Wisconsin and Wolves ...

This is an interesting article about the history of the reintroduction of wolves in Wisconsin. I personally think our ancestors had it right and got rid of them in most places, was the right thing to do.

This is my opinion and I am sure there are different opinions, so be calm and don't get too excited, if your opinion is different than mine.

https://www.outdoornews.com/2019/12/02/wisconsin-residents-call-for-delisting-wolves-as-endangered/

Garry-

Management is key and even more importantly is managing those numbers before they get to something like 900 in the states of Idaho and Wisconsin. No idea Wisconsin had as many wolves as we do.

Everybody in the population centers in the southern part of the State love them because they don't have to deal with them like we in the north do. Population management is basically nonexistent due to bunny hugger lawsuits continually moving the population goalposts. Wolves are a great fund raiser topic for animal rights organizations and their attorneys.

Definitely see both sides. Wolves are wilderness creatures and frankly that’s where we wish we could be. That being said, I go off the rails when I’m missing only a chicken or duck.

I wager a Spotted cow at the Local tavern that we have more than 900 wolves in WI


WI-DNR states 238 packs https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Wildlifehabitat/wolf/documents/wolfreport2018.pdf

they reported nearly identical numbers in 2017 but with 232 packs

in the 2018 report average pack size is 3.7 down from the 4.4 of the 2017 report with the number of packs increased.

even if each pack has 1 surviving cub figuring for cub and adult mortality that means the population grows by 238 each year.

the last several years reports all show gains of around 80-100 wolves a year but stagnant for 2018

in WI tracking through the reports it appears WI wolves make smaller than average packs and split packs more often than wolves in the west. following this logic due to the abundance of food in WI and the ease of hunting it packs divide and multiply much faster than normal.

was the 2017-2018 winter that hard that zero growth

the report even states minimum number of 925-952 , Venture we are well over 1K I suspect the data collection method may only have the resources to count 952

In my area I saw lots more tracks this year than in past years. I also believe the population grew more than their estimates state.

How much food does the average Wolf eat a week, we know they do not eat every day.

I do not believe wolves should be eradicated. They simply need to be managed, and the natural fear of man recharged in them.
As for the natives if they have found some religious status for wolves or bears for that matter wonderful, keep them untouchable on your Rez like they do in Minnesota. If you look at some of the old tin type photos it sure appears a lot of Indians wore wolf fur, and there sure were a bunch of my native ancestors who were named for the number of sacred bears they killed. ( maybe that's where I get my drive to hunt bears? )
As for the counting of wolves considering in mortality the population could stay stagnant but only if you measure within a defined area. How do you know if they are accurately counting the dispersed wolves that are expanding the range? In Minnesota people now report seeing wolves as far south as Iowa and into North Dakota. Word from Wisconsin people is much the same. Like coyotes without repercussions and with enough food source what is to stop population growth and expansion?
Without the use of poison or some unknown devastating disease wolves are now here to stay.

Osky

I always scoff at estimates of populations and especially of pack numbers. "Pack" is not a static term. Packs lose and ad members often. Being an "alpha". Is hard. They die or get run off regularly. Greatest cause of death in Alaska is............other wolves!!
Without lots of air time, radio collaring, and especially harvest numbers...........managers have little idea of actual numbers.
Lower 48 states desperately need regular hunting/trapping seasons with tagging of pelts. No harvest quotas, just open seasons that parallel other specie trapping season. Wolves learn just as well as we do. They will learn, harvests will stabilize, and wolf numbers will stabilize at a manageable number. In addition, managers will have harvest statistics to give them better population ideas.
Alaska has relatively long hunting and trapping seasons. While much of the state has literally zero harvest, even in easy access areas, there are still healthy wolf numbers. After dozens of years of harvest and tagging, managers have decent ideas, notice I said "ideas", of wolf numbers. We also have federal agencies that dump money and equipment in to keeping track of wolves.
MT

MT the trappers do well here on wolves when allowed. Our other control should be the deer hunters. Tags can be sold during that season I think with success as those guys sitting in stands probably see more wolves than anyone.

Osky

Spot on Osky

Wish I had kept all the newspaper articles with the WI DNR bragging about introducing wolves to WI. Also them admitting the wolf population in WI was above 2,000 wolves. All that was many years ago.

20+ years ago, I attended a meeting with the DNR admitting there were 3,700 wolves estimated to be in MN. Since that time there has been one season allowing the taking one wolf. Now, considering that, they expect us to believe there are less than 3,000 wolves in MN now?

Trapper7, you say they harvested 1 wolf in Minnesota? That's a typo, right? I just looked and between the 2012 and 2013 seasons, over 650 wolf were harvested.

tlguy- I read that as a 1 wolf limit per trapper.

Could be. But they had at least 2 seasons (WI had 3). Makes me wonder how credible a 20 year old recollection of a number is. Could be that population estimates weren't as accurate back then. And we all know how little faith people have in them now...

But for the purpose of our argument, it doesn't matter if there are 2,000 or 3,000 or 10,000 wolves. States should have management authority.

they should have a trapping season on them with a set quota , register them by 21:00 and every morning at 03:00 the numbers have been counted season is closed or not for each zone , if the season is closed anything in a trap you call in and give them the opportunity to micro chip , collar and release.

they might learn a bunch more having larger numbers microchiped and get a better count to get some more accurate numbers in the future.

That's not too far from how they did it in WI back when we had a season, except there's likely not enough staff to chip/collar all the wolves caught in a zone the day the zone closes. Some zones closed in 2 days back when we had a season. I would like to see a later start date, and maybe even a split early/late season with separate quotas.

I know we have way to many in the u p of Michigan !!!!

Sportsmen should never have relinquished this fight to other stakeholders IMO. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation should not of been abandoned, but we listened to those folks that said, don't ruffle any feathers. It is not politically popular to trap / hunt wolves. Guess what? Listening to that line of thought cost us years.

Instead of being out in front talking about the benefit a season has for a specie and especially a recovering one, our inaction has already put the next specie's season in the crosshair--lake sturgeon. Animal rights activists petitioned USFWS to add them to the list. As that goes through the review, it is not hard to see the parallels. A lot of places sturgeon are not doing well, yet we have one of the largest and healthiest population right in my back yard. A population that supports the largest spear fishery in the country and has provided invaluable science to help these prehistoric fish return to waters in and out of the state. The possibility of losing this tradition, revenue stream, and all the science that comes with it is only possible because we refused to lead on wolves.

Hopefully the fisherman won't wait until they lose the season to start to lead on the issue and instead put their focus on wolves. Start the decision with lawmakers about the role the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation has played in bringing back wolves and the value we can create when we manage a specie. Better yet, get out in the public square and open the dialogue with those folks that are not as close to the issue.

To me an ecosystem just isn't an ecosystem without large predators. I love that we have wolves but like everyone else has pointed out, they need to be managed. I am personally amazed that WI has lost this battle yet the western states are a go year after year. Everyone knows it's BS but the court systems suck.

It's also funny that year after year the same 900-1000 numbers are thrown around. (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman), I've been seeing those numbers for 10 years. Deer populations have gone up in most a lot of areas but yet the wolf numbers have stagnated?

Now that there is snow on the ground I can take anybody out to walk in the tracks of wolves. (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) I've had wolves walk in my tracks. Can you say not afraid of humans? People wonder why I carry a side arm at all times.

There is big money in wolf management. If you think the states are going to trade that for a few license sale revenue, your sadly mistaken.

Not sure I am following Rally. Help me understand.

Please me too Rally? I know from a friend the boots on the ground dealing with problem wolves aren't compensated much, is the money up the chain somewhere?

Osky

They likely can't get all but more as many as they can would be good , train up teams of college kids that are biology or ecology or similar majors to micro chip if nothing else , microchips are low cost and inject-able under the hide at the back of the neck.

some combination of seasons or do staggered zones seasons to have more resources for tagging in a zone for season.

Do any of the lower 48 States actually have harvest quotas large enough( approximately 50% of the population estimate) to actually limit wolf population growth?

Or are they just offering a harvest opportunity to allow people to have another meaningful outdoors experience?

Not sure. I guess we can start to review each state's management plan for wolves to see if we can get some clues. Where do you want to start? Here is Idaho's plan. Any interesting information in here?

https://idfg.idaho.gov/old-web/docs/wolves/plan02.pdf

We are over run with wolves in the area I trap. Firearms deer hunters complain that they come into camp and try to steel their deer off the meat poles. They are not hard to catch/hold. In that area I have caught more wolves then coyotes...research would appear to suggest they are the reason for a significant decrease in the coyote population in this area.

When Minnesota had wolf seasons 6-7 years ago I believe the total number allowed taken was around 230 per year state wide. They kept a daily total and ended it when the number was reached. Hunters didn't do well, trappers did.

Osky

"During the big game hunting season, sportsmen can harvest wolves when they’re out hunting deer, elk and other species. About 30,000 hunters buy wolf tags each year. Harvest averages about 145 wolves per year."

I don't know what they charge for a wolf tag, but that looks like pretty good money for 145 wolves.

$13.75 Resident
$31.75 Non-resident

It would appear from internut research that Idaho appears to be moving past this to more of a Control policy.

All I can say is that I have hunted in Taylor County Wisconsin in the National Forest the past 35 years and the deer hunting has been very poor the past 8 years. We rarely see a deer through the 9 day gun season. It use to be awesome trophy deer hunting prior to that. We only see wolves and their tracks now. Every year we see less and less hunters because there are no deer left. Very Sad!

That would be like a 10% harvest rate. I hope that made people feel like they were doing something?

Speaking of harvest rate, here is the WI report for one of the last year that we had a season. I notice that different areas of the state had a different harvest rate. Anything we can learn from it?

https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/documents/reports/graywolfharv.pdf

Looks like they were trying to keep them bottled up into two parts of the State.

Dirt that would be 10% harvest if you believe the total state population. Knowing the areas I hunt and the square miles involved and what I see to accurately count in winter tracks, I believe the state total to be low. Just my thinking nothing official.


Osky

https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/1709627-Federal-wolf-trapping-program-runs-out-of-money

MN had been killing nearly that many each year as part of the damage program. One costs money and the other generates $. Wonder why that keeps getting funded yet sportsmen are only left with the tab? Trust the the other groups to lead the fight....Well look where that got us!

Where you find wolves you will not find the coyotes you are looking for in that area. Coyote numbers in an area or lack there of are a great indicator of the wolf population. No coyote= wolves on the other hand wolf country can be great fox hunting/trapping opportunities. Wolf and coyote compete for the same food sources and the wolf will not tolerate them. Wolves will tolerate the fox for that same reason

I would like to hear the logic on this as well. Wisconsin DNR has said that they are going to wash their hands of the whole wolf deal if they are not allowed a season to control them. There has always been a handshake deal between the states and the feds as far as investigation goes when it comes to the wolf. Whether it be livestock/dog predation or illegal killing of a wolf. If there was so much money in it for the state doubt seriously that the DN would take this type of stance.

I think you might be confusing DNR policy and a bill that was introduced at the state capital. That will would have prevented DNR personnel from assisting on anything things related to wolves until the season was returned. That bill did not happen, but take note of the author--Senator Tiffany. It was an effort to pressure our federal representatives to get it done. He is now running for a house seat to replace Duffy. One of the big reasons that many animal rights activists have started to call for a season is because they understand the blow back the failure to have a season has caused. Delisting the wolf is no longer the goal for many--dismantling the ESA is entering the conversation IMO.

https://www.wpr.org/congressional-bid-remove-wisconsin-wolves-endangered-species-list-falls-flat

That may very well be. A friend who is an area supervisor warden for the local 3 counties passed this info on to me while he was "checking" my hunting license. Something else that he said related to this subject was that from July until the end of gun deer season that on average in the northern counties 1 warden per county dedicates about 80% of their time working wolf issues in one fashion or the other which keeps the counties from doing what they are hired to do

That may be generally correct but not everywhere. I think it depends on the habitat and prey base. There is an area east of me that has a dense coyote population as well as a respectable wolf population. The two do not compete for the same prey simply because the coyotes can't take down a bison and probably not a moose with any regularity. But the coyotes do benefit from the left overs of the wolf kills. They also spend more time hunting hares, voles, grouse etc

Osky,
The Dept of Ag/ WS is paid for by the government, and your correct, the actual trappers are not making much. However, the state is paid by the federal government to conduct all these wolf studies, and that amount far exceeds any possible revenue from license sales possible to the states.
When the wolf season was first started, anyone wanting to be a nuisance wolf trapper had to get certified by WS, by taking a class, and paying $150.00 to attend.
When the program started, these trappers took more wolves in 11 days than WS took the previous year. Those words came from John Erbs mouth, who is doing the wolf studies here/ our furbearer biologist.
Also consider that as long as the wolf is on the CITES list it is a federally protected species and that fines for illegally taking one, far exceeds what a state controlled species would yield ( that word is not a mistake). As long as the parameters of the wolf program stay as they currently are, the government agencies will maintain their revenue streams. Either WS or the trappers of this state could easily control the wolf population at a healthy level, just like any canine species

Dirt,
Mn. is not Alaska, it can be accessed easily by snomo during our long winters. The only restraints on trappers/ snaremen are put on us by the DNR/ government , by way of trap check laws, equipment restraints, and restricted travel areas. Catching wolves is not a problem, keeping them out of everything is the real problem, and actually getting to use the resource.

The week before Gun Season my buddy was bow hunting and got chased out of the woods by a pack of Wolfs North West of Green Bay.... Seems that if this type of stuff is happening there is a problem. Now he will not go into any woods without a sidearm. Can't blame the guy... I think he needed new underwear also.

Rally I understand that access is not a problem, it would be your low harvest quotas. If you are trying to reduce a wolf population, you need to harvest more than 10-20% of the wolf population per year.

Thanks Rally I figured the money was somewhere up the line. Other than a few instances of helping captain Ken and some of the bear researchers I have no knowledge of the upper workings.

My godfather and his family were at the place 20 some years ago walking out and back on our 2 mile driveway. Half way back they had wolves circle them in the bush and follow them back to the place howling and yapping from the bush. As you can imagine they were all scared to death. They did not have any pets along, and I still have no clue why that happened.

Osky

Those seasons here were to placate not reduce population numbers.

Osky

Best I can find, Minnesota has no maximum Population Objective? I see they are approaching twice their minimum.

Well jeez Dirt, they have only been studying them 40 years!! LOL

The fact that wolf population numbers are widely disputed and many state are bogus, may have an impact on the federal justice system and why they prohibit harvest or management.
From a preservation aspect the best way to preserve a species is to put seasons on them, make them game species, because with that comes research, management and staff with dollars etc. Plus it changes the social perception from an over populated, unregulated predator to a species that is considered highly by those who harvest, manage and do research on.
If and there seems to be more evidence yearly that whitetail populations in the northwoods ( wolf habitat and areas where wolves are in their older habitat) which as the forest ages deer become less common. The wolves will expand their range to find prey. There are areas of WI that can hold far more wolves then in the north. It will be socially unacceptable for the wolves to attain those levels. Also the nature of the large canine is to drive away the younger pack members to minimize pack social structure but also minimize inbreeding. These are highly evolved traits that will never leave the behavior of the wolf and the packs.

We are missing a huge opportunity in managing wildlife. Not many regions can provide the habitat for as diverse of a wildlife population as we have and we are not taking advantage of that. There are numerous factors impacting the cyclic population swings or downward numbers of deer in northern WI but that should not prevent us from managing species on the landscape. I am making a guess but believe that prior to logging northern WI with a mature old growth forest and very low deer numbers had fewer wolves then are with us today. Once the forest was cleared the deer population rose dramatically and we had a generation of time for wolves and during that time we had bounties on them to eliminate them. Bringing back species impacts many aspects of an ecosystem. One of the advantages of bringing back fishers, elk etc. is through studies and research we can see how that introduction roles out and what impacts there is to the landscape.

Bryce

I didn't know it was that funny that Minnesota was F'd up.

one thing ive learned about the DNR, if they give you their professional knowledge-its usually way off. in SW WI theyve said we dont have mountain lions or wolves, but yet weve had confirmed (by the DNR) wolf kills and a few mountain lion sightings. I had a warden this summer tell me our county only had 4 pairs of rattlesnakes in the whole county and they know this because they research/watch them extensively. within a month the neighbor ran over one with a lawn mower, my dad found 3 under a large rock, and Ive heard from multiple sources there is a spot you can go all summer long and find them. IMO most of their studies aint worth the money

And with the wolves, I wouldnt let one around my farm! if the city folk like them release them in the big cities!!! My bull guy had a beef calf killed by a wolf this year. he said the DNR was suppose to reimburse him but they were only expected to pay newborn calf price which means he lost a lot of money on it. and last I spoke with him he was still waiting for a check. Shoot shovel and shutup

An interesting article that outlines some of the funding that Rally discussed. Special note to this section. The amount Idaho spends for monitoring wolves has been cut by roughly 90 percent since wolves have been delisted and most federal monitoring requirements have expired. “But it’s still really expensive and not very useful for management,” Hayden said."

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/mar/06/gray-wolf-recovery-projects-continue-to-drain-mill/

Osky,
You should read the article Wimarshrat linked. Everybody should, to get an idea what these wolf programs really cost.