DNR releases revised draft wolf plan

Wolves and wolf management are two of the most highly debated topics in Wisconsin when it comes to the state’s natural resources. When the Department of Natural Resources revealed its draft wolf plan earlier this year, it was met with plenty of push back including from some of the state’s biggest conservation organizations.

Shortly after the plan was released, DNR secretary appointee Adam Payne told the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation board  that he would take into account the feelings of conservation organizations in the state as well as those in the north who live with wolves on a daily basis. 

Over 3,500 public comments came in once the plan was released. 

Population goals

One of the main issues critics pointed to was the lack of a population goal in the draft. 

Many organizations and individuals wanted to see the population goal return to the 350 mark that was in the original wolf plan for the state.

The Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, Wisconsin Bow Hunters Association, the Wisconsin Farm Bureau and others asked that this number be returned to the plan. 

However, as of this writing, there is no figure for population goal in the plan. Instead there is a range of numbers, 800-1,200, that would “maintain statewide wolf abundance levels comparable to recent years.” 

A recent communication from the department stated this would allow for fluctuations in local wolf densities, however many groups remain unwilling to accept this part of the plan.

“The Department of Natural Resources revised 2023 Wolf Management Plan released this week completely ignores rural Wisconsinites living in primary wolf habitat and allows out-of-state environmentalists to determine the management of Wisconsin’s apex predator,” said Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation President Kevin Krentz. “The Natural Resources Board should send the 2023 Wolf Management Plan back to the department with instructions to hold a public hearing in Wisconsin’s wolf range to truly address the concerns of rural residents. We need to do better for our farmers who live in wolf country.”

According to the department, the plan reflects that wolves are a recovered species. A numeric population goal, the document states, is only appropriate for a recovering species. A goal such as that was seen as ineffective and even unnecessary when considering the social, biological and legal complexities of a recovered wolf population. 

“Instead,” the FAQ document reads, “the plan recommends adjusting management actions and methods, such as conflict abatement and public harvest, in response to conditions in the field.” This adaptive management approach is seen by the department as more scientifically defensible than a static goal. The document goes on to say the adaptive management philosophy taken in this new draft wolf plan would be likely to support the long-term maintenance of full management authority upon future wolf delistings.

Several groups have called for the state to help in the delisting movement. So far, however, little has been done by the department to move in that direction. This is another source of consternation for conservation groups. 

Suitable habitat

What constitutes suitable wolf habitat is still at issue as well. 

The current draft of the plan pushes suitable wolf habitat further into the central part of Wisconsin. Farmers and others take issue with this, with many believing the department, rather than looking to keep wolves in “vast, empty tracts of land,” as they originally pitched it to the Wisconsin Bowhunters’ Association, looks to be considering any areas where wolves currently occupy as suitable areas.

Laurie Groskopf is a member of several conservation organizations and has spent well over 10,000 hours studying wolves and their place on the landscape.

“My comment, not on behalf of any organizations I belong to, is that real wolf scientists believe wolves will do better in areas where there is plenty of game to eat, human persecution is low, and very little to no agriculture exists,” she said. “These conditions do not describe 50% of Wisconsin which is identified as appropriate wolf habitat by DNR. This plan is bad for rural families, bad for farmers, bad for deer hunters, and bad for the wolves. DNR measures success in terms of higher numbers. I measure success by safe wolves and eliminating the 60 - 100 verified wolf conflicts that happen each year in Wisconsin.”

According to the FAQ document, the department made an attempt to recognize the patchiness of the habitat in zones 3 and 4 in the central part of the state, noting that the plan states that “wolf occupancy should not be encouraged in areas of poor-quality habitat within these zones.”

Sub-zones

The sub zones remain an issue for many groups as well as for land owners  who live near tribal reservations. In these sub zones, a greatly reduced number of animals would be able to be harvested when a harvest season is established. 

Wisconsin Wildlife Federation past president Pat Quaintance is a land owners who has been fairly vocal about what he perceives as a violation of his property rights. He owns land within one of the buffer zones. 

He spoke before those who attended a listening session last winter in Solon Springs, stating he was against those buffer zones, some of which were miles larger than originally planned.

He argued that this zone structure would hamper his ability to control wolves on his own property once wolves were delisted and a harvest season was re-established. He cited decreased property values and safety concerns as parts of his reasoning for his position against these zones. Others have offered up the same concerns.

The plan states that subzones 1A and 4A, where wolf conflicts have been historically more problematic, were established to give managers the option to affect harvest pressures in those areas. 

This would be done specifically to mitigate conflicts and depredation issues. 

“It is expected that these subzones would be in effect by default to encourage proactive reduction of wolf densities in these specific areas,” the plan reads.

Subzones 1B and 2B, however, were set up to limit harvest. These are the sub zones with which Quaintance and others take issue. Based on the number of wolves harvested in those sub zone areas over the last four regulated wolf seasons, the harvest limit in subzone 1B is recommended to be four wolves and the harvest limit in subzone 2B is recommended to be two wolves. Once a subzone reaches its harvest limit, that subzone would be closed, even if the accompanying main zone was still open. Likewise, if Zone 2 should close, for instance, Zone 2B would close also. The same could be said for Zone 1. 

The next step for the revised wolf plan will be to head to the Natural Resources Board. The board will hear a presentation from the DNR during its October meeting. 

The board may approve the plan as it is, or ask the department to consider further revisions.

Beckie Gaskill may be reached via email at [email protected].