Remember, comments are due by 9/15.

Such a hot topic in WI..

https://www.weau.com/2023/09/21/wis...they-dont-support-wolf-population-limit/

Wolf numbers are not a statewide issue, but it is a zone issue. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon to look at a variety of statistics and trends to come to a few conclusions as to what wolf numbers are sustainible within each zone. Is 350 wolves the number, I would say not; the state has been well passed the number for years. We have zones that are approaching those numbers or above right now. But Wisconsin has a governor, state DNR management, and a Natural Resources Board that either caters to special interests (follow the money people) and/or doesn't want to fund the work needed to look at actual zone populations, analyze trends and draw conclusions.

We can only hope that the Great Lakes Wolves (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan) become separated from the all encompassing national wolf population to force these states into wolf management, where the will of the people can influence the direction of how wolves are managed by using their feet at the voting booth rather than big outsider money.

Sure Are

They're spreading more into farm country around here.

Many heavily farmed areas of WI also have lots of woodlots, sloughs, marshes etc. where animals can hide. The real issue is that in heavy farmed areas the biomass or food habitat is significantly greater than in the northern wooded areas of the state. We hope we can find a workable solution before the higher populated areas deal with resident packs, but if not then a high wolf population in higher densely populated rural areas may well lead to some more workable outcomes. With 90% of the people living where there are few to no wolves, things can change when more human interaction takes place.

Bryce

If you are waiting for a high wolf population in a higher density area, you will likely be waiting a long time. Where you have higher interaction, they tend to disappear. I think that holds for the majority of the state.

I am not waiting but it does seem to me that the new draft is heading us in that direction and as you say if that takes a long time well then we have a lot longer to go with our current status.

Bryce

4% increase over last year

https://www.jsonline.com/story/spor...-according-to-wisconsin-dnr/71205722007/

Conflict is down….wonder why? Could the incentive be any lower to report? Why call any attention when you will be forced to solve the issue on your own.

And folks wonder why department wants to collar a whole bunch of wolves now. They want to make it easier to catch those taking matters into their own hands.

Its interesting they said the number of wolves is taken at the end of the winter at its lowest point and that the population doubles when pups are born. I don't believe there is a 46% mortality rate which would be the case if there was only a 4% increase in population from last year. I don't believe any of their numbers.

Definitely not the year-to-date wolf confirmed depredation trend for 2023, It appears they track April to April.
[img]https://dnrx.wisconsin.gov/wdacp/public/depredation/2023[/img]

You ain't the Lone Ranger.

The new bread of game and fish folks are anti,s in every state.

A dead wolves are good.

It's not surprising that annual mortality is near 50%, as the population is likely functioning very close to carrying capacity for the available suitable habitat. This information can and should be used to support the pro-active management side of the debate.

From the article, "The DNR reported 32 wolf mortalities during the monitoring period; 21 (66%) wolves were killed by vehicle collisions; 8 (25%) were killed illegally; and the cause of death could not be determined for three (9%)".

That reported mortality info is pretty much useless, as it accounts for only about 3% of total mortality and is in no way representative proportionally. Obviously, it is far easier to count and report roadkills than the far more common causes of natural mortality. If the population is at carrying capacity it is logical to assume that density dependant suppression is now driving wolf mortality. The hound mortality figures, which authorities appear to regard as an acceptable consequence of wolf management, provide some insight as to the fate of around 1000 wolves each year. No doubt territorial disputes among packs, young wolves being killed by dominant wolves within packs, and young wolves forced to leave and seeking new habitat only to wander into an existing pack, all meet the same fate as those unfortunate hounds.

Sound biological science suggests that a population fluctuating at or near carrying capacity, with this level of annual natural mortality has an abundance of harvestable surplus that is not being utilized. Even social feel-good arguements advocating animal welfare would be hard pressed to consider the leading causes of natural mortality to be more humane than regulated hunting and trapping of surplus animals.

All wolves are surplus. There was a reason they came up missing on the Prarie.

That big black wolf was shot on the Diamond G Ranch just was of Dubois, WY after chasing livestock. I think the pair was taken on the ranch by FW&P.

Now the state senate is digging in:

https://apnews.com/article/wolf-hunt-wisconsin-ed99bc6eca181e0e383313a378ca0935