State Rep. Greg Markkanen proposed a bill to bring wolves down to the Lower Peninsula. Courtesy | Facebook

A Michigan legislator introduced a bill Feb. 15 to move wolves from the Upper Peninsula to the Lower Peninsula.

House Bill 4102, introduced by state Rep. Greg Markkanen, R-Hancock, would direct the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to “reestablish a viable and self-sustaining wolf population in the Lower Peninsula,” according to the bill text.

“As a resident of the Upper Peninsula, I feel very strongly — and a lot of people up here feel very strongly — that if they’re encouraging us to do what we have to do, the Lower Peninsula should have a viable population of gray wolves as well,” Markkanen said.

Markkanen said the bill is an attempt to establish a fairer distribution of wolves, in which both peninsulas must deal with the effects. Wolves in the U.P. have killed or chased out deer, discouraging hunters from visiting, according to Markkanen.

“If there are areas in the Upper Peninsula that are almost devoid of deer, and the DNR has no response for it whatsoever, that’s troublesome,” Markkanen said.

The U.P. is currently home to around 630 wolves, according to the DNR. The population has been holding steady since 2011.

“Rural Michigan is often forgotten by people who live in urban and suburban parts of the state,” state Rep. Andrew Fink, R-Hillsdale said. “There are many ways in which life can be more difficult in the countryside in ways that folks closer to our population centers don’t understand. The wolf issue is a good illustration of that larger phenomenon, but so are matters like school transportation, emergency response, and many more.”

The state’s Wolf Management Plan, updated by the DNR last September, mentioned 7,000 acres of suitable habitat for the gray wolf. Markkanen said the state should take advantage of this land but did not specify a habitat location.

“If we’re going to have a management plan, let’s implement it,” Markkanen said.

Rolf Peterson, a research professor at Michigan Technological University who has studied wolves for more than 40 years, said he opposes the bill.

“I would say it is political theater, pure and simple,” Peterson said. “Coming out with anti-wolf statements plays well in certain influential circles in the U.P.”

Dominic Parker, a professor of economics at University of Wisconsin-Madison who spoke at a Hillsdale College Praxis event in November, said in an interview that any decline in hunters in the U.P. is likely due to a nationwide decline.

“Nationally, the number of hunters is on the decline and has been on the decline for a long time,” Parker said. “So I think the representative would have to account for that in his evaluation of the effects of wolves.”

David Johnson, president of the Upper Peninsula Sportsmens Alliance, said the organization did not have an official opinion on the bill but was in favor of removing wolves from the endangered species list.

“We do not want to see the gray wolf wiped out,” Johnson said. “We’re not at that at all. We just want to have the ability that when we need to control it, we can control it.”

Peterson said wolves could walk across the Mackinac Straits when the water freezes over in the winter, but haven’t settled as a viable population.

“If wolves are meant to be there, they will get there,” Peterson said. “There are U.P. wolves that moved to Lower Michigan. So far, they have not established themselves. There are wolves that go to the Lower Peninsula that don’t survive long.”

Parker said he is not sure the Lower Peninsula would be a suitable habitat for wolves.

“There’s forested area there, but some of the ownership is fragmented,” Parker said. “There’s not a lot of connectivity in certain areas, so it’s not clear that if wolves were moved to the northern part of the Lower Peninsula they would successfully colonize it or not.”

Both professors agreed there would be a reduction in deer-vehicle collisions in the Lower Peninsula if there were more wolves.

“Where wolves have recolonized in Wisconsin, they’ve had economic effects, and one of them has been to decrease deer-vehicle collisions,” Parker said. “If they were to successfully re-colonize in this part of northern Michigan, one might expect them to also cause a reduction in deer-vehicle collisions.”

The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources, Environment, Tourism and Outdoor Recreation. Committee Chair Rep. Laurie Pohutsky, D-Livonia, did not respond to requests for comment on the future of the bill.

The DNR did not respond to a request for comment. Markkanen said he had not spoken with DNR officials about the bill.

“I don’t think they think I’m serious,” Markkanen said. “I am very serious with this bill.”