1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Past Time of Deer Hunting in the UP of Michigan

Discussion in 'Shooting Related Threads' started by midalake, Nov 11, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. midalake

    midalake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,730
    With the start of the Michigan gun season days away here in the Upper Peninsula, it is apparent what the impact of Wolves has done to what few deer we have left. We now have an established Wolf population larger than the state of Montana, and the Federal Government with the help of the Humane Society keeps ramming this down our throats. When this whole nightmare started 10 years ago, I warned many people of the devastation this will bring to not only hunting deer but other species as well. If the people who hunt the UP this year think its bad now, wait till next year. My calculation now is that 80% of the UP will not have more than 5 deer per square mile in two years regardless of what type of winter we have. I am so depressed right now I could puke. All of the hard work I have done here on the 600 acres I own is for not. Just does not seem right.

    GS
     
  2. Old Fowler

    Old Fowler TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    228
    I can feel your pain. My son and I just returned from our camp in Menominee County. We bow hunt the U.P. the first 2 weeks of November each year. Heard wolves and yotes both every night...many more than even a couple years ago and seeing fewer deer each year. Also hunt in Schoolcraft county between Manistique and Shingleton and see far more signs of wolves in that area than we do near Stephenson. Friends in Ontonagon are saying the same things; each wolf can be responsible for killing 15+ deer each year. Many yoopers are beginning to take matters into their own hands, as it were, and I can't say I blame them. Our DNR must stop catering to crossbow (aka crossgun)manufacturers and lobby groups long enough to begin, at least, considering how they are going to handle the wolf situation before our entire whitetail heard is decimated by those bastards. If the direction doesn't change, the whitetail may actually become the endangered species. If the growing wolf population is not bad enough, now we're beginning to hear about cougar sightings! The two deer my son and I harvested this year in Michigan's great U.P. may be our last!!

    Cliff
     
  3. 22hornet

    22hornet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,461
    Location:
    Hanford, CA
    The same thing happened with the cougars here in California. The animal rights bunch managed to get cat hunting outlawed, and the deer herd has been suffering ever since. I wonder how many cats have been shot and kicked down the bottom of some canyon by irate cattlemen?
     
  4. jim creighton

    jim creighton Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    201
    I'am ready for the opener I have my Wolfe hole already dug..HA HA...Have a friend that traps & has already cought 5-call the DNR & they come & tag (hes afraid of getting cought)Deer cams this year are a fraction of last & will no dought get worse.I guess it the time spent with family & friends that make it worth the effort. On a other note I shot 30 Partridge this season(1-even flew)LETS TRY TO MAKE THE BEST OF A BAD THING... GOOD LUCK JIM C AKA THE YOOPER...
     
  5. Bob Hawkes

    Bob Hawkes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,916
    Jim, One flew?? Before or after you shot? LOL. Don't tell me you ran down 29 of the poor buggers. Seriously, good to hear they're plentiful this year. In NB they were very scarce in my area. Shoot often while we can, Bob
     
  6. Tron

    Tron Supporting Vendor Supporting Vendor

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    6,675
    We used to hunt in the Paulding area (Running Bear Resort) and I remember in the early 90's when they were reintroducing them. They all had radio collars on and you could see the DNR driving the back roads with an antena hanging out their windows tracking them. Now, the wolves sort of took over and the deer are starting to get scarce.

    I still know of farmers that will shoot them on site.
     
  7. Hap MecTweaks

    Hap MecTweaks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,229
    Location:
    Mesquite, Nevada
    I get a news letter (email) from a group of Sportsmen For Wildlife located in Idaho fairly often. The wolf population is getting totally out of hand there and in western Montana/Wyo. also.

    The commonly thought belief that wolves only kill for food is wrong! They kill whenever they choose and kill or maim cattle by eating them alive starting at the rear! The pictures I have received are very graphic and sickening to see!

    The various states and the feds are using sportsman dollars from the P. R. funds to accomplish this non-sense! It's time we as sportsmen and hunters put a stop to this BS!

    What worked in the early 1800s can't work in todays world and these sort of animals need much more control than previously thought! They are getting totally out of control and something has to be done and quickly or hunting will be degraded severely. As if it's not bad enough already?

    Hap
     
  8. hoffman06

    hoffman06 Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    482
    Location:
    Marcola Oregon
    Idaho helped with their problem by opening season on wolves this year. You can buy a Wolf tag and actualy kill one without the feds on your tail. It had to happen as they have darn near wiped out the Elk population in a lot of areas and you dare not let your hunting dogs in the woods. Good luck in your states with a real problem.
    Carey, in Idaho
     
  9. zarathrusta

    zarathrusta TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Messages:
    149
    Maybe the Michigan deer hunters should get out of the woods and drive around. According to State Farm Insurance and the Michigan State Police, deer/car accidents in Michigan number about 40,000 a year costing $130 million with about 10 (human) deaths.

    Sounds like the wolves are getting soft, lazy and incompetent.
     
  10. timberfaller

    timberfaller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,984
    Location:
    Eastern Washington
    Washington state is next, some one put a pair with pups in the Methow Valley, the states largest Mule deer herd area. They didn't come here on their own!!

    Have you forgotten the Lynx caper? Feds planting hair in area's to say there is a Lynx habitat and we have to have controll of that area and everyone has to stay out!!

    Less government equals a happier society(people) enough said

    There is a email out there of a ton of pictures of wolf kills, If anyone has it in their file PLEASE post it here for other to see! (not for the faint of heart)
     
  11. timberfaller

    timberfaller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,984
    Location:
    Eastern Washington
    Something to ponder; When the game animals are few in numbers and domestic animals are not available, who do you think is next in line for their food will be?

    Russian history has a lot of first hand accounts of what wolf packs do to the populous when there is a break in their food source.
     
  12. BIGDON

    BIGDON Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    6,624
    Location:
    Michigan
    Zara: You need to get your info in proper order. The car/deer numbers happen in southern lower Michigan. The deer are now a problem in towns and they are having to hire hunters to come in kill the deer.

    No wolves yet but the coyotes are becoming a major problem. When the wolves learn to swim or save up enough to pay the bridge toll we will have them in the lower. Now they can go west to Wisconsin if their food source runs out.

    Don
     
  13. zarathrusta

    zarathrusta TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Messages:
    149
    BIGDON: As usual, I think we almost agree. Assuming it is correct that the number of deer/car crashes are primarily in the lower part of the state, I would point out that is also where most of the cars are. Not just native Michigan cars but also the invasive species of tourist vehicles.

    I do know a little bit about deer hunting. My experience is that success or lack of it has more to do with the deer hunter than a wolf or coyote. Judging by what I've seen in the woods over the last 10 years, the most inefficient way to lower a deer population would be to use the average hunter.
     
  14. jim creighton

    jim creighton Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    201
    BIGDON--I'll be more than happy to bring a pair down to Mason next summer-than you can have your own...My camp is 24 miles north of Manistique & have yet to see a dead deer on the side of the road-actually have hardly seen any deer & I go their more than I'am home.Am involved in the car business & our body part sales are almost null on car deer accident's-only been that way in last several years while the wolfe population continues to grow-DNR on tv last week said @600--Yoopers believe 3 times that-they also made the statement wolfes kill at best estimate 25-35 deer per year.600X30=18,000x3=54,000 that's a lot of venison.I guess I'll find out next week when I start hunting... GOOD LUCK JIM
     
  15. Finprof

    Finprof TS Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Messages:
    167
    On the other side of Lake Superior, in Northern Ontario, there was a bounty on wolves. The department of Lands and Forests would pay $55 in 1962 for a left ear as proof that it was killed. The you could sell the wolf hide to an American for another $50. That was a lot of money for a 12-year old back then.

    My guess is that the bounty stopped a long time ago.
     
  16. timberfaller

    timberfaller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,984
    Location:
    Eastern Washington
    There was a good reason why the wolf was exterminated to the extent that he was in the lower 48, and it wasn't because of the story of Little Red!

    The wolf does kill to eat, but it also kills for the fun of it!

    Oh Ya I almost forgot, The Canadian government laughs all the way to the bank when the US buys wolf's from them!! the first bunch let loose in Idaho were $250,000 a piece by the Feds, now the State has to deal with the consequences!

    SSS
     
  17. Hap MecTweaks

    Hap MecTweaks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,229
    Location:
    Mesquite, Nevada
    WRITTEN BY WILLIAM F. JASPER TUESDAY, 10 NOVEMBER 2009 07:30





    In 1995 the federal government began transplanting Canadian gray wolves into Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. That program touched off a fierce range war that continues to rage, pitting farmers, ranchers, hunters, conservationists, outdoor recreationists, and rural folk against the major environmentalist lobbying organizations, government bureaucrats, the big-city media, and urban politicians.

    After being protected for 14 years, limited hunting seasons have finally been allowed for wolves this fall, and around 150 wolves have been taken thus far. Wolf advocates are howling that the permitted hunts are "barbaric" and that those who kill wolves are "murderers." A coalition of radical environmental groups has challenged, and continues to challenge, the hunts with lawsuits in federal court. (See the list of coalition members at the end of this article.)

    Those opposed to the wolf "recovery program" rejoiced when the hunting season finally was announced, but many believe it will barely begin to address the exploding wolf population that is decimating deer, elk, and moose populations, as well as causing havoc with cattle and sheep herds. They point out that wolf population estimates by fish and wildlife officials are notorious for undercounting (i.e., there actually are far more wolves than officially admitted), and even if hunters fill all of the tag quotas, wolf populations will continue to soar.

    According to the Idaho Department of Fish & Game's Wolf Harvest Status Report web page (for November 9, 2009), 92 wolves have been taken thus far, out of the statewide harvest limit of 220 set by the IDFG. Eleven of the 12 wolf zones in the state remain open, with only the Upper Snake Wolf Zone (on the eastern side of the state, bordering Montana, and Wyoming) having closed, due to filled limits. The other zones will remain open until December 31, or until zone limits are filled.

    Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP) officials closed wolf hunting in Wolf Management Unit 2 - which encompasses most of the southern half of the state - on October 26, after 14 wolves were reported killed, two over the 12-wolf limit for that unit. According to the MFWP web site, by November 9, fifty-eight of the statewide quota of seventy-seven had been taken.

    When the plan to introduce the Canadian wolves into the United States was adopted, federal officials said the goal was 100 wolves per state, or 300 wolves total. Using that well-proven weapon of bureaucrats and environmentalist lawyers, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologists argued that there was no reason to get worked up over a few wolves. As soon as ten wolf packs with one breeding pair each were confirmed to have litters for three consecutive years in any of the three recovery areas, the wolves in that area would be downgraded on the ESA list from "endangered" to "threatened" status. And when at least ten packs with breeding pairs had successfully brought forth litters in every one of the three states for three years in a row, the wolves would be "delisted," meaning they would be removed completely from the Endangered Species List.

    Wolf population already 8-10 times original plan In a video interview ("Open Season on Idaho Wolves") with the New York Times, Idaho Department of Fish & Game spokesman James W. Unsworth says the IDFG estimates there are now 1,020 wolves in Idaho. "Wolves are very prolific [and] can increase 30-50 percent per year," notes Unsworth. "That's one thing people are missing. We reached biological recovery levels in 2002 of one hundred wolves in each state and ten breeding pairs. We're eight times over those recovery levels, at a very minimum."

    At a minimum; according to estimates from other sources that are arguably more reliable, the wolf population may actually be double the official figures, or even higher. An important set of articles by George Dovel in the Idaho-based publication, The Outdoorsman, ("What They Didn't Tell You About Wolf Recovery," January-March, 2008; and "FWS Biologist Says Wolf Numbers Underestimated; Mech Says 3,000 Wolves Exist in ID, MT & WY," May
    2008) provides stunning details of deception by government biologists and officials, including admissions of using fraudulent wolf statistics and counting methods. Dovel's well-researched articles also cite many government documents and peer-reviewed scientific studies showing the government bureaucrats and officials know they are dramatically undercounting wolf populations, as well as drastically undercounting wolf predation on both wild and domestic ungulate herds.

    Dovel mentions, for instance, an important study from Alaska's Denali National Park where "biologists found they had been underestimating total wolf numbers by 50% by documenting primarily packs of wolves instead of also documenting dispersing and transient wolves. Yet Idaho biologists continue to ignore the Alaska research and pretend that pups, yearlings and older wolves that emigrate from packs suddenly disappear from the face of the earth just because they are not wearing a radio-tracking collar." In other words, as far as IDFG biologists and officials are concerned, a wolf is not counted as a wolf in their census unless it is identified as a member of an officially identified pack.

    One man who is not at all surprised over the brazen statistical deception by the federal and state fish and game departments, is Dr. Charles Kay, a noted author and wildlife biologist. In fact, Professor Kay exposed the fraudulent arguments and statistical chicanery behind the wolf introduction plan back in 1993, before it was implemented. His article in the August, 1993 issue of Petersen's Huntingmagazine, "Wolves in the West; what the government doesn't want you to know about wolf recovery,"has proven to have been uncannily prescient.

    In an attempt to discover how the government had arrived at the figures it gave for the wolf recovery program, Dr. Kay filed a Freedom of Information request with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In response, the agency admitted it had "not contracted or undertaken any studies which deal with minimum viable populations of the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf."

    Dr. Kay could find no scientific basis whatsoever for the claims being made by the government officials for the plan to introduce an alien wolf species into the three-state area. He wrote (in 1993, remember):

    Because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed its 10 wolf packs,
    100 wolf recovery goals with little, or no, supporting evidence, all the government's recent wolf recovery reports, wolf population models, and studies regarding possible impact on big-game hunting are arbitrary and capricious. They represent not science but a masterful job of deception.

    Dr. Kay has been fully vindicated - and then some. But, at the time he was made to suffer a barrage of defamatory slings and arrows, including a campaign by government officials and environmental extremists to get him fired. (Ed Bangs, the USFWS biologist who still heads the wolf recovery program, spearheaded the attack on Kay, personally calling Kay's department Chairman, as well as the president of the university, in an attempt to get him fired for challenging the USFWS's statistics and phony science.)

    Unfortunately, this kind of academic terrorism is far from rare. Many "liberals" who will defend the right of their university colleagues to teach the most ludicrous, perverse, and subversive viewpoints under the guise of "academic freedom," seem to have no problem with vilifying, or even banning and criminalizing, fellow academics who dare to question politically correct dogma on say, for instance (and perhaps most famously), global warming. As regular readers of The New American know, some of the world's top scientists in the fields of meteorology, physics, atmospheric physics, astronomy, chemistry, etc. have been subjected to vicious defamatory campaigns for challenging the bogus science put forward to support the hysterical claims of impending catastrophe that allegedly will be caused by anthropogenic climate change. (See here and here .) Nevertheless, 31,478 American scientists have signed onto a petition urging the U.S. Government to reject the Kyoto agreement "and any similar proposals," since they would "harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

    In a recent article, "Wolf Recovery Is Delisting Rigged?" Dr. Kay demonstrates that the culture of deception is still alive and flourishing at USFWS. And even though the radical environmentalist groups can be counted on to attack the federal and state officials pushing the wolf programs, the performances are often about as convincing as WWF/WWE wrestling. As Dr. Kay notes, back when the wolves were being introduced "environmental groups did not object, knowing that 300 wolves would raise less political opposition than 1,500 to 2,000 wolves."

    The radical Greens and the government bureaucrats have a symbiotic relationship that often includes some carefully contrived political theater. Professor Kay notes:

    If you follow ESA issues, you know that the Greens win most of the lawsuits they file against the USFWS. That could be due to one of two things, incompetent federal biologists or the fact that the USFWS sets the lawsuits up to loose! Here is how it works. The USFWS makes a ruling, like wolf delisting, that appears to favor state or local interests, thereby alleviating political pressure on the agency and calls for Congress to cut the USFWS's budget or revise the Endangered Species Act. The ruling "outrages" the Greens who sue and win, which allows the USFWS to claim that they tried to do the right thing; i.e., what they promised the public in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), but now they can't because they have to comply with the court order.

    In three recent articles, "The High Cost of Predation", "Wolf Predation: More Bad News," and"Predation: Lies, Myths, and Scientific Fraud," Dr. Kay skewers the wolf fanatics with overwhelming data showing the devastating economic and ecological toll the exploding wolf population is having on Canada, Alaska, and the Rocky Mountain states. With each wolf accounting for an average take of twenty-two elk per year, it doesn't take a math genius to realize that 2,000-3,000 wolves will have a huge impact on elk populations (44,000-66,000 killed per year!). And that's not even mentioning similarly horrendous impacts on moose, deer, caribou, and other game animals.

    Wolf Fanatics Now Demanding 6,000 Wolves? However, that is far from the end of it; the wolf fanatics, who once accepted the 300-wolf introductory limit are now not even happy with the current wolf populations of eight to ten times that number. As Prof. Kay points out, EarthJustice and other enviro-litigants currently are calling for the federal courts to force the states to accept wolf populations of over 6,000! Let's calculate. Hmmmm, 6,000 X 22 = 132,000 elk killed per year. (Plus moose, deer, caribou and other game animals). That hardly seems like a rational way to promote "ecological balance" and "biological diversity."

    With such astronomical wolf-kill numbers rapidly becoming a possibility, it is easy to see why organizations like Save the Elk are highly agitated. However, the numbers, as sobering as they are, do not begin to tell the whole story. Gut-wrenching photos at Save the Elk (www.saveelk.org) starkly illustrate the grim reality of the too-frequently romanticized "Call of the Wild." Wolves do not kill only for food; hunting in packs, they are notorious for killing large numbers of elk or deer and just leaving them lie, after devouring only a few choice morsels. This is especially gruesome in the spring when female elk and deer are calving. The cows and does are especially vulnerable then. Unfortunately, the protected wolves, which have been allowed to reach unsustainable levels, are allowed to ravage the unprotected mothers as they try to give birth. All too often both the mothers and the babies are slaughtered - and only their tender internal organs eaten. True, the wolves are only doing what "comes natural" to their kind, but that's the point. For too long the wolves have been presented as the cute, cuddly, furry victims; their raw, dangerous, feral nature and their negative impacts on wildlife ecology have been airbrushed out of existence. Perhaps it's time for some genuine balance?

    The members of the coalition of radical environmental groups that have challenged the wolf hunts with lawsuits in federal court include: EarthJustice, Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, The Humane Society of the United States, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Friends of the Clearwater, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Oregon Wild, Cascadia Wildlands, Western Watersheds Project, Wildlands Project, and Hells Canyon Preservation Council.

    Related articles:

    Polar Bears Thrive, Contrary to WWF Claims

    Exposing the Green World Order



    Jim Hagedorn Idaho For Wildlife Phone: 2088833423

    Idaho For Wildlife Web: www.idahoforwildlife.com
     
  18. glenn mcleod

    glenn mcleod Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    528
    I hunt the Effie, Mn area (50 miles south of Fort Francis,Canada), we used to fill all of our deer tags up to about 5 years ago, the wolves have now taken over. According to the Bigfork city Cop the Gov't trapper has trapped & shot 14 problem timber wolves within 4 miles of Effie (pop 50) and they are now coming into the small towns for the dogs. Each wolf eats an avg. of 30 deer/year, 14 wolves X 30 deer= 420 missing deer in our area. Not surprising that us 8 hunters have yet to see a deer from our deer stands this year. DNR says it is down a little this year. Just wait they'll sell just as many lic. next year as they would have to lay off some office staff if they don't get the money. The season should be closed in this area. glenn
     
  19. zarathrusta

    zarathrusta TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Messages:
    149
    If wolf hunters are as efficient as most deer hunters, the wolves and the wolf lovers have nothing to worry about.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Search tags for this page

lynx in schoolcraft county