Michigans Wolf Economics

Michigans Wolf Economics by James L. Bruner
article copyright

Honestly I dont understand it beyond a point that in the end we lose a major resource and that being the whitetail deer. I do understand that authoriative figures project a carrying capacity for how many wolves we can sustain in the Upper Peninsula. I also understand that they have some sort of pre-determined consensus that in time we will more than likely need to deplete the wolf numbers. Now lets take into consideration the method of determination. Counting.

The figures have been tossed about that each wolf will consume between 20 and 40 deer per year. Wondering where the number 40 came from? Regional director heading the wolf study project from Marquette. You do the research as I agreed not to quote or use names during our conversation. So here we have a somewhat defined number of species consumption for each wolf. That number may bode well as a figure on paper but only if the number of wolves is figuratively correct or moderately close. Back to counting.

The method of counting wolves typically derives from pack size and growth. The days when the DNR actually knew how many wolves we had are long gone. Back then they were so few, as far as they knew, that they had many of them collared. Today it’s not uncommon to hear that someone has shot a wolf and there is little to no evidence left behind other than a carcass. And those are only the ones that have been found. Now I understand that they cannot be out there protecting each and every wolf but it does tell me that they have relatively little of an idea where these animals roam and thats to be expected. If in fact these boundaries and numbers are this sketchy it must be difficult at best to render a number of total animals. Case in point: The DNR worked off reported wolf sightings in the upper portion of lower Michigan to authorize a 20 man team and a full weekend to look for wolf sign in order to establish whether or not a wolf migrated across the ice. They detected that two grey wolves had indeed made the journey. This may seem to contradict the fact that I say the DNR have very little idea of wolf numbers and boundaries. I say why all the fuss? You can report a cougar in your backyard and be lucky if someone comes out to investigate. We have a documented thriving wolf population and a failing deer herd. Public response is in favor of strengthening the herd. Not the pack.

Now dont get me wrong here. I am not anti-wolf. I’ve seen them here and realize they have their place in the food chain. What I dont understand is why so much resource and interest is entailed in a species that could in time deflate a major economic source and sport such as deer hunting. It’s happening now. Right now. Our deer hunt of 2004 was grim. The hunt of 2005 was no better and in many cases worse for plenty of hunters. Thats speaking in terms of harvest numbers and not just economics but common sense tells you the two go hand in hand.

The retort I hear for the waning deer herd always seems to come back to deforestation. It’s a given that a change in structure will create a reaction. Back to physics. For each action you have a re-action but, deforestation does not necessarily kill the deer as much as it makes them adapt. If the authorities believe the problems lies within deforestation then they have to change their model of business. Look. You can build a home right in the smack dab center of prime deer territory and what happens. The deer either adapt or vacate. They do not die as an immediate results unless of course a tree drops on them. Funny?

Forestry is said to be designed around nature. You cut certain sections of property and either replant or let the area succumb to new growth. You quadrant these cuttings to avoid major overlapping or creating extensive voids whenever possible. When the canopy is broken down, especially in older growth forest, you allow penetration of light. This in turn generates a germination response of legumes which are preferable for deer browse. The forest that has been cut may no longer offer the cover once used by the deer but it now provides a very beneficial food source. And as such the deer typically adapt. Yet the culprit here is the supposed deforestation.

Pages: 1 2