Well, with the dismal price of otter, I would expect "nature" to take it's course.

Understanding the missteps of the past helps ensure you make less of them again. The state said otter populations declined 35%. Think Brian would be happy with the same type of 35% decline in wolves if measured in the same way as otter?

Brian wants less wolves in the state. Nothing wrong with that, but unless he embraces the science, he will struggle to actually get there. The science will be used against him as Bryce eloquently noted above.

John and I might not have agreed on some things, but he was right to start to go after the science field with his fur school. This put our future game managers in front of us. Time to get to know them before ever even applying. Influence those that we could, but more importantly, allow us to identify and recruit the brightest to our side. Then work to influence the work that we want done once they are on board.

Lucky for the state of WI, wolves allowed us to add to our science staff. Interestingly enough, about this same time, our quota on otter, bobcat, and fisher started to increase even with no real significant change in the metrics. Instead of telling us we couldn't do something, they were going to try and see if they could. The faster we embrace, but more importantly, understand the science, the quicker we will get to where we all want to go.

Let's get back to wolves.
What harvest data do we have for them? Adults, juvenile, YOY?
I would think most that are/were taken to be dispersal pups.

Do you honestly think your otter population declined 35 percent?

Wolf pups don't disperse.

I don't disagree that the science side of things are helpful.
With that said, they could probably get good data just from pure harvest numbers & sign. Whether they're incidentals or not. I believe common sense can be just as important as anything in determining populations. Doesn't matter if talking wolves, otter, beaver, deer.

Brian, that is where the trend data comes into play.

By trend data, I mean your harvest trends.

Male/female ratio of harvest and more importantly ratio of adult female to yoy being harvested. I'd be shocked if there isnt some peer reviewed data out there stating what a healthy harvest could be on those numbers.

Not some arbitrary number pulled out of thin air by a political bureaucracy whose whims are swayed by public sentiment.

I've brought this example up before and I remember it like it was yesterday but our local, who is now retired, DNR WMA biologist(who was also on the furbearer committee) told me and several other at that time if our cat harvest got to 250 they were concerned and seasons may need to be cut.

Now we are consistently in the 800 plus and even broke a thousand once. Good thing that 250 was a flexible number but it was arbitrary.

Exactly. It always seems to be political instead of common sense. That's why nothing can be accomplished within a reasonable time. It goes from 1 biologist to a advisory committee to a executive committee...... & on & on. Drag their feet forever. All so they waste taxpayers $$$$.

It's the bureaucratic beast in action. It's more about job creation and retention.

It's actually worse than Steven describes. At least from what I have seen.

In my experience, those biologists who are good at their jobs and interested in BIOLOGY are not promoted to positions where they can influence outcomes. I have even seen them refuse promotions to supervisory levels because it removes them from the ground floor of the biology part of the job.

Unfortunately, it is the guys who are NOT good biologists who are promoted ....just to get rid of them. They get the political jobs in the department and exercise far more control over outcomes than the guys doing the real work. It's the Peter Principle in action !

Sure seems like the beaver & otter season reductions are getting fast-tracked. The Scope Statement has already been presented to and approved by the NR Board.
In March we were told by the then DNR Fur Biologist that they were just "shooting rubber bullets" getting opinion and that any possible changes were years away, he also made it seem like changes were not inevitable.

But they sure are dragging their feet when it comes to producing the minutes from the DNR Fur Advisory meeting that occurred a month ago. I see how they have delayed those minutes and in the mean time took the beaver & otter season reduction proposal to the NR Board. I don't know it that was calculated or circumstance, but in any case it stinks.

Should be public input hearings on it sometime in the near future.

One would think so. But there pretty good at getting what they want, no matter the public input

49er, there was published work that told them that too low of a YOY to adult was bad. Published data said you were over harvesting. Was told there was nothing published that said this was a good range. What I believe they didn't have was that that ratio would also happen when the population hit a certain level with too low of a harvest. This happens when you underestimate the size of habitat.

So we dropped from 3.6 to 2.6. They knew the 2.6 was a bad ratio. They just failed to see which way the train was going IMO. Boco and white seemed to go the same way as our biologists, but I think that speaks to only looking at those two metrics and letting sentiment enter the equation. I think white was onto it when he noted his ability to skew ratios based on where he trapped and questioned the juvenile rate increase. This should have gone down as well and been transferred to adults had we not been able to produce enough YOY. But since those YOY were transferred to juveniles, it should have told us that more of our YOY were surviving and being added to our potential producing population. IMO, age structure is more important than just the Adult F to YOY.

Now Brian asked what we have for harvest data for wolves. This document has some of that info:
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/wolf/documents/PostDelistMonitor.pdf

Brian, last I checked the WTA and CC both voice their support of that choice on beaver. We are just as much to blame as them. Personally, I think it means nothing until we find guys that are willing to start to fight for beaver habitat...which brings us back to wolves.

Boco mentioned it in this thread. A good portion of the diet of wolves includes beaver during parts of the year. I think WI even has a study on it. By removing those beaver from the landscape we have removed a prey species during that time frame forcing them to eat something else.

Where were those deer hunters when the beaver plan went through? I don't remember seeing them involved fighting for that habitat of beaver? After all, that beaver habitat would benefit the deer in two ways. Improves habitat for deer but also helps provide another food source for wolves in beaver. Seems to me this relationship with our deer hunters is out of balance. Why are we not fighting together for habitat? Fox Claw asked in a different thread, who was responsible to ensure that part of beaver plan was followed through on. I think we found our answer. We better start utilizing our leverage as an organization.

That's a very good point. Too many folks don't realize that wolves will switch to another food source when the ungulates become harder to catch.

Well they are opportunists & will prey on whatever food source is available. So goes the life of all predators.

Justin, Do you really think Wi. deer hunters are concerned about beaver populations? They out number trappers by half a million. A low deer herd is their main concern. An abundance of wolves does not help that situation. I realize it's not the only factor, but there's no denying that it's quite high on the list.
Unless they become delisted so we can get back to managing them, things aren't going to improve.

IMO, it wasn't until Missouri opened up season in the mid to late 90s that recovering otter populations were really examined. Most recovering otter populations didn't have a need to reduce populations so ratios were determined by their population modeling. I remember reading there was talk about how the MDC projected population at 11K while the university had it at 18K so we can understand where the flaws in the modeling could create false ratios. I could be wrong but I believe occupancy modeling was changing the way some were interpreted survey results.

In Missouri they started to document pregnancy rates much higher than the norm with juveniles at 80%. That significantly impacts YOY ratios that would be acceptable. But in the early 2000's, they started their adaptive management strategy on otter where they decided to increase harvest pressure to see how it impacted harvest while working to reduce nuisance otter, but more importantly, see how it impacted growth of a population. Notice a trend with our wolves in this state yet?

By putting enough pressure on harvest that they could expect a negative reaction in trend data, they could actually calibrate the variables. Your ratios were being tested and verified from on the ground tracking. How does this apply to wolves? I sure wish we had a few more years of harvest data because I see some things that I liked.

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/documents/WolfReport2.pdf
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/documents/WolfReport3.pdf

For example, look at page 4 on those two links. Notice all the different harvest percentages of midwinter count? Now look at zone 6. We harvested 86% of midwinter count in 2013-4 but 128% of our midwinter count the following year. By sacrificing and transferring a little of our harvest in very populated zones to actually start to pressure a lower density zone, we were shrinking the learning curve on the impacts of an aggressive harvest. Working much faster to actually identify the ratios that 49er mentioned for this state but also including additional variables to ensure what we are seeing is actually happening. We are working against making the same mistakes we did on otter. Now if we could only pressure a zone for otter.

On a side note Fox Claw, I was told the meeting minutes should be updated today.

Nope. And that is a problem. Until deer hunters start focusing on habitat, they will continue to lose. The past beaver plan gave them another chance to improve habitat for deer under the guise of helping beaver. Looking at deer density data over the last few decades is depressing and it will only get worse until they focus on habitat. Keep those densities higher than they should be at without improving that habitat will continue to degrade the habitat. They will get the opposite of what they want. I want a high deer population because it supports a larger wolf population which allows us to recruit more wolf trappers, but I know we can't get a sustained increase without some habitat improvement/repairs. They want more deer and we can give them a way to do so.

What was funny was a gentleman on the resource board even joked when the beaver plan was passed that he wanted to be involved where they did those restoration efforts. Why? Because he knew those fresh habitat projects would benefit the deer. nimzy wanted to recruit the duck guys as a heavyweight on our side. Maybe we try to recruit the deer guys. We can't do anything on the management of wolves right now, but we can surely start to work on the habitat that would benefit them. After all, the beaver plan was passed. Now does the WTA have any connections into the deer groups?

Any warm water streams up by clam lake? Maybe it is time to see if RMEF would like to leverage the beaver plan to their benefit. I have always said it is much easier to push a boulder when you have others helping. Maybe beaver gives them an avenue to accomplish their goals.

Most deer hunters idea of improved habitat, is food plots surrounded by blinds & tree stands. To much of the Outdoor Channel.

WE have 140 acres of prime deer ground and we MANGE It to the fullest. And that means Forest management ground cover and water management and food plots.

It's a deer hunters dream.