Bowsite.com

I believe there should be wolves in WI, but they should be managed like all other game species.

How many people are in the US right now?

The link is a story of a hungry wolf following a woman for 12 hours in Canada.

Try the link, in case it is too long for bowsite to handle you can copy and paste this:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/a-starving-wolf-stalked-a-woman-and-her-dog-for-12-hours-then-along-came-a-bear/ar-AAhcsoB?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=iehp

I am wondering if the guy who use to count the deer got reassigned to counting wolves.

Thanks for the link Jeff.

I love the animal, they most definitely have their part. But, There has to come a time we can do something about the explosion in population. Underestimating the population scares me a bit. Those numbers are not alarming enough to bring forward a season.

I have bear baits set at 8 locations. Have seen old wolf scat in the general area of most of those bait sites. Pictures of two wolfs on one site and I am sure there will be pics of them at other sites, just a matter of time.

Yes, there is a reason why the state only publishes a minimum number. That way they are not feeding us a lie. They do not want us to know the truth.

This is a true story. On the end of a short dead end road near Wirt Minnesota is a cemetery. Not far from that cemetery lived an elderly widow who's husband was buried at that cemetery. This elderly woman used to walk to visit her husbands grave just about every day, until wolfs moved into the area and would watch her walking that road. From then on she had to beg neighbors to please drive her the few hundred yards to the cemetery. That is just wrong.

Rut, I hear you not believing the DNR estimate. What method are how accurate are your numbers? :-)

Yep, there should be a season and not like we had in the past for sure.

Unless we are paying Rut to estimate the population we shouldn't expect him to supply any sort of numbers.

"Underestimating the population scares me a bit. Those numbers are not alarming enough to bring forward a season."

Exactly, and the DNR is well aware of this. This is a good thing to keep in mind for those times when someone pipes up with the tired excuse that the exploding population has nothing to do with the DNR. Between the constant underestimating and all the years the DNR spent "relocating" wolves they are far from innocent in the mess we now have.

Up until 2 years ago I also use to hunt a lot around Iron River and Port Wing and different areas up there. I can't count the negative wolf experiences we had. I really think they are an awesome critter that is very cool to see. But they need to be controlled like any species.

The big problem I feel is the hands off management that has been going on too long. Allowing one species to go unchecked is not management. Regardless of the species.

I am seeing a recovery in the deer numbers here as well as the size and health of the deer. Measured more deer this year than I have in the last two years too.

Additionally, wolf numbers vary greatly during an average year. In the winter, it is at the minimum and can almost double when pups are born. Here in MN, the pop holds relatively steady because the packs have filled all the ranges that will support them. So, in the 9-12 months after pups being born, the population returns to about the same as the previous winter. What number would you have them publish?

Additional to the additionally - NO population survey will count the actual number of animals until there are about 10 of a species left. This is limited mostly by cost/time/resources. I doubt that WI has more than 1-2 people in the DNR dedicated to wolves alone. They don't have the money/logistics to put a collar on each wolf, so they have to rely on scat/track/calling/some-collar surveys that will count some average density for a bunch of areas and then use that to come up with the state-wide number. It is compounded with a species like the wolf that pack up and defend a large area - traveling almost all the time to find food.

Last addition ... I hear a lot of reports on this forum and others with the same format - 'I saw tracks/wolves and the DNR says there are none here'. Part of that explanation is what I have previously typed (and some in the next paragraph), but there is also a confirmation bias going on here. How many times have you been in the woods and reported on a forum when you DIDN'T see a wolf track/wolf? I would bet that most hunters never see a wolf in their years in the field. I hunt in the highest density wolf population in the US (probably in the world) and only see them once every 3-4 years.

I don't know how much of this is published by WI DNR, but MN has a yearly report that summarizes their methods and conclusions (see link). It would be worth it to read the 6-7 pages, but if you only have 2 minutes, make sure you look at Figure 5. Two things are interesting to me in that chart - 1) the y-axis has the mid-winter population size (lowest of the year before pups are born) and 2) each of the yearly 'number' that is reported has an error margin of +- 300-400 animals (which more than accounts for the extra set of tracks that Steve White has reported).

I think the population estimate is based a lot on volunteers that report track sightings in the winter. Mostly sightings along roads so the packs that don't get out of the remote areas just don't get counted.

Minnesota did the same thing when the population was exploding there. Published numbers that were probably a third of what was reality. Our group of usually 8 gun deer hunters in northern Minnesota usually were filled up on bucks only or close to it in about 5 days. The last 10 years or so they are lucky to see one deer total in a whole week.

Beyond that, the minimum number is something they can estimate with a high level of confidence. Anything else will be less accurate by definition. Publishing other numbers will only generate even more heated arguments from every side of the debate and they'd never hear the end of bitching and moaning.

He also was well spoken, not that I agree with him, on all of his points, but he is no dummy,,,,,

he thought that wis hunting, had no significant impact on the health of the whole wolf pack in the state...

that tells me the wolf season is not liberal enough....

The latest DNR funny. I shouldn't be telling you this. But be careful. Many now have hidden collars that record video, and sound. So if shot illegally there is evidence of the shooter. LMAO!! Anyone that hunts dogs know how this stuff works. A camera on a collar does not work. Then to be small enough to be hidden by the fur. Propaganda to scare people is all!

It was evident, that during the interview, he remarked that poaching was now, having an effect, that it is up, and the wolves need state control.....

They can still count the animals properly. As far as a season. If our Governor had the balls he pretends to, he could take care of that.

How is the DNR getting more money when wolves are on the endangered list? How much was raised in the wolf hunts the years they ran them?

Jeff - "All I am saying is that if they know what the minimum is they must also have some idea what the probable real number and maximum numbers are."

Take a look at my link. The chart has numbers from mid-winter - which is the minimum number that they will be at during the year. Not sure, but that is probably what they mean when they say the minimum value. As I mentioned, when pups are born, they are at their maximum and then there is a reduction until the next mid-winter. As long as the counting is at the same time of the year and consistent in its methodology, you are going to get a good idea of the relative numbers year-to-year. The only time an exact number is important, is if it is very near the minimum number to return control to federal (which has proven moot with the lawsuits that forced it back to federal).

Nocturnal8 - "Most wolf trackers are checking near roads"

Wolf range size is between 50 and 250 square miles (I have seen published sizes of 1000 mi2). There can't be a lot of places left in WI that don't have a road within those parameters. In my hunting area of MN, the wolves use the roads/trails for scent-scouting because they can move rapidly and quietly. When they cross a track or scent, you see the tracks head off into the woods. Again, as long as the methodology is consistent year-to-year, you are going to get an accurate trend in the population. It will be impossible given the constraints of cost/time/resources, to get an exact count of any species. The governor of WI could spend the entire DNR budget (and all the salaries of teachers who quit) and still not be able to count every wolf in WI.

Let me give another example. For many years, I was a frog counter here in MN. We had a set number of stopping points on a route. We had to stop for the same number of minutes and count the frogs we heard by call. Except for when there was only 1 frog, it was always a relative number. There were 10 stops on the route and we did that count 3 times in the spring and early summer - to get the early and late singing frogs. Now someone on a forum could have complained that we weren't counting every frog or that he had a pond that wasn't counted, but - if you look at the overall picture - it didn't matter. You are looking for long-term trends in frog numbers, singing dates, etc. If the first 10 years of the survey always has bullfrogs in 1/20th of the surveys and the last 15 years there are none, you have a trend that you can study further to discover the reasons.

You are seeing an increase in the year-to-year size of the wolf population. Probably means that the deer herds are coming back well from the bad winter years.

I am not sure why these concepts are so difficult for internet posters to grasp?

Nah, the WDNR won't let that happen. They make sure of that by allowing antlerless harvest in any county that shows even a small increase.

If you subtract roads that are not plowed then in many areas that means a lot less roads to be looking for tracks on.

I know snowmobilers see a lot of wolf sign in the Sawyer county area. I bet those wolfs are running trails on purpose to avoid being counted.

OK, then why don't they call it 'winter population' instead of minimum population?

No idea as my data comes from MN where they are pretty open about their studies and methodology.

I took a quick look at the WI page (link) but didn't see the survey method summary like MN publishes. It looks like I was wrong about my guess that WI has 1-2 people dedicated to wolves. They list Dave MacFarland as a 'Carnivore Specialist' which means they have <1 person dedicated to wolves.

MN gov't has taken a different approach to funding and this might be an area that we fund better than WI has the last administration.

Go take the wolf tracking course. It's a sad sad joke. They tell you not to check hwys. Why, because wolves dont cross them? It's a safety issue they say. So that removes a lot of roads to be checked. They dont go down unplowed roads. Dont check the minimum plowed roads. Dont check the snow tracks. So a lot less roads to be checked. Means less tracks counted.

Then you just about need a lawyer, notary, tv crew, and more to verify the tracks to be counted.

You have to take photos with a measuring device that has both inches , and mm's on it. Don't have that, then we cant verify it was a wolf track. Pictures have to be submitted showing this as well. Also need to have pictures showing stride lengths. Because if it is only a 30" stride it's not a wolf either.

So what, maybe 10, 20, 30% of tracks submitted are considered verified by them. Thus reducing the count.

I have called them out repeatedly. Come out with me. I will show you the tracks, I will show you where they are, I will show the travel patterns. I will take you down the roads your paid trackers wont go. Never once have they come out. Always excuses to why they cant go. Jane Weidenhoff the head of the tracking program made these excuses as well. Told me she could not go out becuase of bad knees. Well then stay in the truck, and I will put the tracks outside your window. Besides I sure I have better documentation to the status of my bad knees. I dont make excuses for not getting the woods. If you wont get in the field, how can you count?

Look at what they say about mortality rates. 80% of the pups born die? If that is truly the case. How is the population exploding with only a 20% survival rate? Could it be far more wolves out there than you admit to? Could it be your mortality rates are way off?

This whole new lie be told about special collars. That are small enough to be hidden by the fur. But, can take video recordings of possible poachers. You really have to be a complete moron to believe this. The DNR went full retard in saying this. Anyone that has tried to use a camera on their hunting dogs knows better.

I have been saying for years, and stand by it still. IT IS ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE!! No way anyone can say I have been wrong in this statement. Just you wait there is much more to come!!

just look down, wolf tracks are everywhere,,,, take all the photos and measurements you can, collect the scat, which is everywhere........

not too hard

How dare you insinuate without 79 years of solid scientific proof. Remember it's not people that are out there every day that know a damn thing. It's the bureaucrats behind a desk that know it all.

Yup, that is exactly why concerned deer hunters and organizations fought for CDAC and got it. Now if the feds would get out of the way and we could get CDAC in the loop of wolf management I think the situation would improve.

OK CaptMike, I stand corrected. But bottom line I think the current CDAC's or some other similar county based group should have some official say in wolf management too.

No one has asked for them to be wiped out, they are asking for sound management,,,,,,

The thrill killing of 17 sheep in Price county did not even come up.

I feel bad for the businesses in the northwoods who have seen their one or two weeks of higher profit during deer season disappear, and not able to recoup those loses the rest of the year.

Wolves on the landscape is a part of nature. But the lack of adhering to the original goal and the federal lawsuits by the anti's not allowing population control by means of a legitimate wolf season is a tough pill to swallow for many of us who hunt and love the northwoods.

Location, Date, and Time Announced for Great Lakes Wolf Summit Madison, WI … Senator Tom Tiffany (R-Hazelhurst) and Representative Adam Jarchow (R-Balsam Lake) have announced additional details for the Great Lakes Wolf Summit. Thursday, September 15th Das Lach Haus 1788 Elm St. Cumberland, WI 54829 9AM – 3PM “After receiving a great response following our announcement of the Great Lakes Wolf Summit, we are pleased to announce the event will take place on Thursday, September 15th in Cumberland, WI. This location gives great opportunity for individuals from Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Northern Michigan to attend the summit and discuss the wolf population. We’ve been in contact with numerous individuals from across the country and hope to announce speakers and attendees soon. Our goal remains to have a policy driven discussion about the situation at hand. We look forward to hearing from experts in the field.” Registration will begin July 20th. Registration details will be announced soon.

I've made 10 trips in the last year that were 150 miles or more to participate and n discussions or testify on hunting and forestry issues. They always conflict with something important but I make the time because it's important.