Contributors to this thread:
I am not really political, but for those of you who are, what is with this lady. She is the head of the DNR, am I correct....... I knew Doyle was a goof, but come on, I just saw, from an article out of a local paper, that under he watch, the DNR is going to go from a 350 goal for wolf population to 800???????????
This is under her watch, end of story....... Are you kidding me.... The only time I have seen her is on Discover Wisconsin, talking about some ice cream social......
Hey Cathy wake up, why don't you talk to the hunters of the north.........
If you introduced those wolves to buffalo county, I am sure Joe Bucher would get the big boys, to start doing something more effective, when it comes to population control.....
had to vent, got bad news via the phone, on what happened to a friends animal, via the lovely wolves.....
I dont want to hear, you have to live with them, the simple truth is they are not compatible, in setteled areas.......
My opinion is they should be managed for a goal of 200, that is what, could be handeled, in what areas we have left.....
Not sure who wrote that, but that would be wrong. A committee recommended advancing four management options for DNR to consider: goal of 350; goal of 650; a range of 300 to 650; or a minimum of 350 with no upper limit.
Many hunting, trapping and conservation groups are asking the DNR to have a goal no higher than 350 in its next plan.
Though I was initially skeptical and even critical of the hire, I've since had a number of meetings and conversations with Cathy Stepp and feel she's doing a great job at getting out and hearing concerns. She has done a lot of positive social media (YouTube, etc.) promotions for hunters and anglers, too.
Let's face it, no matter who the DNR secretary is, they're under the direction of a political process many of us hate, but nonetheless exists.
A recent public poll found stronger support for higher wolf numbers, even in wolf country, contradicting a majority of "up north" county governments who have voted in favor of 350 or less. I think we all know the overwinter estimate, an admitted minimum, is well under what's likely actually out there. That makes 350 the best answer of the four goals that are currently on the table.
I have a buddy who has met her a couple of times and he likes her and says she is doing ok. We all know that the wolf lovers are more vocal than those of us that live and hunt in wolf country. By being vocal they are the ones that get listened to.
I've attended roundtable meeting with Cathy Stepp that she initiated in an attempt to hear from the sporting groups. I believe her to have a genuine interest in the issues that concern sportsmen.
Attack the wolves not Cathy. She's doing a good job considering the obstacles she has to navigate.
The DNR is being conservative on the hunt so the feds don't step in and relist the wolf if numbers get too low. C.Stepp is having to thread a needle, not her agenda or fault. The hunt has shown we could wipe out the wolves in short order. Getting the population so low that the feds relist them would be a nightmare from a deer hunter standpoint.
The wording on the survey, from what I have seen, was done in a manner where it will be easy to get the number moved from 350 to 800. The survey never mentioned that the current number is 350. People (any non northern-hunter) think the situation is fine under the current "minimum" population which is around 850 (cough cough). We all know that "minimum number" is exponentially wrong.
This is not on Stepp, but the antis are winning this battle, even though we do have a hunt. There is no need to be conservative here. We have to get the number reduced while we can. There will ALWAYS be lawsuits and actions trying to get them re-listed. I have no doubt that there will be a new accepted "minimum" and that the 350 number goes bye-bye for good.
Well I am glad there is confidence in her, and she is involved,,,,,,,,,
Also Wis is lucy to be able to use dogs and traps, MI you can not even trap them.....
Your right about the anti's...
I also question that survey, I would bet my best bow, it would be hard to find people in my area, or the majority of the areas, that want more wolves.......
Here is a funny ancedote. I met two mountin bikers out on camping trip and they asked for directions. Nice people, just enjoying the NF..... 2 days later I came by them, they had slept in their vehicle, and were going in to get their camp....... I said is everything okay, they said, yes, but we heard wolves and got nervous............ I just shook my head....
Actually, being the Walker hater that I am, she is one of his better moves. She is doing a good job and the wolves can't be pinned on her. They are part of the far left agenda. I think a representative number of 150 is plenty. Either reduce their numbers or completely abandon the Elk program because as it stands it is a joke!
I too admit that I have changed my mind about her. This is what was needed and what is needed in the USFS; a change in leadership style and skills.
As for the elk I disagree, not a joke. I was out this morning as were a lot of people that come to the area to see and hear them ($$$). I just missed them going into the brush but could hear bugling for while. The Kentucky elk that are coming will help with the gene pool but the need to learn what a wolf is first. The DNR needs to bring in a lot more elk to get ahead of the curve though and maybe Cathy Stepp may get it done.
Smokey call me when I white man actually gets the opportunity to hunt Elk in Wisconsin. No wait, forget it,I'LL BE DEAD by then and so will everyone else here. It's a bust!
10. You have issues it seems. I try to post a positive and you turn it into "What's in it for me"
Try to think positive and build instead of tear down and destroy.
It must be sad to live so negative existence.
Off topic, but DNR could already be giving out 3-5 bull tags a year with no negatives on the population. Instead, how many bulls died of old age or were weakened and died from winter or wolves? Quite a few, I'd bet. But they're stuck on a number, 200+, while missing the boat on what would surely be a huge revenue stream annually (applicants would pay a fee to get in on the drawing). That said, I'd guess we will certainly see a some tags awarded soon, perhaps as early as 2016.
Smokey, Im wrong about the Elk population? What don't you understand about it being a bust. All they are doing is feeding wolves.
HMM, elk population not wiped out by wolves.
What I am saying is under Stepp things are changing. With the Kentucky elk coming maybe it will change. It needs to be more but it is in the right direction.
I see and support the change in the DNR. Some of you voted for the people in Madison that held back the extra elk. Maybe it will be a bust but it is not yet.
My glass is half full. So 10, yes, you are wrong.
Naz makes a good suggestion.
BTW, I know of 10 people coming into the area this weekend to look for elk and hope photograph them. I imagine there are a few more coming to the area. How much money will they spend? How many tags will make for that difference?
Good point Smokey, elk have proven to be very popular with locals and visitors alike in that area. Let's face it, at least there's a good chance of seeing/hearing one if you spend enough time.
Some antis talk as if you could do "wolf tours" up north, as if the wolves would be a draw and be visible like they are in Yellowstone (when in fact you'd be hard-pressed to show anyone a wolf except on a trail camera). They wouldn't even see one if they took their dogs on a walk without a leash in areas frequented by packs … but they might hear a squeal when their "best friend" is turned into hamburger.
Keep in mind that when the dnr counts wolfs they only count the ones that they know for sure exist. There are probably more than 3x that many actually on the landscape. So, if the count is 350 there are at least 750. So the goal needs to align with the way the state counts. That would mean the goal should be like 100.
The proof is in the numbers. After how many years, what is the Elk population at? The DNR miscalculated the number of wolves by 300 percent near Pelican lake. Seriously, look it up! Again, that is not on Cathy Stepp. Do the dollars generated by the handful of people that come to Clam lake to see the Elk out perform the dollars generated by the the gun deer season alone? I think not! Just ask the business owners up there. A reality check is in order, the Elk experiment is a disaster as long as the wolves are allowed to stay at their high numbers. And, the answer is to bring more elk in from Kentucky that have never been exposed to wolves. Well then, lets just butcher them and serve them in huge stainless steel dog bowls.
I have a better idea, make wolves over the counter for two years and stop pissing away money. That was for all my Tea Party friends. LOL
Apples to oranges. How many of those elk died from people feeding causing car kills, drowning,etc? If the Madison fools would have allowed more elk brought in when requested in the past there would have been a better herd now. Just to use your analogy though; when an elk hunt happens it still will not generate the same cash flow as deer season so not have a hunt? Tell people they can't come to the area for anything but deer hunting? Maybe the extra cash generated by people just looking and the elk hunt will be extra cash into the area. HHMMMM.
Remember there 350 wolf goal is when the population is at its lowest. At this time of year they are at their peak so it is way higher.
Agree that more targeted trapping of wolves in areas frequented by elk would be a good idea. Smokey is right, though — elk are a year-round attraction for visitors vs. the short window in fall for deer.
Apple to oranges is right. Economic impact of the Elk population on Wisconsin annually = 250 K. Economic impact of the 9 day gun deer hunt on Wisconsin last year 1.3 Billion! yes Billion. Number of Elk killed by vehicles since 1995 = 27. Insignificant. Wolves, it's dinner time.
10, it looks like you can't even balance a check book.
Smokey, don't make it personal. Just google the facts. That is all I did.
Fact-Only 27 have died from Vehicle vs Elk collisions since 1995.
Fact-Clam Lake Chamber of Commerce reports an annual economic impact of 250 K. And, I am being generous there, it is actually a little less.
Fact-The 9 day regular gun deer season generated a 1.3 billion dollar economic impact state-wide in 2013.
Undeniable, the increase in wolves has decimated not only the deer herd north but, sent the Elk population into a tail spin.
I would love nothing more than to see the Elk herd explode and rival the deer population. Elk is way better than deer in taste anyway. However, just throwing more money and brining in new animals is not going to reverse the trend without significant changes in how wolves are managed. Just ask the folks out in Yellowstone.
Smokey, I do respect your passion though!
But you are comparing State wide deer impact to one community in the north for the elk. What about Glidden, Hayward?
You did not include all the elk that died as a result of feeding at residences. Many from drowning.
As for the money spent on the elk, how much is from RMEF and donations? A lot of money is being spent on habitat that also benefit deer. WDNR has tried to get the USFS to do a few more things but FS attitude is still in the dark ages. More preservation than conservation there.
You also forget bear predation. Yes, predators are a problem. But I doubt RMEF and a lot of other don't see the program a failure.
10orbetter, you have passion too. That's good so I respect that in you. You have a lot of good contributions here.
We can't all agree on everything.
Smoke, I agree with all the that you said about the other communities and other predators. Still, even if you assumed the economic impact was the same it does not come close to the deer hunt impact. It could if they managed predators better.
Since deer and elk management are so closely tied to predators including humans, weather, starvation, and accidental death, I would like to see an out-of-the-box approach. So, say elk and deer numbers drop below the population goal for a given year. The low elk and deer population automatically sets in motion a predator reduction plan in that management unit. Where for that year, in that unit or those units only, bear, and wolves are over the counter permits to reduce the number of predators and give the deer and elk a chance to recover. Coyotes would be open for hunting all year including during the gun season. Doe permits would be eliminated for the year and I would, though most hate the idea, install antler restrictions for that year as well. I believe that would help the elk program immensely and allow the deer herd to return to a better quality level for hunters. The fluctuations would not be as great. When the deer and elk herds stabilize or return to above or at goal, the over the counter permits for bear and wolves would be removed.
I agree for the most part. Some good ideas there. I still have to say that we need more habitat work here as well.Song dogs are open all year now so that won't change. I wish I could afford a rifle and caller as well as more guys taken some of them out. Not enough coyote getting shot IMPO. There are no antlerless permits here this year except for a few such as military on leave so that should help. But I believe we are in a predator pit at this time so recovery will take time.
Habitat is huge! there needs to be more timber harvest especially in the National forest and in the American Legion State Forest. I think my idea for predator control is realistic. I know the bear guys probably hate it but, I'm telling you I have never seen so many in the state. Had one walk right up to the boat while we were pulling out of Big Arbor Vitae this year. Fortunately my son got in the truck in time and I tossed a boat anchor at it hitting it in the side. Then it ran off.
National forest is federal. You need to complain to the right, or left people, if you want that addressed.
"Try to think positive and build instead of tear down and destroy."
"It must be sad to live so negative existence."
"My glass is half full."
These should be posted on each and every thread on the Wisconsin Forum. I'm not saying we can't have differences, but there is a right way and wrong way to express them constructively. Smokey, great posts! BC
Who decides the right and wrong way of expression with opinion difference's?
If your an Ass_ole, my guess is you will do it the wrong way. If your a decent person, my guess is you will do it the right way. BC
Interesting analogy. I apologize to get off the thread topic. Realism usually prevails over pessimism and optimism though.
Let's bring on the Elk expansion, reduce wolf/bear numbers and increase timber/pulp harvest on the NF and certain state owned public areas!
DNR and Governor Walker to thank for this.
CaptMike, and that is a good thing. North of 64 has needed it. Grouse will do better, deer…
I think she is doing a good job under Governor Walker- If you think its bad know- wait and see if Walker doesn't make it back for four more years! My vote is for Walker so Kathy Stepp can stay in. If you look back at this position, the non DNR and non-qualified Attorneys appointed by recent Governors were the ones who allowed the wolf population and the weakness of the DNR as a whole to bleed out the sportsman and our resources. She has ran the UW Point Natural resources program for years and is very qualified!
Jim, you are mistaking her for Christine L. Thomas. Cathy Stepp has no natural resources background as I know of. She and her husband were building contractors.
10, yes it is. It benefits all wildlife.
Still that is not on Fed lands. More is needed there. I went out to pull a cam on the Fed that was there for over a month. One doe, one bear. There was very little sign in any of the three spots I checked in that area. Other cams pulled earlier were the about the same. There is some in areas south where there has been logging but where the cams were it is nearly a biological desert. I won't be wasting tome there this year.
Federal land is a whole different story. Do I need to point out the party in charge at the federal level and what is their perspective with respect to the trees?
No, you don't need to. But it really hasn't mattered in a long time with either party. This has been growing for a long time.
I agree. To see where the problem lies, we need to look at the middle and upper management of some of those agencies. While average people go to work, raise their families and enjoy their pastimes, some energetic zealots have figured that the best way to get what they want is to insert themselves where they can become part of the decision making process. it has worked for them.
