Wisconsin Wolves

The Wisconsin DNR estimates that the states wolf population has increased by 16% over last year. Most are grouped in 222 packs. Huh? I wonder how that happened?

Lets relocate a couple packs to the Wiley Street neighborhood in Madison so the anti's there can live with them.

Times the estimate by 2 and then add 100 and you may be close to the actual total IMO!

chris

In central u.p the wolf population is way down it seems.they ate everything and left honestly...they must of went your way

I don't disagree with you one bit on that Hodag

I heard on the radio it is the largest numbers ever recorded.

Is there a wolf population in southern wi

No, absolutely no live wolves down here .

Dead wolves are pertty ....nice mounts

Great mounts

not yet, will not be surprised when it happens

Below is the data that Brian is referencing.

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Wildlifehabitat/wolf/documents/2015OverWinterWolfEst.pdf

Below is the map of detection the previous year.

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Wildlifehabitat/wolf/documents/DetectedPacks14_15.pdf

And some data on how they get to the number they come up with:
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Wildlifehabitat/wolf/documents/PostDelistMonitor2015.pdf

Just thought of wolves makes my blood boil. Starting to become more frequent in Michigan NLP. The only good wolf is a dead wolf. Can't count on anything smart or sane from a government agency. Boots on the ground, fix the problem yourself.

The new minimum over winter counts for 2015/2016 according to the WDNR are, 838-869 wolves in 222 packs,and 28 loners for a total of 866-897 wolves in WI. out side of reservations.

I did the math that WI population will eat 18400 lbs of meat one day if every adult wolf ate his 22 lbs of meat daily ,wow lotsa animals getting ate.

Depends on what you consider S. WI. I know they're in Adams County, which I consider S. WI.

There have been documented wolf sightings In Dane county.

Some years back one was hit by a car on I-94 in Jefferson County.

The coyote hunters shot one less than 3 miles from my house about 8 yrs ago. That's in Rock Co. It was a juvenile male.

My wife took some pics last year of one in northern Manitowoc County. Didn't believe her until she showed me, and about an hour later a buddy down the road called. It ran across his back 40 in the same area. Found the tracks, bigger than my fist.

I live in a small town just north of the Spring Green area and last summer/early fall my neighbor had a wolf pacing his retaining wall looking at his dog.
Banging a shovel spoked it away.

That same spring the other neighbor was feeding a black bear on the edge of town.

In that second document that I posted, they list a known wolf pack located in sw Wisconsin(Crawford County).

What I find interesting, is with no harvest, population grew 16%, but when we harvested 150 the population grew by 13%. Wonder where they are all going?

You cheese hat guys just don't understand the problem! What you REALLY need to do is come and get Minnesota wolves. Lots an lots of Minnesota Wolves so they overtake your wolves. Take extras to be sure.
You see Minnesota wolves only eat mice and rabbits and animals that are sick or wounded and won't live anyway. Just ask our DNR guys and democrat legislators, animal experts all. In fact I bet the Minnesota wolves will hold classes for the Wisconsin wolves that stick around to properly teach them what to eat.
Problem solved. Anything else we can help you with?
Osky

Interesting study done on leading causes of mortality in deer based on region and age.

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/research/whitetaileddeer.html

Do your bears and bobcat only eat sick and wounded mice and rabbits too? If so we might need to replace them as well.

Could be natural causes killing a lot of them but also consider that this last year, they were growing from a smaller baseline, because you had harvested 150 the previous year.

This last year we were growing from a bigger baseline as our season was shut down. So our last year that we had a season, we grew at 13% even after harvesting 150 wolves. Now this year, we harvest none, and our population only grew 16%. 150 on 750 would be 20%. It would appear somewhere we have a little overhead.

So thats where all the road kill went!

I quit putting in for for a tag or a point long ago. The whole wolf thing is screwed up on so many levels where does one start? The season is so early that they aren't primed up yet. Who wants an unprime scraggly lookin wolf mount? That's why I went to BC for mine.

I misunderstood your timeline.

Regardless, they will respond to the available prey just like any other species. Compensatory reproduction. Somehow they know what the prey base will support and usually adjust their numbers to maximize efficiency for their own population.

If you were to use those numbers (866-897) less the 28 individuals. That would make those 222 est. packs @ 3.84 wolves per pack. I say that's BS. I had trailcam pics last year on bear baits in Forest Co. with as many as 7 in one single pic. Do multiple packs run together? Or are they not territorial?

Were those spring bearbaits or fall?

Also note that 30 % of areas were not surveyed so count is flawed......

Boco, Those are fall baits. Sept. We don't have a spring season in Wi.

I just asked because you could see a pack of 7 or so wolves in the fall,but the carrying capacity is set in late winter so all those likely would not survive the year.Nature always provides an excess in spring than the land can carry come late winter.2 or 3 of the weaker ones would starve or wind up as wolf food.(or get harvested by a trapper)

I doubt an 80 lbs. wolf is eating 22 lbs. per day of meat. It would be much closer to 2.2 lbs. of meat per day than 22. If there are say 800 wolves in WI about March 1st estimate of the lowest numbers for the year) then having double to 2.5 times that many in May would be pretty normal. As to starvation losses in winter, here in WI there is less starvation loss as there is more prey to eat than in some of the more northern boreal forest areas with fewer species and more snow longer in the year. Even with the pack and rendezvous area the survival rate for wolf pups is quite low and that helps keep populations at lower densities from a natural aspect. Carrying capacity for large predators in WI is much higher than the acceptable social carrying capacity and that is really what the debates are really about. Where to allow wolves and how many. Being as territorial as they are and mobile their ranges can expand rapidly and it is the natural way for territorial species.

Bryce

True. We currently don't have a wolf season, thanks to some wonderful judge in Washington. If any were incidentals by trappers, they would've more than likely been due to illegally placed cable restraints. Or hunters with the SSS mentality. And I'm sure there plenty of those occurrences.

There was a good article in the FHA magazine a few years ago that pointed out that trappers in the fall and winter can take about a third of the wolves in a given area(in this case,algonquin park)without affecting the population at all due to the natural mortality of pups each winter.However once they went above that number,the wolves became less and less each year,and took quite a few years of not culling any to get back to the carrying capacity.
The article was called the great wolfian bathtub riddle,which compared the land to a bathtub filled with water each year,with small holes drilled into it down to the 1/3 mark,with the water slowly leaking down every time the tub was filled.This is analogous to the point in late winter when carrying capacity is set.You can scoop out as much or as little water as you want down to the bottom of the holes,and it will not affect the outcome at all.Once you scoop down below the holes however,the added water each year will not be as much and the carrying capacity will outstrip recruitment,leading to a slow decline in the population.

Good info I'm sure. But I don't see that pertaining to wolf populations in Wisconsin though. When we did have a harvest season for a few years, tags were issued on a preference point system with zones controlled under a quota system. So for us, they aren't as much of a furbearer as they are of "trophy" status. With luck of drawing a harvest tag every few years & some zones closing in as little as 3 days due to quotas being reached. It's almost a joke

yep...lots of profit for the DNR also....can't forget that part

They are territorial but..........in some instances two or more smaller packs may team up on larger prey. The more likely scenario is that with a large food source such as a bait station there is little competition for food so the territorial instinct goes out the window.

I read someplace, not sure where. That our DNR classifies a breeding pair as a pack. Not sure how much truth there is to that. But I wouldn't doubt it.

Well that makes sense. Others can temporarily join that pair and then leave after a short time

And then there is the Denali pack, and, well, you know...................

:-)) Smoke a pack a day !!

I cut wolf tracks on a daily basis in the winter and it is rare that I can pick out more than 4 animals in each pack. I think the 3.84 average is a very good one.

Clark

I would agree with you Clark. Considering that a "pack" can be 2 animals and we are dealing with averages.

Had three cross the road in front of my truck in Jackson County two years ago. You don't realize how big they really are till you see them in the wild. I've heard they(WDNR) had moved or killed off the pack there. I don't know if that true or not. But I hope so.

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/surveyblocks.html

With all the guys that complain about the DNR not having a good count on wolves, how does this happen?

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/volunteer.html


They also asked for trappers help in getting wolves collared.

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/trap/documents/wolfcollaring.pdf

Guessing some areas are needed more than others. Maybe time to find out where?

Wolves are foreign to me, but have always intrigued me. Is there anywhere in the lower 48 where you can legally trap/hunt? I've always considered trying to get one.

Handi the average pack size in the state is 3 dog. I think that you are correct in the bredding pair claed as a pack. I know that is a few areas in the northern forests and douglas county have some bigger packs. I heard one south of Ashland was 12 strong.

Not sure about NR trapping, but I know some states in lower 48 still have a season Murse. WI allowed NR when our season was open.

Back to this Wisconsin data. Everything is set on this goal of 350 wolves in the state. Is that really the right number? I mean, after all, we have been severely underestimating the number of wolves on the landscape. We likely had way more than 350 with minimal issues and they were far less distributed back then. Keeping a little higher population has some significant advantages. Where have I gone wrong?

From what I was told. The goal of 350 wolves was set for a minimum. There was no maximum amount. So there could potentially be a thousand plus. And that is a number that I feel is more realistic as to where we currently are.

Let's start from here and work our way out...
http://www.co.marathon.wi.us/Portals/0/D...1007_Packet.pdf

There is an organization in Idaho that will pay you 500 dollars towards expenses that are incurred for every wolf that is shot or trapped. Wolves shot during big game season don't count because they figure you will shoot them anyway.

A wolf tag is only $30, I think you can get 5 tags a year. Hunting license is $150 or so.

You have take a wolf trapping course and a nr trapping license I believe is $350.

That's too much info to read. If the goal is or was 350, then we're nearly double that with the numbers that the DNR admits to. I'm pretty sure that most of us believe that count is quite low. If talk to sportsman that live in the northern half of the state, they're see wolves on a regular basis. Just go deer hunting in those counties north of 64. In the 90's, it normal to see 30 or more deer on opening weekend. Now would be lucky to even see one or two. At least where I hunted In Forest Co. That's why I quit hunting deer there. Hard on the local economy too.
There's a reason why we eliminated from the landscape the first time.

handitrapper, up by Hayward Wi.. deer hunting is a joke unless you have food plots... first week of deer hunting in the Winter area, i checked a bunch of hunting camps and no deer were hanging....took four days before any bucks were entered in one local pub. People with food plots did okay but still had to wait long time before anything showed up. I guess wolves got to eat also...LOL... Burp !

"There is an organization in Idaho that will pay you 500 dollars towards expenses that are incurred for every wolf that is shot or trapped. Wolves shot during big game season don't count because they figure you will shoot them anyway. "

I'm not sure that is still in effect.

Murse,you can hunt and trap wolves i MT and ID.You need to take a class,to trap.

I hear ya Lee. That's why my hunting buddies & I stay home to hunt deer now.

Wait, wait, wait Lee. Wolves prevented from going near the food plots?

Why do so many Wisconsites want to try to treat a symptom instead of the problem. So many want to blame wolves, but doesn't your example highlight the real problem?

MarshRAT; So are you saying that wolves aren't the major reason for the deer herd reduction? If not, then what? CWD? Harsh winters? Over Harvest? DNR management?

Although all the above can contribute. I VOTE WOLVES!!

Exactly. Unless you live in the northern forest you will have a difficult time comprehending the effect wolves have on the deer population up here.

Foundation for wildlife management it's called. I just looked it up, says there still active.

Habitat is the short answer. I would argue that for most species, this is the case. Wasn't but a short time ago, our northern deer population was high. Too high in many places. This has had a negative impact on the overall habitat. Over browsing causes serious long term damage. Add in many of our northern forests are maturing. This leaves vast segments of the northern part of the state as really poor habitat for deer.

We used to have a farm that we shot ag deer on. You would see a line of a hundred deer coming to the hay field at night. Now you are lucky to see 10 and yet the deer are still starving in the winter. Even on relatively easy winters in ag land. They changed the habitat and it will take years for it to recover. One could argue the wolves are are a blessing here.

Our northern healthy adult deer are surviving based on that study done by the DNR. Where they struggle is coming out of winter. The guys adjusting the habitat and also putting in food plots have figured this out. Why are their results so different than the rest?

Interestingly enough, I was told that one of the reasons that the wolf tracking count has gotten better is because they are doing more to track these locations around private land that have improved the habitat. The wolves are not leaving those herds of deer that have taken up residency there, yet their deer hunting is getting better even with an exploding wolf population. How does one explain that?

One would explain that the same way you wrote that, with a bunch of generalizations, hearsay ,and self proclaimed "facts" written in such a way as to lend credence to your story. Not one fact, not one link to a fact.

Not being in WI, I am obviously at a disadvantage here but........it's very likely that your wolf population is expanding AND dispersing. So it is possible that the food plots and hunting are improving in some areas at the same time the wolf population is increasing.. the excess wolves are just dispersing.

Generally wolves attain a body size that allows them to take their main prey species. They don't get bigger because it takes more food to run the larger body. The same works with overall wolf numbers in each pack. There is an optimum pack size that maximizes each wolf's ability to survive on the available prey. If the pack gets larger, the law of diminishing returns kicks in...each wolf gets less.

There are so many variables in this equation that I think one has to consider all of them as working in concert. Change one variable and it will have an effect on all the other inputs.

Ditto on what white17 mentioned. So many variables with land, food, predators, all make up an ecosystem that is changing as time moves on. This is something wildlife and land managers have a uphill battle predicting what is happening in the future and trying to keep stable animal population and land ecosystems.

Pick a point Diggerman and we can explore the "logic". See if it holds any water or is only hot air. It wouldn't be the first time I was just full of hot air.

That said, I think White's post above is the same thought process that made me think we needed to reexamine the goal of 350 or less wolves in the state. I really think that goal is outdated. As much as our current population of 850-900 wolves is completely off the mark.

Here's one problem I have with the current estimates.

I think your DNR is making a mistake by including 'sightings' by hunters in their estimates.

We have no idea ( and neither do they) how many times the same wolf/wolves are seen by different people in different locations.

So I think their methods should be improved

I am assuming that Diggerman didn't have issue with my comment about the forests maturing. Interesting breakdown of our forests:
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/ForestBusinesses/documents/WisconsinForestResources.pdf

Guessing there is no issue with the deer over browsing having long term impacts? Here is a study on it.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112711007900

I know it was done across the big river but I am guessing it has some truth buried in it.

I agree the trees are maturing. But they are also being managed thru timber harvest along with new growth. Giving ample food supply for the deer herds to grow. But that's not gonna happen until wolf populations are brought under control. Wolf populations are growing stronger in central forest zones too Why because there are more deer for the S.O.B's to kill. Just look how screwed up the elk reintroduction is. Release a herd & watch the wolves get fat. They're like piranhas. And don't think anyone's BS is ever going to convince me otherwise.

20 years ago, I went to an open forum involving the MN DNR and the public. At that time the DNR estimated the number of wolves in MN to be around 3300. That was nearly double what they considered a sustainable population. Since that time, they say the number of wolves have dropped to around 3000??? Except for a couple of years, wolves have been protected, but their numbers have declined by 300 in 20 years? In the words of Gomer Pyle, "We may be dumb, but we ain't stupid!"

Not saying we don't need to reduce the population of wolves. Quite the opposite. Just saying that the drop from 50% of acres to less than 30% of acres now 40 years old or less is a pretty significant change across the landscape. Until 2014, we had seen a steady decline in number of acres less than 20 years old--where you get your most gain.

As far as elk, most saw the issues coming. Personally, I think we can get the elk to flourish without going to 350 wolves in the state. But at present levels, they are nothing more than an expensive snack for the wolves. Even I am not sure why they thought they could drop in a prey species into the heart of a predators turf and think the prey species would have the upper hand at first.

Hers a couple of points , the forests did not all mature in the last five years, however about a 1000 wolves did. Now I would like to believe that all they eat is sick deer and mice and they will get all get along with my dogs, but? I am not in love with deer, we have too dam many in southern Wisconsin but I have been witness to a decimation of the deer herd in the Clam lake area and the Elk population that has not increased in 5 years, The wolves have got a recipe for elk veal. If you were to(try) trap Fisher, Otter or hunt Bobcat you will get tired of tripping over wolf tracks looking for sign. That is my "logic".

Interesting. Thanks. I might have to research it a bit.

The national forests are ramping up their logging contracting rapidly as of late and that can add a lot more young growth for deer, grouse, hares and other species. There has been a significant reduction in harvest of the private forest lands of the north and the owners don't want disturbances in their woods and that has really caused a lot of habitat decline. The fact that millions of acres is now not good browse type habitat is one of the reasons that food plots are working well and probably needed if you want to have deer, but that brings the predators at ones door as well as the predators go where the prey goes.
If food sources stay low and wolf concentrations stay on the lower edge of their carrying capacity they will reproduce better and have less disease and then will probably expand their range further south faster where there is 2 to 3 times the food availability in the farmland areas. If we can't harvest and don't want wolves expanding into more populated areas we need to create more habitat for prey so the wolves are inclined to stay put more and come to a balance for the range(s) they are in. Many don't want wolves killing a limited deer population and I support those that want to see a better balance, but what we don't want is to have wolves move into areas where they can learn to eat things like corn etc. like coyotes have than the door could be open for lot more wolves than what our current numbers are at.

Bryce

Been seeing wolves in waukesha county southern Wi for almost the last ten years not lots but seeing them talked to the warden who confirmed it had one check out a hay set last winter

They're way over original management goals. KISS

The best way to get count on the population is to kill them all and count them no guessing then maybe deer hunting will improve up north again, its been terrible sense they have moved in. Then some genius puts them on the endangered species list Words that cant be said hear. The last 6 or 7 years seeing less than a 1/4 of the deer on the cameras almost no fawns. Its been bucks only for the last 4 or 5 years with no population increase. Hate seeing more wolves that deer when DEER hunting. I know that wolves are not the only factor in this issue but they are a very large percentage imo.

Diggerman, isn't much of the Clam Lake area in the marten restoration area? Any issues if it is?

Lots of good info there Bryce. My worry is this ends up like beaver...We buy into this wolf hysteria like we did with beaver. It is tough to reverse once you get the train moving. I get that we want a lower population, but unless we are pulling back the reigns from the start, we lose control. The feds will be doing the taking while fur trappers get a minimal take.

Feds havent been taking anything since the edict.

I understand that RdFx. I am talking should we ever get close to the goal of 350. How many wolves we catching in box traps?

Hey WiMarshRat, we caught a wolf in box trap down at Sandhill Refuge, Wi., years back, so dont say we cant boxtrap wolves.....LOL......snicker! Any rate catch rate wouldnt be too high and maybe we can snag up a few wolves and put them in the judges backyard and let them munch her pets.... bet she would change her mind then !

Justin, what is the over/under on their estimates in WI?

Here it's 500.

The Martin restoration areas are well marked. I believe the Feds are already "taking' quite a few. That is just hearsay. When wolf tracks out number deer tracks in an area that used to hold deer "before" the wolves showed up enmass, that tells me it is more than "hysteria". This isn't something new, this has happened in Minn. and Michigan already, we have a blueprint to look at. We know what is going to happen with wolf populations and their effect on wildlife, pets and farm animals. We know that they can be effectively trapped to control numbers, we know what effect it has had. We are now just giving them a head start and the quotas allowed will never be allowed to bring them down, just maintain and I am not a fan of their current population.

My point being Diggerman is that Marten area is closed to trapping is it not? Well except for a few exceptions. This creates a safe habor for those predators to some degree. Even if we get the goal down to 350, you are going to have a large predator population in clam lake area unless we get the trapping restrictions limited.

Additionally, is Marten habitat good elk habitat? In reading about those elk, looks like they identified significant issues with habitat. The elk are only using small areas. Want to guess which areas those are? Yup, they are primarily using those young aspen stands.
http://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/WM/WM0626.pdf

So you concentrate a food source and the predators show up in droves. If food plots are the only add, then it is a loser long term. No different than man or any other predator for that matter. I look for places that have the largest concentration of fur in the smallest areas. Now if you spread out those concentrations of fur, it become a little harder to harvest.

Guess what they are going to do for the elk? Yup. Working to spread them out. They added a whole bunch of acres to the plan so they could get a bunch of actively managed aspen stands put into the elk range. Spread out all those calving elk to improve survivor-ship. Once too many elk get accumulated, they will run into problems again with the growth rate.

So back to Clam lake, do we have any control on changing the restrictions in the marten area? To me, that would be a much better idea than focusing our efforts on reducing wolves. That is going to happen as soon as they open back up the season. Wonder where our candidates stand on the issue. After all, we do have an election coming up this fall.

We give a range 49er instead of the over/under. Based on that, it looks like we are less than 5% of yours.

Let's add all the politicians to that list as well...they shoulder just as much blame for not fixing the broken system.

As someone that caught a coyotes each of the last two year in a box trap, I would never say never on a wolf. But with the season clock ticking, I wouldn't want to put my faith in that tool to come through for me

I don't have a real problem with the Martin zone, its not that big that it would effect wolf trapping, you can still water trap and live box trap, id say the Martin are probly worth the inconvenience, MY opinion. Elk traditionally are herd animals and traditionally calve in the same area, thus concentrating them for easy pickings. We were supposed to have an Elk season by now but the wolves have cancelled that out. so tell me again how these wolves are good for the ungulate population.

As the wolf populations continue to grow, they will also continue to seek new territory by moving farther south. Just as coyote & bobcat have. It was in 1980 when I seen the first coyote in Rock Co. I'm sure they' were here before that, but very few. Now there thick as fleas.
The wolf will adapt to the presence of humans the same as coyotes or any other predator for that matter.

Using our own DNR estimates, how many wolves can you fit in area below?
Within the Clam Lake area, approximately 300 square miles within a Marten Restoration Area will be closed to trapping by foot-hold traps in uplands, which may reduce harvest rates by trappers in that area.

And we now have a southern bobcat season because of it. Should we move back to our original population goal on bobcat so we can eliminate a southern bobcat season? In reality, that is what we are saying on wolves with the goal of 350.

Justin, you WI boys must be way better at counting your wolves than us Minnesotans.

Wisconsin's 2014-15 estimate was 746-771.

MN's estimate was 2221 with a range of 1789-2719. Basically plus or minus 500

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/wildlife/wolves/2015/survey_wolf.pdf

Something stinks in this world because evidently neither is using the same standards to determine populations.

Justin, population goals shouldn't be used to determine harvests on any species.

WI wolf numbers are probably based on a range based on confidence values but we may not have seen those numbers. Or as is stated there could be a totally different model in use. I would not object to that as the more tools used then hopefully more accuracy over time can be developed. I know many fish population estimates also have very wide ranges as well.

Bryce

49er, you have to get more precise at counting wolves if you want to go down like we do...remember, they are one of those species that have a little more scrutiny on them. Interestingly enough, the more harvest data we get, the better at counting we will get.

How do you manage a species if you don't have a goal? I agree numeric goals cause their own problems. I prefer increase, decrease, or maintain. For wolves I would prefer a slight decrease in most areas. Even then, they will still put a population goal out there. For bobcat, we put a range in population that we are trying to maintain.

How are we supposed to get harvest data when there's no season? When some of those zones were closing in 3 days, I think anybody with a lick of common sense would realize that the population is to high for those zones. Even when/if we can trap them again, they're still going to be more of a trophy status & not so much of a furbearer. With only 1 tag every 3-5 years. I don't think people are harvesting them to sell the pelt. Most will tan & make a wall hanger.
We should load em all on a truck & give to Mn., that way when they have NR trapping, we can just go there.

Did I ever say the population was too low in any zone Brian?

Anyone know the last time we only had 350 wolves in the state based on DNR estimates?

Justin, you cant get that precise.

When I first heard the number that the MN DNR was throwing out with a +- of 500 I was shocked. I was thinking throwing darts at a board would give a better estimate. But than realization set in and told me how the h e double hockey sticks would anyone be so arrogant to think they could count something like wolves fairly precise. IF Wisconsin think they can count their wolves within 5 percent one way or another they are arrogant beyond recognition. We can barely count our human population within 5 percent of this country.

My problem with goals is they are arbitrary numbers that are:

1. subject to change
2. subject to whims of unelected bureaucrats and public sentiment
3. hard to verify
4. et al.

Your bobcat and otter situation in Wisconsin is a prime example. I'm more in favor of using harvest trend data to set seasons and limits.

49er, now we are finally getting somewhere.

The same reason most have issue with me saying a higher number has value should be the same reason they should want to get rid of the 350 number. Neither make much sense. The trend data on some key metrics should tell us if we need to increase, decrease, or maintain the population. I still have more faith that WI has a more precise count than MN for wolves, but we also have some additional factors that benefit us as well.

Otter wasn't messed up because of the population goal...it was messed up because we decided to include trend data from a survey that was not calibrated correctly based on a few assumptions. We continued to use even when it lacked the correlation with the other trend data. Recently, we have continued to open up otter harvest even though modeling has shown us below the 10,000 goal. Bobcat harvest data can get real messy when you start to include things like "quality of the experience" into the equation. In reality, most of our trophy species have this now figured in and there in lies the problem. Not the artificial population goal. Lower the number of permits to improve the experience on public land.

But until we get a little more trend data from the harvest of wolves, we can't really test which state really has a better handle on their population of animals. So we are forced to get ready for when we can harvest them again. On that note...

RdFx, correct me if I am wrong, but I thought you work on that marten program? You think we have any flexibility in those regulations? To me, a wolf or even coyote would require such different equipment from a marten that we should be able to have some common sense change to help out the elk guys after we have had some time. After all, if they start more actively managing aspen stands for the elk, we know what that means for some of those other top predators.

Man oh man the term "quality of experience" makes my blood boil worse than just about anything.

When I hit that I stopped reading because I could digest what I already read.

If trappers, trappers associations, hunters and hunting groups allow that to continue we'll get what we deserve

Once I settle down I'll digest the rest and comment.

I wasn't arguing about the population being to low. If it sounds that way, my bad. That was not my intentions. Personally I hate the darn critters & wish our population was 0. But that's just my opinion.

Carry on

49er what's the old saying about numbers....and lieing ?

Numbers never lie, but liars use numbers?

Maybe the reason I enjoyed Paul Harvey...now you know the rest of the story.

Too many wolves in this state right now.

That much I hope we can all agree on.

The saying is figures lie and liars figure.

So 49er, should trend data be used to increase/decrease or should it only be used to maintain stable population?

Back to our marten area...300 sq miles could theoretically have 3 to 15 packs of wolves if we use dnr numbers. Improve the prey species by habitat improvements and you have a higher population. Only trap outside of that zone and what happens? The very area that could benefit from a lower wolf population is forced to maintain a higher wolf population. A stakeholder that should support our heritage is going to be fighting against us.

So the feds get brought in and they remove those animals. Simple math tells me if we can harvest 30% and we have three wolves in pack, that is 30 to 150 less permits each year. Last year that we had a harvest, we had 1500 permits available.

So this Martin area is a perfect square, fenced and designed to encompass complete wolf pack territories? OR is it totally irregular so that trappers would have access to almost all wolf packs. Could we count on hunters to possibly thin out those few that escape the steel? Mr Rat, you are an expert at taking a minor talking point and exploiting it to the fullest to the point of fiction. We get it, You like wolves, you want to deflect this thread away from wolves.
I was kinda OK with wolf no. 350, wolf no.351,352, etc. should be harvested.

The marten Issue Is a big can of worms and I believe It needs to be canned. We have been screwing around with marten reintroduction forever and It's not working. No habitat and no prey species and you can't fix that. The only benefit to this marten thing Is that someone Is getting a pay check.

Sure Diggerman, I like wolves. I like all furbearers—their presence generates trappers. More of them means more trappers. Last I checked, we were still on a downward trend in the number of trappers. We can’t create enough to replace the ones that we are losing each decade. Doesn’t mean that I am shortsighted and only focus on one animal and think we should only focus on artificially increasing their population. I, too, agree that we have too many wolves in the state. What I don’t like is us putting some arbitrary number like 350 out there. I prefer some sort of balance and we have no idea if 350 will even get us close to being in balance at the current distribution of wolves.

Deer hunters can be some of the most shortsighted people around. Take Waupaca county. It just about went doe only because the deer guys continue to tell the other stakeholders they have to live with the decision that they want to see more deer. There was even a resolution that tried to allow deer damage permits to be issued based on deer browse on forested areas. Know why there are blocks that hold huge amounts of deer in Waupaca county? The property owners actively manage the habitat. The rest sit and complain that they don’t see any deer in their huge wide open hardwoods and plowed ag fields that can barely can support a squirrel. Wolves have shown up and some even blame the wolves because they believe all this hysteria being feed by others. Which group do you want to be in?

This same mindset was the mindset that told us beaver and fish couldn’t coexist. We must make all our trout streams beaver free. Where did that get us? See trappers should fight for balance. Instead we get caught up in this 350 number because that is what the deer guys tell us to think. We need to be able to think for ourselves. We took all the beaver preferred habitat and made it beaver free while not doing anything to increase the beaver habitat where they were allowed/desired. You are asking me to repeat this same mistake on wolves.

I prefer the guys that get active and focus on habitat. Maybe it is my appreciation for the DU model. HABITAT, HABITAT, HABITAT.

…So now it appears I break from my habitat kick to show you how to keep an area of 300 sq miles lower in wolf densities by building stakeholders, and you feel I am deflecting away from wolves and am against more wolves being harvested? I bet RMEF would ensure every block was surveyed if they have not already done so for wolves. I am betting these two private organizations could get an increase in the wolves harvested there to lower the density without any government program to guide them. This should give us a baseline of an area to see how things are responding to a lower density of wolves and more prey species driven by habitat improvements. More importantly, I am negating a negative stakeholder into a positive one that is focused on HABITAT together. This is how you win long term.

Looks like I found one of my resolution for this next year

Any ideas on why the marten don't do well here? There's a fair population in Mn.? isn't there?

I think It's about not having a constant or preferred food source like the red backed vole or something like that. And that's something we can't fix.
There just tying up a large chunk of ground with no hope of ever having a sustainable marten population.

They have had research people on the government teat for about 20 years trying to make this work. And the WTA even donates some shekels to that program.

Recently there have been reports that Marten have been repopulating some islands in the Apostles without any human help at all. Pretty cool discovery.

I seen that too Fox Claw. I caught a marten while fisher trapping, east of Eagle River in '05. About 8 miles outside the closed restoration area.

I will start by saying that we need to reduce the wolf and bear populations in the state. I deer hunt in Douglas county. The issue we had there over the years was a massive over population of deer. Predator populations climbed with that increase. The DNR was giving out doe tags as fast as they could print them and the hunter were shooting them. This went on for 10 yrs or more. All the while the predator populations didn't decrease. The deer did alot of damage to the browse that was available. So with the predators, hunters and habitat decline the numbers of deer went down drastically. Add in 2 straight winters that were bad and what we have now is what this recipe cooked up. You can walk through the woods and see first hand the damage the deer have done from over browsing and this will not fix itself over night. I agree with alot of what WiMarshRAT is saying. There are alot of factors that go into the population decline in the northwoods but to solely blame the wolf is misguided. I believe every animal has its place. They were here before I was. I also believe in sound harvest practices which have been lacking by all in the state for some time. I mean how is it that someone has to apply for up to 10 yrs for a kill tag for bear yet Wisconsin bear population is the highest or among the highest in the lower 48? Wolves will generally take the weakest but the bear takes fawns most part and these animals could be next generations stongest.

Pretty cool Fox Claw. Just in case anyone was interested in a little more detail about that discovery, figured I would include an article below.

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/outdoor...apostle-islands

Brian, your answer might be hidden in this discovery.

USDA Wildlife Services (AKA "APHIS") officials in Wisconsin have formed a business partnership with an "anti" group here. The Pro-wolf group "wolves of Douglas County" has been selling a non-lethal wolf deterrent called a "foxlight" to APHIS at 85 bucks a piece. I'm not exactly sure what "foxlight" is, but from the description it sounds like some kind of automatic flashlight. How's that for outrageous and a waste of your tax monies?

Read more here: http://www.wpr.org/usda-experiments-new-tool-deter-wolves

Aphis tried flashing lights yrs back already up in Ashland county and it DIDNT WORK. Im surprised that David bought into this unless his supervisor told him to buy them...

That's just the way governments have been ran for years. Nothing new there.
Anyway, with marten. What is their main food source? Pine squirrels? Snowshoe hare? Or maybe just small rodents such as mice & voles? I've heard that they don't co-exist well with the fisher. That the fisher kill them. Just like a coyote will kill foxes. Do they live together in the same habitat as fisher in other states? IDK. just curious.

I personally would rather see fisher & marten populations increase dramatically in this state. I don't care for the wolves, & would not mind if they were gone completely. Obviously not all agree. Just my view.

Sorta of varies by location.

Up here the red back vole is their mainstay. It could be different where you are.

They eat all kinds of stuff. Birds, squirrels, hares, fish, berries, carrion. Actually a wolf population is a benefit to marten. They can and do eat the leftovers from wolf kills.


I don't know whether fisher kill marten (we don't have fisher where I am) but they can out-compete them for the food source just because they are bigger

Wolves need to be managed on a trapline.Wolves are a bad predator and too many on your line will cost you.
Trappers around here who maintain healthy numbers of beaver on their lines also take some wolves each year.
In some parts of Ontario(central) fisher and marten co-exist.In the north the marten population on a trapline will suffer if fisher numbers start to climb.Fisher numbers are highest in Ontario in the Ottawa valley and surrounding area.

Fishers were in the Marten introduction area and population was balls to the wall for a few yrs but have taken a drastic drop becuase or canine diseases they have contracted. Fishers have moved south in Wi so hopefully Marten can increase populations but Wi Dnr cut funding for Marten studies so thats where it stands now.

Now that I have had time to clear my thoughts of that phrase I hope to never hear again I have pondered your question.

My answer is yes, yes and yes.

Maybe i'm not so clear headed.

One won't get trends unless one has data so utilizing population estimation models to me is essential. Sure we can all argue the accuracy of the data and that makes for a lot of parking lot type discussion. The use of estimation models helps establish numerical values and thus trends can be determined. Collaring and other sample work can help determine age structure, health and reproductive success which are all important in establishing trends. This is important really for all species and not just species we choose to hero worship or bash.

It is interesting in WI that we have high densities of say deer in the farmland area where the bulk of the land is private and thus using hunting to manage populations is quite limited. It is also the area with the least predation occurs and thus managing deer in that area is a political/social issue and not a science issue. Up north with deeper woods and much more public hunting area we have an abundance of predators in general and thus deer in many areas are below the population goals. Managing predators in the north is a political issue as well as managing deer is in the farmland areas. Habitat suitability for many species can and does change quickly in WI as succession is a natural process and early succession is always more rapid than more mature timeframes of succession. In many areas of North America where wolves have been around forever with say sheep, elk, deer, moose, beaver etc. there is a balance and in many cases very sustainable populations of wolf major prey species. That leads me to believe that here in WI in the areas where we have wolves, deer, elk, bear etc. the habitat supports the predators better than the prey.


Bryce

Here is something you may find interesting in terms of comparison.

Take Mount McKinley National Park ( Please !!! ) an area where no trapping or hunting is allowed. The population densities of predators and prey species are lower on that 6 million acres than in the adjoining game management units where hunting, trapping, fishing IS allowed. Of course they don't publish that information but it's available if you do the research.

They also try to tell you that the animals you do see are wild. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are completely habituated to humans. That's why they sleep on the park road and all the photographers jam up traffic.

If one has read the excellent book The Wilderness of Denali by Charles Sheldon, it becomes abundantly clear that animal populations in the park were far healthier and acted more normal ( wild) when hunting and trapping were still allowed. His journals cover his activities in that area in 1903-1906. Good read.

Bryce, those trends have already been determined.

White, I was wondering how long you were going to hold out on us with that info.

That comparison is pretty impressive.

Have they here?

LOL !! Well there it is for what it's worth.

My personal viewpoint is that wolves need to be manged but I also like having a few around.

You tell me.

Do the trends of a healthy species vary everywhe

I feel having more data never hurts and trends can change quite rapidly and also where the change is occurring the fastest or slowest. We have seen significant changes in population densities of limited number species such as fisher here in WI. It is very likely the same could be occurring with many other species be they low density or high.
Have ever had an in depth discussion as to why 350 wolves were established for our goal? That is total number, estimated densities and range etc. With that explanation we could better understand the impact of say double, triple or quadruple the 350 number as to density, range, prey impacts etc.

Bryce

Why should a "new " species take precedent over existing managed species. We should manage deer, bear, etc. in spite off, not because of wolves. Wolves are the newcomer and should be managed as such. once they begin to pay their own way they should then get some attention.

Absolutely correct. The more mange on wolves, the better.

It sure makes sense to me that the way to make sure a species thrives is to put a season or harvest on that species as that insures, research, population data and more probably a healthier population density from a survival and disease aspect. It will be interesting to see the results of say several seasons of no harvest on wolves as to pup mortality, litter size, disease prevalence, growth rates etc.

Bryce

In MN, marten populations are densest where you have true boreal forests. Go to NW MN and there are very, very few marten. NE MN with it's boreal conditions has tons of marten. WI doesn't have the extensive areas of boreal forest that MN does so they lack marten. Sure, marten will survive outside of those conditions but the population densities will be much lower.

Clark

Let me point out the obvious: we are the new species.

Clark

HAHAHH ! Good catch ! Obviously I meant "managed"

We are the only species that matters, without us this conversation wouldn't be happening. We also are the only species that is "trying" to manage others. It is the quality of our out door experience that matters, the only thing that matters. What matters to you is not what may matter to me.
Wolves are a big drain on our resourses and need to begin to pay their way. If they can be hunted as do deer, bear, coyote and can take the pressure they can stay, other than that no free rides.

It is the quality of our out door experience that matters, the only thing that matters.

Uggh. It raised it's ugly head again Justin!

Quality of experience is the most liberal term I ever have had the displeasure of hearing.

Bryce why wouldn't the data of "say several seasons of no harvest" not already have been collected.

Maybe we need to define which trend data 49er first. Might make it easier to explore.

Is it the word "Quality" or the word "experience" that scares you so? I'll try to be more "sensitive" to your "displeasures" in the future.

Thanks Clark.
Boco; Do the marten seem to favor the same habitat in Canada? Boreal forest over other timber?

Marten in some areas prefer alders for some reason which doesnt make sense as no denning trees ect, but possibly was just one study. Usually Marten have young in hollow tree up high and after a time bring young down to some hole or stump in ground.
When Wisc did Marten study and my trapping partner and myself made marten boxes and marten release pens all i asked was of the DNR to let us know when they had marten so my trapping partner could see one. The DNR never contact us so partner never saw a marten. This after us donating all the material for boxes and cages for nothing.... still i like marten even if the DNR shafted my partner in just not letting him see a marten.

Well maybe they didn't catch any Or not very many.

They are going to the alders to feed since that's where the food Is. Marten are a lost cause and we will probably never have a sustainable population here In WI.

It was you that made the comment that the fisher were preying on the marten.

When I trapped that one year In Canada we always looked for those sections of heavy black spruce stands when we set for marten. Well at least as I can remember those were the preferred areas.

In my area marten prefer the coniferous forest with good overhead cover and lots of coarse woody debris on the forest floor,so they can hunt and move around under the snow when it gets cold and the snow gets deep.This is the older 60+ year old growth.This is core marten habitat.Juvenile marten dispersing usually stick to corridors with good overhead cover like timbered drainages that run thru burns,clearcuts etc,and connect core marten habitat.

Wolves use this kind of bush too.

Most agree that there are too many wolves in WI far too many as stated many times here and lets say that is true, then the non harvest data collected early when the population was very low, low density and wide separation of packs and lone wolves is not really good data to use as trends when the populations are 2, 3 4 or 5 fold those early numbers. Species behave considerably different when in higher density situations and also where expansion of range is more forced than a choice.

Bryce

Bryce, When was the big wolf reintro? Early 90's? Do u know the numbers that were released then? And how many existed prior to that?
When I was deer hunting with my dad near Sprague, Wi. before I was old enough to carry a gun. I'm thinking around '75? We seen wolves then. Also a couple years later near Bear Bluff Wi., on Deer Island Rd. We saw wolf tracks. So obviosly we had them then. Why did we need more?

In '05, when I caught that incidental marten in a fisher set. A biologist from Rhinelander was in the process of catching & collaring them then. Of course the I got was expired in a 160. So it was collected by him. That was NE of Eagle River, 8-10 mi.

This document has some historical estimates on wolf populations in the state. Now sure it goes back to 75, but can provide a little color. I think page 16 Brian.
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Wildlifehabitat/wolf/documents/PostDelistMonitor2015.pdf

Below is your marten plan Brian. Looks like you were not the only one that caught an incidental marten.

http://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/ER/ER0697.pdf

No I don't have info regarding what occurred in the early 1990s as to wolves. My posts mostly reflect on numbers posters use on these threads. It would make sense to me that wolf numbers (wolves never 100 percent left WI) would not sky rocket with the deer population increases in the northern wooded habitat. I can only speculate but I am guessing that a number like 350 mature wolves at low density time periods was considered a reasonable goal by many based on habitat, food and territorial behavior etc. What may not have been as accurately accessed was the rapid response of the wolves when offered great habitat and very abundant and easy to procure food sources. When you add to that a growing bobcat population and a bear population that was about 50% or more over estimated goals and winters that impact prey species more than predators early on and a rapid decline in browse habitat and high quota numbers and that is all targeted at one species then things can change rapidly and they have. The ecosystem of Wisconsin and nature is telling us or the wolves that we can have and handle many more wolves, it is the political and social aspect that is saying no and politics and social attitudes make Mother Nature look like a never changing entity by comparison.

Bryce

Do the wolves eat the white ones? If so, send my way.



Just another example of shortsighted deer hunters.

It is the unintended side effects of people want ot enhance their quality of experience. It's why you wisconsin guys are having a hard time drawing bear permits, cat permits, otter permit.

Your quality of experience should only be accomplished through individual effort and hard work, not some psuedo-science that is tailored to meet the fashion of the day.

I'm sure the wolf is not racist. They'll eat deer of all color & age. Even those white mutations. But I do believe that if the wolf population continues to grow with no regulated harvest, there's gonna be increased
incidents of wolves attacking humans. If their numbers aren't increasing, then why are sightings becoming so regular?
The answer to that, is they are becoming quite bold & less afraid of human presence. Just as the coyote has over the years.

Tell me if I am being too simplistic with my reasoning. I'd wager Boco most likely doesnt have an idea what the marten population in Ontario overall is but I'll bet he can tell me what his line can handle based on the trends of what is harvesting comparing male/female ratio and adult to young of year. I'll bet you white 17 could as well.

I'd wager JB in Nevada could say the same about cat harvest using the trend data. Your Wisconsin biologist like to think they can count wolves with in a plus minus 12 but I'm here to tell you aint nobody that good.

Handitrapper, some of that reasoning led to the map below.



This caused some issues with the deer hunters because they could not look long term. Only wanted to look short term.

Come on 49er. Our wolf estimation is dead balls accurate! We count tracks crossing the roads during the winter. That's why our beaver & otter counts are so good. Fly around in an airplane to look @ otter tracks in the winter. Never mind the cast amount of incidentals bing caught. Oh wait....... That's just the ones that get turned in.

Are we only going to use this data to maintain a robust population that is expanding?

If they had ground crews and collars for otter like they do for wolves, our otter situation wouldn't be in the mess that it is in today. We have much bigger issues with beaver than to worry about the survey they did

Why would you?

Your otter situation would be the way it is today if they would use science instead of sentiment.

Sentiment it's what spawns terms like quality of experience.

Wouldn't I need another variable for change?

Public sentiment is really not impacting otter yet...but I will say it is baked into the system ready to rear its ugly head.

Remember, it was bad science that put the brakes on our harvest. Sure sentiment made them justify the increasing harvest, but it was the faulty science that put the breaks on. You mentioned YOY harvest ratio, there is the item that put the breaks on our otter harvest in WI. We added to the panic with the aerial surveys.

Isnt change part of the normal process.

Notice I didnt use the term "public" sentiment. It was intentional.

We are the public.

49er, I was intentional in where I used as well...

Maybe we need to verify science. Boco or white, if your harvest was 50% YOY on otter, can you increase harvest, maintain harvest, or should you decrease harvest? Why?

Trappers here manage otter by maintaining a maximum sustainable beaver harvest which includes the harvest of wolves.Do that and you will never have to worry about your otter harvest,as good beaver pops provide the habitat and keeping wolves at a minimum takes care of their main predator.

I can't answer the question as it concerns otters. But if that 50/50 ratio was marten.........you better stop trapping that particular area. However..........otter have slightly larger litters than marten so it MAY be ok at that ratio. The thing to remember is that you need to look at YOY relative to adult FEMALES, not all adults.

I might add that a trapper in the field will not be able to distinguish age of otter,and I doubt any will take the time or buy the equipment necessary to measure the tooth pulp cavity or count the tooth cementum annuli.
You could send them away for that but that would not help you because your harvest would have already taken place.

Thanks. I think I didn't give you enough info so lets try this again. Lets assume you could tell the difference boco.

Now your female to male ratio remains constant, but your young of the year as a percentage of harvest drops. Are you increasing, decreasing, or keeping harvest the same? Why?

You would have to figure out why reproduction has fallen off-some type of reproductive failure.
Otters are not sexually mature until their second year,regardless I would curtail my harvest if I suspected a reproductive failure,because you would not want to catch mature females which would be important to the future recovery.
Habitat is the prime factor,in my opinion to having a good otter harvest.Drought could lead to a reproductive/recruitment decline,an increase in wolf population would see a decline in adults also.

I would agree with that completely !

We have had exactly the situation you describe over a large area of Alaska for about 5-7 years now. But, it has been the marten population..not otter.

We can't touch reproduction rates yet...still exploring if those ratios are too simplistic.

What would cause you to reverse coarse and instead increase harvest? Anything?

Do you ever skew your harvest ratios based on how you trap?

Again......based on marten.........I can skew my harvest ratios based on WHERE I trap rather than HOW. I don't know whether that would apply to otter. I doubt it as they are somewhat more confined to water courses.


The only thing that would make me increase harvest is being able to cover more ground. The harvest per mile may not increase but the absolute number could. As long as my YOY/adult female ratio was acceptable I would continue to harvest at max sustained yield.


I would think you'd want to know reproduction rates before deciding what a sustainable harvest ratio was.

The harvest of Otters province wide have been stable since the 1950's(just after the inception of the registered trapline system in Ontario).This indicates that the harvest is sustainable.
Otters cover a large area more than several traplines for sure.Otter numbers rise with the increase in beaver,so,look after your beaver and you will never have to worry about otter.

I trap in an area that has a good population of otter, and a known number of trappers, and the otter enjoy a wide range, as to habitat. They also have an abundant, year-round food supply. All that being what it is, I think that, if they hit $200.00 a pelt, we could put a dent in them. Seen it done.

Yep, and then the market went back to normal and now what?

I've said a million times let the market decide. Now if we have a sustained period of high prices, say 5 to 7 years, I'd change my tune but we have yet to see that.

In the 15 years I trapped In SC I averaged 48 otter for a two month period for that 15 years. The best two months I caught 81 and that was sometime In the last 4 or 5 years. so In my situation I don't think I could ever hurt the otter population where I trapped. The beaver population was different story but we were averaging some where around 300 In two months over that 15 year period. The last 2 years we had to move to new locations to keep up that average.

Looking more like we might need to include another variable 49er...

What if I told you the otter were reproducing better than they were in the past. Adult pregnancy rates went from 70% to over 85%. Juvenile rates jumped from 10% to 45%. Now what?

Are they ? 70% seems very low. Most literature that I have read but pregnancy rates at 99% based on harvest necropsies.

Research suggests that there is one adult female per 24 miles of river and one adult male per 33 miles. Of course this depends on habitat.

Increase harvest.

Screw the science and let the market decide? White and Boco are telling me the science says stop/slow harvest. What are we missing?

Science or sentiment? We were in the middle of a widespread beaver reduction effort.

Otters use abandoned beaver houses for natal dens. They also use beaver for food. Beaver dams create more habitat for fish and thus, otter. I agree with Boco.

Oh no...not only were we reducing the beaver population across thousands of acres, we were also taking out the damns and making rivers free flowing. Pull back the harvest even more?

Maybe one of the reasons we are unable to resolve issues is our inability to focus on the issue for the necessary time it may take. Our attention span is very short and maybe we all have Attention deficit issues. Within two weeks a wolf post damning the wolf on the landscape becomes other species issues and short comings. Remember as short as 5 years ago there was no desire to have anecdotal reports regarding deer or any species and then it abruptly changed to publically asking for those reports and coincidentally that happened at about the same time that research and science were being bashed as poor and not credible. If we want to use political and social information why not just say that we don't support the science and live even more with the consequences of political input? If we don't publically fund game management research then just maybe the research that gets funded is that promoted by those organizations that want to promote less harvest and or maybe none and for many species.


Bryce

I know otters tend to be density dependent. They can grow fast at low levels, then even out and don’t really grow past a carrying capacity.

Interestingly enough, since we decrease our harvest, our pregnancy rats have come back down. Back down to 70% adult and 30% juvenile, but our YOY are still only account for 35% of total harvest.

Now over the last few years we have reversed coarse and started to increase harvest. Wonder if they continued that trend this year and I wonder how the two otter resolution did? Both should have been discussed at the last Furbearer Advisory meeting this past month. Anyone hear?

Probably small otters are being turfed by trappers if they only have a quota of 2.
Not allowing trappers to keep and sell incidentals leads to bad science,if the powers that be are using harvests to get statistics.

Wait a minute. You are talking about pregnancy rates in the first sentence. The second sentence implies that 70% of adults and 30 % of juveniles are pregnant. I don't think that's what you mean.

If otter are like marten populations, 35% of the harvest being YOY is not a good sign.

Were talking about a species here that uses delayed implantation, and is very likely an induced ovulator. The same as marten. There are so many variables to the population dynamics that is just isn't possible to come up with an easy, straight forward solution.

Bryce is exactly right IMO. Need to make a decision about science v. ballot box biology. There really isn't a choice between the two as far as I'm concerned.

I guess I should have used yearling(1.5 years) instead of juvenile. Wasn't trying to imply our YOY were pregnant. Here is the data from our harvest.
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/documents/reports/otterpop2.pdf

35% YOY harvest tells you something is wrong. How do you know if you need to increase or decrease harvest?

Boco, not sure where the numbers are this year, but it was something like one out of 3 trappers received "A" tag on any given year. There was an effort to increase that to every trapper getting two tags. It failed the first time to get past the DNR Furbearer Advisory Committee.

You haven't said what the adult female harvest is relative to the YOY harvest. That, IMO, is what you need to know to make an informed decision. Maybe it is in your link above. I haven't looked at that yet.

Quick math says we were harvesting .27 adult females for each YOY and that increased to .37 adult females for each YOY.

So that would be about 3 YOY per adult female ?

Yes. Pretty close. Dropped from 3.6 YOY per adult to 2.6 YOY per adult. Just a rounding error?

That looks like more than a rounding error.

Nevertheless, in Marten we want to see 4 YOY per adult female ideally. 3 YOY per adult female seems to be about the best I have been able to manage over the last 36 years on the same line. I would stop trapping them if it dropped below 3. In fact I have stopped trapping them because they have completely disappeared.

The YOY kept declining and then there were none. No adults either.

This is an interesting paragraph to me.

From the report above.

Age structure and reproductive rates

"Carcasses were obtained from 1,079 otters (646 males, 416 females, 17 unknown) harvested
during the 2012-13 season and age at harvest was estimated for 642 males and 414 females.
Age data has been obtained from 3,505 male and 2,491 female otters harvested since 1979
(Tables 1 and 2). Age distributions were similar between sexes. The age structure in the harvest
has changed over the 7 collection periods for both sexes. The proportion of juveniles was lower and the proportion of yearlings or 2.5 year old otters was higher in the 4 most recent collections than in the 3 prior collections."

This would say to me that production of pups is falling and the reason they are finding higher proportions of yearlings and 2.5 year olds is because those were the YOY over the past three years while production dropped.

I would expect to see a decline in the proportion of yearlings and 2.5 year olds also if the YOY decline continues.

Also, I don't understand the language where they say ...."yearlings OR 2.5 year old otters..". Do they consider a 2.5 year old otter to be a yearling or am I misreading that line ?

They just worded that goofy based on the chart imo. Remember, we get age and reproductive rates every the years but it is listed in the chart.

Maybe we need to add another variable. Personal observation. Did certain areas dry up, or did you still see just as much sign as your ratio changed on marten?

Or did you hit on the main piece? The increase in yearlings? Shouldn't this of fell next instead of increasing?

Isn't the title of this post "WI Wolves"? Seems it's getting a little of track. Not that what y'all are discussing is a bad thing mind you, went from wolves to otter to marten.

Carry on Wolfers.

Personal observation ??

Well, with the dismal price of otter, I would expect "nature" to take it's course.

Understanding the missteps of the past helps ensure you make less of them again. The state said otter populations declined 35%. Think Brian would be happy with the same type of 35% decline in wolves if measured in the same way as otter?

Brian wants less wolves in the state. Nothing wrong with that, but unless he embraces the science, he will struggle to actually get there. The science will be used against him as Bryce eloquently noted above.

John and I might not have agreed on some things, but he was right to start to go after the science field with his fur school. This put our future game managers in front of us. Time to get to know them before ever even applying. Influence those that we could, but more importantly, allow us to identify and recruit the brightest to our side. Then work to influence the work that we want done once they are on board.

Lucky for the state of WI, wolves allowed us to add to our science staff. Interestingly enough, about this same time, our quota on otter, bobcat, and fisher started to increase even with no real significant change in the metrics. Instead of telling us we couldn't do something, they were going to try and see if they could. The faster we embrace, but more importantly, understand the science, the quicker we will get to where we all want to go.

Let's get back to wolves.
What harvest data do we have for them? Adults, juvenile, YOY?
I would think most that are/were taken to be dispersal pups.

Do you honestly think your otter population declined 35 percent?

Wolf pups don't disperse.

I don't disagree that the science side of things are helpful.
With that said, they could probably get good data just from pure harvest numbers & sign. Whether they're incidentals or not. I believe common sense can be just as important as anything in determining populations. Doesn't matter if talking wolves, otter, beaver, deer.

Brian, that is where the trend data comes into play.

By trend data, I mean your harvest trends.

Male/female ratio of harvest and more importantly ratio of adult female to yoy being harvested. I'd be shocked if there isnt some peer reviewed data out there stating what a healthy harvest could be on those numbers.

Not some arbitrary number pulled out of thin air by a political bureaucracy whose whims are swayed by public sentiment.

I've brought this example up before and I remember it like it was yesterday but our local, who is now retired, DNR WMA biologist(who was also on the furbearer committee) told me and several other at that time if our cat harvest got to 250 they were concerned and seasons may need to be cut.

Now we are consistently in the 800 plus and even broke a thousand once. Good thing that 250 was a flexible number but it was arbitrary.

Exactly. It always seems to be political instead of common sense. That's why nothing can be accomplished within a reasonable time. It goes from 1 biologist to a advisory committee to a executive committee...... & on & on. Drag their feet forever. All so they waste taxpayers $$$$.

It's the bureaucratic beast in action. It's more about job creation and retention.

It's actually worse than Steven describes. At least from what I have seen.

In my experience, those biologists who are good at their jobs and interested in BIOLOGY are not promoted to positions where they can influence outcomes. I have even seen them refuse promotions to supervisory levels because it removes them from the ground floor of the biology part of the job.

Unfortunately, it is the guys who are NOT good biologists who are promoted ....just to get rid of them. They get the political jobs in the department and exercise far more control over outcomes than the guys doing the real work. It's the Peter Principle in action !

Sure seems like the beaver & otter season reductions are getting fast-tracked. The Scope Statement has already been presented to and approved by the NR Board.
In March we were told by the then DNR Fur Biologist that they were just "shooting rubber bullets" getting opinion and that any possible changes were years away, he also made it seem like changes were not inevitable.

But they sure are dragging their feet when it comes to producing the minutes from the DNR Fur Advisory meeting that occurred a month ago. I see how they have delayed those minutes and in the mean time took the beaver & otter season reduction proposal to the NR Board. I don't know it that was calculated or circumstance, but in any case it stinks.

Should be public input hearings on it sometime in the near future.

One would think so. But there pretty good at getting what they want, no matter the public input

49er, there was published work that told them that too low of a YOY to adult was bad. Published data said you were over harvesting. Was told there was nothing published that said this was a good range. What I believe they didn't have was that that ratio would also happen when the population hit a certain level with too low of a harvest. This happens when you underestimate the size of habitat.

So we dropped from 3.6 to 2.6. They knew the 2.6 was a bad ratio. They just failed to see which way the train was going IMO. Boco and white seemed to go the same way as our biologists, but I think that speaks to only looking at those two metrics and letting sentiment enter the equation. I think white was onto it when he noted his ability to skew ratios based on where he trapped and questioned the juvenile rate increase. This should have gone down as well and been transferred to adults had we not been able to produce enough YOY. But since those YOY were transferred to juveniles, it should have told us that more of our YOY were surviving and being added to our potential producing population. IMO, age structure is more important than just the Adult F to YOY.

Now Brian asked what we have for harvest data for wolves. This document has some of that info:
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/wolf/documents/PostDelistMonitor.pdf

Brian, last I checked the WTA and CC both voice their support of that choice on beaver. We are just as much to blame as them. Personally, I think it means nothing until we find guys that are willing to start to fight for beaver habitat...which brings us back to wolves.

Boco mentioned it in this thread. A good portion of the diet of wolves includes beaver during parts of the year. I think WI even has a study on it. By removing those beaver from the landscape we have removed a prey species during that time frame forcing them to eat something else.

Where were those deer hunters when the beaver plan went through? I don't remember seeing them involved fighting for that habitat of beaver? After all, that beaver habitat would benefit the deer in two ways. Improves habitat for deer but also helps provide another food source for wolves in beaver. Seems to me this relationship with our deer hunters is out of balance. Why are we not fighting together for habitat? Fox Claw asked in a different thread, who was responsible to ensure that part of beaver plan was followed through on. I think we found our answer. We better start utilizing our leverage as an organization.

That's a very good point. Too many folks don't realize that wolves will switch to another food source when the ungulates become harder to catch.

Well they are opportunists & will prey on whatever food source is available. So goes the life of all predators.

Justin, Do you really think Wi. deer hunters are concerned about beaver populations? They out number trappers by half a million. A low deer herd is their main concern. An abundance of wolves does not help that situation. I realize it's not the only factor, but there's no denying that it's quite high on the list.
Unless they become delisted so we can get back to managing them, things aren't going to improve.

IMO, it wasn't until Missouri opened up season in the mid to late 90s that recovering otter populations were really examined. Most recovering otter populations didn't have a need to reduce populations so ratios were determined by their population modeling. I remember reading there was talk about how the MDC projected population at 11K while the university had it at 18K so we can understand where the flaws in the modeling could create false ratios. I could be wrong but I believe occupancy modeling was changing the way some were interpreted survey results.

In Missouri they started to document pregnancy rates much higher than the norm with juveniles at 80%. That significantly impacts YOY ratios that would be acceptable. But in the early 2000's, they started their adaptive management strategy on otter where they decided to increase harvest pressure to see how it impacted harvest while working to reduce nuisance otter, but more importantly, see how it impacted growth of a population. Notice a trend with our wolves in this state yet?

By putting enough pressure on harvest that they could expect a negative reaction in trend data, they could actually calibrate the variables. Your ratios were being tested and verified from on the ground tracking. How does this apply to wolves? I sure wish we had a few more years of harvest data because I see some things that I liked.

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/documents/WolfReport2.pdf
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/documents/WolfReport3.pdf

For example, look at page 4 on those two links. Notice all the different harvest percentages of midwinter count? Now look at zone 6. We harvested 86% of midwinter count in 2013-4 but 128% of our midwinter count the following year. By sacrificing and transferring a little of our harvest in very populated zones to actually start to pressure a lower density zone, we were shrinking the learning curve on the impacts of an aggressive harvest. Working much faster to actually identify the ratios that 49er mentioned for this state but also including additional variables to ensure what we are seeing is actually happening. We are working against making the same mistakes we did on otter. Now if we could only pressure a zone for otter.

On a side note Fox Claw, I was told the meeting minutes should be updated today.

Nope. And that is a problem. Until deer hunters start focusing on habitat, they will continue to lose. The past beaver plan gave them another chance to improve habitat for deer under the guise of helping beaver. Looking at deer density data over the last few decades is depressing and it will only get worse until they focus on habitat. Keep those densities higher than they should be at without improving that habitat will continue to degrade the habitat. They will get the opposite of what they want. I want a high deer population because it supports a larger wolf population which allows us to recruit more wolf trappers, but I know we can't get a sustained increase without some habitat improvement/repairs. They want more deer and we can give them a way to do so.

What was funny was a gentleman on the resource board even joked when the beaver plan was passed that he wanted to be involved where they did those restoration efforts. Why? Because he knew those fresh habitat projects would benefit the deer. nimzy wanted to recruit the duck guys as a heavyweight on our side. Maybe we try to recruit the deer guys. We can't do anything on the management of wolves right now, but we can surely start to work on the habitat that would benefit them. After all, the beaver plan was passed. Now does the WTA have any connections into the deer groups?

Any warm water streams up by clam lake? Maybe it is time to see if RMEF would like to leverage the beaver plan to their benefit. I have always said it is much easier to push a boulder when you have others helping. Maybe beaver gives them an avenue to accomplish their goals.

Most deer hunters idea of improved habitat, is food plots surrounded by blinds & tree stands. To much of the Outdoor Channel.

WE have 140 acres of prime deer ground and we MANGE It to the fullest. And that means Forest management ground cover and water management and food plots.

It's a deer hunters dream.

Here is a crazy idea...

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/documents/yfhistory.pdf

I think it was Bryce that made mention of this program. Maybe the deer hunters just need a little coaxing. I noticed Ruffed Grouse Society just donated some money to the state to support it. They even identified priority areas. Their work is going to benefit the deer. Think if the WI Bowhunters, Hound Hunters, WTA and others started to invest a little money to improve the habitat like the Ruffed Grouse society, they could have a little more influence? We start in their priority area and identify any increases in the miles from fisheries so we can use this as our sounding board. Any miles altered need to be replaced and replaced two fold as this is priority habitat for us as well. I like the deer angle because they are focused at the county level, the same way fisheries does it. Have some success and take it to the next county.

Now you get those groups investing some money on habitat, they probably could claim they want to keep the population on wolves slightly less based on investment dollars. You are applying the same tool fisheries has used for so long. A few of those groups are on the wolf committee... A couple more involved and you would be able to work on creating a separate zone for wolves that could be kept a little lower. All in the heart of wolf country. Try keeping that lower in population and we just created more trapping opportunity. One were we are working with the bird groups instead of against. But lastly, you probably created an area where the tolerance of wolves might just increase over time. Show DU you mean business on habitat, and your waterbank might be incorporated the next time the beaver management plan gets reviewed.

I agree with some of this white, but isn't it our fault when this happens? We get what we are willing to fight for?

I think a good one can lead from the floor level. We just have to ensure they have a microphone.

Brian, you mentioned deer hunting in Forest county. I think that included deer management units 39,44, and 45. So I grabbed the deer densities for those zones and goal of post hunt densities and plotted them. Take a look.



Anything surprise you?

Someone mentioned winter weather having an impact. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/documents/reports/severity2.pdf

Notice that many of the large declines you see in my graph align with severe winter weather?

Not really. I hunted unit 45. Always was good till around 2K. Then it fell like a rock. Most of the 90's were really good years. Their "Actual Population Data" must have been taken from numbers of registration. That decline in '93 is the year the blizzard hit on Fri. nite with 2-3 ft. of snow. Nobody could get out of town on opening morning. I've only hunted there 3 times since '07. And only saw 2 deer in 8 days of hunting. Haven't been back in 4 or maybe 5 years.

I was naturally drawn to unit 44. I noticed it had a lower population goal, but the goal was increased in the middle. I wonder why. Anyone know?

It was the zone that was better at keeping the deer population below population goal and now appears to handle the wolves better. Unit 45 spent the most time above goal and had done poorly with high wolves. Only coincidence?

Try hunting iron and Ashland county you better shoot a city deer if you want meat.

Here you go Fox Claw...

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/documents/committees/furbearer/fur060116.pdf

Thought the guys might have interest in the part below. They having second thoughts?

"The committee recommends creating a flexible, adjustable spring beaver and otter trapping season to increase/maintain the beaver population in Zones A & B"

Anyone else notice how they appear ready to align some zones based on HWY 64 in the above link? Interesting.

Just an FYI for those who have an interest in the CC Fur Harvest Committee. That agenda has been posted and I included a link below.

http://dnr.wi.gov/About/WCC/Documents/Agenda/2016/Fur073016.pdf

http://www.outdoornews.com/2016/07/07/wisconsins-wolf-count-hits-record-high/

Lots of information in the Wisconsin Outdoor news on wolves. There was also a nice letter to the editor from Laurie about the wolf tracking surveys. Have to hand it to her, she is willing to roll up the sleeves and join the effort.

I see there is an effort to set up a Sept 15 Wolf Summit in Cumberland. Effort is being lead by Tom Tiffany and Adam Jarchow. Now where have I heard those names before?

Yes the WON article showed the number of packs, the units and the number of wolves per district based on their population estimates. The map shows that the heavy concentration is still in the northwest close to MN where the migration from there has been going on for decades. Even though wolves are great travelers creating a large population over a large area takes time. The central forest area near where I grew up (Jackson County) has a high concentration of wolves per square mile and as of yet a bit higher prey population for food. It is also surrounded on all sides with intensive crop and livestock agriculture and thus depredation possibilities are high and food and cover sources are as well which means that this area in particular and most units have a lot more wolf density increase potential which can create a lot of social carrying capacity concerns.

Bryce

Bryce, lots of good info there. Not opposed to working harder to keep population lower in places through adaptive management. I think it helps with social carrying capacity. I just wish we could apply to otter.

I see we got the same increase in otter as last year. There was even talk of going with same % increase which would have taken us to 2200 otter. Guess we will have to settle for 2000. With the high success rates coming out, tags should be more plentiful.

That said, I see the focus is still going after the incidental otters. If that is the case, shouldn't we look at adjusting the distribution of quota. After all the south lags when it comes to incidentals turned in. But even more importantly, how about working to pressure a zone. I would sacrifice the entire increases in quota for central zone to apply pressure to a different zone. Would the guys in the south be willing to do the same next year?

I think we need to be prepared to see an even higher incidental otter catch as a percentage of the total catch, what with beaver being so low in value, not nearly as many water lines for coons and otters being worth what a good rat was 3-4 years ago there may be much less intentional trapping to catch an otter.
We also need to recognize that the otter carrying capacity in WI is very high what with 15,000 lakes, 25,000 miles of streams and rivers and probably a million or two acres of wetlands be that north and south. I feel we need to understand that population estimates on wildlife, fish etc. are all based on population models and there are many of those and they vary in accuracy but are still better than guessing in my opinion. If we continue to choose to underfund the research and the science then fewer models and improvements will be available. From a legal standpoint and defending an argument against non science based AR depositions I am in favor of the science even if I don't always agree with the results or the seasons that are determined from that science.

Bryce

Are you sure Bryce? Shouldn't more tags, mean less incidentals?

Price of otter/beaver was bad last year and yet, the number of incidentals decreased(small sample size, but it appears to be helping). For some reason we have lots of trappers that will trap regardless of price. With those higher success rates coming out on distribution of tags, we should get a better harvest(remember, the highest success rate of the last 3 years gets used to distribute tags). The artificial high population also makes a target rich experience for new trappers.

Now my resolution on otter might hurt those efforts. Sure, it will help fund the science arm if passed, but it might actual hurt the recruitment of new trappers. It weighs heavy on me. Maybe it is time for otter logic II.

Now back to wolves...Why should the guys in the north be focused on habitat? Not only does it align stakeholders, but our decisions become much easier when we are all focused on habitat. I am giving you a priority zone in the heart of wolf country that you could take your science from zone 6 and now apply to your new zone. Think of the science that you would get and the trapping opportunities you would create. Sure it is much easier to sit and beat on this drum of 350, but where is the fun in that.

How would that create trapping opportunities when a guy was only getting 1 wolf tag every few years?

My thoughts were based on total catches being lower and thus maybe incidentals as a percentage of total catch could rise and what that may or may not do to the population estimate model in use.

I have released a half dozen incidental otters and several of those were years I had otter tags. I caught the otters rat trapping before the otter season was open.

Bryce

Let’s put it into a real life example Brian.

Back to otter. Missouri didn’t try to lower the otter population evenly across the entire state(although total population did decrease), but instead they focused on certain areas. Sure some areas only allowed a small bag limit on otter, but guess what? Other areas allowed unlimited bag limit. Think about that for a second. A specie that is so easy to overharvest, yet they could have an unlimited bag limit in areas on otter. Why? Because they understood their trend data and took that data knowledge to some of the best otter habitat.

Habitat, Habitat, Habitat. Otter reproduce well and survive when they have the habitat. They tried to go down in population in an area with the best habitat and thus ended up with an unlimited bag limit. How’s that for opportunity? Now let’s apply to wolves.

I think you are seeing some of this in our wolf data. We harvest 150 wolves and population grows 13%, but harvest none and population only grows 16%. Now take zone 6. We harvested 70-80% of midpoint population count and the following year were able to harvest over 100% of midpoint count. We were applying more and more pressure to get our trend data in line. Zone 6 will create a lot of trapping opportunity for those that want to put in the time. Now you only magnify that opportunity when you shift that same philosophy into richer wolf habitat/density. See example above for otter. They were trying to reduce population in very rich otter habitat. The only way you can do this is if you have better and more precise measurements as you try to reduce density.

Now to really see the opportunity, we will need to overcome “the quality of experience” that 49er loves to talk about. Our trappers/other user groups will complain about crowded public ground if we do not get this aligned ahead of time. Work together on a zone to improve habitat and we will have fostered that relationship with other major stakeholders. Over time, you will show them how habitat projects improve social carrying capacity of wolves. If more grouse, woodcock, rabbits, beaver, elk, deer are around, they have no problem with a few more wolves eating a few. They have no problem with balance which our wolf population severely lacks now. More importantly, this will force counties outside of our priority area to work to identify places they can improve habitat for those other species.

Now, will we see unlimited harvest on wolves? Probably not, but we will see far greater opportunity than if we force the state to get to 350 wolves based on their current understanding of wolves in WI.

Interesting stuff here guys. In AB we have an unlimited harvest, both by hunters and trappers. The wolf population has never stopped growing in numbers from what I have experienced. When an area gets trapped heavy, or hunted heavy, the wolves move in from other areas. If there is food, there will be wolves (just like the Otter). Trick is to keep the pack numbers as small as possible. Easier said than done...there has been no answer here. I have seen a pack of 20+ wolves it a frozen 2 year old steer in 7 days. Imagine how many Deer, Moose, Beaver, Rabbit, Grouse, etc it would take to feed that pack in a year! In my experience Biologists have a way of making the numbers work in favor of their personal agendas.

Spruce

I agree with you Justin on getting more trend data & working towy quotas on that. But I don't believe the DNR will increase those quotas in relation to that data. Their hands are tied with big city bunny huggers in Madison & Milwaukee. So those populations will continue to increase as long as thy prey species are present.

Maybe more/smaller zones would help? IDK?

You don't think they have bunny huggers in St Louis, KC, Springfield that requested a seat at the table Brian?

What scares me Brian is I think too many forget how wolves is set up. The DNR lacks as much clout on wolves as they do on otter, fisher, etc. Remember, our legislation set up their committee outside of the traditional DNR Furbearer Advisory Committee. They have a separate wolf committee. How many seats do the bunny huggers have on that committee?

I truly believe that committee will apply as much as they understand, thus my focus on getting guys focused on the science. What would really help is taking a zone in the middle of the best habitat and giving them a reason to lower. Apply pressure. I am convince it will react different than zone 6. The problem is that we will only have zone 6 data, unless we are able to find a way to carve out another zone in the heart of wolf country that we can pressure first.

Unless you do, I am convinced we will be told a story similar to the one told to us on otter. We had a 35% decrease so now we need to severely limit permits. Or worse yet, we will actually fall below critical mass by trying to reach 350 wolves that we will struggle to maintain a marginal/limited harvest. Probably not likely as we would lose another lawsuit long before that happened.

Bryce, Here is the incidentals over the last few years for otter. This is the information I was looking at. I will add some color when I have a little time, but how do you interpret that with the understanding that our goal is to use legal harvest to minimize incidentals.

So there were roughly 200 incidental otters, what is that in percentage of total catch? If the correlation stays constant regardless of the legal catch than that makes incidentals an important criteria in the models used. If not then noting the variance from the total legal catch will be important in determining the viability of the model used. Otters are unique when compared to our 3 other tag species, bobcat, fisher and wolves as more of the other species can and are released and probably not reported with the exception of fisher.

Bryce

200 incidental otter?

Unless they let you keep and market the incidentals,10 times that many are likely turfed.

Bryce, used to be 3% of harvest when we gave out lots of permits. Became over30% of harvest when we restricted harvest. Now we are headed back towards 3%.

Incidental is a dirty word, it concedes to waste

30%. That's simply not acceptable as well as embarrassing

How many are caught by WS?

What would help show the trends would be a listing of total permits given, tagged harvest for those years and incidentals reported and thus we could see the percentage trend. If we give out more permits and total harvest is not greatly increased then that indicates that over harvest may not be as big an issue as some may believe it to be.

Bryce

Bryce, That would seem to be the most logical & easy to understand. Instead, they like to make things more complicated. Back to a common sense way.

Boxing, You're spot on with that.

Maybe We better retitle this thread as otter logic 2

Sorry Boco. Spell check gets me once in awhile

Missing a few years, but can provide a little color Bryce.

Brian, now you know why otter are referred to as water wolves. LOL I joke, but it is important that trappers take this on. We need to learn from our mistakes of the past. More importantly, our governor has shifted lots of power to the user groups. With that authority, comes responsibility.

49er, funny you bring up WS and incidentals. Noticed they dropped too.

What is the reason that WS amount of incidental dropped.

Maybe reason is the wrong term. Factors.

So it appears that a higher harvest also has lower incidentals. I wonder what it would look like if all incidentals were reported? Because we all know that doesn't happen.

From a significant statistical standpoint, I am not sure they have dropped 49er. Still staying in that range of 11-18 beaver per otter which is where they have fluctuated historically. Guessing that is impacted by the ratio based on number of new miles versus maintenance and also the shift to more roads/railroad work versus trout stream work.

Now if I was David Ruid, I would be telling all my guys to put the trigger on the top and in the middle on those baited poplar sets in the spring

EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION: Ratio of Otter to beaver has dropped.See below.
2015-99 otter or 1 otter for 15 beaver
2014-82 otter or 1 otter for 18 beaver
2013-79 otter or 1 otter for 16 beaver

Is there a break down for each of the 3 zones?

What kind of breakdown by zones are you looking for Brian? I gave a breakdown of incidentals by zone on the previous page.

Brian, sorry for hijacking your wolf thread with otter logic.

Justin, what is the estimated beaver harvest for 15?

I was referring to "total trapper harvest" in comparison to "incidentals" for each zone. Or at least reported incidentals. Maybe they use a percentage figure for non reported inciedenals in their models?

No problem Steve. I'm hoping all the wolves swim to your side of the river anyway.

Brian, I think in the farm zone there is a lot of SSS practiced lol.

Well I'm sure there's some of that here, but not enough

We have to be fair to the DNRs that it's not their fault their hands are tied when it comes to the timber wolf.

But it's good to debate the management of mismanagement or otter in WI or I even believe my home state to get a clear picture of what is/will happen when the timber wolf is removed.

49er you never were never afraid to look at how one item impacts a completely different item and thus why I always enjoyed having the MN guys participating in a WI thread.

Back to your original questions on amount of beaver. I have not seen 15-16 numbers but based on DNR estimates, WI beaver trappers harvested ~25K beaver in 2014-5. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/documents/reports/beavtrapques2.pdf

To give Brian a little color on his question... In 13-14, the north killed more incidentals(165) than legally harvested via permits(156)if I don't include tribal harvest. No doubt in my mind that tribal harvest didn't come close to those that were floated so I think it is a fair comparison. For south/central their ratio has been hoovering between 15-20%.

Interestingly enough, the following year we started to see a significant change in how the state viewed the harvest quota for otter. I would give you a graph, but I am lacking each zone harvest for 15-16 and 12-13 time period. Regardless, this doesn't include where 49er was taking the conversation. See, with our recent quota adjustments, we have been able to get our "turned in" incidentals to get more inline which means we will need to have a new reason to increase harvest more.

Those that fall under SSS or in this case, float don't get counted so our ratio appears on the surface to be inline. Now just like with otter, wolves need to brought above ground to get good data.

Thus the importance of really pressuring zone 6 to transfer those SSS into the resource bucket. Then being able to get into the heart of wolf country in a small area and seeing if it reacts the same way. All those years of hiding this figure on otters is hurting us today. Hopefully, we don't make that same mistake with wolves.

So where is 49er leading too?

Our beaver harvest numbers must be inflated based on the sheer lack of incidentals LOL

If we break this down a bit it roughly looks like this
1995-2003 an average of 14K permits issued per year with about 2100 otter harvested or about 14.5% success with maybe 40-70 incidentals in the mix

2004-2014 4,000 permits issued roughly 1,000 tagged harvest or 25% success rate with roughly an average of 300 incidentals per year or about 30% of legal or 23% of total reported harvest.

It does appear that the number of permits issued relates strongly with total tagged harvested otters. A better indicator to me than incidental harvest.
It also shows that many that received permits tagged and harvested otters. Many that formerly were issued permits and now don't have permits maybe where the big increase in incidentals comes from as when there were more permits that probably covered a lot more trappers that also were catching otters.

What we don't know is how much of the incidental increase is due to a higher compliance over time of reporting incidentals as that process is less intimidating now than previously.
Permits create a situation where there will always be trappers who were not successful in getting permits and catching otters. The real issue is what percentage of the harvest will be incidentals with different scenarios.

I know this may be adding complexity to the whole issue but improving the otter system might benefit from more zones like there are for fisher, wolves and now with deer at the county level and thoughts of dividing those into public and private so that could be 100 plus. It is safe to say in my opinion that the otter population has a lot of variation and in smaller zones than what we currently have. If we had say 6 to 10 zones we may be able to increase the number of permits and maintain a stable population with more opportunity for harvest by more trappers. I know that moves us a way from simplicity and also gives some advantages to those who would live in areas with more otters but then that is life and life is neither fair or equal it just is.
With the research that has been done I am sure that there is data to show higher and lower concentrations of otter.

Bryce

Ahh back to simplicity....Resources are complicated by nature! If they were not, we'd have all the answers.

Simplicity is not natural. Just a misdirected idea, redesigned to suit agendas.

No offense Bryce, you weren't the one that manipulated its context.

Bryce, reread Boco's post.

There is a very telling number in relation to incidental otter in one of Justin's post and how important it is. In fact two telling numbers unless one of them is overestimated.

Bryce, did you see the state is looking at going to two zones for otter? I am fine with it, but I would prefer they break the north into two zones to match beaver for a short period of time. Then pressure one zone to calibrate our data. I think it would help flush out what is being floated.

Well if Boco is anywhere nearly correct in his guess about the number of unreported incidentals than the season issues, bag limits etc. are the fault of us as trappers as we skew the system to lower populations thus fewer permits, tags and harvest. If the DNR indeed does go to two zones then to me that will cause more attention to be on the lower population estimates and thus fewer permits etc. The larger the area the data covers with more variation the more likely the lowest common denominator will come into play.

Bryce

^^^^^BINGO^^^^^

Bryce, do you really believe we have had a decline?

I am convinced the opposite is true. All based on the work they are doing on wolves. See, it appears they have learned from the mistakes of the past. That same knowledge is giving them confidence on otter.

How else do you explain the dramatic about turn they have done on quota for otter? When the state is pushing for a quota not seen in the state, what does that tell you?

At a glance it would tell me there is new blood that is looking outside of the old paradigm

It does not matter what I believe what matters is those that make the decisions what do they believe or what information do they have to make their decisions. If we as trappers voluntarily choose to not report incidentals for whatever reason we then are a root cause of fewer permits and lower harvests that are recorded and those are the ones that are used to make decisions.

Bryce

I agree with that now Bryce, but not sure that was always the case. For a while, those incidentals brought less permits and more restrictions. Remember, they believed they were destroying habitat and forcing remaining otters together making them more prone to being incidentally caught.

Add in a survey that showed otter were disappearing from the landscape, and that created a pretty big paradigm for them to overcome. I am not sure they could handle the true number at that time. The thousands of otter that came out of the population model when they force fed the surveys to make them work have never been returned.

To this day, fur trappers still have restrictions on them that WS is exempt from. Why? They took out 99 otter last year...many during pupping season. If restrictions need to be in place for fur trappers, they should be in place for them as well. What other things would I be adding to the list, had they had the true number? Trigger restrictions?

Not sure if you been following the test but the opposite of what theyexpected is happening. We would of had even more incidentals. Luckily, we have made the turn. Right now, we only punish ourselves by not turning them in. I kicked myself today for not picking up the one on the side of the road. It was gone when i came back through.

For so long around here getting a nuisance permit was difficult. Created a culture of SSS. Tough changing minds but I won't stop trying. Again, only hurting ourselves by not working to combat. We can't make the same mistake on wolves. To bad a judge is forcing them down the same path.

Many trappers don't turn in those incidentals because of the hassles & drilling they receive from the wardens. Kinda the same many go through when registering their fur. Unless you have a good relationship with your local warden(s), it's almost like your guilty of a crime as soon as you walk in the door.
Then you spend an hour or more answering questions trying to prove your innocence. I know several trappers that won't even trap tagged species for that very reason. Sad, but true.

Whenever I see fingerprinting or blame.
I think of The old expression It takes two to tango.

Incidentals are a chess match. Sometimes its a stalemate.

There was talk in one of the threads on a resolution to create salvage tags to get more people turning them in by making consistent and easier to turn in. Time to bring it back?

I will take it on since it was lost last time in the shuffle, but also because it will be a tough sell with some of the PTB. With the go wild system, people will be worried about a few playing the system.

I will say it fits the goal of working to transfer incidentals into resource bucket. Where are our friends in the north to add a little color? What are the must haves to make it a valuable addition. Can they get the education to the masses up there?

That attitude / paradigm is exactly why we are failing. Realize that things get tossed because of simple risk/ reward decisions. Incidentials are an inconvenience to trappers, period

Turning in incidentals doesn't have to be difficult or complicated!

It starts with education and moves to quality of experience. Get it right, the word will spread and people will comply

Nimzy, Quality of experience is dead on.
Justin, it's worth a shot, but it would be a tough sell. Like you said, people will play the system.

As much as I hate the term, quality of which experience?

I would agree with this if I saw any interest or effort to get their hands untied. I have not heard any explaination why MNDNR, with higher wolf densities than anywhere, has not joined the effort for delisting.

Did you honestly just type that?

Remember there is history behind this paradigm/chess match. It started in the 80s(?)), with a drastic reduction in tags. Many trappers thought it as unfounded and were under protest. Which could lead to cooperation issues. After all, How do people react to groups that they feel are working against them? Eventually the state suspected noncompliance, so the next move was to apply pressure to tag holders, issue tickets and start Mesabi type fur companies. Trappers got long memories.
Paranoia about cheating the system will never solve this problem and intimidation only makes it worst.
I you want me to go out of my way to help it better be comfortable and easy. That's just me and the way I see it.
It's sad how a dictator turned a resource into a trophy and that trophy into a varmint.

Yes I did, it may have went over your head but I am sure that Nimzy and marshrat got my meaning.

In fact I know Chris did evidenced by his post

Who will be the toughest sell? WTA? CC? WWF? I think the state will come around to the idea. After all, they have said they want to work to minimize incidentals. Wouldn't a true count be needed if one is to try and minimize?

Would comfortable and easy allow most to put a tag on incidentals? Call in within 24 hrs just like legal harvested otter? Turn in no questions asked as long as the information is filled out completely?

If the WTA was better at record keeping, I would suggest the WTA should try to take up the collection effort. No reason we couldn't be trained how to register incidentals. Each district would be responsible for putting up their districts incidental fur.

I prefer a text. Sometimes I don't feel like talkin:) Dont care for tags either.

Who gets a nuisance tag and how many?

I think it would be a struggle to get the districts to do put up of those incidentals. A majority of them are done by the same guys now. How long before they're burned out?. I'm pretty sure there's freezers full of incidental fur now. Some being several years old. Maybe Bryce would have a better idea on that.
The tough sell would be with the DNR & maybe the WTA alike.

As many as you need. Run out, just print more. That is what is great about our new licensing system. It treats people like they are honest. Greatly improving the quality of the experience.

But you want guys to text in incidentals? Most were scared of a robocall or getting an electric version of the Wisconsin Trapper. LOL

I will admit that texting worked way better than trying to call them in before taking out of the trap. Always seemed like you never caught them next to the road with great phone reception. Texting would fix the issue when you have poor reception. Use the tag for those that are less tech savvy.

it seems ironic, unlimited nuisance tags with a lottery on harvest permits. I suppose its a start

Chris, They'll have to call them something other than nuisance tags as they treat them as a trophy. Just like fisher & bobcats. Heck they even cut back on cat tags this year by 75 or so. At that rate a guy will need 15+ preference points to draw. Wow, I'll only have to wait 8 more years. Now that's a messed up system.

Technically Brian they cut cat permits by 25. Increased southern tags by 50 and reduced northern tags by 75. Shifting the distribution of the harvest. Wonder if that was done by design? Now the wolves are shown to follow the food onto the private grounds. Why would bobcat be any different. Would that cause us to skew harvest data.

I really wish I would have not missed that meeting. Would have loved to hear the stuff that didn't make the meeting minutes. Fox Claw can you remind us next year? The online community needs representation there to sit and listen. I will volunteer to attend if someone can remind me.

It should be front loaded as we are trying to transfer incidentals into resource. Give the districts some money from the for trapper ed and give the state some money for research and you would have those incidentals cleaned up as they came in. I believe the private sector would be much more efficient in handling.

Again, I think the state would jump on board. Why? Because an incidental tag would even the playing field with a group that the state really dislikes. People that play the system. The current system makes it easier for a guy to play the game than actually follow the rules.

Think about it for a second. A guy kills an otter. He calls his buddy to come get it out of the trap or just drops it off on his way home. If a guy wants to play the system, he tags his otter and comes home with it. Takes his tag off and gives to someone else and they tag/register it. He just prints a new license. He does that for as many incidental otter as he catches. In turn, our success rate climbs and less permits are given out.

The guy that catches an incidental otter/fisher must call in and report before removing from the trap. The warden may or may not require him coming out first. Sure some trappers have relationships with warden that just require a text, but they are supposed to call the hotline first. Their experience varies dramatically across the board. See how it is more difficult for a guy that catches incidental fur to get it turned in than a guy playing the system? An incidental tag would level or at least restore a little balance in the playing field.

Chris, I wouldn't make an assumption in the number of tags that would be needed. That will shake out over time.

If can get a few members of your district to put up 50-60 otter, then that district would receive $1500 to use towards trapper education trailer & supplies. Contact Jenna Kosnicki for further information & details.

That would be 36-46 more otter than my entire district caught last year in incidental otter Brian. Are we allowed to take some other districts fur? LOL

But there are several in the freezers from prior years. Doesn't matter what district they were caught in. You & nimzy can put up 60 for D10. I'll personally send you a thank you card & buy you guys ice cream in Marshfield.

Here I thought you were going to take nimzy's place since he would be getting ready for that big demo and donate to district 7. Speaking of demo, maybe we can get those MN guys to help us. They will be coming over to catch the demo. Maybe that is the cost of admission for them?

Glad to hear they have them from years ago. I wonder if Jenna can find us that beautiful black one I turned in two years ago? By the way, I would need her to have 4 years worth to get us to 57 in my district.

I noticed even WS was responsible for a few of those incidentals. Wonder if David Ruid would help provide some manpower for this event? I know they had wanted to work together to improve reputation that was hurt a little as a result of the last beaver plan. Worth a shot?

You wonder if it was by design? Of course it was!

You know why.

If 49er & MK need to someone to pay their gate fee, I suppose that I could contribute. You can buy the icecream

I'm not paying, I'm sneaking in the back gate.

Might be a little early for that 49er, but it did catch my eye. There was a pretty big range in the recommendations for quota in the north so what would be of more value would be knowing who voted which way and why....

I'd be interested to see what you dig up on that.

Well I didn't get the vote yet, but I was able to get my hands on the supporting documents. Any interest in exploring it? I will warn you that it might turn your thread into Bobcat Logic.

Also, as a public service announcement, please remember that the Wisconsin deadline to apply for a permit for these lovely trophy species is quickly approaching. Only have until August 1 so dont wait to get those applications in.

If you want a sure thing, apply for a southern otter tag this year. Looks like this year we will be trying out the two tags for a few lucky individuals in the southern zone. And if you need help finding otter, I heard "the Beav" will offer assistance in locating those elusive animals in our southern most zone.

I was hoping for an increase in northern zone cat tags, with having Nathan's science & now having Shawn on board. Guess that will take some time. Or maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part? A guy used to get a tag every couple years. Now it takes half your adult life. Hardly worth the effort. IMO.

Anybody know if Kendall plans on making a wolf trap for your guys size regs?

red mt, not sure. I am assuming you mean the early season smaller 7 inch max jaw spread?

Brian, I think we can get a bunch of information from the link to the meeting notes. Here are the discussion from that document"Bobcat Harvest & Season Review 2015: In 2015, there was a harvest quota of 400 bobcats: 300 in the northern zone and 100 in the southern. The total harvest is 263 by state permit holders, 46 incidentals, 6 on reservation and 50 off reservation with a total harvest of 365. 63% were taken by hunters over dogs and 31% trapped. 57% on public land and 37% private. The majority of incidental harvest was road kills with 28 reported. Majority of southern bobcats were harvested in the northernmost portion of the southern zone. The total number of carcasses handled by the DNR was one of the highest with 326 carcasses processed. Committee discussed local bobcat sightings, nuisance bobcat, decreased pregnancy rates and prey concerns.

So I think the new science probably kept the permits higher than they would be in past. We collar 25 bobcats and only 5 have been removed from the population. 2 were harvested, 2 died of natural causes, and one was a depredation cat. I interpret a depredation cat in such a small sample size as too high of population if they are causing problems. Looks like 80% are surviving which I would assume is a good thing. The problem you have is it really is only one year with data. Guessing we need a few more collars and a couple more years to really feel comfortable using the data. We don't want to rush into something only to find out we jumped to conclusions. That got us in trouble with otter, but information looks promising.

Now we add that to the quota recommendations. Looks like no one voted to increase quota. Was either maintain or lower(some wanted as low as 125) and remember that includes representation from CC, WTA, and the hound guys. Since I attended last year and watched voting, I would guess those three voted with the guy running the new studies. But that is pure speculation.

I think the troubling data is the reproduction and track surveys. Reproduction is slowing and surveys appear to show declining track counts. This brings us back to something that was discussed earlier. Wonder if it holds true for bobcat?



As this young forest initiative takes hold, I am guessing we will see some nice increases in permits. Actually, the recent increase might be the main factor that has stabilized the population some. Benefit of habitat improvement strikes again.

I talked with a friend of mine today, who lives near Arrgone. (Forest Co.) He has a logging operation & is also a hound hunter. So needless to say, he spends a lot of time in the woods. He stated that the wolf population is totally out of control. I bear hunt with he & some others in that area each year & I have to agree with him. The amount of trail cam pix we get of wolves are ridiculous. Somebody's gonna have to get them under control. Or hunters will take matters in their on hands.

The state will return to managing wolves soon enough Brian, but unless the guys are willing to listen to the science, any result they want to achieve will take twice as long. Here is why.

You want more bobcat permits. I noticed not one group voted to increase permits this year based on the meeting minutes. Not one. Maybe that was a typo, but I will remind you that the WTA sits on this committee. Did the WTA board want more permits this year? Why or why not? See, one needs to fully understand the science to vote for an increase. I have asked numerous times to get a committee together for these recommendations. Find a handful of guys that have an interest in this stuff and come up with numbers that they feel they can justify. Remember, that committee will get some tough questions and have to deal with the "quality of experience" questions when they come. Be wrong on cats this year and you pay for it for years to come. White and company talk about working very hard not to over harvest these species.

Now apply to wolves. Beating on a drum about 350 is not going to get there any faster. The state will reduce in a controlled manner. We should demand a controlled reduction, but we also need to be able to start testing some things. After all, this will help us be prepared when we need to put the breaks on this run away train.

Since we are going down, I am always looking for an avenue where we can use others to do some of the pushing to benefit us. Too long trapper have been used by other groups to help them get what they want. Time to reverse that trend.

Sure my preface was that I wasn't sure the 350 was a high enough, but don't let that distract from my message. I have suggested ideas on ways that we might be able to give more opportunities for trappers to harvest a wolf in this state while also looking out for the other stakeholders. A way to work at decreasing the population in the heart of wolf country. Remember how long the season lasted in zone 6. Now image you had a zone in the heart of wolf country that you really tried to maintain a lower population in. All these studies being done on prey/predator relationships would only be magnified by having two different population dynamics in place in the heart of wolf country. My way may very well take us to 350 or below and do it faster than the guys screaming for 350. But the difference is I wont eliminate an option before we even get started.

Justin, I sent you a PM this morning

Going to have to get into "quality of experience" if we want more tags in the north for cats.

I wished we would have used the new science to push for more tags. Here is how I figure. #1 the cats we are collaring are surviving. #2 Not sure how many cats we caught as incidentals versus the ones the state caught(but the total was 25 cats received collars), but guessing there is not much difference between the ones trappers were allowed to legally harvest (80 in the whole state) versus the ones we put collars on in the northern zone. Think about that for a second. We are allowed to keep the same number as we are incidentally catching and collaring. That is way out of line and should merit an increase in my eyes. Add in the habitat improvements, and those cats are going to be in responding to the increase in prey species.

The hound guys are like deer guys. They like artificially high population. Sure this helps with them getting larger animals, but it has it drawbacks. IMO, this hurts reproduction. As we start to increase number of tags in this state, we will start to see reproduction rates increase, we will start to see some more younger cats, and we will start to see trappers accounting for more of the harvest. Currently, trappers only accounted for 30% of the harvest. How about we push for a little more balance?

Speaking of balance, there is another animal that has exploded in recent years--the black bear. Now I am not sure which year, but I think it was like 2010 or 2011, there was talk of trying to make a push to get us a legal season to trap a bear in WI. With the deer study showing bears the number one predator for fawns, shouldn't we be utilizing that study to try and get a trapping season on bears? The deer guys, hound guys, and agricultural interests want us to push for a lower population on wolves, why not have them help us get a season on bears? Nope. Instead we are just going to continue to vilify another furbearer that we actually had a season on (until some judge blocked it). How well did that work for beaver?

Anyone have any information on why this bear trapping idea never materialized? Pulled from the WTA meeting minutes. http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/article-index/wisconsin-trappers-association-june-2011-report


"Cable Restraints in Nova Scotia – Mike Schmelling reported on his trip to Nova Scotia to help with their cable restraint research. It provided for 30 extra days of trapping in Nova Scotia. Wisconsin has excellent records for cable restraints and trappers from Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Ontario were instructed. They also use cable restraints/foot snares to catch black bears. Mike would like to see this promoted in Wisconsin with a possible season. It has been used to capture and release bears unharmed for years for research. The model Mike demonstrated ran about $54. Motion made by John Irwin to research the safety and feasibility of the foot snare as a viable and legal means of harvest in Wisconsin. Seconded by Richard Clark. Motion carried. It was mentioned that we need to include the Conservation Congress with this proposal."


Speaking of Conservation Congress. The Fur Harvest Committee will be meeting this weekend. http://dnr.wi.gov/About/WCC/Documents/Agenda/2016/Fur073016.pdf

Maybe someone there will be able to provide me with some direction.

Figured our main thread might need a couple links to a few past discussion items on wolves. http://www.trapperman.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/5364464/3

In this thread, Fox Claw noted that the state wouldn't have created a season on wolves if Adrian was still in charge. At that time, he might have been right. Now I find it ironic that Adrian is the same person that published this article:
http://wolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/swingsinmgmt.pdf

Interestingly enough, it was the basis for him to work with David Mech in their letter to the Feds to de-list wolves in the Great Lakes region.

Outdoorsmen were perplexed when Wydeven signed the letter to delist. I think in was Dean Bortz that said the action should be looked at with "optimistic caution," or something to that effect.

It was shortly after that that people realized that wolf-lovers were taking a position that supported delisting but included a "threatened status" protection. That way hunting and trapping would be banned. Such a move would also curtail the progress that congress was making on legislative action to delist.

The fact that Wydeven is using Treves research to support his position is particularly disturbing. Wydeven also takes the position to "manage the wolf population through a highly regulated system of sustainable harvest and focused depredation controls." This is code language in the AR community that supports a calculated and limited state government-run harvest. A thing they are truly against, but feel necessary to stop wider public hunting and trapping seasons.

Wydeven is not sportsmen's friend. Treves is downright scary.

"Currently, trappers only accounted for 30% of the harvest. How about we push for a little more balance?"

The balance was supposed to be taken care of. Thus the 2 different time periods. As trappers generally would use the first season & hounds men would prefer later. As a better chance of tracking snow. Remember that this took place prior to adding a southern zone.
I would rather trap the early season when the ground would be dry. Or at least a good chance. Instead of 2' of snow. For accessibility reasons.

Fox Claw, we might need to get your definition of "friend".

Brian, I finally turn back towards wolves and you put me back on cat tracks. You are confusing this hound. LOL But I will ask you this. You want more permits or do you care more about "quality of experience"? Right now we are weighted heavy for quality of experience.

Dont the two go hand in hand?

How can you have an "experience" without a permit?

49er, I had an inkling you would weight quantity a little more in your quality of experience equation. Brian wants more permits, yet he fights to decrease them at every turn under his “quality of experience”equation. He refuses to use all the levers at his disposal to get more permits. He fights for a longer season, which drives down permits. He fights against using emergency close, which hurts number of permits issued. He has avoided getting a really good understanding of the science and permit process so he can influence those that control the permits with that science and process.

You bring up an interesting point Brian on the two season, but it has one fatal flaw. They are managed the same way. They need to be managed differently if you want different results. Let’s manage the first season opposite of the hound guys. Let’s weight the variables the opposite of how they are weighted now. The problem is we will never see the true potential, because we go first. That means they will always be pushing back against us, but we can address that later.

See, I would follow the legislators lead on wolves and apply a few of the lessons to bobcat for the first season in both the north and south. I would demand tags are given out based on a 15-20% success rate and I would use the emergency close to stop harvest when we reached our quota. Going to put a little pressure on the guys to get out there and harvest the bobcat. See this benefits the trappers. How long before we have trappers pushing back to get a later start to the season? Did we see it on wolves?

See this was all used against us in the past to put us in this situation we are in now…just in reverse order. Why are we not using to reverse course? Wolves gave us a blueprint. We just need to follow it.

I guess maybe I am confused. lol. Where exactly did I push for a longer season? I'm only looking for an increase of issued permits. And by the way, I hate the split season structure we have. Once that was put into place. Tags became much more difficult to draw. Maybe when applying, one should have to request a "trapping tag" or a "hunting tag"? Do you think that the population estimates are low? I sure do. And I'm talking about wolves, cats, & otters. I very well be wrong. But unless it can be shown with hard evidence, not just numbers pulled out of thin air, then you won't change my opinion.

I agree with you 49er.

Did you not say the way wolf season was set up was a joke because they closed it so soon in many of the zones? Did you not say you didn't want them issuing 2 tags per trapper for otter because the season would close sooner? Should we walk through a real life example Brian to show you the ramifications of your choice? You want to stay with Bobcat?

The sooner that everyone looks in the mirror ad realizes the man looking back is the only one responsible for his quality of experience the better off we will all be.

Than maybe teh government agencies can actually use science.

Let’s take the first year in the south on bobcat because the math is a little easier to work with…

So for our first year, we get a quota of 50 bobcat. After accounting for tribal harvest, that takes us to 46 bobcat that we want to harvest(23 First Season and 23 second season). So they take average harvest success(60%) to determine how many permits they issue. That means we give out 38 permits in first season and 38 in second season. I will admit for those 76 people that are lucky to draw a permit, quality of experience is high, but what about the other 1500 that applied? I guess they can catch them and get them tagged. Wait, that was only in the north that year. LOL

Guess how many cats we harvested that year? 38 cats. That means almost 25% of our quota was not utilized. Even our most conservative science service guy would agree that quota was conservative. After all, it was only that low because the hound and trappers were mad about the season framework so they punished each other, but that is for another day/time. See the important question that was never asked was, “how many cats do we really want to harvest?” See all the stakeholders on wolves have that figured out. We ain't leaving quota on the table.

So what would have that meant if we had used the same logic? Well, the quota would remain the same 46 bobcat, but instead of figuring a 60% success rate, we predetermine success ratio by increasing permits. I think the wolves were set at 10%. If we had used that same logic, we would have issued 230 permits for the first season and 230 permits for the second season. I think that is a 600 percent increase in permits. Sure, the season would have ended a sooner, but a lot more people would have been allowed to participate in it. Now assuming that southern zone didn’t get a quota increase, it would take over 20 years to draw a tag. My way, a trapper gets one every three years. The guy waiting 20 years has 120 bucks tied into his bobcat. My way, the guy has 18 bucks. Which experience do you want?

Now I will note the hound hunters will never agree to issuing this many permits in the second season, but doesn’t mean we shouldn’t push them on the first season if we truly want balance in harvest between our two groups. I also did the extreme to prove a point, but you could use 20% if you wanted a little longer season. All things have a trade off and I think most people fail to really understand how one lever impacts the other.

As a disclaimer, I did the math in my head and I type fast so you math gurus might want to check it.

I guess you are right then, because I did say those things. But it was made in reference to the quotas & the start of the the season. Basically forcing trappers to get out there and set traps & catch unprime fur before the season was closed in a particular zone do to the quota being reached within a few days.
Yeah, that's a great Experience.

Wouldn't you agree the actual number of wolves are higher than estimated, if it only takes trappers 3 days to fill the quota in certain zones? Common sense would certainly say so. The science data doesn't support the trend data if viewed this way. An increase in the quota would increase the permits & thus increase the experience.

600% more got to get out there and try. 30% more trappers took home a bobcat in that scenario. Guessing those are not going to be the ones complaining. The other scenario has the guys waiting 20 years just for the chance. We could all be dead by then. How we going to capture their experience? LOL

Now sure, we can always push for a later season. Didn't we do this very thing on wolves? The WTA worked to move the season back to First Saturday in November. They took a lot of heat from the guys in the north who just can't give up the front of the season. See, the guys in the north would prefer that they would get rid of that silly provision on the number of tags they gave out so they could have the long season, but then the time to draw a tag increases. They refuse to accept this very premise.

But see, you could go even farther and give all 1500 a tag. Let them go until they harvested quota. Season gets even shorter and the pressure increases to delay the start. MN has much better bobcat habitat, but their entire season is nearly half as long as the first of our two season. Not sure on current limits but I thought it was four cat tags per trapper and didn't start until around Thanksgiving, yet trappers account for 80-90% of their harvest. Everything has a trade off, but more importantly, it is the direction that you are going that is important.

Now you have taken us back to Fox Claw's comment. Once I get back from the CC Fur Harvest Committee meeting tomorrow I will throw up information for you Brian. Hopefully, Fox Claw can shed some more light on it.

Justin, we allow 5 cats per trapping license or any small game license sold in the entire state. Plus we allow any youth between the ages of 5 and 12 the same limit without a license.

Think of the potential tags that are out there!

Keep beating the QOE drum and keep letting the bureaucrats beating it and you'll have more of the same.

I should also emphasize that any non resident small game license holder is allowed 5 cats hunting.

Personally I'd take a shorter season and more permits any day of the week and twice on Sundays. You shouldnt be harvesting cats that early anyways. It's a disservice to the limited resource.

I have a question for you Wisconsin guys. I'm a Michigan guy that used to spend my summers in Oneida co. (Rhinelander) as a pup. I worked for an uncle there. I still have family there that have told me I have a standing invite to come shoot a wolf any time assuming I can draw a tag. My question is can I trap a wolf as a non-resident? Michigan no longer allows non-residents to trap/hunt any critter that has a quota......except wolves. Non-residents were allowed to hunt the one year we held a hunt(trapping wasn't allowed even if you were a resident). I would love to trap a wolf up there, and have no doubt my kin folk could put me on farms with wolves using them.

Guess we'll just have to go to Mn. That way I can get a tag. Actually 5.. I'm not wanting to trap for my cats anyway. I'll hunt them with dogs every time.
Like 49er. I would take the shorter season in exchange for more tags. Along with a later start date.

Obviously mn has far better habitat or a lot less trappers and hunters. How else could bobcats, otter, fisher , beavers... Well about every fur bearer expect muskrats and coon. Be able to withstand that type of pressure?

As far as shortening seasons, ur taking away opportunity. LET the MARKET DECIDE

Doesn't every resource have it's limits?

I expressly used the word LIMITED because I knew you would jump on me lol.

Rats, coon and even beaver aint cats when it comes to the biology of the species and you know it. It's disingenuous to even compare.

Same thing when it relates to the fur. An October early Nov cat in WI or MN is almost worthless, that same cat caught in January February will be worth 5 to 10 times as much, whether we are in an up market or down.

Can you say that about rats or coon?

To answer your last question. Not in this market.

To answer the question why you have less liberal seasons on those species is WI has better trappers.

O yea, that makes sense! Thanks Steve

Cept rats! Mn has the best rat trappers!!

You may be light years ahead of wi on tagged species. But ur far from perfect. How long is ur rat season again?

Well after looking up the WI season and the MN season on rats, using some long multiplication, subtraction and division, putting in a call to IBM to use Big Blue to make sure I was right using the calculus I did in my formula I come to the conclusion that your season was 6 days longer than ours last year.

Would I like to have those 6 days? You betcha! Would I like the have the 15 or 20 days more you used to have on the back end. Now we're talking! I wouldnt see near the same benefits as you up here though, I'd have to travel.

Ur comin around buddy.
Do mn beaver have multiple litters? I see that season goes on forever

We let the market decide the beaver harvest.

Has it ever gotten overdone?

WI must have caught up to MN on rats...proposal would now move rat trapping below 29 to a November opening..

Not in the last 35 years.

It may in the future if we ever see an overly extended period of high markets or an excess of trapping that isnt related to market forces.

It wouldnt surprise me that we lose some time on the back end some day but public tolerance of beaver seems to be less and less every day so who knows.

Can anyone answer my question about the non-resident trapping deal?

This would probably be a better question for someone like Muskrat, Fox Claw, or the Beav.

Since they have not showed up yet, I will give you an educated guess. Here are our trapping regulations:http://dnr.wi.gov/files/pdf/pubs/wm/wm0002.pdf
We only allow states that allow us to buy nonresident trapping licenses. Since MI doesn't allow us to trap, I would assume that you would not be allowed a trapping license here. Again, I would wait to hear from others though.

Remember Brian, you are only allowed to catch 1/3 of the wolves or you hurt the population. A lot of those wolves are pups and catch easily. But, you are right in that if you could maintain that same ability to fill quota in a couple days year after year, then that would be sign that you were not harvesting too many wolves. Especially, if you wanted to go down in population. A declining population should be harder to fill tags and take more effort to catch the same amount.

I thought Wisc. was the badger state?

We're obviously overpopulated. Isn't 350 the magic number? And they admit to roughly 690? Which most people in the upper half of the state will say is quite conservative. I agree with them.

It is...And they are finally looking at opening a badger season. LOL

I don't like a population number Brian...It holds us back from doing the right thing. Your bobcat permits are being held back by a dumb number so I would think you would be quick to ditch that 350.

See we have this population number on bobcat of 2500 +/- 500. Right now we appear to be on the lower end of that range so it keeps us from increasing permits even though we should. I have no idea where we are in relation to that number, but I can tell you without a doubt, we could double permits issued and not have an impact the population that would be of significance.

Lol I haven't read through all the posts but I would rather have badgers then wolves. I love to trap badgers and they have one of the most beautiful coats of all critters.

Not badgers from Wi. Their fur is really flat & just plain junk.

Brian is that just because all those Badger are caught early?

Now back to bobcat. See we used to issue lots more permits in the past and we used to have a very poor success rate. I am talking less than 20%. Over time the effort to catch/harvest one has continued to fall and our success rates have continued to increase. It has gotten to the point where we can take a brand new guy off the street and tell him he has a 60% chance of harvesting a bobcat and probably a "trophy" bobcat at that. LOL Yeah, that new bobcat study did nothing but reinforce what trappers/hunters have been saying for years. Increase permits and run a little lower success rate. The funny thing is if you did that for a few years, I bet the success rate would be right back up at 60%.

Instead we are chasing this 2500 number on bobcat. Are you sure you want to chase a numeric number on wolves?

Yep! We need a true count, so when they become harvestable again, we work to stay @ that original goal of 350, & maintain a population that is acceptable for all. Maybe more or smaller zones would help that? Idk?

Do I need to remind you we have a population goal of 13K for otter. We are way under goal and so again, how is that working for trappers? I have no idea if we are below 13K, but this I am sure. We have way too many otter in this state and need to go down. The current levels do not work.

See, if I am hearing you correctly, you want a lower population on wolves. Or should I say, the lowest population as you can. But fighting so hard for a population number you are working for the opposite. You are actually working to eliminate the option of going below. Notice how any thing that we have a numeric population goal on we artificially inflate by our actions? Think wolves will be any different? Do you really want to take away your option to go below when you have no idea what 350 will look like?

I don't know where the population level should land, but I do know we have too many currently. And surely, I would not work to eliminate an option before we really even get started.

You dont wqnt to chase an arbitrary number that can not be prove IMHO.

Justin, since when do success rates play any role in biology or is their some other nefarious reason they use that as an indicator?

Give this young lady a call and she'll provide you with the information you're looking for J. Morse.

Contact Information

Jenna Kosnicki
Assistant furbearer biologist
Bureau of Wildlife Management
608-261-6452

OK, you win. Let's just kill them all now & sort it out later. We can just start with zero again. See what kind of fictional numbers they'll come up with then.

Now you sound like fisheries on beaver. LOL

By itself, it means nothing. I think when you look at effort for success, I think it could provide value. But I guess that would also depend on your objective. You only interested in ensuring you have an sustainable population or do you have as much interest in what goes to waste?

Any single or small grouping of numbers or data will be wrong and subject to a lot of scrutiny. One of the main reasons states hire biologists and ecologists and pay for research is to gather information to be able to determine population densities, management, trends and also to have data to prevent being sued and or law suits from AR groups etc. I find it interesting that the state, (politicians) feel that the research and numbers are accurate enough to allow seasons, bag limits and also protect the state from law suits from AR groups but those numbers are not credible to trappers and those that harvest.

Maybe there needs to be a real discussion as to why most consumptive users feel they are being fed bogus information while many others are glad that the work is being done and are willing to fund the work.

Bryce

Why was that original 350 number used? More than likely because that's what science & research showed sustainable as habitat & prey species could allow. So why were their numbers allowed to increase? To double that number or likely more? Why reintroduce such a dominant predator with no way of controlling overpopulation because of federal protection

It was a poor plan to begin with. The whole thing stinks

I would love to dig into this Bryce, but I wonder if we do it in the other thread. As someone that walked away from the otter conversation nearly 20 years ago, only to submit a resolution this past yearthat would increase the permit fee so we would have a funding mechanism for water furbearers, I think I can see both sides. I have been on both sides.

You want to increase the cost of our app fee now? And you think I'm the one stirring the pot? The app fee for tagged species is too high now. Especially for cats & bears, which takes way to long to draw.

Yep Brian. Like the bureaucracy needs to be fed any more.

I tend to agree. Sometimes you have to take a step back before going forward. That might be a whole other conversation. I might put in a resolution on fisher to increase that permit fee as well if our state continues to show good stewardship of those funds.


On a side note, the DNR will be holding a chat on bobcat in October. The details are as follows:


Online bobcat chat rescheduled to Oct. 13 at noon
Published by Central Office September 6, 2016

Contact(s): Shawn Rossler, DNR furbearer Ecologist, 608-267-9428; Nathan Roberts, DNR carnivore and furbearer research scientist, 715-490-9345

MADISON - Join Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources experts for an online chat about bobcats in Wisconsin that has been rescheduled to Thursday, Oct. 13 at noon.

Please note that a previous news release listed the chat date as Sept. 15.

Visit dnr.wi.gov and search keyword "chat" to submit questions and view responses from DNR experts. Here, you can also view past chats and sign up to receive email notifications. For more information regarding bobcats in Wisconsin, visit dnr.wi.gov and search keyword "furbearers."

Anybody have a good question they would like asked?

Ask them what their projected timeline (once delisted) is for returning the population back to its original goal of 350.

Sorry Brian. The chat is on bobcat so not sure if they still take questions on wolves;)

Here's a question, is it the over population of Bobcats that has ran our Fisher out of Northern Price County? There are way to many bobcats it this area, I can only vouch for northern Price since I don't get far from home, I gave up applying for fisher tags, because the last time I had a tag I killed 3 bobcats and released 3 more and never caught a fisher. I have released them form cable restraints, and even drown one in a mink set.

Hey, I don't want to get rid of the wolves because up here you can blame any problem on one four things, Obama, Isis, Climate Change or Wolves

I don't want to get rid of the wolves either. Just want them brought back to a sustainable level (350). Which was the goal when reintroduction took place.

Justin, Since this was on the wolf thread, guess that's what I thought was the subject.

There is that 350 number again. Why are you so rigid in wanting that number?

What is that number going to get you? Last I checked, every permit animal is at bottom of range or below goal and it significantly reduces are ability to increase permits. What could be of such great value that youyou are willing to follow the same path?

Do you think it is the Bobcats forcing the Fisher out through food competition? That's the best or most believable answer I have gotten from the wildlife folks. I don't know how they estimate Bobcat populations but there seems to be a lot of cats around here. I know everybody does not turn in all incidental catches, it's easier to toss them. I do all mine because I know it goes to trappers ED. Same with otter, it's easier to let them float away. I hope they don't count on incidental catch numbers too heavily.

I believe that the question is why was the 350 number used in the first place? Because that's probably what a sustainable population should be. Based on habitat and food source. Wolves continue to move south, right? Is that because there is more abundant food source? Or because of overpopulation & dispersal? Are those wolves going to be able to coexist with higher human populations as they move this way? Or is there going to increased conflicts? I believe all of the above.

Line Jumper; I don't know the true answer to your question. May be competition for the same food source more of an issue than the cats preying on the fisher. I used to trap them in Vilas Co. 10 years ago. It was hard to keep them out of your sets. The numbers certainly aren't there like they once were. I'm in N. Rock Co., and I know of a handful that have been caught in the last couple years only 60 miles north of me. And I don't think the cats are far behind.

So they shouldn't have the ability to update to more accurate information or adjust based on new variables?

We live in a changing world. I prefer we adjust as time goes on. Otter, bobcat, and fisher trappers are going to be mad if you hold them to the same standard as wolves. Your numeric population goal its killing or harvest. Yet, you want to create another one?

I will throw some stuff up on otter later on estimated population and habitat.

Changing?

Sure they can change. And things always do. Whether good or bad. Nathan said @ the membership meeting that the estimated population was around 800. That's more than double of the original goal. I've never heard or read where anyone said our habitat could sustain a population higher than 350. Have you? Why do you think the deer populations are so low above hwy 64 & 8? Why are all those nothern DMUs buck only? Do you think lack of browse or harsh winters attributed to that? Maybe some? But deer seem to be able to adapt to different food sources. So I don't believe that's the big culprit here. Depredation would be much more logical. IMO.

I know you're gonna say I need to "look at the big picture." But I feel I am. The wolves are eating us out of house & home. Plain and simple. There is a reason why we wiped them out the first time.

Line Jumper, guessing it is not helping, but not sure how much is a driving factor. The fisher almost seem to be migrating based on the occurrence across multiple states. As far as incidentals on bobcat, trappers are only hurting themselves if they are not turning in the incidentals. Our new chain of command is aggressively working to transfer incidental into the resource bucket by increasing quota to lower incidentals and increase legal harvest. The hound guys tried to use incidental bobcat to increase harvest, but there is just not the same level turned in compared to otter and the majority are road killed bobcats. Only fitting that this change in mindset on otter was driven because the DNR was allowed to change their habitat figures on otter.

Nimzy, isn’t everything always changing? Some in short cycles and some things long term. Keep the water too high for too long and what happens to a marsh? Keep it too low for too long and what happens? Any different when a guy gets out of the water?

Bobcat were found that they underestimated viable habitat based on how close they were living to people and the density in which they were living in the habitat. More habitat, more target species, higher sustainable quota. They go together. When they figured the habitat for otter, they must have used the same guys that came up with the 350 for wolves. They severely underestimate the sustainable habitat for otter and thus the maximum sustainable harvest is kept lower. This leads to extreme waste.

If I am betting, this is why someone wanted to go after incidentals so bad on otter. He started to realize the true number. He listened to trappers talking about otter showing up in places they were just not in the past. Not only were they living in that habitat that was not counted, they were thriving. So he redid this total habitat model and thus your sustainable harvest was much higher. Now when things showed signs of impacting population, he could re-calibrate the model to know just how many otter he was losing based on this new habitat number. He compared that number to what he had coming in the form of incidentals and legal harvest and the gap was large. So now we are working to correct by increasing quota on otter.

But yet, Brian wants to hold them to this old faulty science. Doesn’t want them the ability to adapt and change with the changes happening across the landscape. Brian, notice how much of the state is not surveyed for wolves? Guess how much less would be surveyed if we held the state to the same habitat index they used to come up with the 350? Going out on a limb here, but I bet you lose a minimum of 30% of your wolf population estimate if we force them to go back to suitable wolf habitat. Lucky for you, they went against your wishes and adjusted their science to match the new information that they had at their disposal.

As more habitat is improved through things like the young forest initiative, timber harvest, and food plots, the carrying capacity of the land changes. Our biggest issue right now on bobcat is the reproduction rates. I think when we had our last big increase on cats, we were testing to see if reproduction rates would increase as we increased harvest. We had picked a number that we thought we would get a reaction on. But we didn’t get the reaction, partly driven by not harvesting as many cats as we thought they would get(which in my mind could have been predicted). So we try to pause and hold before going on. The only problem is many of our wildlife management folks are afraid of their own shadow and are quick to reduce harvest. This hurts actually testing some things.

I think it was Bryce that said trappers are quick to get sidetracked before letting things play out. Looks like that is a trait that is shared by other groups beside trappers.

Trappers are probably quick to side track because they get old and die before things "play" out.

I'm waiting for a nr trapping season and the trappers in Wisconsin are waiting for chicken little biologists to increase their harvest.

Practically every state around WI a more liberal attitude when it comes to cats and otter yet Wisconsin seems to think they are special and they need to study it to death.

Luckily for the trappers of Wisconsin they will most likely see improvements before I do

49er, I think some of that work needs to be done if we want to get aggressive with harvest and still win a lawsuit. Get it peer reviewed and published. Plus, those benefits would go outside of WI.

But trappers share some of this blame on these species as they have allowed too much quality of experience to get baked in. I would love nothing more than to shorten the first bobcat season by a month minimum. Increase permit to a 10% success rate and shut down the season when we reached the quota for that period. I bet we would actually create some bobcat trappers because they would get a tag every year or two versus waiting 10+ years for one. Guys would actually avoid before season started because those cats would now have a value later. Hound hunters would not like me because I would ensure the first season is not leaving quota on cats unfilled before they get out there.

Brian won't let me because he thinks the way wolves is set up is bad and is a bad experience, but maybe he will reconsider once he uses up his 10+ points and needs to start accumulating towards his next bobcat. The guys in the north refuse to budge on the front end of the season because they value the front end of the season for some reason but refuse to account for the limited resource as reference with the complaining that came when the wolf season was delayed by a couple weeks. Not sure how MN catches 4-5X our number of cats when they are starting around Thanksgiving and lack the hunting pressure. LOL

Last, but not least, it would ensure we had even more collars on cats to show they were surviving the increasing pressure we are going to apply in the future. Not only do we need more collars on cats in the north, we also now need to get some in the south. So glad that study was expanded into the southern zone. That way if I can't get trappers to start pushing together, at least the science guy will get us some more tags.

Your not sure how we do it

We give out a possible 100,000 or more tags with no quota.

Are you guys telling me you havent collected enough data over the years?

Why do you need a peer reviewed study and what makes you think anyone would want to use it outside of Wisconsin? We've managed to increase our cat harvest 4 fold since I was a kid. My suspicion is they used the data they have been collecting for the last 30 40 years to justify it. You'll never find out what you potential is with a "quota" or limited tags.

In a way you still have a quota…it is just administered through a bag limit and season length. I am betting there was a time they came close to lowering your bag limit for cats or times they should have increased bag limit but didn’t because they were thinking about the total take(or quota). Wasn’t that the case with fisher and reason they lowered bag limit? But that also comes with waste as you truly never see the potential either as they must account for the worst case—an extended period of high prices and renewed interest. One must remove the bag limits and season lengths to really say that you do not have a quota. Southern states that have no limit and liberal season know they will never come close to the quota they have.

To me, quota gets a bad rap. Really it shouldn’t be anything more than maximum sustainable harvest. White and Boco use it up on their trap line. Why shouldn’t we use down here? I think they have a little more consistency in their maximum sustainable harvest than the lower 48 state. Man just seems to have had a bigger impact down here, but I could be wrong.

Interest in WI science? I don’t know. We sure get blame for all the past poor science we put out. Wouldn’t it be nice to give out some that trappers could see the benefit from or use to impact their management of species in their state? Problem is trappers will probably not be paying attention to utilize. Even MN might be able to use our future otter science at some point to get an extension on their season, but one will need to be paying attention. But I won’t hold my breath as I see our NR science still has not rubbed off on MN yet.

The changes that were made to our season structure, going from one time period to 2 probably has had a impact in draw rates decreasing.

I don't find the cat population has anything to do with the wolf problems. Cats are more likely to prey on small game, i.e. hare, grouse, or other rodents. Not elk, deer or the like, that wolves prey on.

Cats can be and are hard on just dropped fawns.

who has the video out of Portage County for the 2.5 yr old buck killed by wolves in front of a bow hunter, that got it on tape.

And the bears,coyotes,foxes.

Here is the mortality study on fawns in the north woods from 2013/4:

Bear 2
Bobcat 4
Coyote 2
Wolves 1

That tells me bears are twice as hard on fawn while bobcat are 4 times as hard on fawns in comparison to wolves. Should we go back to the original bobcat and bear population goals for those species as well?

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/research/documents/Deer_Annual_Report_2013_2014.pdf

Do you have a link to wolf depredation on adult deer? Or elk. It's easier for me to have you locate the info than I. lol

What about injuries or deaths on birddogs & hounds? Wolves vs. bobcats? See where I'm going with this?

Coyotes are pretty stable in the north.
Bear? The new management goal is 18K roughly which is about 50% higher than the older goal of 12K
Wolves go from 350 to 850 (both are the February minimum population estimates) and the rancor and angst about shredding our deer population is huge, but, but we add 6,000 bears to the landscape and we hear not a peep. It probably reflects that bears have a much larger economic impact and engages more hunters, baiters, hound groups and resorts etc. than do wolves. People have been trained and taught to hate wolves but no so much bears.
With the number of yotes remaining in wolf country they probably kill many fold the deer that wolves do.
What wolves do is change the behavior of prey species when they are in the area, more so than bear, cats and yotes. Wolves are probably the most aggressive predator on adult deer of the 4 but dead fawns don't grow too fast.

Bryce

did you guys account for all the bears that wolves are killing? north of 64 there are plenty of bears drug out of their winter dens by wolves, killed and ate before they wake up. cant blame the wolves, there's no deer left to hunt for them either.

18,000 bear? You want one behind every tree

How many bear are in WI now

In a way we dont still have a quota. If you look up in the dictionary the definition for quota should read "an arbitrary number picked out of thin air".

I cant tell you the history behind MN's bobcat season but here is what I do know.

I was told several years ago by an individual from the DNR when we hit 250 cats harvested they felt it was enough. If you look at our registered harvest table going back to 83/84 we hit surpassed that number in 84/85 with a minor shortening of season two years later. I dont know the history of why the season was shortened but I'd wager it wasn't because of harvest numbers.


We stayed under that 250 threshold until 1996/97 and we spiked from 223 the previous season to 359 that year. That actually surprises me, we had a barn burner of a winter that year.

The next year they cut us from 37 days to 16. Why? I cant say for sure because I wasnt overly involved back then but my guess is we blew out that 250 number.

We went to 109 on the 16 day season of 97/98. The following year we saw an increase in season. Now we vary between 37 and 44 days.

Look at the harvest numbers since we saw the increase in 99/00

206, 231, 250, 544, 483, 631, 590, 890, 702, 853, 884, 1012 and a whopping 1711 in 11/12.

What happened that they felt it was okay to go from 250 to 544? What happened that they felt it was okay to take 1711 and not cut anything the following.

Thank god we didnt have an arbitrary quota pulled out of thin air that would have shut us down long before the potential was realized.

In MN we turn in every carcass and supposedly they are aged, sexed and reproductive tracts are examined. Evidently the collected data after season taken after closure was plugged into their modeling and the model said he we are ok at these levels.

If you want to tackle fisher and what they are thinking be my guest. Look at the harvest levels of recent and they are in line with the long term bell curve. My feeling is their population goal is some where in the higher end of the curve.

Or it could be they are so concerned with the population drop in the core range they are sacrificing the areas with higher densities.

You want a question for the bobcat chat?

Ask them this. What is the variation or is there one of the age structure and sex of cats harvested by hound hunters vs. trappers?

Here is another. First question. Do the natives turn in all carcasses? If so what is the age and sex structure of their harvest.

Once you are able to ascertain the structures of the three groups, are they comparable? If not why?

I think we might be going for two. Only about 29000 in the state according the recent documents. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/documents/reports/bearpop2.pdf
LOL

Some good questions 49er. I wonder if we were ever given that type of information in the past or if GLIWC publishes that data. I even wonder if we keep that separate?

49er, was your bag limit always the same during that time frame?

Yes.

I'm sorry, I should have posted a link to the MN registered furbearers.

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/trapping/harvest_13-14.pdf

Look at table five. What conclusion could one come up with if dropping the limit would have much effect.

Before the increased permits and harvest about 6-7 years ago the estimate was closer to 25K of bear in WI. I read someplace where WI is thought to be the leading state in black bear numbers. That may change as when populations reach their carrying capacity several forms of population come into play. If there are that many bear in WI that the wolves kill that many and you want fewer bear I would not advocate the wolf predation factor as that could lead to a lot more wolves unless you want them killing more bears.

Bryce

Brian, I think they are up to 37 based on last report I received. I would ask how many the bears have but not sure if the hound guys track that.

Thanks keets and bbusser for joining the conversation.

Couldn't one say the same about increasing the limit? So why the arbitrary number? Isn't it holding you back from realizing the true potential? I think MN has way better bobcat habitat than WI. Just a myth?

I think the Central Forest Zone has as good, if not better bobcat habitat than the north. There tends to be a lot of clear cut with pulp wood in that area. Anybody on here trapping that area that could provide input as far as incidentals they have caught?

Bryce, the DNR has that information all plastered on their supporting documents for bear. In the last bear task force minutes posted, there was talk about how other states gave out more permits. See a trend here?

Speaking of incidentals Brian, I wonder if anyone of the guys on here will accomplish this this year?
http://www.fdlreporter.com/story/news/2015/12/07/trapper-makes-rare-wild-cat-catch/76690214/

My hats off to him for getting those bobcat collared. Hopefully, the research will help get bobcat figured out in time for him to have a chance or two to actually harvest a cat.

Any one else have some questions they would like to see asked, or are they holding out on me so they can ask themselves?

Hey all, a little information on incidentals. We want to get our hands on them and learn all we can. We will be collaring wolves statewide (including dispersing animals). We will continue to collar bobcat in the 12 county area in the northern zone. This year, we are starting a similar effort in SW Wisconsin in a 8 county area. Many of your will get the following mailings in the next few weeks (depending on where you live). They may change a bit, but will be similar to this. If you can't read the images, just wait, you'll get a copy in the mail right before season opens.
I am unable to respond in any timely manor on this board, so feel free to email with any questions.
Nathan
nathanm.roberts@wiscosnin.gov

Thanks Nathan. What advantages are there from these collars? Beside survival rate & movement? The costs associated with with this program must surly be high? And does it benefit population counts?

I believe these collars are not put on tight enough therefor survival rates are way too high.

Thanks Nathan for that information. I was wondering when it was going to get posted on the DNR site.

Interesting take Diggerman. Curious to hear more on your theory. If you have the numbers, throw them up. Always willing to listen to an the other side.

Anyone know the breakdown of the cats that were collared on public versus private? Wonder if the cats harvested came from private/public? Another couple good questions to ask.

I know of the three harvested, one was a depredation cat. Wonder if these complaints have risen over the last 20 years or if the northerners just apply same rules as wolves?

Wonder if Gary is going to run a long line on coyotes at the starting bell so he can contribute to the study since that must be close to home.

Scuuuuse me, Thought we were still talkin wolves.

No worries as we tend to go a little off topic Diggerman. We are constantly going back to the animals that have a season. Sure would be nice if we could go back to having a wolf season in this state. Too bad politics got in the way of sound science. I had hoped Johnson could help navigate the bill through the senate. Sure wasn't because of lack of effort on his part. Only wish was that his counterpart on the other side of the isle would have lent a hand. Elections have consequences and I am surprised this issue hasn't been talked about more in this election.

The collars serve a little different purpose for bobcat than they do wolf. They are not cheap, but we have shifted over to GPS collars. Part of the reason for that is that there is a higher upfront cost, but the cost to monitor is way cheaper. Once the collar is on, it communicated to a satellite and we no longer have to drive, or fly, around to monitor the critter. This changes the “per location fix” cost to a fraction of what it was a couple years ago.
For wolves, the collars help up identify packs, pack territory, and ultimately pack size (that leads to overall counts). The counts we use are “minimum” over-winter counts. So, the more collars we have out, the better the count. Another way to look at the count is the bare minimum we can say – we literally counted at least that many. We do not use estimates yet, but will get there. I won’t say any more about wolves.
For bobcat, we are getting at population size and status. We have collared 36 so far. Are estimates of annual survivorship is 0.76. Now, this gets important because we use population models to estimate how many we have, and how many we can take. We generally estimate that the harvest is about 20%, then there is some illegal take and natural mortality. So, if we find that total mortality is 24%, which is less than we assume so; if the trend holds, that suggest that the population size is not what we assume either. The other important information we are gathering is habitat use, home range size, and home range overlap. Generally, it is assumed that only some portion of the landscape is suitable bobcat habitat. We further assume that home ranges don’t overlap. Given these, there is a limit to the population size. There is only so much room. What we are learning here, and why we want to collar more, is that ‘cats use almost any type of habitat. We also see quite a bit of overlap.
That is a long way of saying that the more we know, the less we rely on assumptions and can make the most informed decisions possible (and withstand legal challenges).
-Nathan

I wonder if there are counties that we are lacking a good sample size?

How many cats do we have collared in our top counties based on harvest?

What percent can we harvest before we impact population?

So many questions for this chat, I might need help asking all of them. It was a bobcat research chat right, right?

Nathan I/we eagerly await your results.

Thank you for taking the time to inform us.

And how far are those collared cats ranging? Probably dependent on sex & age? Have any dispersed to different areas/counties altogether?

What a breath of fresh air some one from the DNR actually talking to us. Thanks Nathan

Do we have any district 9 guys that might have the opportunity to participate in the new study area?

I know our northern trappers on here were well represented when it came to collaring cats.

I know a guy that caught & released a cat in Bagely area last year.

So I went back and checked my notes from the WTA meeting to see which counties we were lacking a good sample size in the north. It looks like Ashland, Sawyer, and Rusk were counties that lacked good representation. We have any land trappers up that way?

When I pulled my notes Brian, it looks like the females averaged about 18 sq miles and males averaged 29 sq miles. They did have one Female outlier that had a home range of 109 sq miles.

Since they didn't calculate a home range for one transient male shows they will cover some serious ground if needed. They also showed another cat that dispersed and ended up only a short distance away from the mother's home range.

Someone asked about the native's harvest. GLIFWC pushes the following report on their website.

https://data.glifwc.org/archive.bio/Administrative%20Report%2016-10.pdf

Back to timberwolves.

Maybe its buried back a couple pages but Sen Tiffany and Representative Jarchow held a wolf summit in Cumberland on the 15th of this month.

Did anyone go? What was it about? Did the WTA go and represent trappers?

Excuse me if I missed any mention of it. It seems 150 people were there according to published reports

The Wisconsin Outdoor News had a nice article about the event. I didn't see the WTA listed, but that doesn't mean nobody attended.

Lots of talk of working to get a rider through Congress similar to the rider used for Montana and Idaho. It has failed twice in the senate. It has been introduced again and is attached to a current bill.

Looks like we lack interest in wolves. No wonder we don't have a season.

around here, its a vanity play.

Having a season or catching one?

Just a over grown coyote no big deal.

To me this issue should frame up this election this fall for our senate race. You either feel the federal government or the state can do a better job managing the wolves. For a different issue, just change out wolves for the other subject. IMO, there is very little the federal government does well anymore other than spend money, but that is for a different conversation. Now, the wolves are the latest shining example. You know it is bad when even the AR groups are asking for the wolves to be returned to the state to manage, yet we can’t get a rider through the senate because of politics.

I truly wonder what Feingold would say if push came to shove and he was forced to answer the question, “Do you favor returning the management of wolves back to the state in WI?” Guessing he will be in favor, but maybe he would buck the will of the people in the state. Either way, the bigger question is if he is fighting so hard for residents of WI, why didn’t he pressure his sitting democratic colleague to get on board with the rider? She has been missing in action on the issue so isn’t it safe to say he will respond the same way? Continue to play politics while the residents of the state are forced to deal with the ramifications of the issue.

See, the author of that rider to return management of wolves back to the state is up for reelection. Regardless of your like for Johnson’s politics, he has shown a canning ability to get his bills through to the desk of the president for signature(someone from the opposite side of the isle) and why I had so much hope it would get done. Wonder how many of these guys that want to get back to 350 wolves have volunteered or donated to his campaign? Maybe helped get neighbors/friend’s registered to vote on this issue and this race alone? How many have forced Feingold to answer the questions above? Until Feingold can show me that he can quit playing politics and start pressuring his own party to ensure this gets through, the senate race should be a one issue election and one he should lose soundly on. Unfortunately for us, we lack the interest in a season.

Two more bear hounds killed in the town of Winter!

Here is an article from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local...olves/90140484/

I see there was a nice article in the WI Outdoor news about a bear hunter having to share his tree stand with a cub that was fleeing wolves.

http://www.wisfarmer.com/story/opinion/2...oblem/94089914/

Finally, WI has two senators going to push to delist wolves and return the management back to the states. I applaud her for coming around on this issue and asking leadership to take this up in the coming weeks.

I hope the rest quickly follow suit and it is a sign of good things to come.

No interest in these updates or do you feel this is not as a big deal as I do?

I'll be more interested when they gain more ground. Whatever happened to the SHARE Act that was going to accomplish this same thing?

Same effort tlguy. The Share Act was the bill in the house. Its companion bill in the Senate was were it was blocked. Only difference is it appears it will clear the Senate this time. Tammy was opposed to this effort but has now reversed course. The rural community voice was pretty loud this last election.

Time to have your voices heard. Call and e-mail your representatives in DC demanding a vote on the bipartisan sportsmen act before the end of the year. I think I might tweet Donald to see if he can provide a little push before he even takes office.

I will be supporting that Sportsman Act. This year deer gun season we had 15 hunters and we only harvested 1 buck. I saw 1 fawn all season and some guys saw nothing. We normally do good hunting but the past 5 yrs has been very poor. We hunt National Forest Land. This year my guys saw a total of 8 different wolf sittings with some sightings having up to 3 wolves in the pack. So much for the deer hunting.

trapper234, lack of interest is maybe why this is not across the final hurdle...

Here was the latest on the effort.

http://www.thewheelerreport.com/wheeler_docs/files/1201tiffany.pdf

http://www.wisconsinagconnection.com/story-state.php?Id=1400&yr=2016

Tammy Baldwin has supported the removal of wolves from the ESL throughout her tenure as senator. In 2011 she coauthored a similar letter urging leaders of USFWS to delist. https://votesmart.org/public-statement/6...st#.WEWjKGczWUk Her position has not waivered since.

I also hope delisting occurs, again.

What took her so long to send the letter? Correct me if I am wrong, but this is not the first attempt. How many times did she need to see her party block it before she realized it would fall on her shoulders?

WI currently has over 10 times as many wolves as were required to classify them as recovered in WI based on our Wolf plan. The number are nearly quadruple the number to delist by that same plan, yet DC refuses to act. Could be wrong, but it looks like it took an election to get her to fight for it both times.

I can't speak to exactly why legislative efforts over the past few years have failed. I suspect it's a complicated answer with a multitude of reasons, but Tammy Baldwin isn't one of them. Not on this issue anyway. Her support of delisting is long standing.

The administrative side of the US government (USFWS) was the group in charge of all previous delistings, and they support it still. The courts, specifically Judge Beryl Howell, is the one who sided with the antis and basically stripped the USFWS from being able to administer their own program. Now we need legislative action that results in passing a new law, one that directs delisting by law and keeps the courts at bay.

I hope all our senators work together and are able to get this done for us. It can't be easy to get anything passed in DC.

Right from one of the links Fox Claw...
"However, we have been informed that Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) is standing in the way of the delisting legislation."

Anyone that looks a little closer can see Maria is not happy in how WI was managing their wolves. Tammy shared some of same feelings so she allowed her leadership to block it. This allowed her to stay neutral on the issue. So now instead of returning the wolves back to the state to manage, they manage(prevent the management) from Washington DC.

The last election was about that very thing. Some intellectual in a far away land telling the deplorable how they should go about living their life. Hillary was going to walk in and was going to be business as usual. That is the reason she wouldn't publicly come out and support the delisting effort until after the election. Anyone that has been communicating with her over the last few years has see a radical shift in her public stance since the last election. Now if everyone that is sick of business as usual would take the time to write/call their senators asking for a vote yet this year, we can inch this thing along.

The marsh rat is correct. I'VE been corresponding with her for years on the wolf issue. HER latest letter is a big shift for her. A Step IN THE RIGHT direction.

I caught a wolf in grant county last year, and my father caught 4 bobcats in richland county last winter. They are all here in southern wisconsin.

I have to give credit where credit is due. Tammy is still working hard on the issue.
http://wxpr.org/post/sen-baldwin-calls-congress-act-delisting

kickin buck, are you and your dad out trapping this year? If so, send me a PM. I might have something for you.

The house failed to take action on the energy bill last week. The issue is dead. No wolf delisting for now, and back to square one. If you want to lay blame look no further than the speaker of the house for failure to allow the bill to be acted upon. Congress is a failure, this bill was a compromise and reasonable, yet didn't get done.

Did it ever actually pass the US Senate Fox Claw?

Well put Fox Claw.

AJE, here is an article that gives a little more color.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016...dutm_medium=RSS

On a side note, the appeal of the court ruling should be coming:
http://www.sportsmensalliance.org/news/sportsmens-alliance-presents-oral-arguments-wolf-case/

I still get several farm papers to keep abreast of the trends etc. This week two of those weeklies wrote very good articles giving Senator Baldwin credit for being strongly supportive of the science based research for managing wolves and also other agriculture concerns. Not often conservative farm papers support a liberal Democrat but there are times and issues when common ground can be reached.
With the power that Baldwin now has to help move issues as the minority party I feel we can work to encourage her to continue as she probably has more capability to change mindsets of more liberal Democrats than any of us do.

Bryce

Good post Bryce.

Really it is all about our voice being heard and those leaders working to lead on those issues.

Sure it is a setback and puts us at the bottom again, but we should never be worried about how fast we get there. Sometimes we just need to enjoy the climb.

Wonder what the big hang up is with the energy bill? With majorities the GOP should have been able to push through their policies, unless there were items in there that could have provoked a veto from our current president. I will do some digging to see why that was not moved ahead.

Bryce

Here is an article discussing he senate's vote.

Friday the House did pass the energy bill following almost totally along party lines.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/senate-democrats-block-energy-bill-flint-aid.html?_r=0

Well said Bryce.

Thanks for the article MarshRat. I missed that somehow.

It does seem like Paul Ryan hasn't shown a lot of leadership on getting wolves delisted. I suspect that will change under the new administration where he isnt so worried about a veto.
We'll keep pushing ahead in support of delisting:)
The opportunity I had to pursue wolves during Wi's 3rd of 3 wolf seasons was incredible. Something I wont soon forget and I hope you guys and I have another chance at it.

Wolf Summit Is anybody going? Last day to register is tomorrow.

Caught some really nice northerns and even a few muskies in the lakes across the road from the facilities so the trip up should bring back some good memories.

Would of liked to take a run down there ,but had a walleye trip planed .

Interesting article on the subject:

https://www.agweek.com/news/science-and-...-stuck-congress

Thanks for sharing.

Ironically, I just had a discussion this morning with DNR regarding my encounter with fresh wolf sign Thursday on my property. Here's the response I got today from DNR:


"Looks like you probably have a wolf there. The size of the tracks is definitely in the wolf size range and the fact that one of the pics shows it walking a very straight line leads me to wolf. Many large dogs have a similar size print but almost never walk a perfectly straight line. We’ve had some recent reports of single wolves being caught on camera outside of known pack territories. It’s always possible to get individuals or pairs searching out for new areas to set up in.
We are committed to service excellence."
Visit our survey at http://dnr.wi.gov/customersurvey to evaluate how I did."


We sure do need a season on them. I never realized how far apart wolf prints are when they are running.

Which county are you in?

Hunting land in Jackson Co, Tweed.

Here is a link to the bill Link

Maybe you Wisconsin guys could try to lean on your Representatives to take over lead authorship of this bill so it can get a vote on the floor. Peterson is a Democrat and for the time being the Republicans aren't letting bills introduced by Democrats to get a floor vote. There are four Republicans from WI who are co sponsors. Duffy, Sessenbrenner, Grothman and Gallagher. Also a Republican from MN Tom Emmer. It seems at present there aren't any Republicans willing to stick their neck out, a push from their constituents couldn't hurt.

I wonder if they are afraid of the anti's, as far as why no one will bring up the bill for a vote.
If a Democrat is willing to sponsor it, it seems foolish not to let it hit the floor for a vote.
But yes, 49er is right that we better keep pestering our reps in Wi.

It's the Potomac Two Step AJ.

The Republicans arent letting any bills be put to a vote that is authored by a Democrat at this time and point. At least not controversial ones. That is how it was explained to me by someone who is in the know any how.

It could also be the "Hastert Rule" is in play here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule

Also if anyone is in doubt why the Wolf Provision was removed from the energy bill that was passed we can thank MN's own Betty McCollum. She was instrumental in getting the language removed from the bill.

It would be a good idea for you Wisconsin gentlemen(I use the term loosely beav) to fill Paul Ryan's mailbox as well.

I've tried hard to convince Paul Ryan, and I've been incredibly disappointed with his lack of enthusiasm for this issue. Maybe the next speaker will show some interest. I agree with 49er though that we need to keep the pressure on.

Seems like Duffy would be interested???

Maybe some are waiting 'til after the election.

A bunch will not likely be around after the election.

True dat!

I know exactly where Ryan’s house is. Maybe we could collaborate and throw eggs at it. lol


Just gonna need to get around the secret service if he happens to be in town.

This is probably the best idea.

What good would that do. He's not going to have much to say In a few months so why waste good eggs.

Would have a stronger effect if the eggs were bad.

We would have a stronger impact if we wrote a few letters and made a few calls. Even stronger, if we would help a few friends, family, or coworkers write a note or make a phone call.

It would be better for our cause if we didn't wait until after the election. If the Democrats take over the Senate it's going to be a tough push.

Even folks in a few other states can help push on this. All Cosponsors would be likely folks to help push on this. This includes representatives from ID, TX, AZ, WY, MI, WI.

What ever happened to Senator Baldwin's supposed support for delisting?

All re-election talk, no effort or action.

Why do you say that? She is still listed as a co sponsor to the sister bill in the Senate, S-164

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/164/cosponsors

You could say the same about Duffy, Grothman, Gallagher and others in the house. Is that really enough? After all, wasn't it a Democrat that had the rider removed last time?

But I think I am going to check with Democrats running in those the districts to ask where they stand.

Yes it was a Democrat that had the rider removed. A MN one at that.

No it's not enough to only be listed as a cosponsor, ideally she should be actively pursuing it as well. I'm not an insider so can't comment on how much of that anyone is doing other than Peterson.

I know after communicating with Speaker Ryan's office a year or so ago, there seemed to be no interest. It was as if it wasn't even on his radar. And this year he seems focused on Foxconn. It wouldn't hurt him to do a favor before he leaves office and get this wolf thing to the floor for a vote.

Maybe some picketing in front of his house is in order...........

I agree that we need to think outside the box, and keep pushing.

Senator Ron Johnson seemed enthused about delisting. He's been awfully quiet lately.

The house is voting this week. Better make your phone calls send your emails. Ask Your U.S. Representative to Vote YES on H.R. 6784! They are going to hear plenty from the other side!

Thanks for the heads up Justin. Glad you stay on top of things.

You've got one honest DNR person working for you in WI, it sounds like. Wish we had some here in MN. They keep saying the number of wolves stays about the same. Even though they're not hunted or trapped and have no real natural predators. The only natural predator wolves have in MN would be mange from over population.

Over 20 years ago, our DNR said the number of wolves in MN was around 3700. Now, it's about 1200 less than that? Anybody with any common sense has to feel their intelligence is being insulted.

I follow the Wisconsin Trappers FB page. They help keep me in the loop. The House passed the bill this morning.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...noredirect=on&utm_term=.ed0c45ce54d9

Well since legislators couldn't get a bill passed, the administration is stuck trying to work through the normal channels. That means it is time to put in comments to support with the federal register. Hopefully it won't be like the grizzly bear were sportsmen didn't bother to comment and it hurt the efforts.

You can comment here:
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...lants-removing-the-gray-wolf-canis-lupus

Thank you.

Done

Done

Dirty,
There is a wolf pack around Beloit.

Time is running out to get your comments in. Only about a week left until the deadline.

If you haven't done so, please do. If you have already done so, find a few more folks to submit their comments.

Done

Comment submitted. Let's hope it passes, then let's hope we don't fall victim to the shady politicians that try and sneak in wolf hunting/trapping bans at the last minute like our neighbors to the west. I'm unsure if Evers will support recreational wolf hunting and trapping in Wisconsin, but only time will tell. First things first, let's get them delisted and end the stupid lawsuits from animal rights groups.

Yur neighbors to the west aren't screwed yet. It not a done deal.

I know, and I know the Democrats have tried passing similar bans in the past and failed, but it's a bit frightening to think something so far from common sense can gain any sort of traction. Minnesota has way more wolves than Wisconsin, and a governor that has openly stated he doesn't see a need for recreational wolf hunting and trapping.

5-14 is the end of the period if any of you guys havent done it there is not much time left.

(d) $10,000 the first year and $10,000 the
second year are for payment to the Leech Lake
Band of Chippewa Indians to implement the
band's portion of the comprehensive plan for
the upper Mississippi.

The above of course, is an extraction of your tax dollars appropriated to the band to expend favor in the eyes of the public all while they administer public opinion against wolf management.
Becker finn.
Senate file 2314 3rd engrossment

Hopefully your state legislature can do the reverse of what happened on the federal level--remove it in committee. Good luck 49er.

I still can't believe fed register shows less than 30,000 comments and we have a thread with nearly 300,000 views. Apathy runs rampant. That said, thanks to those that have taken the time to provide your comments and an extra thanks to those that have helped someone else provide their comments.

We'll find out, committee meetings begin today and tomorrow on it. Don't know when the final vote will be. Dont think today's and tomorrow's meetings are televised either. Hopefully they will put transcripts online.

DONE

Any word on the committee 49er? Did they come to their senses?

I hope folks continue to work to get folks to comment right up until the end.

Wimarshrat you going to the CC meeting this weekend?

Yes. Luckily it is just about in my back yard! Need a place to stay or something else?

Anyone that has an interesting in the annual convention and what happens, here is the agenda for the weekend. https://dnr.wi.gov/About/WCC/Documents/Agenda/2019/AgendaConvention2019.pdf

Looks like they extended the comment period on the delisting of wolves. Everyone can get a few more friends to comment.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is extending by 60 days the public comment period on a proposed rule to remove the gray wolf from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the Endangered Species Act.

The proposal to delist gray wolves is based on sound science, a thorough analysis of threats and how they have been alleviated, and the ongoing commitment and proven track record of states and tribes to continue managing for healthy wolf populations once delisted.

The Service is extending the comment period to allow all interested parties additional time to comment on the proposed rule. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Our final determination will take into consideration all comments and any additional information we receive during the comment period.

In addition, we will hold one or more public hearings on our proposed rule and will provide additional information about these hearings in a future Federal Register notice.

The gray wolf joins the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, American alligator, brown pelican and 33 other species of animals and plants in U.S. states, territories and waters that have been brought back from the brink with the help of the ESA. Countless more have improved or stabilized.

The recovery of the gray wolf is attributable primarily to successful interagency cooperation. States continue to demonstrate their ability to effectively manage wolf populations that guarantee the long-term sustainability of the species. The regulatory mechanisms put in place by these partners will last beyond federal delisting of the wolf and will ensure the long-term survival of the species.

The public comment period on the proposed rule that published on March 15, 2019 will now close at midnight on July 15, 2019. Comments already submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule. Instructions on how to submit comments are provided at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket Number: FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0097. The Federal Register notice provides additional detailed information on how the public can submit written comments and information.

The proposed rule, comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation, are available for public inspection on the docket.

More information is available online at: https://www.fws.gov/home/wolfrecovery/.

Any of you going down to the Capitol tomorrow to push for a wolf season?

Hmmm.....Maybe I could think of some work excuse to get down to Dane county. Thanks for posting this.

Good luck you guys. You can bet there will be plenty of pro-wolf people in attendance as well. They were at every MN wolf meeting I attended.

I hope there is a good showing from sportsmen.

From perspective it would be good to find a "pro wolf" group or persons that understand the value and nature of managing the species. There are several places like Alaska, Canada etc. that have been harvesting wolves for generations with seasons, etc. I would think there should be several ecologists and biologists that can show the rationale and or the science and data as to how the species benefits from managed harvest. There are numerous examples of species that have benefited from managed harvest.

Bryce

a good a rational post, unfortunately in these times that is forbidden, only screaming and yelling allowed no matter how irrational your argument is.!!

Sadly there are extremists on both sides of this battle.
Lots of "sportsmen" that shout "the only good wolf is a dead wolf". I have seen that extreme position here and on other forums populated with so called "sportsmen".
On the other hand there are lots of "animal rights" activists that don't want any wolves shot trapped or even harassed.

Both positions are irrational and unfortunately harmful to the bigger picture which is ultimately what is best for the natural world in which the wolves live. This should be the starting point for a discussion that both groups agree on and start from.

Good luck fellas. Just know that every looney tune wolf loving group will be in attendance and well organized. Emotion over science for them.

Google “Yellowstone Wolf Packs” to see some really big packs.

If you are feeding on elk and buffalo it takes more than one wolf!!!! Especially if they are not as large as the big far northern wolves.

Bryce

Huge

I took the time to jot down my thoughts but unfortunately I couldn't make the hearing today. Good luck to those that could make it.


For the last year NRB, the department, and legislators knew delisting was going to happen. Instead of working together, they pointed fingers and refused to listen to each other. It's another example of our broken system where the other side couldn't possibly be right. Hopefully today's hearing isn't another example.

I have always supported holding a wolf season. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is responsible for the return of wolves to WI and being able to hold a season on a recovered population is a key milestone. It should be celebrated by all. We did it with fisher, otter, and even the lake sturgeon and those species now flourish with our highly regulated seasons.

Yet wolf management is a highly polarizing subject for many, but the good peoe.of this state have never shied away from working at bringing folks together and building the value of a resource. When season dates were causing challenges with other user groups, folks could have hidden behind state statue that dictated season start date.

Instead, the WTA along with residents of the state worked with WCC, NRB, the Department and legislators to offer two different questions on spring hearing questionnaire and ultimately supported the first Saturday in November opener. With the support of the public, those changes were signed by governor Walker in 2014(?). This is how it should work. Fix the problems!

When the department, legislators and NRB are ready to get to tackle wolf management in the state, I stand ready to help engage the public. I am not afraid to listen to differing opinions, learn from those opinions, and ensure wolf management is better for the residents of our state.

For those that want to watch the hearing, you can do so here...
https://wiseye.org/2021/01/13/joint-committee-on-sporting-heritage/

Thanks, watching now

What's wrong with the WI DNR thats soooooo sad that they would'nt show up.The people o f WI pay there wages,as least they could show up,I say suspend them without pay,VERY VERY SAAAAAD,disgusting,wake up and grow a pair!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The writing is on the wall on this deal.

Maybe I'm a little dense but can you spell out for me what the writing on the wall says, I don't see anything.

The DNR did not show up for the hearing. It doesn’t seem like they are very interested in establishing a wolf season nor are they in any hurry to explain their reason.

Means it came from above. Look no farther than the governor. I have no doubt he asked his department to defy state statue and delay season until next fall. There is absolutely no reason we couldn't have been prepared to hold a season now when we knew delisting was coming a year ago. The Natural Resource Board questioned the department and all they did was dodge for the last six months. Goal was to delay this as long as possible so legislator would have limited options for recourse. Regardless of your position on wolves, sportsmen should be mad IMO.

Everybody should be mad. It shows the Gov't not doing its duties.

I could see anti's being happy but for a short term only. This will surface again. The problem isn't solved.

Is the general consensus that the Gov. is on the side of the anti's?

That can't be, the D's are the party of science I, or so they say. I'd hate to think that they are on the side of science only when it goes with their agenda.

It will be interesting to see if the NRB tries to hold the department accountable yet this year. They did a lot of barking at the department all fall so it will be interesting to see if they decide to bite.

I do see a special NRB meeting for this Friday so a guy can hope.

There are no trappers in WI. that can release a few there?

Let some of their precious pets get killed and eaten by wolves like happened in MN.

When the population of a certain animal increases, they expand their range as is happening in MN with wolves. They are moving farther south.

Didn't we have a season when wolves where delisted before? It shouldn't be that difficult to establish a season based on the past.

This is how civil disobedience starts. If the Govt. doesnt follow the law, why should we, right? I See alot more wolves getting wasted this year due to SSS.

That is correct. Not really hard. First you look at our current population.

https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/sites/default/files/topic/WildlifeHabitat/wolfreport2020.pdf

And you can look at how harvest impacted population in the past.

2014
2013
2012

Set a conservative quota for each zone. Divide the total quota by success rate (10%) and that tells you how many folks you need to draw in the lottery to send tags to.

Well I know, I can get my MB wolfers read to go in about 2 hours, if the state can get its act together. Haha!

Suit to stop the delisting has been filed in the Northern District of California. I don't know any details.

wolves are dogs, they repopulate quickly, they are capable of taking down any animal, healthy or not

Looks like another meeting coming Friday morning, with a chance for public input until Thursday.

MADISON, Wis. (AP) - Republican lawmakers are demanding the state Department of Natural Resources implement a wolf hunt immediately.

The DNR’s policy board announced Tuesday it will be holding a special meeting Friday morning to address the demand from Republicans on the Legislature’s sporting heritage committees.

The DNR’s meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. Anyone can watch the meeting by CLICKING HERE. If the meeting is at capacity and you’re not able to join, it will also be streamed AT THIS WEBSITE.

Although members of the general public won’t be able to attend the meeting in person due to the pandemic, DNR officials say the public is encouraged to participate. However, anyone wishing to submit a written comment on the topic or submit a remote public appearance request must do so by 8 a.m. on Thursday, January 21.

If you’d like to submit a written comment regarding the next steps to establish a Wisconsin wolf hunt in 2021, you can do so by CLICKING HERE.

Anyone wanting to learn how to testify before the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board can find information on that by CLICKING HERE.

The board received a letter from the Republicans on Jan. 15 saying wolves need to be hunted now before the Biden administration places them back on the federal endangered species list.

The Trump administration removed wolves from the list this past fall and the DNR had planned to resume its wolf season this coming November.

Wisconsin law calls for annual hunting and trapping seasons to resume if the wolf lost federal protection.

Link to original with links on how to submit comments Original story with links

Here's the link you can copy & paste to your browser.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/wisconsin-republicans-demand-dnr-resume-wolf-hunt-immediately%3f_amp=true

Here's the link to enter comment on the DNR website.

https://www.research.net/r/NRB_22Jan2021_Wolf

Thanks tlguy

Thanks tlguy. Glad a few folks are following along.

My feedback will probably follow this outline.

We knew delisting was coming for a year and state statue requires a season.
Groups and organizations clamored to get the dnr wolf committee back up and running but dept refused
We know population level and what conservative harvest would be. This drives permits that need to be issued.
We have ability to hold drawing and send out permits quickly.

We have enough season left to still hold a season.

It is time the NRB steps in.

I doubt that will ever stop until federal legislators take up the issue.
Here is an article that I found on the one you mentioned

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84528478152

Here's the zoom link to the meeting does anybody know what time it is on Friday?

I and 13 family added our comments.

I believe it starts at 830. Any one taking the time to testify tomorrow? I was thinking about giving the bossman a shout out, but didn't know if he would appreciate the traffic it might drive;)

Unfortunately the NRB was not able to pass a motion directing the department to hold a season yet this winter.

Even more disappointing was the WTA testimony. It was brought into the discussion by a board member. Wonder how their membership feels about that decision?

The WTA testimony was in opposition to the season?

That is correct.

Well I suppose if the situation was stable, and we would be guaranteed a season next year I can somewhat see their reasoning. Fur might be breaking down, the issue of burning preference points for a late short season, etc. But it’s a real possibility that they will be back on the list by November. I would have liked them to support a season while we had an opportunity.

I don't understand that argument Steve. They were not going to eliminate your ability to choose preference point. Think the hide is worthless or season too short, then put in for a preference point.

In addition, IMO we shouldn't ever undercut the value a season can have on reducing issues. It's the reason we don't just turn over harvest to the feds.

I just heard from the WTA, and I was told they did NOT provide any written or verbal testimony at the hearing.

This is extremely disappointed that they spin instead of telling you the truth. Notice my original post. They provided written testimony. The public knows because a board member brought it up. Don't take my word for it. Watch the video. Fast forward to 4h 14 min mark. https://dnrmedia.wi.gov/main/Catalo...1721/731c92f70bb84be69b8f69ef1ccbb99c1d/

Read my edited post

Wisconsins’s wolf population is in desperate need of management. This is really unfortunate and shows the widnr’s real stance on the situation.

Many times it is best to develop something that is workable and can be changed, modified etc. as an ongoing process. The fact that we tend to want to try to find perfection the first time around many times delays moving forward. Another reason for not doing something with the idea of making needed changes is the lack of trust between all the entities. We don't have to agree or even like each other but we should be able to trust each other when it comes to making significant management decisions on public assets.

Bryce

Stall away and get another pass. Ridiculous, no excuse for not being prepared. I hate trophies!

Fur no good....some people need to get out of the house after deer season.

I believe the “testimony” the lady was talking about was from several years ago when they were deciding dates for a season. I think she was opposed to having a season this year and used that old testimony out of context.

I am not going to say anything else about the association. Folks can do their own research. I even took the liberty of deleting the last post as I know the boss doesn't like to run any association through the mud.

The fact remains that setting the season is the dnr’s responsibility. Not the association’s. Now we know where they stand.

An annual season is set by state statue when delisted. The department just decided to defy state statue this year and not hold a season.

I guess you could say that holding a season is not the association's responsibility. But so was the starting date and they had no problem lobbying to change that. And it was changed to the date of their choice--the first Saturday in November.

The whole reason it was defined in state statue was because legislators didnt trust the department to hold a season on wolves when they were delisted. Looks like they were right to be concerned. But we already knew this.

After three successful seasons, wolves were put back on the endangered species list by a lawsuit. The current administration didnt even fight it. They sent a two line response to the lawsuit. So all those folks that think we are having a season this fall, better find a way to get this administration to actually fight the lawsuits that are already line up.

Law suit filed, WI DNR is being sued for failure to hold a wolf hunt:

https://www.will-law.org/will-sues-...e-law-requirement-to-schedule-wolf-hunt/

http://www.will-law.org/wp-content/...n-v.-dnr-complaint-2-2-21-redacted-1.pdf

For many this is justified and wanted. The negative aspects could be even further delay with pending law suits and also those against harvesting wolves don't have to spend time or monies watching game managers fight in court with hunting groups and outdoor groups. Hope it works but there may well be consequences with actions that have been taken.

Bryce

Good to hear from you Fox Claw. The guys must have thought this thread was too long as they started a new one for the lawsuit.

https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/newsroom/release/40841

Voting &/or comments are due 11 AM Sunday. It takes about 2 minutes.

Done.

NRB approved a quota of 200 wolves unanimously. Permits given out 20 to 1 instead of 10 to 1. Application process starts tonight at midnight and ends Saturday. Can put in for a preference only point. Winners could see in Gowild they were drawn by 22nd. Purchase and print license and they could start hunting or trapping. Have a week to fill tag. No zones are closed until the full quota is reached or end of season arrives.

Department is still fighting appeal in Milwaukee County so could change again. Stay tuned.

Will this preference point disqualify a person for the fall season ? being the same year .

Just to be clear the DNR is not fighting an appeal, they have filed the appeal. Our DNR does not want you to be able to hunt so badly that they have gone to court to prevent it. The question now becomes who exactly does our DNR serve and represent? Sure doesn't seem to be wisconsin sportsmen.

I heard that Half of the permits will go to those who have preference points the other half of the available permits will be for those that don't have preference points.

So will incidental coyotes be legal to keep?

The ruling on the appeal is due at 5pm

Right off the top, a certain portion of the tags will go to the natives....IDK what percentage they get tho. And those will go unfilled.

No. The Natives have the same opportunity to kill wolves. Their numbers of harvested will count against the quota, Harvested, read killed.

This is STILL last years season. Nov. to end Feb.

Here's what the Court of Appeals had to say, anyone know what it means? I kinda think means they did not make a decision yet and will take more information, that due by Wednesday at noon

https://wscca.wicourts.gov/appealHi...kOnlyToForm=false&sortDirection=DESC

Thanks for the clarification Fox Claw. They now have officially done more to shut down the season that to keep it open or get it back open. This can't be highlighted enough..

Welcome to the 21st century.

I hope It gets shut down.
This Is just plain stupid to be pushing for a 1 week season. Get all the ducks In row and open the season on Nov 4th.

Beav, it’s not stupid. If this was handled correctly, it could be a very effective management tool. The wolf population has gone unmanaged for years. The numbers have exploded during that time. They had a chance to set the goal and season...they picked a goal even less than the last season despite the increased population and decided to fight the season!

Set a goal and and don’t require any preference point use. Give everyone with a small game or trapping license a tag and shut it dow at the end of season or goal met...whatever comes first. This is about managing resources not a political agenda or money at this point. What you’re seeing right now is a political agenda. And a lot more resources are at stake than just wolves.

I agree from a distance (MN). At this point it is about principle. Force them to choke out a season now and one next November. They work for you.

It’s not about forcing anyone to do anything...it’s about attempting to manage our resources with what we have available. The WI DNR has admitted that the wolf population can sustain at least a 200 animal harvest. Why does it matter who gets them. WE HAVE A WEEK FOLKS! If the population is is so limited, what’s their worry? If it got opened up like I describe, the management goal would be met on or before the end of the month...that’s what they’re worried about. It says too much about the real population.

You, the DNR, PETA, HSUS, Gov. Tony Evers, Sierra Club, those who consider wolf brother, and any other tree hugging freak out there. Nice choice.

Removing 200 wolves is not doing much to manage the population, but I get it, it's better than nothing. That's what is going on in MN.

I’ll answer my own question here guys...it’s about money. Like has been suggested, it seems like the WI DNR is ready to take our money tonight at midnight for a chance at a one week season we don’t even know will exist. Then a mere few days later on March 1, you can send them some more money for a fall season that may or may not happen. All in the name of wanting to keep your preference points even with everyone else. Let them play their cards and act accordingly.

Wolves up here need thinning out NOW. If someone wants to try to take one now more power to them. If you want to wait and chance it for next year that is your choice. I personally think we will never have a wolf season with this Governor and DNR Secretary.

How much money are you talking about?

What does the sierra club have to do with this?

Ducks ARE in a row, just not the tree huggers row. If you do not like it, dont apply.

I'm not going to.

I wont either, because of time constraints, How ever I wish all a very successful hunt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Based on previous application numbers, it seams like there are normally about13,000 applicants. Normal cost of application is $3 but I seem to remember $10 for wolf application. My hillbilly math says a minimum of $260,000 if they stretch this out to the next hunt...they only need to delay two weeks. Tonight is the first step.

They used our money to bring the wolves back. They use our money to monitor them. They take our money in the form of applications and a tag if you get drawn. The number of wolves allowed to be taken won't put a dent in the population. We're being screwed again. Lucky for me I don't have to deal with it. No wolves where I hunt.

Points still going to be transferable ?

What do you mean? This is the 2020 wolf season. What do you not understand? Nothing changes except the start date of the season.

Apparently you are only thinking of this short season . Im not . PS are you always rude ?

This will likely be your only opportunity to ever take a prime wolf in Wisconsin. I hope you get your limit!

I'll be applying

Got the family signed up for the draw last night!

BvrRetriever convinced me to wait until after the court rules on Wednesday to submit my application. The department has been proven to be a poor steward of our funds on this item so I can't see giving it to them prematurely.

After all, the department must have no desire to increase the population goal. Otherwise they should have acknowledged that the season was a great way to minimize wolf conflicts. Had they done that, they would have started in January and made use of more of the season to accomplish that objective. But holding a season is the first step in creating some value in wolves. Unfortunately all those laying in the brush piles up north won't get a chance to see that token increase.

Candidly I really don't have a desire to harvest a wolf, but I do see value in having a season--even one that's only a week long. So I will put in for a tag and make a valid effort should I get drawn on my one and only attempt for a tag. Going forward, I will use the $10 to support an organization like Hunter Nation that was willing to hold the department accountable. https://hunternation.org/

People will probably be contacting NRB.

AJE, I dont think the board was consulted even though they were listed in lawsuit based on Chair Prehn's remarks yesterday. I think that needs to be directed at Ever's administration and more specifically, the Governor. Maybe Fox Claw can provide a little more insight?

Ironically the Administration wanted a ruling on Monday so it wouldn't cause confusion, yet when that wasn't granted, they continue to still fight on. We would have had a season years ago if they would have put up half this effort to get state management back.

Good Idea. However I watched the meeting, they left no stone unturned, Made it abundantly clear that their numbers were based on science. And I believe a judge who would deny this hunt will do so ONLY for political reasons.

Ok, thanks. I get so much valuable info from tMan.

Marshrat thanks for pointing out hunter nation. Without them this would’ve simply stalled out.

True that. I know nothing about that group, or why they took in an interest in Wi, but I might have to look into that group.

This is not the first lawsuit for them against the department. Remember when the department said volunteers couldn't teach hunter safety in person? Well, they sued the department. They later dropped the lawsuit when the department reversed course. https://www.tomahawkleader.com/2020...ounty-hunter-safety-course-cancellation/

Imagine how frustrated people will be if the state of Wi successfully wins it's attempt this week to get the appeals court to stop next weeks wolf hunt

The fact Wi is even trying to stop the hunt is surprising

I don't see it that way.

Get everything worked out and next Oct 10th have a wolf permit drawing.
If there are 2000 permits available half I'm told will be for preference point holders and the other half will be a general drawing.

Beav, come on up and hang out in wolf country for a little while and your tune might change

Oh I've hung out In wolf country and I have even been on the line when we caught a wolf.
I just don't see the difference In waiting till next Nov to do the deed. So you kill 20 wolves In 5 days what impact will that have on the environment? 3 wolves here 5 over here another 5 or 6 In the next zone. I guess you can see where I'm coming from. But I guess if you kill all bred females that might have some impact.

Totally agree.

Exactly.
Been obvious for thirty years. Hopefully one day We the People will change that.