Also, black bear cub nailed by mistake in wolf trap. Will be rehabilitated.

Idaho Fish and Game news release, Jan. 8, 2014

Idaho Falls- Fur trapping was one of the major reasons for exploration of Idaho and is still a legitimate wildlife management tool.   Advances in trap design have resulted in more efficient traps capable of either catching and holding animals for later release or delivering a quick humane death. Despite all of the caution used to capture only targeted species, unintended species sometimes are caught. The Idaho Department of Fish & Game (IDFG) works with trappers to minimize non-target catches and pursue the best possible outcomes.

On January 5th, Regional Conservation Officer Doug Petersen responded to a call of a black bear cub caught in a foothold trap that had been legally set for wolves.  The trap was located on private land in the Island Park wolf trapping zone, north of Tetonia, Idaho.   The trap had been placed on Friday, the 3rd of January and  checked after 48 hours, 24 hours in advance of the 72-hour required trap checking period.  The cub that should have been hibernating with its mother was still wandering around at the start of January, its chances of surviving the winter were basically zero. Getting caught in the trap was probably the best thing that could have happened to the cub.

The cub was transported by volunteers to be the Snowdon Wildlife Sanctuary near McCall, Idaho.    Rehabilitation experts will determine the best course for its future.

Another incidental trapping occurred at the start of the month in the Upper Snake Region when an adult male wolverine was captured in a legally set bobcat trap on public land in Unit 50, ten miles west of Arco, Idaho.   Because the trap used was a Conibear, a body-gripping trap designed to immediately kill, the wolverine was dead when checked by the trapper.  The trapper immediately contacted Idaho Fish & Game to report the non-target species.  The animal will be taxidermied and used for educational purposes with hunter education classes and to help inform the public about this seldom seen species.  DNA samples from the animal will be sent off for laboratory analysis to help expand the genetic catalogue for wolverines in Idaho.

Because all trapping regulations related to these situations were properly followed no further action will be pursued by the Department. Voluntary general trapper education courses are available to the public and mandatory trapping courses are provided for those individuals wanting to trap wolves.

Tagged with:
About The Author

Ralph Maughan

Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University. He was a Western Watersheds Project Board Member off and on for many years, and was also its President for several years. For a long time he produced Ralph Maughan's Wolf Report. He was a founder of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. He and Jackie Johnson Maughan wrote three editions of "Hiking Idaho." He also wrote "Beyond the Tetons" and "Backpacking Wyoming's Teton and Washakie Wilderness." He created and is the administrator of The Wildlife News.

101 Responses to Idaho: Bobcat trap kills a rare wolverine

  1. Kristi says:

    Such a horrible shame, for both animals. The loss of a wolverine is particularly troubling. Legally set or not, these devices are not picky about what has the misfortune of stepping in one, or getting caught in a snare.

  2. jon says:

    Why aren’t these trappers being charged when their traps kill non-target species? Does Idaho fish and game not care about all of the non-target animals that are being trapped and killed?

    • Scott Slocum says:

      They’re not being charged because we still lack sufficient trapping laws. It doesn’t matter who cares, because it’s not against the law to trap carelessly.

    • bonnie spiker says:

      Jon, I have a feeling Idaho fish and game do not care about non-target species or any species at all, oh except elk for their hunters and cattle or sheep for their ranchers. There appears to be an all out assualt on wildlife in that state!

      • jon says:

        Idaho fish and game does not care about wildlife. Their goal is simply to have wildlife around so hunters can pay to kill it. To call hunters conservationists is absolute joke.

    • mark says:

      Are u kidding Jon.Idaho dont care about nothing but collecting$$$on tags,licenses!

    • Scott Slocum says:

      Bonnie, John, Mark: after reading your comments about IDFG revenue, I wanted to know more about MN DNR revenue (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources) in my home state. The revenue sources are shown on a nice pie chart on page 8 of the FY 2012 Annual Report of the MN DNR Natural Resources Fund.

      It turns out that licenses and registrations (all kinds of them) added up to only 16% of MN DNR revenue. Most of the revenue (about 31%) comes from gas taxes on recreational vehicles. Other major revenue sources include the lottery at 13%, mining fees at 12%, State Park fees at 11%, donations to the Nongame Wildlife Fund at 1%, etc.

      So much for sportsmen bragging about how much they pay for conservation through license fees and registrations. And so much for the MN DNR acting like their only constituents are sportsmen.

      I didn’t do this research for IDFG, but now I can say that at least one Fish & Game department (the MN DNR) gets most of its money from people who like to buy lottery tickets, go to State Parks, drive recreational vehicles, and chip in for non-game wildlife conservation. Obviously, it’s not just revenue they’re after when they favor sportsmen. I won’t speculate here about why Fish & Game departments tend to favor sportsmen; I’ll just state that they have legal and fiscal responsibilities to all their constituents, and a lot of us think it’s time to reform trapping regulations to minimize incidental catches.

      Wildlife belong to all of us, and we’re not getting a good return on our investments in Fish & Game.

  3. Barb Rupers says:

    Is 10 miles west of Arco Idaho in high, snowy country that is usually associated with wolverines? I shall check it out tomorrow but thought someone might give me a quick answer.

    • Ken Cullings says:

      Yes, this is wolverine “country”. They are very rare, however, hunted nearly to extinction and making a slow recovery. And, of course, disliked by those who dislike predators just for the sake of disliking predators.

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      10 miles west is lower steep foothills, open country near Timbered Dome. Here is a photo I took of Timbered Dome.

      • Barb Rupers says:

        Thanks, Ken Cullings and Ralph for your speedy responses!

        So how do we protect wolverines in this type of country from trapping(this is not high mountain wilderness like the Frank or the Bob)?

        With the few number of these animals in the lower 48 it is a great loss with every one that is “an incidental catch”. And caught in a bobcat trap? For what reason was that set? So some one in Asia can have a fur coat? And Montana still allows trapping of this species? Unbelievable!

        • Ken Cullings says:

          Federal protection is being proposed as we speak:

          • Ken Cullings says:

            Of course, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming oppose this. If it has teeth and claws those people want it dead. For reasons they’re not really even sure of themselves. They’ve just been told they should hate any and all predators for so many generations that they do so without question.

          • Scott Slocum says:

            Looks like the political priorities are in question.

            USFWS 12/14/2010: “[The] addition of [the North American Wolverine in the contiguous U.S.] to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants is warranted. Currently, however, listing the contiguous U.S. DPS of the North American wolverine is precluded by higher priority actions to amend the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.”


            • Don says:

              There are more Wolverines than reported by far. Folks just don’t see them, because they are hard to find and it’s hard to get to where they live. So for the most part, biologist’s don’t want to get too far from the warm seat of the pickup, or interrupt their fly fishing trips on the taxpayers dime, to actually go out to do their job and see just what is going on out there in the woods, or they are afraid of ruffling someone up on the ladder, feathers. Oregon has a fairly good population of Wolverines, both in the Cascades and the coast range as well. And, we have wolves in the Cascades, and farther down south in the Medford region,loosely speaking geographically, and have had for ever that nobody ever hears about. Unless you go out and do your own research and see for yourself, you will never know what the truth is, ever. Lots of jobs rely on only telling half truths, or outright lies. And the sad part is, people eat it up and open their wallets to enable it to continue year after year.

              • Scott Slocum says:

                Don: right, I’m sure it takes a systematic, off-road effort to do a proper wildlife census in an area like that. In Minnesota, we have a few people in the Nongame Wildlife Program (and affiliated programs, probably including The Nature Conservancy) who will sometimes run a census for a certain species in a certain place at a certain time; but only if they have a budget for it.

                Most of us don’t have the time, skills, or inclination to do it ourselves, but I for one would vote to have more of my taxes going in that direction.

      • bonnie spiker says:

        Beautiful place

  4. topher says:

    It’s neat to know he was there but an awful way to find out.

  5. Ken Cullings says:

    These bloody indiscriminate forms of killing should be banned on public lands. No amount of BS rationalization can justify the killing of non-target wildlife, domestic animals and even game animals that the people who most strongly advocate trapping are supposedly dedicated to “saving”. This is just a stupid and outdated practice.

    • Kristi says:

      Amen to that, Ken!

    • Scott Slocum says:

      A lot of the people who most strongly advocate trapping are only interested in saving enough so that the fur harvest will still be good next year.

      • Ken Cullings says:

        That’s what ALL of this is about. It’s all about exploitation. They’re after wolves so they an have more elk to kill….even though they still kill as many elk as they ever did. They’re like a bunch of little kids who cover their eyes while doing something wrong thinking that nobody will see them do it. Their single biggest problem at this point is the Web and the fact that the rest of the country, millions of people they don’t know and certainly don’t like, people who own these public lands, are noticing. The time of their hypocritical stupidity is swiftly coming to and end and BOY does this piss them off.

        • Scott Slocum says:

          Yeah, I’ve been trying to work within the system (with MN State trapping regulations to protect dogs) and I’m starting to think it was the wrong approach. The trapping lobby is holding on to its false “authority” by perpetuating its old mythology and exploiting its long-term relationship with legislators and wildlife officials. The system isn’t listening to reasonable disagreement. It might be that the only way to improve the system’s rationality and responsiveness to the people is for the people to demand it; to notice, to organize, to vote.

          • Ken Cullings says:

            Thankfully events like this, the coyote derby in Salmon, and others are receiving National attention. The more exposure this kind of stupidity gets the better.

  6. don says:

    “Fur trapping was one of the major reasons for exploration of Idaho . . . ”

    The area that is Idaho was “explored” long before European trappers arrived.

    More news:

    “Federal authorities have accused a Colorado man and a guide from Oregon of illegally capturing and maiming mountain lions and bobcats as part of a scheme to make hunting the cats easier for their clients.”

  7. mikepost says:

    I am not a trapper so this is not a “defensive” comment but the documented incidental take of endangered and threatened species like condors, golden eagles, rare bats, etc is much higher with wind farms but I don’t see people jumping up and down like you guys are over these two incidents…???

    • Scott Slocum says:

      The National Audubon Society “advocates that wind power facilities should be planned, sited, and operated in ways that minimize harm to birds and other wildlife, and that wildlife agencies should ensure strong enforcement of the laws that protect birds and other wildlife.”

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I usually can be found ranting and raving about it. 🙂

    • aves says:

      Some of us have brought up wind energy many times in the “interesting news” section and commented frequently when the moderators choose it as a topic. There were 165 comments on this thread about wind farms and eagles:

      There have been no documented California condor deaths from wind farms yet, but as you probably know, that will soon change thanks to the Obama administration.

    • Mike says:

      Do a bit of research on the populations of eagles, and then wolverines. There’s your answer.

      • Scott Slocum says:

        Mike: I guess you’re trying to say that they compete for some of the same food resources. Okay. So that’s why you think people don’t care about protecting eagles? Even though we do care about protecting eagles? Even though we know how to protect eagles from wind-power facilities? Huh?

    • Ken Cole says:

      Western Watersheds Project has filed litigation to challenge improperly sited wind farms and solar plants. Migratory birds and desert tortoise have been heavily impacted.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Yay!!! They’ve been trying to plop one wind farm right in the middle of Nantucket Sound for years – what should be a marine sanctuary. The majority of manufacturing jobs would be in Europe, and would be supported by taxpayer money and very expensive for ratepayers. It would be a hazard to navigation by air and sea, threaten fishermen’s livelihoods and tourism. I hope that companies will start to take more care about where they site. It appears they don’t even consider environmental impact, such as with the original configuration for Keystone.

  8. Jeff N. says:

    At least we can all take solace in the fact that the dead, stuffed wolverine will be used for “educational purposes” with hunter education classes. The endangered animal didn’t die in vain, it’s going to help teach.

    There….we all feel better now.

    • Kestrel says:

      Yes, “it was probably the best thing that could’ve happened” to the wolverine, really…

    • Scott Slocum says:

      Just in case anyone mistakes this sarcasm from Jeff N. for an actual statement from the trapping lobby; yes, it’s sarcasm.

      Here’s a straight translation: “this was a tragic, unnecessary, easily-preventable killing of a protected animal by a careless trapper. There is nothing good to say about it, and no one has reason to take any actual consolation from any part of it.”

      • Jeff N. says:

        Indeed it was sarcasm…..and to add to it, maybe the next time someone’s dog dies in a trap in Idaho, IDF&G can honor its death by stuffing it and using it for educational purposes in hunter education classes. If it were my dog I would consider it the highest of honors.

        • Scott Slocum says:

          Our terrier Phillip, killed by a #160 body-gripping trap on public, suburban land, is peacefully buried in our back yard. No way I was going to let anyone violate his little body any further.

  9. Kestrel says:

    “Getting caught in the trap was probably the best thing that could have happened to the cub.”


    It’s hard to find the facts between the thickly-applied schlock, spin, and trapping propaganda.

    • Scott Slocum says:

      Yet this kind of schlock, spin, and trapping propaganda is still the principal basis of information for wildlife policy makers. The political establishment of sportsmen’s lobbies, wildlife-management officials, and legislators is totally geared toward management on this basis. They routinely dismiss the growing body of scientific information that’s occasionally introduced into wildlife-policy meetings. No cognitive dissonance tolerated.

  10. We respectfully propose the following revision, Ralph:

    “Fur trapping was one of the major reasons for exploration of Idaho and is still CONSIDERED BY SOME INHUMANE THROWBACKS a legitimate wildlife management tool.”

    • Scott Slocum says:

      Ralph Maughan only *posted* this news release from Idaho Fish & Game; he’s entirely innocent of being the author.

    • The first trappers(The Snake River Expeditions) to trap in Idaho were sent by the Hudson Bay Company to trap OUT all of the beaver, otters, martens, mink and other fur bearers so that Americans would find a wildlife desert when they arrived.
      Large Hudson Bay Company trapping parties, led by Peter Ogden and John Work, did their best to kill every beaver in Idaho.
      This was a strategy to have the Oregon territory become part of Canada.
      The beaver and other fur bearer populations in Idaho have never fully recovered from this
      Present day Idaho trapping seasons keep the populations of these “fur bearers” at a low level. It would be interesting to see what would happen if trapping was banned for the next ten years. It might be possible for wildlife watchers to see otters in Idaho streams comparable to the numbers that can be seen in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks.
      I have lived in Idaho for almost 74 years and have seen otters here on just a handfull of occasions.
      I see otters in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks almost every time I visit.

  11. rork says:

    I thought best irony was “help expand the genetic catalogue for wolverines in Idaho”. Were part of the gene pool, now on hard disk. Oh happy genes.

  12. Mike says:

    Trappers really are the worst examples of humans. Just the absolute dregs of society in all possible ways.

    “The animal will be taxidermied and used for educational purposes with hunter education classes and to help inform the public about this seldom seen species.”

    I’m sure they’ll include the ironic tidbit of *why* the species is seldom seen. Sure they will… Explains quite a bit about Idaho.

  13. Mike says:

    I just called the Payette National Forest and spoke with several employees. They came off as complete hillbilly trash.

  14. Rich says:

    I notice that IDFG doesn’t tell us what the limit is for killing non-target and/or endangered species. I suspect the answer is “unlimited”. Go figure!!

    • Kristi says:

      There is no limit and trappers are not required to inform IDFG (or MFWP) of incidental trappings if the animal is released “unharmed” or unless they incidentally catch an endangered animal. Just recently an elk calf was caught in a trap outside of Big Sky, MT. 8 dogs have been caught in traps in MT, one died. 2 cats have been caught, 1 died. Last year 5 eagles and 55 dogs were amongst the incidental trappings in MT. Last year I saw a photo of a hunter in Idaho or MT who was holding a dead mountain lion—-a front paw was missing. The stump was red, raw. I don’t think ID or MT have mountain lion trapping seasons.

    • Scott Slocum says:

      Rich and Kristi: right, a trapper’s incidental catches are unlimited. Even if a trapper (for whatever reason) catches a protected animal for which he lacks a license, his only obligation is to let the animal go alive or register it dead. The law-enforcement literature is full of statistics that indicate–and documented cases that prove–how trappers have illegally disposed of incidental catches (either in the field or on the black market) rather than registering them. Making all those incidental catches known wouldn’t reflect well on trappers, after all.

      Kristi: If we cross-reference that mountain lion photo with the “maiming” article above (posted by Don about hunting outfitters who were charged with maiming wildlife in order to boost their clients’ success), we might have the rest of the story of how that mountain lion was killed.

  15. snaildarter says:

    Traps make really good artificial reefs for fish. They can be expensive to replace when they keep disappearing.

    • Scott Slocum says:

      Caution: there’s a large law-enforcement establishment to eagerly prosecute cases of trap tampering.

      • IDhiker says:


        I would change your comment to a “very small law enforcement establishment.”

        A trap snatcher is just as unlikely to get caught as a trapper that violates regulations. There just aren’t enough wardens around to do much of anything in either Idaho or Montana. Underpaid and under staffed.

        And, speaking as one who has tried numerous times to modernize trapping regulations in both Idaho and Montana, all I can say is, good luck. But, please try, perhaps you can succeed where I have failed.

        • Scott Slocum says:

          Right, wildlife law-enforcement departments are understaffed. On the other hand, they do respond to calls on their tip lines about poaching or trap tampering.

          Someday, someone will succeed; perhaps aided by the history of those who tried and failed.

    • topher says:

      Even more expensive when accompanied by a stiff fine.

    • Scott Slocum says:

      Watch out SnailDarter, Topher is watching you now. Don’t try to tamper with any $20 traps in his district.

      • topher says:

        You are correct. If I saw you breaking the law by tampering with legally set traps I would report it just as I would report poaching. Maybe instead of talking about the sneaky tricks you’d like to pull you should just be quiet and do it. Even better you could find a legal way to vent your frustration.

    • IDhiker says:


      Not taking a stand here, but, remember this: “Loose lips, sink ships.”

      • Rich says:

        Fortunately there are individuals who will do whatever it takes to overcome cruelty and injustice. Think Oskar Schindler (documented in “Schindler’s List”), Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela and the list goes on. What they did was risky but it was the right thing to do and their actions changed history. I’m certainly not condoning illegal behavior just pointing out what it sometimes takes to control the inhumanity and carelessness of those individuals with unsavory parentage who put us, our pets and endangered wildlife at risk.

  16. David says:

    At least they were able to save the bear.

  17. Louise Kane says:

    Trapping is a relic of colonial expansion and the bad habits the colonists from european countries brought with them when invading what is now the US and Canada. Trapping has been a plague for centuries wiping out native beaver, wolf, lynx, mink, wolverine populations.

    Some will argue that native Americans lived here and hunted but they did not abuse wildlife or their natural environment the way European settlers did. William Cronon wrote an excellent book called Changes in the Land that described the differences in the way native americans perceived land and natural resources and why the european model was so destructive…
    I find it appalling and bizarre that legislation still protects the rights of trappers to molest and destroy wild animals and deface landscapes and that people wishing to protect themselves, their pets or other wildlife from these barbaric torture devises would be prosecuted. It is well past time these laws change.
    its 2014 not 1700

    • rork says:

      What is your proposal?
      Trapping can be used to wipe species out, but it doesn’t have to be used that way, any more than the gun, fire, or plow.
      I’m not a trapping fan, but I don’t think calls to stop all trapping, which is what I might expect from you, are pragmatic at this point in time. I don’t think it will happen near me. Think muskrat. Wolf trapping maybe, but maybe only if it’s thought too unsporting (meaning wolves are trophy game I’m afraid). Not trying to push you down here – really do wonder if experienced people can identify the lowest hanging fruit (cause I’m no expert on the subject).

      • Louise Kane says:

        To Rork, eliminate trapping is my proposal. what you might expect from me…

        what is yours?

        Nancy thanks for posting that

      • Kristi says:

        Trapping can be banned on public lands. NM attempted a ban on trapping last year. It was voted down in the state’s wildlife dept.’s legislative committee 6-5. Montana and OR will have referenda to ban trapping, although OR’s might not happen til next year.

        • Scott Slocum says:

          Other good trapping policies have been proposed based on California’s 1998 Proposition 4. Prop 4 allows publicly-authorized wildlife trapping by any means necessary to protect human health or safety; or by any means except leghold trapping to prevent other damage. Its feature for non-target animals (including endangered species and people’s pets) is that it limits recreational and commercial trappers to the use of cage traps.

          Of course, good cage traps are effective and optionally deadly, so all kinds of trappers in California (recreational, commercial, and wildlife-control operators) have switched to cage traps and remained successful. The greatest change is that they can now release non-target animals alive (including endangered species and people’s pets).

          • Elk375 says:

            ++Of course, good cage traps are effective and optionally deadly, so all kinds of trappers in California (recreational, commercial, and wildlife-control operators) have switched to cage traps and remained successful++

            So how does a commercial or recreational trapper dispatch an animal in a cage trap? Either you drown them or gas them.

            • Scott Slocum says:

              I’ve heard they use a body-gripping trap, firearm, pole-mounted syringe, CO gas chamber, or drowning.

              It’s a compromise: people on both sides of the issue have problems with it.

      • Nancy says:

        “I don’t think it will happen near me. Think muskrat”

        Its a vicious circle Rork. Most of the animals that prey on Muskrat (and could keep their numbers in balance) are also trapped.

        Because muskrats move awkwardly on land, they can be easy prey for coyotes, foxes, lynxes, and raptors. But in the water, where they spend most of their time, these excellent swimmers can escape most any predators except mink and otters”

  18. mark says:

    Im a native of Idaho and hunted for 40 years and im glad i got to hunt in the old days when ppl were real hunters and the IDFG was a real wildlife management agency.Why would the IDFG give a damn about non target species like everything else.Now everybody is trying to wipe out bobcats to get the high pelt price and there are so many traps out there cause of this alot of other animals are going to pay the price.Alot of hunter and the IDFG think the wolves are a bunch of vultures!People are the worst predator on this earth!In Idaho you shoot cattle and you did a felony and go to prison.But not for poaching wildlife.So really people dont expect anybody in this crap state to anything about anything but suck in the revenue!

  19. Gary Humbard says:

    Any state agency that allows trapping is living in the 19th century. Predators have been targeted by humans for the last 200+ years and the its time to end the practice of trapping. Science has proven the importance and benefits of having predators on the landscape, yet wildlife managers still micro-manage particular species that pay their wages. Until the money trail changes, trapping will continue. Residents of states that allow wolf tags, I ask that you please purchase them and tear them up. I write letters to elected officials, contribute to conservation organizations and support eco-tourism. Any other ideas?

    • Scott Slocum says:

      Gary, if you’re looking an animal-protection organization in addition to your conservation organizations, maybe there’s one in your state that’s working on a ballot initiative like Trap-Free Oregon and Footloose Montana are. Those ballot initiatives can turn things around very quickly.

    • Elk375 says:

      Gary what good does it do to purchase wolf tags and tear them up. Hunters in Montana and Idaho can buy them over the counter. You would be wasting your money.

    • Scott Slocum says:

      Another ballot initiative: Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting.

      And links to the two organizations I mentioned earlier: TrapFree Oregon and (maybe not working right now on a ballot initiative) Footloose Montana

    • Kristi says:

      Buying wolf tags by the “non-consumptive” user will not help. That money goes to IDFG, or other state wildlife dept. whether a tag is filled or not. They use that money for management…usually collaring and leading to killing if involved in a livestock conflict.
      Hunting and trapping laws are made by the states’ legislature. Until there are some big changes in ID, MT, WY, MI, WI, and MN (all GOP majority states, all wolf-hunting states) state legislatures nothing will change.

      • Scott Slocum says:

        In MN State government, both majorities and the governor are members of the DFL (democratic) party, but the DFL legislators in wolf country generally support the recreational wolf hunting and trapping seasons (in addition to wolf hunting and trapping for depredation control). Some of them support the trapping lobby even to the extent of opposing (or silencing) a modest trapping bill to protect domestic dogs.

        • Kristi says:

          Whoops, sorry about MN, but they are acting like the other GOP-dominated states. Gov. Dayton says he has not heard any opposition over the wolf hunt (he must be blind, deaf and dumb…probably is by choice). I watched the legislative session where they voted for the wolf hunt. It was nauseating.

  20. Scott Slocum says:

    Another ballot initiative: Keep Michigan Wolves Protected.

    • Kristi says:

      That is the second ballot initiative in Michigan. The first time the petition was circulated from Jan.–March 2012 over 254,000 signatures were collected (a minimum of 161,000 was required to get the proposal of a wolf hunt on the ballot). Just before the Sec’y of State’s office did the final tally the GOP majority legislature passed a brand new law to intentionally nullify the petition. The state legislature has (had) the authority to designate game species but the brand new law that was passed gave the Natural Resource Commission the authority to designate game species. The Commission is appointed by the governor and immune to the referendum process. This second initiative is to repeal that new law. The first one will still be on the ballot this Nov. The second one has a deadline of March 5 to collect signatures on the second petition. If this petition isn’t successful, the wolf hunt in MI will include trapping (it is a trapping state), the season will be extended, and quota will be higher than the 43 for this past season and will most likely be across the entire UP of MI instead of the 3 wolf management units that it was this season. The Natural Resource Commission could designate sandhill cranes as a game species and they would be hunted. Nothing could stop them from doing that.

  21. Scott Slocum says:

    There’s plenty a trapper can do to avoid killing non-target animals: for one, by using traps that allow the trapper to release non-target animals. Duh.


January 2014


‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: