I quit land trapping a few years ago. Caught and released 5 in ten days. The sixth one pulled out. When a bunch of them come up on a set I think its a race to who can get there first.

Midlander, I agree with you to a certain extent on the cable restraints. As a commercial fur harvester and a former commercial wildlife management specialist, cable restraints are useless - especially with MI's cable restraint specifications. As a commercial fur harvester producing a product for the global fur industry I want that animal dead as quickly as possible so the fur is damaged as little as possible. As a commercial wildlife management specialist that is hired by a landowner to stop depredation by predators I want that animal dead as quickly as possible to prevent a possible chew out. With MI's cable restraint specifications they are at the very best 60% efficient for coyotes - and that is a stretch. Useless for red fox.

Snares are very valuable, efficient, and humane tool if used correctly by people that have been trained to use them for coyote, fox, beaver, mink, bobcat, raccoon, skunk, etc., etc..when used on private property.

I applaud Senator Johnsons efforts, but, would be curious to what extent his bill defines "Delisting". There are different classes of delisting, some coming with federal strings and some coming with a pot of money awarded to the states for managing species on the ESL. That pot of money can be withheld/ withdrawn at some point if the feds have strings attached. If the wolf was no longer on the ESL, the states with wolves in numbers would be required to manage them by default. As long as the federal strings are attached, the management will blow with the political wind. As long as management comes with a pot of money, the states DNR's are still pushed by that political wind.

100% correct.
Thompson Snares and myself, were asked to do demonstrations at one of the BMP get togethers, in one of those "jurisdictions". When it came time for the snaring/ cable restraint demos, the district supervisor warden and all but one warden got up and left the room, followed by one of their junior biologists! Turns out the supervisor and their state rep were in bed with the hound association and weren't interested in any form of snaring.

The bill H.R. 845 was introduced by Tom Tiffany (our future governor) and passed in the house in December. This article provides some details:
https://www.badgerinstitute.org/us-house-defangs-federal-protection-of-gray-wolves-in-wisconsin/

Here is the one summary:

Introduced in House (01/31/2025)

Pet and Livestock Protection Act of 2025

This bill directs the Department of the Interior to remove protections for the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Specifically, the bill requires Interior to reissue the final rule titled Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and published on November 3, 2020.

The rule removed the gray wolf in the lower 48 United States, except for the Mexican wolf (C. l. baileyi) subspecies, from the endangered and threatened species list. However, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California vacated the rule on February 10, 2022. As a result, the gray wolf reattained the protection status it had prior to the rule's promulgation.

The bill also prohibits the reissuance of the rule from being subject to judicial review.

I think the "Pet and Livestock Protection Act" was a smart choice when naming the bill.

So California put a halt to it? I don’t get it.
When they say the lower 48, don’t they mean the lower 45? Why is Wyoming, Idaho & Montana different than the other states with wolves?
I guess this question could’ve easily been answered last weekend.

The wolves in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are part of the Rocky Mountain wolf population (has a different official name I don't remember right now) which are not on the Endangered Species list. That's why they are different. For that matter, Oregon, Washington, California, etc. are part of that population also. But they are on the fringes, either don't meet the minimum population numbers for their states and/or their state government won't fight the Federal Government for control of the wolves in their states.

I'm not sure if Colorado is considered part of the Rocky Mountain population or not, since they transplanted wolves themselves, and it is deemed an experimental population. Yet they can interbreed with wolves dispersing from Wyoming.

As for when they say the "lower 48" that would include the three states mentioned that already manage their own wolves. Which means that if it was to pass, they would have to rescind two rulings in order to stop wolf management in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana. Both the proposed "lower 48" ruling and the one they are currently managing under that just concerns Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.

Confused yet?

Pretty crazy stuff all just for a Grey wolf…….lol.
Good to have a group like F4WM out there.

Shoot, Shovel and shut up is still a BMP, IMHO.

Sad that it has to come to that when states don’t properly manage their natural resources.

Just a different species of coyotes Large Grey = Coyote major smaller brown = Coyote minor. One gets hauled out the the woods to be skinned and fur goes to market the other feeds the worms

Wolves got a miniature horse and a calf a couple nights ago in Northern Douglas County

Does the state pay or compensate the owner of the dog or calf that got killed if it is determined a wolf kill?

Yes if it’s confirmed

This fine young Lady will be hopefully helping get wolf management over to the State come November

Looks like the Department of No Results is running out of money, and we can add at least one bear hound, one miniature horse and one calf to the list since this article came out.

Who’s that?

Angie Sapik, a state senate candidate

unfortunately she lost last night