January 19, 2023 at 4:15 p.m.
State's draft wolf plan open for public comment until Feb. 28
State's draft wolf plan open for public comment until Feb. 28
By Trevor Greene-
Large carnivore biologist Randy Johnson gave a presentation on the plan to the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation in December. Many in the group supported the original 350 animal population goal as it was stated in the last wolf management plan. In a letter to the DNR, the Federation station that, without a numeric population goal, there would be no accountability. Further, the Federation said, a numeric population goal was established in the 1999 wolf management plan due to lack of confidence in a subjective wolf management strategy such as the one now proposed in this draft plan.
"[E]stimating the abundance of wildlife populations with enough precision to determine whether the population is meeting a narrow numeric goal typically demands high resource and financial investments and may be impractical." the plan reads. "These difficulties may lead to illusions of success or failure regardless of actual conditions on the ground."
As an alternative, the plan would look to prioritize management actions in response to observed conditions and scientific data. According to the plan, this would strike a balance between wolf-related benefits while minimizing wolf-related conflicts. The plan would manage each wolf zone on simply an increase, decrease or maintain population goal, much the same as other species such as bear and deer.
An issue with population estimates, as pointed out by the Federation, is that approximately 40% of wolf tracking units had been tracked the required three times per season, and some units had not been tracked at all. This led them to wonder how a population estimate could be accurate, leading to potential under-counting and under-reporting of wolves.
Lone and dispersing wolves were another issue not addressed in the draft plan. While other states added an estimated 12-15% to their wolf count, the letter from the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation said those wolves were not taken into account in Wisconsin's draft plan
Objectives
The draft wolf plan contains three primary objectives. They are:
• Ensure a healthy and sustainable wolf population to fulfill its ecological role (objective A)
• Address and reduce wolf-related conflict (objective B)
• Provide multiple benefits associated with the wolf population (objective C)
• There are also three objectives meant to support those primary objectives. Those are:
• Increase public understanding of wolves in Wisconsin (Objective D)
• Conduct scientific research to inform wolf management and stewardship (Objective E)
• Provide leadership in collaborative and scientific-based wolf management in Wisconsin
• Page 102 of the plan lists objectives and associated metrics by which to evaluate progress towards those objectives.
Under Objective A, the plan looks to continue "rigorous wolf population monitoring." Another point under Objective A is to use science-based and data-driven methods to estimate wolf population characteristics. This objective also looks to ensure appropriate legal protection for wolves, protect and monitor wolf population health and maintain sustainable populations of the primary prey of the wolf, white-tailed deer.
Objective B is to address and reduce wolf-related conflict. Under this objective there is a call to maintain an integrated wolf conflict program. This would include both lethal and non-lethal abatement measures. This objective also includes guidance on administering a wolf damage compensation program, maintaining a service agreement with USDA Wildlife Services to address wolf conflicts and offer assistance, ensure adequate funding for the program, to develop new techniques to address conflicts and to increase public awareness of the conflict and abatement program.
Objective C, to provide multiple benefits associated with wolves, includes a strategy to provide a "well-regulated wolf harvest season" at such times as wolves are delisted. The season would be consistent with public preferences and management plan objectives. This section of the plan also calls for evaluation of that harvest season as well as encouraging non-consumptive recreational and cultural opportunities.
Increasing public understanding of wolves is Objective D and calls for fostering public education and understanding of wolves through readily available and accurate information. It also calls for this information to reflect the latest science and management experience.
Objective E looks at scientific research as a way to inform wolf management and stewardship. Under this objective, the draft plan would call for evaluation and improvement of methods used to determine population size and abundance. It would also call for an evaluation of social and economic implications of wolves in the state as well as continued research into techniques to mitigate and address conflicts. Assessment of effects of regulated wolf harvest and research on ecological influences of wolves is also addressed in this part of the draft plan.
According to the draft plan, Objective F is to "provide leadership in collaborative and science-based wolf management in Wisconsin." It calls for utilizing the Wolf Advisory Committee to help facilitate implementation of the plan. This committee has come under scrutiny by sportsmen groups and others as being biased, or with not providing ample seats at the table to gather all needed input, however. Collaboration with government agencies, tribes, conservation organizations, universities and residents is also covered under the last objective of the plan.
New zone structure
The draft management plan calls for the state to be divided into six zones with additional sub-zones within those zones. Zones 1, 2, and 5 make up the core of wolf territory. These areas are forested with the lowest human densities in the state. The plan states the leading objective in these zones would be to "ensure a healthy and sustainable wolf population to fulfill its ecological role." A goal in these zones would be to "address and reduce wolf conflicts," but decision making in these zones would be guided primarily by the leading objective.
In Zones 3 and 4, the secondary wolf range, the leading objective would be two-fold: to address and reduce wolf conflicts and to provide multiple benefits associated with the wolf population.
"These transitional areas area likely to continue supporting wolf populations in portions of these zones along with regional connectivity between core wolf habitats in the north and central parts of the state, but at an overall lower density than in zones 1, 2, and 5," the draft plan states. Wolf harvest rates in these zones are generally recommended to be higher than those in Zones 1,2 and 5.
Zone 6 is comprised of highly agricultural and developed areas of southern Wisconsin. The draft plan recommends the key objective here to be addressing and reducing wolf-related conflicts. The draft plan, for this zone, recommends wolf licenses be "readily available" to allow local control over occupancy and density.
Sub zones
Sub zones 1A and 4A, shown on the accompanying map, would be used to direct increased harvest in those locations, as they have historically been the highest in the number of wolf-conflicts. Conflicts in these sub-zones include depredations of hunting dogs, livestock and pets as well as human health and safety concerns.
Sub zones 1B and 2B would be "designed to minimize wolf harvest in areas adjacent to large tribal reservations within wolf range which support wolf packs primarily on and adjacent to these reservations," according to the draft.
"To respect tribal sovereignty, tribal reservations of Bad River, Red Cliff, Lac Courte Oreilles, Lac du Flambeau, Menominee and the identified Stockbridge-Munsee Community Area will continue to be designated as zero quota areas of state wolf harvest on the state zone map," the draft originally stated. However, as DNR large carnivore specialist Randy Johnson pointed out in his presentation to the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation last month, those sub zones do now allow limited harvest. In Zone 1B, four wolves could be harvested in any given hunting and trapping season. The Zone 2B quota would be two animals. These sub-zone quotas would remain static, regardless of the quota for the surrounding zones. Sub-zones would also close if the quota is met in the corresponding zone (zone 1 for sub-zone 1b and zone 2 for sub-zone 2b).
An acute point of contention with some private land owners are the sub-zones set up in the Ceded Territories. These sub-zones contain all land within five miles of reservation land. In these sub-zones, there would be reduced quotas, should wolves become deregulated and a hunting and trapping season established. The contention lies in the private properties that are within these boundaries and that their harvest of wolves would be more strictly regulated than those within the same zone, but outside of that sub-zone.
Public Comment
Public comment on the state's draft wolf management plan is open until Feb. 28. The DNR asks that those interested read the plan before sending in their comments. The full plan, as well as the public comment form, can be found on the DNR website dnr.wi.gov by inputting keyword "wolves."
Beckie Gaskill may be reached via email at [email protected].
Comments:
You must login to comment.