Thanks Tiguy, that’s good to know and worth considering,
It’s a shame they aren’t managed properly, could be a big moneymaker for the State, a good opportunity for sportsmen, and there could be decent deer hunting again up north,

Simple math suggests that if you remove 130, the population would decline by that number. But, that does not account for compensatory survival of other wolves that would have died had these 130 survived. Given natural mortality and reproductive rates you have to remove a relatively large portion of the population annually to actually make much of a difference.

Minnesota did a couple of similar token seasons a few years back, where they allowed about 400 wolves. Everybody felt better to finally have a season, but it had little effect on the wolf population.

Walleye101-

Doubtful taking 130 out makes much impact on how many others survive. Certainly not 1 for 1. But at least short term some deer are saved, and any harvest is a step in the right direction.

You started with “Having some sort of a harvest season is considerably better”. I couldn’t agree more that more harvest is needed.

I bet you are a Vikings fan too. (Sorry bud, couldn’t resist)

Nothing personal, and you make many good points. I am just saying it is not true that most such biologists are fools. No worries. Thanks for your passion on such topics. I get frustrated too, particularly with the political aspect of conservation issues.

The more seasons we have where we reach the quota rapidly and the seasons run only a short time, then the data collected will even better any population estimate that is currently being used or floated around. The more years of data the more likely there will be changes in season structure, quota etc. as the data from the harvested wolves increases. Sure it is far slower then many want but then having several seasons in a row to me is better then having a quick kill every decade or so. The debate as to wolf numbers will never be agreed upon or resolved, I am just hoping we can keep a harvest season going. It would be good to have seasons that last more then a few days so harvesters could learn more about the wolves over a longer period of time.

On another note I wish we were not getting so far out of joint with this issue that other management concerns and issues for other species are impacted as well. There are just shy of 35 million acres in WI. If there are roughly 15 million of those acres north of a line from say Hudson to Marinette and lets just say we have 2,000 wolves out there. So we have a wolf every 7500 acres or one wolf for every 12 square miles. I hope we don't expend the bulk of our conservation political capital on an animal that less then .1 percent of our hunters or trappers will ever got a chance to harvest.

Bryce

I hope you don’t really believe there’s only 2,000 wolves north of that line. It’s far more than that. And that, my friends, is the crux of the problem.

OK go ahead and double it you still only have one per 3,750 acres or 6 per township. Yes that is more than any of us want but lets keep wolves in perspective with all the other seasons, species etc. that we want to utilze.

Bryce

That may be an overgeneralization though, many of those acres in your example are unsuitable wolf habitat. The main problem is the forested areas in the northern third of the state. The problem there is real even if it doesn’t impact you directly. And it is affecting other populations that we want to utilize, deer and coyotes specifically. Not to mention livestock and hunting dog depredation. In general we are on the same page, but please don’t marginalize the impact on areas most affected. I’d wager that Price and Sawyer counties alone have well over 2,000 wolves. This is based on observations, trail cams, and incidental catches.

We can all agree on this: there are too many wolves in Wi.

Average Joe, do you truly believe two, granted relatively large, counties have "well over" double the state's estimated total population? Must be one behind every tree! So much for them being territorial, huh? Maybe they ate so many deer they're starting to acquire their herd mentality.

Take out a dominant male and it may actually be better than 1 for 1, but never mind.

I'll take that bet,
Price and Sawyer county=2511 square miles.
That comes out to a wolf for every 1.25 square miles or 800 acres.
Average pack size of 4-8 wolves, lets use 8 the largest of averages
pack territory covers 20-120 sq miles, averages 50-60 miles Lest use the smaller of the average so 50

2511/50 square miles = 50 packs 50 packs times a high average of 8 = 400 long way from over 2000

Gotta decrease territory to 20 square miles (min. for WI) as average and increase pack size to pack size (2x WI Average) to 16 to get 2000.

Of course I'm sure cause I got the pack size and territory from WDNR You'll argue they don't know nothing and the numbers are fubar.

I don't know, those biologist who have spent countless thousands of hours studying wolves don't know as much as one dude who has looked at a bunch of trail cams, had a bunch of incidental catches and has seen lots of wolves in the last 10 years or more is a hard pill for me to swallow..
There are no doubt some baffoons in the DNR but to suggest that years of scientific studies by dozens of different biologists are all totally wrong and useless is pure hubris.

That is how a wildlife biologist reasons. In the real world the wolves are not equally distributed 1 per 3750 acres. They are distributed in packs that use up an area of game and move to the next area.

Ok, my number is probably high but closer to correct than DNR’s. The point being there’s far, far more in the heavily wooded northern counties than the WDNR claims. Yes, I do believe their numbers are skewed low by using low end numbers in their models. And the big woods makes counting them difficult at best. Tagging and tracking a few of them does nothing for knowing number in a pack or number of packs.
The impact on the deer and tourism related to deer hunting is real in those areas. If numbers were where DNR says they are then that wouldn’t be the case.

Do you truly believe that the population is as low as the DNR says and that in the last season such a high percentage of the total population was killed in such a short time?

Well that’s the best news I’ve heard all day, if it’s true.

It sounds like a high portion taken in the Feb hunt were not dominant males.

I suspect hounds have a hard time with the dominant males, and they are smarter thus harder to trap or call in.

I think the effects of wolves on deer populations are magnified in areas where deer yard in the winter. I don’t know how accurate the numbers are in the up of Michigan, nor do I know how political the dnr biologists are being, but I do know that the since the wolves showed up the deer numbers are a fraction of what they were in the early 90’s. The population cycle seems to be a few deer some years and almost none in others. Areas where the deer don’t go to yards to winter seem to have less of an issue when I talk to friends who hunt those areas. All purely anecdotal…..

One more anecdotal point.
The reintroduced elk population has been slow to grow and even the DNR (on their elk webpage) admit to wolf depredation as a factor.
So here we are on one hand trying to grow a population of one critter that is adversely affecting the other critter we are trying to grow. If the wolf population was reasonable then the elk herd might sustain itself. Additional elk were even brought in not to long ago to try to boost the population. Lot’s of money spent with very little return. I’d love to be a fly on the wall when the wolf biologists discuss this with the elk biologists behind closed doors. I believe we can and should have both animals in the state, but there’s mismanagement going on. I know I’m mostly preaching to the choir on this, but it seems there’s at least a few on here who don’t understand the extent of the concerns in certain areas, hopefully this back-and-forth provides some enlightenment and we can all pull in the same direction.

Ok, now I’m getting off of this topic. Next we can discuss something less controversial than Wisconsin wolves - maybe Immigration or vaccine mandates? Just kidding of course...

Average Joe - over and out.

WI DNR says that the number is a Min. SO in essence they are saying we have 1037 as a min, we know we have more but not sure of an exact number.
What's important is not the real number but the population trend. If the wolf Population is estimated using the same process than the result will give you a relative number to the last time you counted using the same method.
The DNR admits they don't know exactly how many wolves are in the state. Its an impossible number to determine. They are giving an minimum number. A rough estimate that is relative to past estimates.
So you can see the trend is up and is as high as its ever been. I think we'll agree on that.

That point aside I think another point that a lot of Hunters/trapper/fisherman assume is that the DNR is working to improve their sports/hobbies. This is just not so. As a whole they are looking at managing all natural resources in the state. That includes game animals, endangered animals, plants, water quality among a host of other things.

In the end, and this is just my .02, I don't think the the DNR is concerned about wolves reducing the deer herd, in fact I think they are OK with it. I think the DNR would be OK with wolves expanding their range in the state. Dealing with livestock depredation is just part of having wolves. They really don't care about a bunch of dead livestock. They deal with cause they have to. As far as dead hounds, They care even less. I'll bet that the DNR overall and especially the top officials are happy and proud that there are wolves in WI and they are OK if there were more.

So what I'm saying is don't get obsessed on how many, just know its up and as high as its ever been. The DNR will agree with this. They are OK with it and I think they are Ok if the numbers continue up. That will only change if there is enough public pressure put on elected officials (Governor for one). A bunch of upset deer hunters, a few dead hounds and a bunch of dead livestock ain't gonna matter. There are lots of advocates for the wolves and they are noisier and better organized and they are seen as political allies not adversaries..

Living in Taylor county I have more wolves on camera the past five years than mature bucks. My family and I own over 1000 acres in price county and have seen a steady decline in deer for the past 20 years due in large part to the number of wolves in the area. On average I get 20-30 wolf pictures on the cameras every year so I know the DNR estimate is way off. Oh and they also say there are no mountain lions here either but I have pictures of them also. Hey and btw watch out for the 5x5 bull elk heading SE it is covering a lot of miles this past week. 2 pictures of him 6 miles apart on the same day in Gleason