Calling Langlade county a northern county is generous. The southern half is ag land with a high deer density and will be split into central farmland zone in the next year. The northern half is a deer wasteland. I think we've had 5 different deer on camera all summer in NW langlade county.

No wolves either though, nothing for them to eat.

I saw a study last week that had collars on wolves in various packs in northern MN and showed how the packs mostly avoided each other. If I remember right, they showed 16 different packs across the northern 1/2 to 1/3 of MN and said the average pack size was 4-5. They did say lone wolves and pairs of wolves were part of the mix, but hard to believe there are less than 100 wolves in northern MN. That's almost impossible to believe.

Good comments tlguy. This is in the south west part of the county so does that mean likely has a higher deer density than 30?

Let's dig a little deeper into it. The picture I posted showed 10 wolves. 10 wolves is 1% of the entire population in the state according to the DNR. Hard to believe, but let's dig into it. Now that area falls into zone 4. Here is the population estimate that comes from the DNR for that zone - 61. The 95% confidence interval shows a lower limit of 43 and a higher limit of 89. I think we can agree that 43 is laughable.

10 out of 61 is over 16%. We capture in one photo over 16% of the entire zone's population in one picture. Zone 4 has over 2,200 sq miles of deer habitat. If the average pack was 50 sq miles, that means I can fit in 44 packs? Even if I use the higher limit, that is over 10% of the population in one picture. Does that really add up?

Are we assuming those are all adults? 5 adults and 5 YOY pups? There is considerable pup mortality and if I remember right the counts are done in winter when 2, 3, maybe 4 of those pups aren't walking the landscape anymore.

As stated southern Langlade CO is not northern forest, so 30 deer per square mile would be anticipated, if not even more. We hunted Taylor CO from the late 80s until 3 years ago. We did not quit due to lower deer numbers our daughter-in-laws B-Day is November 20th and we decided to hunt Taylor CO the last weekend We always hunted in the national forest. Taylor is like Langlade, very good deer habitat and numbers in the southern ag portion and much lower numbers in the north. We always dealt with large groups of hunters from the private land to the south coming the forest to shoot their anterless deer. We are seeing some herd increases with some of the changes even with the predator load we have with the 4 main species.

Bryce

I'll save the DNR alot of money and count the wolves in the picture for them.......2. There are 2 wolves in the picture.

Maybe some of the wolf guys will chime in. I see 6 adults, 4 pups in the photo with ten, but I could see how that 5th one could be questioned.

In the picture with 8, I see 4 and 4.

You bring up some interesting questions. Sure they have a few months before survey is collected, but could we also ask, how many wolves are not in the picture because they are in the brush? Either way, picture shows us going from 8 to 10 and that is a 25% increase in one year. My first reaction is survivorship doesn't seem to be an issue. We naturally want to tie wolves leaving as mortality, but do wolves disperse out on their own at some point too? The DNR's model does a horrible job of capturing those lone wolves. What I do find interesting about the pictures is they seem to line up with some data captured on SnapShot cameras. The most likely time to capture a photo of a wolf is around 7AM. Look at the time stamp on the pictures and they are not snapshot cameras. https://widnr-snapshotwisconsin.shinyapps.io/DataDashboard/

a couple of points on the recent posts.

deer density, 30 deer/sq mile is very high, all the research I've seen puts an ideal deer density at 6-10/sq mile. Ideal means the habitat can carry that many without damage from the deer herd.

Wolf populations are conditional on food. If there is low food supplies there is more mortality. The wolves are less healthy and many young of the year don't survive. If there are no deer the wolf population will crash. When the wolf population crashes the deer population will rebound. Deer reproduce much faster than wolves do. Only one female wolf will have young in a pack per year. The litter size depends upon the health of the female, again less food less health, smaller litters. After a while higher deer population will allow for the wolves to increase in numbers. It cycles back and forth slowly. Habitat is key for a healthy deer population. Poor habitat, forests maturing, will cause a deer population to decline. Wolf population does not rely on habitat, it relies on prey populations.

Population surveys may not exact, but if they are conducted in the same manner year after year the trends they show are very reliable.


I have seen pictures from a guy in the Eagle River area that regularly has dozens of deer in his yard, yet the area he hunts, has very few deer. The deer have figured out they are safer in areas with high human populations (around towns and lake cottages) than out in the big woods with all the wolves. According to him it seems as if the wolves are starting to get more bold and also come around these areas looking for food. Unfortunately they are opportunists and will take pets if the opportunity occurs.

Wolves are not going away, they are here to stay. Until the Feds get their act together there is little the DNR can do.

I keep hearing the DNR is broke and needs us to increase our license fees to cover the shortfall. Wonder how much they spend driving around doing surveys looking for tracks? You counted two and didn’t cost the state a dime. That just so happens to be the same number they counted in 2020. That is the last year they published the report showing their work. Ironically, it also showed there was a second pack at Ackley. Hmmmm?

https://widnr.widen.net/s/mr7zlkv4bg

It’s also election season. I see one of US Senate Candidates from WI put out a YouTube video on where he stands on wolves and difference he sees between his opponents views. Anybody donate a few bucks or help register a voter or two? I was amazed how many hunters don’t vote. Encourage those to vote. Help them sign up for a ballot and beat the rush on Election Day.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AZMO6Dmg7aY

Wolves fur would make a good blanket.

Hovde is not the only candidate in the senate that seeks to delist wolves. Below is an excerpt of the bill Baldwin has put forth in the senate. She is a very liberal senator and her introducing this bill may help get the Dem support needed to move this forward.
Bryce

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) introduced the Northern Great Lakes Wolf Recovery Act, new legislation to develop a regional-specific plan based in science to delist the gray wolf population in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan's Upper Peninsula.Jun 1, 2023

Pushing a bill that doesn’t remove judicial review is pointless as it will just end back in court. Getting them delisted is the easy part and that doesn’t take an act of congress. Been done a handful of times already and we end up right back in the courts. The very fact anyone would buy her garbage on wolves makes me sick. There might be reasons to support her, but wolves is not one IMO. She used to be on the right side in the past, but has lost her way recently.

Not saying good or bad, just stating that there are bills presented and there maybe a lot of reasons they are not moving forward.

Bryce

Should we explore this a little? Have our surveys been conducted in the same manner year after year?

Good money in prime wolf pelts.

a lot of money being spent to stop or reduce wolf harvest.

Feel proud trappers! They trying to buy your vote!

If they want to buy your vote, they should support the trust the science bill and get it passed.

I would encourage you to email your senators and tell them it is time to delist wolves and eliminate judicial review. I just sent an email to my senator in Wisconsin. If you would like to send her a note, here’s the link. https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/contact/contact-tammy


I was originally excited to hear you introduced a bill to delist wolves but was quickly disappointed that your bill didn’t remove judicial review. Delisting wolves is the easy part as both Republican and Democrat administrations have gone through the motions. Unfortunately, they never stay delisted as an activist judge ignores science and the wishes of the residents of Wisconsin to put them back on the list.

While this hurts Wisconsin residents, the wolves pay an even greater price. In addition, the ESA takes a beating in the eyes of sportsmen and women. Instead of continuing in this wrong path, please join the effort to delist wolves and remove judicial review so WI can get back to rebuilding the image of wolves in the state and ensuring the money for endangered species is spent in a productive manner and on species that would benefit. I appreciate your consideration.

Please dumb this “judicial review”down for me. Does an animal have to have been on the Endangered Species List to be open for judicial review? I never understood why some non wolf population state judge could make that decision.

No one is seriously asking for Wolves to go away, just to be managed like any other big game animal with sound biological data. State DNRs like you to believe there is nothing they can do but they could be making a much stronger case for delisting if they had the will to do so. They seem quite comfortable with the "nothing we can do" mantra.