Here is a crazy idea...

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/documents/yfhistory.pdf

I think it was Bryce that made mention of this program. Maybe the deer hunters just need a little coaxing. I noticed Ruffed Grouse Society just donated some money to the state to support it. They even identified priority areas. Their work is going to benefit the deer. Think if the WI Bowhunters, Hound Hunters, WTA and others started to invest a little money to improve the habitat like the Ruffed Grouse society, they could have a little more influence? We start in their priority area and identify any increases in the miles from fisheries so we can use this as our sounding board. Any miles altered need to be replaced and replaced two fold as this is priority habitat for us as well. I like the deer angle because they are focused at the county level, the same way fisheries does it. Have some success and take it to the next county.

Now you get those groups investing some money on habitat, they probably could claim they want to keep the population on wolves slightly less based on investment dollars. You are applying the same tool fisheries has used for so long. A few of those groups are on the wolf committee... A couple more involved and you would be able to work on creating a separate zone for wolves that could be kept a little lower. All in the heart of wolf country. Try keeping that lower in population and we just created more trapping opportunity. One were we are working with the bird groups instead of against. But lastly, you probably created an area where the tolerance of wolves might just increase over time. Show DU you mean business on habitat, and your waterbank might be incorporated the next time the beaver management plan gets reviewed.

I agree with some of this white, but isn't it our fault when this happens? We get what we are willing to fight for?

I think a good one can lead from the floor level. We just have to ensure they have a microphone.

Brian, you mentioned deer hunting in Forest county. I think that included deer management units 39,44, and 45. So I grabbed the deer densities for those zones and goal of post hunt densities and plotted them. Take a look.



Anything surprise you?

Someone mentioned winter weather having an impact. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/documents/reports/severity2.pdf

Notice that many of the large declines you see in my graph align with severe winter weather?

Not really. I hunted unit 45. Always was good till around 2K. Then it fell like a rock. Most of the 90's were really good years. Their "Actual Population Data" must have been taken from numbers of registration. That decline in '93 is the year the blizzard hit on Fri. nite with 2-3 ft. of snow. Nobody could get out of town on opening morning. I've only hunted there 3 times since '07. And only saw 2 deer in 8 days of hunting. Haven't been back in 4 or maybe 5 years.

I was naturally drawn to unit 44. I noticed it had a lower population goal, but the goal was increased in the middle. I wonder why. Anyone know?

It was the zone that was better at keeping the deer population below population goal and now appears to handle the wolves better. Unit 45 spent the most time above goal and had done poorly with high wolves. Only coincidence?

Try hunting iron and Ashland county you better shoot a city deer if you want meat.

Here you go Fox Claw...

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/documents/committees/furbearer/fur060116.pdf

Thought the guys might have interest in the part below. They having second thoughts?

"The committee recommends creating a flexible, adjustable spring beaver and otter trapping season to increase/maintain the beaver population in Zones A & B"

Anyone else notice how they appear ready to align some zones based on HWY 64 in the above link? Interesting.

Just an FYI for those who have an interest in the CC Fur Harvest Committee. That agenda has been posted and I included a link below.

http://dnr.wi.gov/About/WCC/Documents/Agenda/2016/Fur073016.pdf

http://www.outdoornews.com/2016/07/07/wisconsins-wolf-count-hits-record-high/

Lots of information in the Wisconsin Outdoor news on wolves. There was also a nice letter to the editor from Laurie about the wolf tracking surveys. Have to hand it to her, she is willing to roll up the sleeves and join the effort.

I see there is an effort to set up a Sept 15 Wolf Summit in Cumberland. Effort is being lead by Tom Tiffany and Adam Jarchow. Now where have I heard those names before?

Yes the WON article showed the number of packs, the units and the number of wolves per district based on their population estimates. The map shows that the heavy concentration is still in the northwest close to MN where the migration from there has been going on for decades. Even though wolves are great travelers creating a large population over a large area takes time. The central forest area near where I grew up (Jackson County) has a high concentration of wolves per square mile and as of yet a bit higher prey population for food. It is also surrounded on all sides with intensive crop and livestock agriculture and thus depredation possibilities are high and food and cover sources are as well which means that this area in particular and most units have a lot more wolf density increase potential which can create a lot of social carrying capacity concerns.

Bryce

Bryce, lots of good info there. Not opposed to working harder to keep population lower in places through adaptive management. I think it helps with social carrying capacity. I just wish we could apply to otter.

I see we got the same increase in otter as last year. There was even talk of going with same % increase which would have taken us to 2200 otter. Guess we will have to settle for 2000. With the high success rates coming out, tags should be more plentiful.

That said, I see the focus is still going after the incidental otters. If that is the case, shouldn't we look at adjusting the distribution of quota. After all the south lags when it comes to incidentals turned in. But even more importantly, how about working to pressure a zone. I would sacrifice the entire increases in quota for central zone to apply pressure to a different zone. Would the guys in the south be willing to do the same next year?

I think we need to be prepared to see an even higher incidental otter catch as a percentage of the total catch, what with beaver being so low in value, not nearly as many water lines for coons and otters being worth what a good rat was 3-4 years ago there may be much less intentional trapping to catch an otter.
We also need to recognize that the otter carrying capacity in WI is very high what with 15,000 lakes, 25,000 miles of streams and rivers and probably a million or two acres of wetlands be that north and south. I feel we need to understand that population estimates on wildlife, fish etc. are all based on population models and there are many of those and they vary in accuracy but are still better than guessing in my opinion. If we continue to choose to underfund the research and the science then fewer models and improvements will be available. From a legal standpoint and defending an argument against non science based AR depositions I am in favor of the science even if I don't always agree with the results or the seasons that are determined from that science.

Bryce

Are you sure Bryce? Shouldn't more tags, mean less incidentals?

Price of otter/beaver was bad last year and yet, the number of incidentals decreased(small sample size, but it appears to be helping). For some reason we have lots of trappers that will trap regardless of price. With those higher success rates coming out on distribution of tags, we should get a better harvest(remember, the highest success rate of the last 3 years gets used to distribute tags). The artificial high population also makes a target rich experience for new trappers.

Now my resolution on otter might hurt those efforts. Sure, it will help fund the science arm if passed, but it might actual hurt the recruitment of new trappers. It weighs heavy on me. Maybe it is time for otter logic II.

Now back to wolves...Why should the guys in the north be focused on habitat? Not only does it align stakeholders, but our decisions become much easier when we are all focused on habitat. I am giving you a priority zone in the heart of wolf country that you could take your science from zone 6 and now apply to your new zone. Think of the science that you would get and the trapping opportunities you would create. Sure it is much easier to sit and beat on this drum of 350, but where is the fun in that.

How would that create trapping opportunities when a guy was only getting 1 wolf tag every few years?

My thoughts were based on total catches being lower and thus maybe incidentals as a percentage of total catch could rise and what that may or may not do to the population estimate model in use.

I have released a half dozen incidental otters and several of those were years I had otter tags. I caught the otters rat trapping before the otter season was open.

Bryce

Let’s put it into a real life example Brian.

Back to otter. Missouri didn’t try to lower the otter population evenly across the entire state(although total population did decrease), but instead they focused on certain areas. Sure some areas only allowed a small bag limit on otter, but guess what? Other areas allowed unlimited bag limit. Think about that for a second. A specie that is so easy to overharvest, yet they could have an unlimited bag limit in areas on otter. Why? Because they understood their trend data and took that data knowledge to some of the best otter habitat.

Habitat, Habitat, Habitat. Otter reproduce well and survive when they have the habitat. They tried to go down in population in an area with the best habitat and thus ended up with an unlimited bag limit. How’s that for opportunity? Now let’s apply to wolves.

I think you are seeing some of this in our wolf data. We harvest 150 wolves and population grows 13%, but harvest none and population only grows 16%. Now take zone 6. We harvested 70-80% of midpoint population count and the following year were able to harvest over 100% of midpoint count. We were applying more and more pressure to get our trend data in line. Zone 6 will create a lot of trapping opportunity for those that want to put in the time. Now you only magnify that opportunity when you shift that same philosophy into richer wolf habitat/density. See example above for otter. They were trying to reduce population in very rich otter habitat. The only way you can do this is if you have better and more precise measurements as you try to reduce density.

Now to really see the opportunity, we will need to overcome “the quality of experience” that 49er loves to talk about. Our trappers/other user groups will complain about crowded public ground if we do not get this aligned ahead of time. Work together on a zone to improve habitat and we will have fostered that relationship with other major stakeholders. Over time, you will show them how habitat projects improve social carrying capacity of wolves. If more grouse, woodcock, rabbits, beaver, elk, deer are around, they have no problem with a few more wolves eating a few. They have no problem with balance which our wolf population severely lacks now. More importantly, this will force counties outside of our priority area to work to identify places they can improve habitat for those other species.

Now, will we see unlimited harvest on wolves? Probably not, but we will see far greater opportunity than if we force the state to get to 350 wolves based on their current understanding of wolves in WI.

Interesting stuff here guys. In AB we have an unlimited harvest, both by hunters and trappers. The wolf population has never stopped growing in numbers from what I have experienced. When an area gets trapped heavy, or hunted heavy, the wolves move in from other areas. If there is food, there will be wolves (just like the Otter). Trick is to keep the pack numbers as small as possible. Easier said than done...there has been no answer here. I have seen a pack of 20+ wolves it a frozen 2 year old steer in 7 days. Imagine how many Deer, Moose, Beaver, Rabbit, Grouse, etc it would take to feed that pack in a year! In my experience Biologists have a way of making the numbers work in favor of their personal agendas.

Spruce

I agree with you Justin on getting more trend data & working towy quotas on that. But I don't believe the DNR will increase those quotas in relation to that data. Their hands are tied with big city bunny huggers in Madison & Milwaukee. So those populations will continue to increase as long as thy prey species are present.

Maybe more/smaller zones would help? IDK?

You don't think they have bunny huggers in St Louis, KC, Springfield that requested a seat at the table Brian?

What scares me Brian is I think too many forget how wolves is set up. The DNR lacks as much clout on wolves as they do on otter, fisher, etc. Remember, our legislation set up their committee outside of the traditional DNR Furbearer Advisory Committee. They have a separate wolf committee. How many seats do the bunny huggers have on that committee?

I truly believe that committee will apply as much as they understand, thus my focus on getting guys focused on the science. What would really help is taking a zone in the middle of the best habitat and giving them a reason to lower. Apply pressure. I am convince it will react different than zone 6. The problem is that we will only have zone 6 data, unless we are able to find a way to carve out another zone in the heart of wolf country that we can pressure first.

Unless you do, I am convinced we will be told a story similar to the one told to us on otter. We had a 35% decrease so now we need to severely limit permits. Or worse yet, we will actually fall below critical mass by trying to reach 350 wolves that we will struggle to maintain a marginal/limited harvest. Probably not likely as we would lose another lawsuit long before that happened.

Bryce, Here is the incidentals over the last few years for otter. This is the information I was looking at. I will add some color when I have a little time, but how do you interpret that with the understanding that our goal is to use legal harvest to minimize incidentals.