according to the severity, immediacy and frequency of depredation problems.” Currently, there are documented reports of specific packs that have already killed domestic animals. When will it be considered necessary to respond to a killing? The language, “as necessary” needs to be defined.

“Severity, immediacy, and frequency” also need to be defined or rewritten more specifically. How severe, immediate or frequent should the depredation have to be before the DNR will respond? There should be a one-strike-policy in regards to a domestic animal being killed. Multiple domestic animals, hunting dogs included, should not be put in danger after a reported killing has already taken place. If a wolf or wolves have learned the behavior to kill domestic animals for food or defense of territory, there remains the risk of a person or child being put into danger as well.

Another area in the plan where language is too vague is, “Train field staff on response protocols.” What are these response protocols? The response, after one strike, should be the elimination of the known wolf or wolves. What is the timeline for these protocols? The DNR needs to respond immediately to prevent another incidence of depredation.

Another concern is what the DNR’s response protocol will be for verified killings of domestic animals that have previously occurred before the plan goes into effect. Will the wolves that have already killed a domestic animal be responded to by the DNR? The Baraga Plains pack of wolves have killed six hunting dogs in just over a year. This pack should have been eliminated a long time ago. There should be no reason why the DNR is precluded from including plan requirements to address areas where prior killings have occurred.

The plan also reads, “Non-lethal methods will be applied wherever they are expected to be effective and where the severity and immediacy of a problem do not warrant more-aggressive action.” Non-lethal control will not be effective with free-ranging hunting dogs as it is sometimes effective with livestock depredation problems.

In summation, the language of the wolf plan needs to be more specific in order to assure people that they and their companion animals will be safe while they are participating in outdoor recreation. Pet owners need to be assured that in the event of wolf depredation, prompt action will be taken by the DNR in order to prevent future occurrences.

DUSTEN YOU MUST BE AWARE THAT THE DNR IS WAY MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE WOLVES MORE THAN THEY ARE THE HUNTING DOGS... I REALLY DONT KNOW ABOUT YOUR STATE BUT MOST OTHERS ARE PLAYING PATTY CAKE WITH THE ANTI'S AND ANAMAL ATVS.. I WISH YOU ALL THE LUCK IN THE WORLD.....

Dusten, I am upset by your loss, and I wish you well with your efforts in getting this handful of DNR administrators(not elected to anything) to do
the right thing. Originally, the DNR's STATED PLAN was to maintain a population 250 wolves in the U.P. for 5 years in order to comply with the Endangered Species Act and qualify for delisting, and "they" felt 250 was a number we could all live with. Now we see in living color that they speak with a forked-tongue. I have zero confidence in the current DNR administrators...they do handsprings when we get a dog killed.

FYI...the latest thought is, the U.P. could sustain a population of 1,300 wolves!

Thanks for the replies. I agree Rich, that dealing with the DNR is for the most part an exercise in frustration. They have been told by bear hunters that they need to respond to these issues, or they will have people killing wolves themselves, which will result in more wolves killed than if they would've eliminated the problem ones in the first place.

Since we are way above the numbers required by the feds to qualify for delisting (the number is actually 200, not 250 (page 22 of the MI draft proposal)), the next number is the social carrying capacity number. That is why it is so important to tell them how you feel about wolves. If enough people complain, it will be easier to lower the numbers.

Duster

Dusten, I appreciated your response...and thanks for correcting me on the 200 wolf benchmark.

There were two bear dogs killed and eaten, east of Park Falls, WI during the training season. Another dog was killed and eaten in the same area during the kill season. DNR want to protect wolves to please the wolf lovers, OK. Lower the fine for killing a wolf to $5 to please the people that have to live with the beasts. Everybody is happy. Wolves? Smoke a Pack a Day!

yes we need a wolf hunt season so bad.from englishhunter