April 24, 2023 at 12:02 p.m.
Public comments available for DNR draft wolf management plan
Public comments available for DNR draft wolf management plan
Comments were received from tribes, conservation organizations and individuals. Remarks were accepted by mail, email and through the online public comment tool on the DNR website.
Several organizations called for the DNR to include a numeric population goal in the plan.
In a letter signed by State Sen. Mary Felzkowski, Rep. Rob Swearingen and 27 other legislators, dated Feb. 13, there was an immediate call for a prescribed population goal. The letter stated those legislators stood with the "36 counties from all across Wisconsin" who had passed resolutions in favor of setting the wolf population goal at 350 or less. The population goal of 350 was included in the 1999 plan and would have also been included in the plan in 2007. However, with this newest draft plan, the department dropped the population goal number in favor of setting goals based on whether the population should be maintained, decreased or increased, much the same way as deer are managed within counties now.
Although species such as deer are managed this way, there are groups and individuals who have called for a population goal number for this and other species managed within the state.
With no prescribed population goal, they attested in their letter, the door would be open for future lawsuits regarding quotas set by the Natural Resources Board (NRB).
The NRB is a citizen board that advises the department on any number of natural resources-related issues. One such lawsuit, to which these legislators alluded, was filed after the NRB set the 2021-22 fall harvest quota at 300 wolves. This lawsuit was successful and the Dane County judge in the case also called for the promulgation of a permanent rule and the creation of an updated wolf management plan.
"The blatant disregard to a prescribed population goal falls in line with that of a judge from Dane County - completely out of touch with how the overpopulation of wolves have negatively impacted families, farmers, deer hunting, tourism, property values and communities throughout our state," the letter said.
This letter, and others, also called for the DNR to work with the U.S. Fish and Game Services to delist the grey wolf. The size of the population, the legislators said, no longer warrants listing.
A resolution from the Adams County Board of Supervisors was one of many from counties in the state included in the comments. The board also agreed with other groups regarding reinstating a population goal of 350. Their resolution named the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, the Wisconsin Farm Bureau, the Wisconsin Conservation Congress spring hearings and 20 county boards in northern and west central Wisconsin as others who supported this goal as well.
Buffer zones
The Center for Biological Diversity lauded several parts of the plan. One of those was the highly-contested buffer zones around reservations. These buffer zones reduce the numbers of wolves that could be harvested near reservations, should the wolf be delisted and a hunting and trapping season be reinstated. By statute, if wolves are not federally or state listed, the department must hold a harvest season. The Center said these zones are important to sovereign tribal nations.
"Killing wolves for stepping over an invisible political boundary would interfere with the tribal nations' ability to conserve their wolves consistent with their cultural and other values," the Center said in their letter.
Others in the state disagree, however. During a February listening session in Solon Springs, Wisconsin Wildlife Federation then-president Pat Quaintance spoke about those buffer zones as a landowner who would be affected by the buffer zones. When looking at the map, he noted, some of those zones extended 17-18 miles from reservation boarders, not the six miles originally stated.
Quaintance spoke about those who own land around the reservations. This buffer zone, with drastically reduced quotas, would take property rights away from those people who owned that land, he argued. They would have a greatly reduced capacity to manage wolves on their land if these buffer zones were to be put into place. Several others spoke out about the buffer zones as well. These zones were one of the most contested elements of the wolf plan, especially by those groups and individuals affected by the reduced number of wolves that would be allowed to be taken off the landscape in these places when a hunting and trapping season could be re-established.
To say wolf management in the State of Wisconsin is a contentious topic would be an understatement. Both those for wolf expansion and those for delisting and returning management authority back to the state hold their views quite solidly. The 1,540 page report makes plain the views of all 3,500 respondents.
DNR secretary appointee Payne stated the department will now be charged with reviewing all of these comments and making changes to the draft wolf plan. The hope is to complete the changes in time to bring the draft before the NRB at its October meeting. The matter is far from over in the minds of many in Wisconsin. All of the comments from the public comment period can be found on the DNR website dnr.wi.gov by inputing keyword "wolf plan."
Beckie Gaskill may be reached via email at [email protected].
BJG-Quaintance.tif
Beckie Gaskill/lakeland times
Comments:
You must login to comment.