It was a DNR employee, furbearer specialist Adam Bump, who told Michigan Radio in May 2013 of wolf packs terrorizing Ironwood residents.
So you have wolves showing up in backyards, wolves showing up on porches, wolves staring at people through their sliding-glass doors when theyre pounding on it, exhibiting no fear, he said during the interview.
Never happened.
At least not in Michigan, as Bump would later acknowledge in recanting the story on air. He said he had mistakenly recounted an incident from a book he had read about human encounters with mountain lions in Colorado.
Warren, of the National Wolfwatcher Coalition, said she first heard casual talk of wolf attacks at the Dykstra farm in May 2016 as she listened to a country music station at her home in nearby Ewen.
Inquiries to the DNRs Marquette office that May 26 were met with a string of evasive responses, her correspondence shows. Warren persisted.
She filed a formal request for cattle-attack reports the next morning, Friday, May 27, 2016.
Warren didnt know it then, but the first of the three killings of the Ontonagon wolves had already taken place.
Under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, government agencies are required to respond to public records requests within 5 business days, though a provision allows them a 10-day extension, which they routinely take.
At the end of that period, the agencys only obligation is to give a response, such as by sending a letter saying the records will (or will not) be provided.
Agencies are not required to actually provide the records within that time. In fact, one significant loophole in state law is that it provides no clear guidelines for when the records themselves must be turned over, which means that people seeking records often have to rely on the goodwill of the government worker in that office.
DNR charged Warren $87.50 for the records.
Nine weeks later, the agency turned over 35 pages on cattle attacks to Warren.
But when she looked at the papers sent by Chief Masons office, the names, addresses and contact information were blacked out, making it impossible to determine which farmers lost cattle to wolves. DNR also excluded geographic coordinates township, range and section numbers for farms that suffered livestock attacks.
Its not unusual for government offices to redact parts of a document. Generally, theyre allowed to block information if they can show it falls under one of several exemptions to public records, usually to protect someones privacy. The home address of a judge or police officer, for example, or the Social Security number of a party in a lawsuit are the kinds of information shielded from public release.
DNR sought to extend this same exemption to farms. Victoria Lischalk, Chief Masons executive assistant, wrote Warren that the location of livestock attacks was considered information of a personal nature (and) would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy if released.
Warren found that argument preposterous. As a longtime wolf advocate who had helped the state develop its wolf management plan in 2008, she said there were plenty of times when shed received similar information within days.
So in November 2016 Warren hired an attorney to sue DNR, arguing that the location of reported wolf attacks were germane to the publics understanding of how the DNR handled wolf encounters, and outweighed any privacy concerns of farmers.
DNRs stonewalling, she argued, was an effort to retaliate against her for her outspoken opposition to wolf hunting.
In short, it appears that higher-level DNR officials have ended the friendly and informal relationship [Warren]had previously enjoyed, the suit said, and have instituted a policy of tight lips.
Lawsuits take time. It was not until May 2018, two years after Warren first sought the records, that Michigan Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Diane Stephens ruled in Warrens favor and ordered the public records released.
General geographic information describing where a wolf encountered livestock does not fit the definition of personal, Stephens wrote. Even assuming the information were personal, the balancing test would favor disclosure because the information reveals information about [DNRs]wolf-management policies.
The judge ordered DNR to pay $11,000 in fees and costs to Warrens lawyer, Rebecca Millican of Traverse City, to reimburse Warren for the cost of litigating the case.
The DNR documents released to Bridge add to evidence uncovered in earlier reporting I performed for The Detroit News that suggested DNR had bent to pressure from Casperson the pro-business, anti-wolf senator from Escanaba - to have the Ontonagon wolf pack killed.
As cattle losses mounted on the Dykstra farm in the spring of 2016, it was Casperson, the influential chairman of the Senates Natural Resources Committee, who intervened at the request of owner Tom Dykstra.
The senators 38th District covered the western U.P., including Ontonagon County and the Dykstra operation. Casperson who once wore a wolf-skin cap to celebrate a wolf-hunt victory was a strong proponent of reshaping the states conservation laws to make them more friendly to business, hunting and property interests.
Until term limits forced him from office last December, Casperson led the charge to allow the hunting of gray wolves in Michigan should they ever lose federal protection. When I interviewed him last fall, Casperson acknowledged he had called Terry Minzey, DNRs U.P. wildlife supervisor, after getting an earful from Tom Dykstra.
The rancher was angry that state and federal wildlife managers had captured and caged two of the wolves the day before, only to release them. The wildlife managers had hoped that harassing the wolves by caging them would scare them off.
Dykstra had lost like 14 calves and was sending regular pictures and it was just unacceptable, Casperson said of his decision to call DNR. You cant wipe out a guy's herd.
Reimbursing Dykstras farm for livestock losses was adding up, Casperson said, even as he acknowledged the wolves had no history of being aggressive around people.
The question became, Casperson said, who is going to go first? Who wants to take the first shot, so to speak? I think he (Minzey) understood someone had to go first.
Three days later, Minzey put his name to the memo describing the phantom wolf attack in front of Johnson.
Dykstra farm manager Duane Kolpack confirmed Caspersons assessment.
The decision to kill the wolves was kind of thrown together quick because the [animal]activists kind of frown on killing wolves when they are federally protected, Kolpack told me last year.
It was only after Casperson and Kolpack separately disclosed the wolf shootings that DNR acknowledged the killings, 2 years after they happened. Even then, the state still insists the packs aggressiveness in the presence of humans (and not their killing of livestock) prompted the decision.
Federal wildlife law permits the killing of protected gray wolves in defense of human life, or if wolves pose a demonstrable but non-immediate threat to human safety.
In seeking federal permission to shoot the wolves, DNR highlighted Johnsons purported encounter with the aggressive wolf at the Dykstra farm.
In one case, the wolf was sufficiently bold as to enter the pasture and kill a calf at the very moment one of our wildlife technicians was in the same field investigating a previous kill, Minzey, the wildlife supervisor, wrote to the federal government bolding and underlining the passage.
Curiously, in the version of this letter the department provided to me in 2018, DNR removed the bold and underlined emphasis used by Minzey in petitioning the feds.
Likewise, the department also withheld a portion of the U.S. response which indicated just how influential Minzeys account was in the federal governments approval of the wolf kills. That excised paragraph said:
It is clear that the wolves are acting aggressively including in the presence of humans as documented by the attack on livestock while the MDNR technician was in the same field, wrote Scott Hicks, regional U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supervisor, in approving lethal action.
The emails released to Bridge show DNR pressed the same, discredited account involving Johnson to its own employees. On May 23, 2016, Mason told DNR staff:
This past week, for the first time ever, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service authorized the lethal removal of three wolves that showed persistently, brazen behavior by killing livestock in the presence of the operator and our staff.
Johnson declined comment for this article. Minzey, the supervisor who wrote the inaccurate report, did not return multiple emails and phone messages and DNR would not make him available for an interview. He remains with the department.
DNR spokesman Ed Golder describes Minzeys account as a communication breakdown. In an email earlier this year, Golder said Minzey had no clear recollection how he got the facts wrong about the 2016 wolf encounter.
But Golder also insists the decision to kill the Ontonagon wolves was not solely based on the Brad Johnson incident.
That single incident was one factor among others involved in drawing the conclusion that the wolves posed a non-immediate threat to human safety, Golder wrote Bridge.
He also noted that non-lethal measures had failed to keep the wolf pack from Dykstras cattle pastures.
Golder declined to elaborate, writing in March: We dont have anything to add to that account.
But Russ Mason did.
Mason was DNR wildlife chief for over a decade and was well known to hunters, with his sprawling command ranging from furry and feathered game to neurological illnesses like chronic wasting disease in zombie whitetails.
Last Nov. 30, Mason told me the Ontonagon wolf shootings were necessary to protect people.
The DNR, Mason said, is just as transparent as we can be with the number of wolves that have been [killed]. He released a three-page timeline purporting to set the record straight.
But Golder, the agency spokesman, acknowledged in an email a few months later that Mason knew the Brad Johnson wolf attack story was false prior to the time of your interview. Brian Roell, a DNR wildlife specialist, had told top officials what really happened two days before the interview. This was apparently the second time Roell had raised questions internally about the agencys description of the incident, email records obtained by Bridge show.
Go here to see the original:
Michigan DNR said it killed wolves to protect humans. Then we got its emails. - Bridge Michigan