Contributors to this thread:
Darryl's Link
Comical to read. The experts are puzzled why. Hahahahahaha
You know our country is going to hell when the experts are puzzled.
"That’s nearly double the previous record of 23 hunting dog deaths, in a phenomenon that might be attributed to a growing wolf population in the Badger State."
Might?? Really, MIGHT?
Seems pretty straight forward to me, more wolves = more depredations.
Read the responses below the article.
It seems reasonable to think there may be more than one variable at work (eg, the wolf population), as evidenced by the note about the 2012 stats. As a hunter who doesn't have strong feelings on either side of this issue I find it curious that so many other hunters - a group that prides itself on being the primary financial contributors to conservation - are so steadfastly opposed to a predator population. The assumption is that there is a "right" number of deer, and that number is a big one...especially wherever I happen to hunt...
I actually am in favor of a wolf hunt, just would like more discussion around what the appropriate predator/prey balance is and less of what we tend to see from the opposing sides.
Grind TV????? They have any clue and are actually a news source you trust.... sorry if you do. Regardless of the number of hounds killed, I am not trusting them. There could actually be fewer wolves in the Northwoods, but if there are more hounds being let loose, there might be more hounds killed.... just saying
Add that to the 17 sheep killed on the Canik's farm north of Park Falls this year and the many other domestic animals killed this year and any sane person would realize there are too many wolfs in Wisconsin.
A lot of money gets paid to the farmers and hound hunters that loose animals killed by wolfs, where does all that money come from?
Link is to an article on the sheep kill.
What the article fails to tell anyone is that Adrian Wydeven now is working for the Timber Wolf Alliance.
If you spend the time to dig into the information that is available you will find out that the majority of the people involved in wolves are against harvest of any kind and they really don't know how many wolves are on the landscape. Their major concern is poaching and it is brought up over and over throughout the 1000's of pages of information out there.
What frustrates me the most is that my money is being spent on the salaries of the people who are supposed to work for me and I find out that they are 180 degrees different than what my thoughts are.....
Just got back, leaving on Sunday, but I did listen to wis public radio on Wed, as this is Wolf Awareness Week in Wis...... Adrian was on, and stated that his estimates are that there is over 900 wolves in the state, and you can double that, once the pups are born. He further stated he was in favor of state control, but you can tell, he wants no hunts or trapping......
Than we have the other guest, film maker out of California, who was showing in Madison the premier of "Medicine of the Wolf",,,,, she also stated no reason for hunts, that using dogs for bears is barbaric, that trapping is a past art of history and on and on..... oh yes she was involved in the center of biodiversity.....
I wish our DNR leader, would lead, at least get out there, and publicly talk about the out of control wolves in this state, something....... IF, and that is a big IF, we ever get the state control again, it is going to be a fight to allow public hunting and trapping,,,,,,
that is a fight we need to win........ Wolves in this state, should be kept in a balance, like good game management does, but I am telling you, its going to be a fight, the pro wolf crowd, are organized and funded, and ready to go, and get into a fight......
Razor couldn't agree more about needing someone to lead us out of this mess, obviously the realtor is a puppet. At this rate we'll be in the same dismal shape as MN. Why on earth would anyone give airtime to a California nutcase on this subject?
We desperately need to control them. We on bowsite know this. Its terrible to think someone in Washington has the right to tell us what to do when they have know idea what is what. Why do we have the right to control all wildlife but we cant control of wolf? Wisconsin is more than capable on provide a proper management plan.
As far as trapping goes. I love to trap in the winter. I hope one day to trap a wolf too. It has a terrible name. Most people have know idea you can put your hand in a foothold (not a bear) trap and see no effect. I bring them along while trying to gain permission just to show the open minded folks just what I'm talking about. They're actually really surprised when they see it for themselves.
I never much cared for Adrian. I could tell in his videos from years ago that he is for high population numbers. This up coming election will tell us our fate with Wolves here in the Great Lakes region and maybe a negative turn around out west. A man can only hope for a positive outcome.
"900 wolves in the state, and you can double that, once the pups are born"
Double that? Do the math, say just 400 of those are females. I don't know the average number of pups for wolf litters but the litters I got pictures of on my bear baits had at least 5, as I had 5 in the same picture several times. That means probably over 2000 pups across the state. Lets say half of those survive, that is 1000 pups survive plus the original 900. So we went go from 900 to 1900 adults in one year. Tell me where my numbers and assumptions went wrong, or how off the DNR numbers are.
Jeff in MN.
One number of yours that is off is the 900 adults. None of them die?
Here is a pic on a game camera that I got this year. No way to tell for sure, but I doubt that this one lived for too much longer.
Other things that I can think of off the top of my head that might affect your equation:
- Wolves don't reach sexual maturity until 22 months. First year females are not breeders.
- In a pack, it is usually only the dominant pair that breeds. So, you would have to subtract off sexually mature females in a pack that are not the dominant female.
All of this is also dependent on the saturation of wolves in your state. Each pack defends quite a large area - once those areas have reached the saturation point, the yearly deaths of wolves is ~100% if food/disease/etc are the same (i.e. at the same point on the calendar each year, you will have approximately the same number of wolves). In MN, this shows itself by the amount of vulnerable food available - i.e. when bad winters hit, deer numbers go down and the wolf numbers follow. When there is an up cycle (now), the deer go up and the wolf numbers follow.
Good point Amoebus, I just kind of figured the uncounted wolfs offset any loss among the 900 counted ones. Not allowing counters to count on unplowed roads has to mean a lot do not get counted since a lot of wolfs live in areas with that kind of landscape.
The rest, well probably true or we would have been at 6000+ by now. Or maybe we are.
Amoebus, you are correct, the number Jeff used of 900 is incorrect, but not because of old age death....Its because its the number the DNR provides the public. Its so far off its ridiculous. When they used to show the packs and the numbers in them and if they were breeding packs or not it was a total Joke! There were areas that they showed ZERO wolves and it was loaded! There were packs that they listed as questionable or NO for breeding packs that had been having pups for a decade! Yeah you can say whatever you want that I'm a barstool biologists but I have logged thousands of miles in my days and I know there are WWWAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYY more than 900 wolves in this state anytime of year. Remember the bear count? LOL
How come the increased bear population never gets blamed for decreased deer numbers? You all do realize they are great fawn eaters?
Elk- Do you realize that wolves are now entering bear dens and killing cubs and sows? Bears kill their fair share of fawns, but they eat them, not just thrill killers like wolves. They do get their fair share of blame when it comes to killing fawns. And we get to hunt them to control the population.
We don't get hunt wolves because some liberal jackwagons think we are better off letting them roam free and uncontrolled.
Not to start anything, but that's how I see it.
+1 Elk Look at how bear population, bear hunting laws have changed over the years. it has turned Wisconsin into a Mecca for black bears. Bait stations are on the landscape for 6+ months, sows are having 4-5 cubs. It boils down to politics as usual, and the Wisconsin bear hunting association is a big time player. Don't get me wrong, the wolf population is a joke. But bears do just as much damage if not more to whitetail fawns.
At least the bears are a fawn threat for what the first month ish and we can manage the bears. The liberal nutjobs are getting just what they want, increase the wolf population, remove the management options and watch the hunters lose interest.
Assuming is not of any value. It is surmising. Assume I win the lottery tonight....
It all boils down to $$$$. Wolf population is strong and people are willing to pay LOTS of $$$ for a chance of getting a tag. Some state/federal management team will soon realize this and a season will instantly be set as soon as they figure out how they can profit from it.
My buddy just got back from Montana . Nineteen buck's for resident wolf tag's . Shoot a wolf buy another tag . Sound's like there going in the right direction .
Blows my mind that Montana, Alaska, and others? Can shoot them but here in the Midwest the states don't have the power to even consider it.
You can mark down another dog, there was a basset hound killed in the yard, last week, when he was let out to do his duty before bedtime. The owners heard something outside and by the time they got outside, the dog was dead. Right in the middle of the area that I was bear hunting in a few weeks ago.
Careful guys. I have said for years that we have at least twice the amount of wolves the DNR says we do. Then the DNR loyalists come out of the woodwork and jump all over me for it. I have a ton of respect for DNR staff that is actually in the field. The career bureaucrats that are blocking control of the wolves, I have zero respect for.
Rut I disagree, if the DNR in the field had a more accurate count the judge would probably think and rule differently, but the way it is they still "appear" endangered to someone who lives in the city.
There needs to be an epidemic of leaky gut syndrome! I think it is caused by lead or carbon being airborne.
The number of wolves has nothing to do with the judges decision to put wolves back on the endangered species list. It was based on failures on the USFWS part. For example, there is no protection or recovery plan in place for states adjoining WI, MN, and MI that wolves are likely to cross into.
This has nothing to do with Walker, Stepp, or the DNR. Any changes have to come from the Federal level and all attempts have been unsuccessful to this point. There was an amendment to last year's budget Bill that came within a day or two of passing that would have removed wolves from ESA protection for good but politics took over and it was removed.
Every DNR staff person I have ever discussed wolves with has been in favor of State control and having a season. I have even heard the wolf ecologist tell groups what the paths to local control are and what the public can do to encourage it.
The 900+ wolf count that the DNR has is a MINIMUM count that has been verified by tracks or howling surveys, they don't even try to hide the fact that it is a minimum count and not a population estimate. Why is it so hard for some people to understand that? Check out the huge voids in the track survey, actually talk to some of the people doing the track surveys.....they don't have a clue what they are doing. Anyone that spends any amount of time chasing animals, knows that the total number that you can actually "verify" is considerably less than the actual number.
MN's wolf count for 2016
Someone in WI should contact Dave MacFarland (Carnivore specialist 715-365-8917) to find out if WI does the same methodology as MN. If not, why?
