Connect with us

Hunting

Unexpected Encounter: Hunter Mistakes Gray Wolf for Coyote

gray-wolf-canis-lupus-nice-posing

The recent discovery of a gray wolf mistakenly identified as a coyote in Michigan’s southern Lower Peninsula has sparked an investigation by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Initially reported as a record-breaking coyote harvest by a local hunter, genetic testing later revealed the true identity of the animal.

Unveiling the Mistake

wolf-lies-on-snowy-landscape-rifle

The incident came to light when photos of the hunter’s “record” coyote began circulating on social media platforms. Brian Roell, a wildlife biologist with the Michigan DNR, was alerted to the anomaly by a local biologist who had seen the images. Upon examination, Roell quickly recognized that the animal in question was not a coyote but a gray wolf, prompting further investigation.

Legal Ramifications and Environmental Impact

While the hunter had reported the kill as part of a legal coyote hunt, the DNR is now exploring the circumstances surrounding the incident. Despite the rarity of a gray wolf sighting in the area, Roell reassures that there’s no cause for alarm regarding population expansion. He attributes the wolf’s presence to its natural ability to roam over long distances, although suitable habitat in the region remains limited.

Ongoing Investigations and Conservation Efforts

gray-wolf-pack-forest

The DNR has launched an investigation to determine how the gray wolf ended up in the southern Lower Peninsula and to prevent similar incidents in the future. This discovery underscores the importance of conservation efforts, as gray wolves remain protected under the Endangered Species Act in Michigan and 43 other states. With a stable population in the Upper Peninsula, efforts to preserve their habitat and prevent conflicts with humans are paramount.

The case of the mistaken coyote harvest highlights the need for vigilance and responsible hunting practices. As wildlife continues to adapt and navigate human-dominated landscapes, it’s crucial for hunters and conservationists alike to stay informed and collaborate to protect vulnerable species like the gray wolf. Through ongoing research and education, we can ensure a harmonious coexistence between humans and wildlife in Michigan and beyond.

What do you think of this story? Is it a simple mistake or something else? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Featured

Ohio’s Gobblers Facing Harder Times

eastern-wild-turkey-gobbling-field-midwest

Spring turkey season results suggest that Ohio’s gobbler hunters might be facing tougher times. While the situation isn’t dire yet, any hopes for a quick rebound to the bountiful days of the past remain unfulfilled.

The 2024 spring turkey season concluded last Sunday in 83 South Zone counties, including central Ohio. The Ohio Division of Wildlife reported a total harvest of 15,426 turkeys, which is a slight decrease from last year’s total of 15,550. This year’s total includes birds taken during the statewide youth season in April, 30 days of hunting in the South Zone, and the first 23 days of hunting in the Northeast Zone. Hunting in the five Northeast Zone counties (Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, and Trumbull) ends at sunset this Sunday.

Although the 2024 numbers are an improvement over the alarming results of 2021 (14,546) and 2022 (11,872), they still fall short of the more prolific years. For instance, the 2018 spring take was 22,612, and the 2017 take was 21,096. From 2000 to 2010, the spring harvest exceeded 20,000 birds eight times, peaking at 26,156 in 2001.

In 1993, the Ohio Division of Wildlife introduced a two-bird limit in the 42 open counties, although the second permit initially cost double the price of the first. This premium was dropped by 2003. The two-bird limit remained until 2022 when the declining turkey population led to a reduction in the spring limit to a single bird for the first time in almost 30 years.

Some have suggested eliminating the fall turkey season or imposing restrictions on targeting hens to help the population recover. However, the wildlife division has maintained a short fall season and continues to allow the harvest of a single turkey of either sex.

An ongoing research project in Ohio aims to track changes in wild turkey habits and examine the potential effects of environmental conditions. The goal is to identify measures that could enhance survival rates. Falling turkey populations are a common worry among both gobbler advocacy groups and state and local wildlife agencies nationwide.

Of the 83 counties where the turkey hunting season has ended, Belmont led with 451 birds checked, followed closely by Monroe and Tuscarawas, each with 447. Among central Ohio counties, Licking finished top with 255 birds, followed by Fairfield (91), Delaware (78), Union (44), Franklin (17), Pickaway (14), and Madison (4).

Leave your thoughts about the situation in Ohio in the comments below. 

 

Continue Reading

Hunting

The Ethical Considerations of Using Snares and Traps for Hunting

Hunting has long been a controversial topic, with ethical considerations playing a significant role in the debate. While some argue that hunting is a necessary activity for the management of wildlife populations and the conservation of habitats, others raise concerns about the impact it has on animal welfare and morality.

One controversial aspect of hunting that often raises ethical questions is the use of snares and traps. These devices are commonly used by hunters to catch and kill animals, either for sport or for food. However, the use of snares and traps has led to widespread criticism from animal rights activists and conservationists who argue that these methods are inhumane and cruel.

One of the main ethical concerns surrounding the use of snares and traps for hunting is the suffering that animals endure when caught in these devices. Snares and traps are often designed to trap animals by catching them around the neck, limbs, or body, leading to injury, suffocation, and death in some cases. The prolonged suffering and pain experienced by animals caught in snares and traps raise questions about the morality of using these devices for hunting.

Another ethical consideration to take into account is the indiscriminate nature of snares and traps. Unlike other hunting methods that require skill and precision, snares and traps can easily catch unintended targets, including non-target species and endangered animals. This indiscriminate trapping can lead to the unnecessary suffering and death of innocent animals, as well as disrupt the balance of ecosystems and threaten endangered species.

Furthermore, the use of snares and traps can also have negative impacts on animal populations and biodiversity. Overuse of these devices can lead to the depletion of wildlife populations, disrupting food chains and ecosystems. This can have cascading effects on other species and the overall health of the environment.

In response to these ethical concerns, some jurisdictions have implemented regulations and restrictions on the use of snares and traps for hunting. These regulations often include guidelines on the types of snares and traps that can be used, as well as rules on the placement and checking of traps to minimize the suffering of trapped animals.

Ultimately, the ethical considerations of using snares and traps for hunting underscore the importance of responsible and ethical hunting practices. Hunters should consider the welfare of animals, the impact on ecosystems, and the conservation of wildlife populations when deciding on hunting methods. By prioritizing ethical considerations and adopting sustainable hunting practices, hunters can help ensure the long-term viability of wildlife populations and the preservation of our natural environment.

Continue Reading

Featured

Five Years After Supreme Court Decision, Tribal Hunting Rights Still Murky

indian-red-wearing-traditional-dress-bird

Nearly five years have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision recognizing the treaty-based hunting rights of Native American tribes. Despite this, many legal and policy questions regarding where, when, and if certain Native Americans are bound by state hunting regulations remain unresolved. Two months ago, a lower federal court issued an order related to tribal elk hunting in the Bighorns, but the clarity hunters and tribal members hoped for remains elusive.

Observers expected that lingering legal questions would be resolved through various court cases. However, Wyoming’s decision to drop charges in the partially remanded Herrera v. Wyoming case has left many issues unresolved. This decision has unexpectedly elevated the importance of another case dating back to 1989, involving Thomas Ten Bear, a member of the Crow Tribe, who was convicted of elk poaching in the Bighorns. Like the Herrera case, Ten Bear’s situation revolves around the prosecution of Crow Tribal members for killing elk in a national forest in Wyoming without a state-issued permit.

Ten Bear’s Case and the Supreme Court Precedent

Years before the Supreme Court’s Herrera ruling, Ten Bear sought to have his nearly 35-year-old poaching conviction overturned. With the new precedent in place, U.S. District Judge Alan Johnson issued a 27-page order in late March, partially granting Ten Bear and the Crow Tribe’s requests for relief. Johnson’s decision clarified some key legal questions, establishing that statehood admission does not abrogate treaty rights and that the creation of a national forest does not render the land “occupied,” thus not nullifying the Crow Tribe’s treaty hunting rights.

Despite these clarifications, significant questions remain about off-reservation hunting. There are ambiguities about when portions of a national forest—or any land—can be considered “occupied” and thus off-limits to treaty-based tribal hunting. Additionally, questions about “conservation necessity”—the conditions under which the state could regulate or prevent tribal hunting outside of reservation boundaries—are still unanswered.

Judge Johnson’s ruling was specific to Ten Bear’s case and did not provide broad answers to these complex issues. The limits of what a court can definitively resolve were evident in his narrow approach, which left many aspects of off-reservation hunting rights open to interpretation and further negotiation.

A Call for Agreement

Cheyenne attorney David Willms believes that Wyoming and tribal residents with treaty hunting rights still lack a clear blueprint for resolving off-reservation tribal hunting. Judge Johnson’s ruling suggested that the state and tribes should work together to strike a balance between treaty-based rights and state sovereignty over natural resources. The Supreme Court’s Herrera v. Wyoming ruling also implied that these two aspects are “necessarily compatible.”

In the five years since the Herrera decision, there has been one significant legislative effort in Wyoming to make off-reservation hunting compatible with state regulations. During the Wyoming Legislature’s 2023 general session, a tribal agreement bill was introduced, granting the governor the authority to negotiate state-tribal pacts for off-reservation hunting and angling seasons outside of Game and Fish Department regulations.

However, the bill faced opposition from tribes like the Shoshone-Bannock, who argued that they were excluded from the drafting process and that the bill was too prescriptive, violating their sovereignty. The legislation ultimately died, leaving tribal hunting rights unresolved and further complicating state-tribal relations.

Since the legislative effort failed, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department has maintained that tribal members without standard permits can be cited for off-reservation hunting violations. Meanwhile, Montana has taken a different approach, instructing its wardens not to cite Crow Tribe members who violate state hunting laws, reflecting a more lenient stance on treaty rights.

Despite the legal and legislative deadlock, Wyoming officials remain hopeful for a negotiated agreement. Governor Mark Gordon emphasized the need for government-to-government negotiations with the tribes to mutually agree on off-reservation hunting, considering it a more positive and productive approach than litigation.

Towards a Resolution

Resolving these issues outside of the courtroom appears to be the best path forward. Both sides need to find common ground and address the concerns that have previously derailed efforts. Lessons from past negotiations, particularly the importance of inclusive and respectful dialogue, are crucial for future success.

The hope is that, with time, both the state and the tribes will be ready to re-engage in discussions and develop a framework that honors treaty rights while ensuring sustainable wildlife conservation. As the dust settles, there is cautious optimism that an agreement can be reached, benefiting both tribal members and the broader community.

What do you think of the legal issues surrounding tribal hunting? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

 

Continue Reading

Sign Up for Our Newsletter

Join our subscribers list to get the latest news, updates and special offers delivered directly in your inbox.

Trending