No Profanity *** No Flaming *** No Advertising *** No Anti Trappers ***NO POLITICS
No Non-Target Catches *** No Links to Anti-trapping Sites *** No Avoiding Profanity Filter


Home~Trap Talk~ADC Forum~Trap Shed~Wilderness Trapping~International Trappers~Fur Handling

Auction Forum~Trapper Tips~Links~Gallery~Basic Sets~Convention Calendar~Chat~ Trap Collecting Forum

Trapper's Humor~Strictly Trapping~Fur Buyers Directory~Mugshots~Fur Sale Directory~Wildcrafting~The Pen and Quill

Trapper's Tales~Words From The Past~Legends~Archives~Kids Forum~Lure Formulators Forum~ Fermenter's Forum


~~~ Dobbins' Products Catalog ~~~


Minnesota Trapline Products
Please support our sponsor for the Trappers Talk Page - Minnesota Trapline Products


Joe Goodman Prints
Please support Joe Goodman because he supports us with donations

Print Thread
Hop To
Page 11 of 62 1 2 9 10 11 12 13 61 62
Re: Wisconsin Wolves [Re: handitrapper] #5564552
06/27/16 09:49 PM
06/27/16 09:49 PM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,573
Oregon
A
alaska viking Offline
"Made it two years not being censored"
alaska viking  Offline
"Made it two years not being censored"
A

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,573
Oregon
Well, with the dismal price of otter, I would expect "nature" to take it's course.


Just doing what I want now.

Re: Wisconsin Wolves [Re: handitrapper] #5564774
06/28/16 08:33 AM
06/28/16 08:33 AM
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,933
WI
WIMarshRAT Offline
trapper
WIMarshRAT  Offline
trapper

Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,933
WI
Originally Posted By: *AceTrapper*
Isn't the title of this post "WI Wolves"? Seems it's getting a little of track. Not that what y'all are discussing is a bad thing mind you, went from wolves to otter to marten.

Carty on Wolfers.


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.

Re: Wisconsin Wolves [Re: handitrapper] #5564780
06/28/16 08:35 AM
06/28/16 08:35 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,808
WI
H
handitrapper Offline OP
trapper
handitrapper  Offline OP
trapper
H

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,808
WI
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.

Re: Wisconsin Wolves [Re: handitrapper] #5564784
06/28/16 08:42 AM
06/28/16 08:42 AM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 11,022
MN
S
Steven 49er Offline
trapper
Steven 49er  Offline
trapper
S

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 11,022
MN
Do you honestly think your otter population declined 35 percent?


"Gold is money, everything else is just credit" JP Morgan
Re: Wisconsin Wolves [Re: handitrapper] #5564802
06/28/16 09:17 AM
06/28/16 09:17 AM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 47,369
james bay frontierOnt.
B
Boco Offline
trapper
Boco  Offline
trapper
B

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 47,369
james bay frontierOnt.
Wolf pups don't disperse.


Forget that fear of gravity-get a little savagery in your life.
Re: Wisconsin Wolves [Re: handitrapper] #5564804
06/28/16 09:22 AM
06/28/16 09:22 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,808
WI
H
handitrapper Offline OP
trapper
handitrapper  Offline OP
trapper
H

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,808
WI
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.

Re: Wisconsin Wolves [Re: handitrapper] #5564811
06/28/16 09:39 AM
06/28/16 09:39 AM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 11,022
MN
S
Steven 49er Offline
trapper
Steven 49er  Offline
trapper
S

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 11,022
MN
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.


"Gold is money, everything else is just credit" JP Morgan
Re: Wisconsin Wolves [Re: handitrapper] #5564820
06/28/16 09:49 AM
06/28/16 09:49 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,808
WI
H
handitrapper Offline OP
trapper
handitrapper  Offline OP
trapper
H

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,808
WI
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 $$$$.

Re: Wisconsin Wolves [Re: handitrapper] #5564836
06/28/16 10:08 AM
06/28/16 10:08 AM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 11,022
MN
S
Steven 49er Offline
trapper
Steven 49er  Offline
trapper
S

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 11,022
MN
It's the bureaucratic beast in action. It's more about job creation and retention.


"Gold is money, everything else is just credit" JP Morgan
Re: Wisconsin Wolves [Re: handitrapper] #5564849
06/28/16 10:39 AM
06/28/16 10:39 AM
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 35,748
McGrath, AK
W
white17 Offline

"General (Mr.Sunshine) Washington"
white17  Offline

"General (Mr.Sunshine) Washington"
W

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 35,748
McGrath, AK
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 !


Mean As Nails
Re: Wisconsin Wolves [Re: handitrapper] #5564872
06/28/16 11:30 AM
06/28/16 11:30 AM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,255
backwoods N. Wi.
Fox Claw Offline
trapper
Fox Claw  Offline
trapper

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,255
backwoods N. Wi.
Originally Posted By: handitrapper
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 $$$$.


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.

Re: Wisconsin Wolves [Re: handitrapper] #5564954
06/28/16 01:36 PM
06/28/16 01:36 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,808
WI
H
handitrapper Offline OP
trapper
handitrapper  Offline OP
trapper
H

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,808
WI
One would think so. But there pretty good at getting what they want, no matter the public input

Re: Wisconsin Wolves [Re: handitrapper] #5564979
06/28/16 02:05 PM
06/28/16 02:05 PM
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,933
WI
WIMarshRAT Offline
trapper
WIMarshRAT  Offline
trapper

Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,933
WI
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


Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass...it's about learning to dance in the rain!
Re: Wisconsin Wolves [Re: handitrapper] #5564998
06/28/16 02:37 PM
06/28/16 02:37 PM
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,933
WI
WIMarshRAT Offline
trapper
WIMarshRAT  Offline
trapper

Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,933
WI
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.


Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass...it's about learning to dance in the rain!
Re: Wisconsin Wolves [Re: handitrapper] #5565014
06/28/16 03:12 PM
06/28/16 03:12 PM
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 35,748
McGrath, AK
W
white17 Offline

"General (Mr.Sunshine) Washington"
white17  Offline

"General (Mr.Sunshine) Washington"
W

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 35,748
McGrath, AK
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.


Mean As Nails
Re: Wisconsin Wolves [Re: handitrapper] #5565665
06/29/16 10:18 AM
06/29/16 10:18 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,808
WI
H
handitrapper Offline OP
trapper
handitrapper  Offline OP
trapper
H

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,808
WI
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.

Re: Wisconsin Wolves [Re: handitrapper] #5565714
06/29/16 11:21 AM
06/29/16 11:21 AM
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,933
WI
WIMarshRAT Offline
trapper
WIMarshRAT  Offline
trapper

Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,933
WI
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.


Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass...it's about learning to dance in the rain!
Re: Wisconsin Wolves [Re: handitrapper] #5565726
06/29/16 11:47 AM
06/29/16 11:47 AM
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,933
WI
WIMarshRAT Offline
trapper
WIMarshRAT  Offline
trapper

Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,933
WI
Originally Posted By: handitrapper

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.


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.

Re: Wisconsin Wolves [Re: handitrapper] #5565771
06/29/16 01:11 PM
06/29/16 01:11 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,808
WI
H
handitrapper Offline OP
trapper
handitrapper  Offline OP
trapper
H

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,808
WI
Most deer hunters idea of improved habitat, is food plots surrounded by blinds & tree stands. To much of the Outdoor Channel.

Re: Wisconsin Wolves [Re: handitrapper] #5565797
06/29/16 02:04 PM
06/29/16 02:04 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 24,302
Wisconsin
T
The Beav Offline
trapper
The Beav  Offline
trapper
T

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 24,302
Wisconsin
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.


The forum Know It All according to Muskrat
Page 11 of 62 1 2 9 10 11 12 13 61 62
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread