Garret
10-15-2007, 03:23 PM
Please understand i only cut and pasted a few areas i was reading and you will have to read the entire management plan to get the entire scoop. There's too much to go over in this thred but...
These areas bugged me so i started a thred. The other thred for the full mgmt plan is...http://www.michigandnr.com/publicati...ftWolfPlan.pdf
Data for this new study were obtained from public-attitude surveys designed to address specific management questions relevant to the planning process. The questions focused on respondents’ preferences and opinions regarding: 1) reasons for having wolves in Michigan; 2) the number of wolves and frequency of wolf-related interactions in different regions of the State; 3) options to address depredation of livestock, hunting dogs and other pets; 4) options to address public DRAFT – August 16, 2007 11 concerns regarding human safety; 5) options to address impacts to deer; and 6) a public harvest
of wolves.
A general-public survey was mailed to 8,500 Michigan driver’s license
holders statewide. Slightly modified versions of the survey were mailed to 1,000 licensedfurtakers and 1,000 livestock producers.
How many on MS.com did the survey i wonder?
509 wolves in the U.P in 2007
Based on estimates of deer density, one model estimated the UP could sustain between 590 and 1,330 wolves and the northern LP could sustain between 210 and 480 wolves. YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME! What are we Alaska?
The most-recent public-attitude research shows most Michigan residents support the presence of a wolf population in the State. The format of the general-public survey coordinated by MSU in 2005 and 2006 allowed respondents to identify themselves as either interested or not interested in
wolf-related issues. When ‘disinterested’ respondents were removed from the analysis, the percentage of respondents who approved of having wolves in the State was 73% (52% in the UP, 71% in the northern LP, and 74% in the southern LP; Beyer et al. 2006). These results indicate that maintenance of a viable wolf population is supported by the vast majority of residents whofeel they have an interest and stake in the management of wolves.
Now i see...it was a MSU grad. that handled this!
Well yah! If you ask people in SLM they won't mind wolves. Have them live in the U.P. for a while and see how the % numbers change.
Now, I don't have a problem with a few hundred Wolves in the state (200-300 or so in the U.P.) but hope that they don't decimate the wildlife in areas that they live as I have read wolves can do. Then they move on to another area and do the same. I'm not sure about some of the statements in this so called "Management Plan" but 1300 in the U.P. seem’s crazy as the carrying capasity of the land?
Personal appreciation:
Independent of cultural or religious convictions, many people feel wolves have an ‘existence value’ and they value the knowledge that they exist as a healthy, thriving, wild population in the State. This benefit can be realized whether or not people are able to see or hear those animals. “There are people who appreciate wolves and want to know that wolves exist in Michigan” was ranked by 54% of interested survey respondents as a ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ important reason to have wolves in Michigan.
So can we assume that 50%+ of the respondents picked "somewhat important" or what ever was next on the list like "NOT IMPORTANT" That would put more than 1/2 in that catagory wouldn't it?
Interaction with nature:
The presence of wolves in Michigan provides a unique opportunity for people to interact with and experience a particular component of the natural world. The opportunity to personally observe, photograph or study wolves in the wild may be restricted to a relatively small portion of residents, but the option for those residents to have those experiences is highly valued by society. “People want to view, hear, photograph or study wild wolves in Michigan” was ranked by 60% of interested survey respondents as a ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ important reason to have wolves in the State.
"RESTRICTED TO A RELATIVELY SMALL PORTION OF RESIDENTS, BUT THE OPTIONS FOR THOSE RESIDENTS TO HAVE THOSE EXPERIENCES IS HIGHLY VALUED BY SOCIETY"
[COLOR="red"]What? Never EVER heard someone say "let's go look for wolves to picture and study for our vacation this year hun!
Tourism and recreation:
Forty-two percent of interested survey respondents felt the economic benefits of wolf-based tourism were a ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ important reason to have wolves in Michigan. However, additional survey results suggested the full potential economic benefits were not being realized: the presence of wolves in an area would attract some respondents while deterring others, butmore than half of respondents indicated the presence of wolves would not be a consideration when choosing a vacation area. (CALL AND TELL THESE VACATIONING PEOPLE ABOUT WOLVES IN THE AREA AND SEE HOW MANY VACATION THERE?) Not to mention the ones with small kids. 42% "very" or "somewhat" bla bla bla. That's 58% less than "somewhat" Promotion of tourism and recreational opportunities associated with wolves might attract a greater number of people to local communities within wolf range and thus increase the economic benefits derived from the species.
MIGHT? I THINK NOT! Keeping the deer from being killed "for food and for play" and keeping deer numbers at proper land bearing capacity levels will increase economic benefits. Allowing for more wolves is not the answer.
Although the wolf population offers benefits as described above, it also poses significant costs and concerns for some Michigan residents (Beyer et al. 2006). These costs include losses of domestic animals, anxieties over the presence of wolves near residential or recreational areas, and concerns over the impact wolves may be having on populations of game species. Given theunequal distribution of wolves in the State and the nature of certain types of conflicts, all segments of society do not bear these costs equally; the presence of wolves represents a greater challenge for some groups of Michigan residents than others. DO YA THINK!
Yah...Marquette Co. more than Oakland Co. I'm sure of that!
These areas bugged me so i started a thred. The other thred for the full mgmt plan is...http://www.michigandnr.com/publicati...ftWolfPlan.pdf
Data for this new study were obtained from public-attitude surveys designed to address specific management questions relevant to the planning process. The questions focused on respondents’ preferences and opinions regarding: 1) reasons for having wolves in Michigan; 2) the number of wolves and frequency of wolf-related interactions in different regions of the State; 3) options to address depredation of livestock, hunting dogs and other pets; 4) options to address public DRAFT – August 16, 2007 11 concerns regarding human safety; 5) options to address impacts to deer; and 6) a public harvest
of wolves.
A general-public survey was mailed to 8,500 Michigan driver’s license
holders statewide. Slightly modified versions of the survey were mailed to 1,000 licensedfurtakers and 1,000 livestock producers.
How many on MS.com did the survey i wonder?
509 wolves in the U.P in 2007
Based on estimates of deer density, one model estimated the UP could sustain between 590 and 1,330 wolves and the northern LP could sustain between 210 and 480 wolves. YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME! What are we Alaska?
The most-recent public-attitude research shows most Michigan residents support the presence of a wolf population in the State. The format of the general-public survey coordinated by MSU in 2005 and 2006 allowed respondents to identify themselves as either interested or not interested in
wolf-related issues. When ‘disinterested’ respondents were removed from the analysis, the percentage of respondents who approved of having wolves in the State was 73% (52% in the UP, 71% in the northern LP, and 74% in the southern LP; Beyer et al. 2006). These results indicate that maintenance of a viable wolf population is supported by the vast majority of residents whofeel they have an interest and stake in the management of wolves.
Now i see...it was a MSU grad. that handled this!
Well yah! If you ask people in SLM they won't mind wolves. Have them live in the U.P. for a while and see how the % numbers change.
Now, I don't have a problem with a few hundred Wolves in the state (200-300 or so in the U.P.) but hope that they don't decimate the wildlife in areas that they live as I have read wolves can do. Then they move on to another area and do the same. I'm not sure about some of the statements in this so called "Management Plan" but 1300 in the U.P. seem’s crazy as the carrying capasity of the land?
Personal appreciation:
Independent of cultural or religious convictions, many people feel wolves have an ‘existence value’ and they value the knowledge that they exist as a healthy, thriving, wild population in the State. This benefit can be realized whether or not people are able to see or hear those animals. “There are people who appreciate wolves and want to know that wolves exist in Michigan” was ranked by 54% of interested survey respondents as a ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ important reason to have wolves in Michigan.
So can we assume that 50%+ of the respondents picked "somewhat important" or what ever was next on the list like "NOT IMPORTANT" That would put more than 1/2 in that catagory wouldn't it?
Interaction with nature:
The presence of wolves in Michigan provides a unique opportunity for people to interact with and experience a particular component of the natural world. The opportunity to personally observe, photograph or study wolves in the wild may be restricted to a relatively small portion of residents, but the option for those residents to have those experiences is highly valued by society. “People want to view, hear, photograph or study wild wolves in Michigan” was ranked by 60% of interested survey respondents as a ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ important reason to have wolves in the State.
"RESTRICTED TO A RELATIVELY SMALL PORTION OF RESIDENTS, BUT THE OPTIONS FOR THOSE RESIDENTS TO HAVE THOSE EXPERIENCES IS HIGHLY VALUED BY SOCIETY"
[COLOR="red"]What? Never EVER heard someone say "let's go look for wolves to picture and study for our vacation this year hun!
Tourism and recreation:
Forty-two percent of interested survey respondents felt the economic benefits of wolf-based tourism were a ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ important reason to have wolves in Michigan. However, additional survey results suggested the full potential economic benefits were not being realized: the presence of wolves in an area would attract some respondents while deterring others, butmore than half of respondents indicated the presence of wolves would not be a consideration when choosing a vacation area. (CALL AND TELL THESE VACATIONING PEOPLE ABOUT WOLVES IN THE AREA AND SEE HOW MANY VACATION THERE?) Not to mention the ones with small kids. 42% "very" or "somewhat" bla bla bla. That's 58% less than "somewhat" Promotion of tourism and recreational opportunities associated with wolves might attract a greater number of people to local communities within wolf range and thus increase the economic benefits derived from the species.
MIGHT? I THINK NOT! Keeping the deer from being killed "for food and for play" and keeping deer numbers at proper land bearing capacity levels will increase economic benefits. Allowing for more wolves is not the answer.
Although the wolf population offers benefits as described above, it also poses significant costs and concerns for some Michigan residents (Beyer et al. 2006). These costs include losses of domestic animals, anxieties over the presence of wolves near residential or recreational areas, and concerns over the impact wolves may be having on populations of game species. Given theunequal distribution of wolves in the State and the nature of certain types of conflicts, all segments of society do not bear these costs equally; the presence of wolves represents a greater challenge for some groups of Michigan residents than others. DO YA THINK!
Yah...Marquette Co. more than Oakland Co. I'm sure of that!