I didn't see any, but in fairness to MN biologists, I think the committee picked who was invited to speak to the bill. I did see a legislator from MN make an appearance.

Boy there was lots of form comments. I wish the department would release those in a format that allowed you to remove duplicates! It is not a majority type of thing where you get extra credit for repeating something over and over again.

That said, I did see a nice article highlighting the hearing on the Trust the Science legislation that was introduced at the federal level. https://doorcountypulse.com/wild-things-scientist-says-wolves-have-recovered/

Speaking of MN, it looks like legislators want to ban a season in the state. Wonder if biologist will testify at that hearing?

https://sportsmensalliance.org/news/minnesota-forever-ban-on-wolf-season-action-needed/

I see the Wisconsin DNR posted all the public comments for the wolf management plan. I don't recall the DNR ever posting all the comments from any public comment session before. Hopefully none of the people that made comments get harassed by the antti's.

It'll be interesting to see if the DNR changes anything in their plan based on public comments before they submit it to the Natural Resources Board

Don't hold your breath.I believe Wi.DNR went woke a long time ago.

I'm not optomistic about this working out favorably.

Population limit doesn't mean a thing, based on the way they count population.

A number has finally appeared and I am sure it is a questionable number for all involved, but dealing with a number is still far better than not having something to focus on and manage toward or from.
I am one that is not nearly as concerned about a number persue as I am about how will the management plan develop to make that number whatever the final number goal will be sustainable.
We need to have a 5 years to a decade of seasons where the harvested animals are sexed, aged and where they were harvested. Building some data from harvest numbers will be very informative.
If the 1,000 number or goal is the final for the near future there will be considerable human, livestock and wolf interaction than there would have been with 350 or some other number. We do have the available resources in trained and trainable WTA members or other trappers that are trained to be able to react quickly and effectively to those interactions when needed. To me if that is supervised or over seen by the Fish and Wildlife and the DNR that is fine by me. We need to be proactive and not reactive when it comes to wolf management. When the population goal is raised we need to respond accordingly with resorces to meet the increased interactions.
Wisconsin is a very diverse and productive habitat for wolves and other animals and we already know that keeping the number at 350 or lower was impossible so we need to accept the fact that we need to be ready for the actions through harvest seasons and depredation activities and in my opinion lethal dispatch for those problemactic wolves. If we manage and keep depredation in check with higher numbers we will still have more wolves on the landscape than originally planned and therefore needed harvest is not creating endangerment.

Bryce

Once the population goal is achieved, say 1000, the population will never change and therefore neither will consumptive use. The population should be managed by the citizens of Wis. not the state, or a few select trappers. Just ask Minn. how it's working out for them.

Your'e correct they wanted MN to have 1800 wolves for a ten year period and everything would be good,NOT!!!!!!!! Our governor and L governor will never let there be a season on them here in MN no matter what the population is.It's really a shame that the government has so much control and the metro deicides what's best for our state even though they live in a concrete jungle.

I think the goal of 350 was good. 1k is way too many.

https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jsonline.com%2Fstory%2Fsports%2Fcolumnists%2Fpaul-smith%2F2023%2F08%2F10%2Fdnr-working-to-update-wisconsin-wolf-hunting-and-trapping-rules%2F70557477007%2F

https://www.jsonline.com/restricted/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jsonline.com%2Fstory%2Fsports%2Fcolumnists%2Fpaul-smith%2F2023%2F08%2F10%2Fdnr-working-to-update-wisconsin-wolf-hunting-and-trapping-rules%2F70557477007%2F

I'm not sure if either of these links work but I'm trying to post the interesting article from yesterday's newspaper

Is this what you were looking to post?

Wisconsin wolf quota for 2023

Wisconsin Natural Resources board overrules DNR to set a wolf kill quota at 300 for fall season.

No, the article I was talking about was from this month.

You realize that article is dated 2021?

Get your comments in by 9/15/23:

https://www.news8000.com/news/top-s...f988b0a-3d51-11ee-b6ba-b39db03e17e4.html

Rick and others have probably mentioned it, in the case of Minnesota with two blue areas controlling all the Wolf population is the means to an end.
In 20 years most hunting seasons here will be gone. The wolves have taken such a toll on the ungulates the availability and interest in those seasons are on the wane and the deer season is the biggy here. Once the deer season is gone, the other seasons will follow into history.

Expect no help from our DNR anymore, the CO’s are only interested in hanging out at the boat landings and on the water tagging fisherman for one infraction or another. Wildlife management/enforcement seems to be becoming a pleasant warm weather sport.

Good luck to you Wisconsin folks. We in Minnesota have seen what an apex predator population brought back into a contained environment and left unchecked can accomplished. 300-350? Your not even thinning out the number of “sick and weak” wolves.
Then again, it’s not really about the wolves.

Osky