NRB approves wolf management plan

Late last month the Natural Resources Board (NRB) gathered to decide whether to pass the state’s draft wolf management plan. The plan has been contentious, at best, since the earliest drafts were produced. Complicating matters further was the fact that the state Senate rejected four of Gov. Evers’ appointees to the board.

Of the last 62 nominees, only two have failed to be confirmed by the Senate. In order for the NRB to conduct any business at this meeting, it would need a quorum. Without those four appointees, that quorum would not be present. 

As a result, it was unclear whether action could be taken on the plan as scheduled. 

Governor Evers, however, appointed four more individuals to the board — Doug Cox, Patty Schachtmer, Robin Schmidt and former Department of Natural Resources (DNR) deputy secretary Todd Ambs. The four said they worked diligently over the last week to familiarize themselves with the plan in order to be ready to vote on the matter at the panel’s Oct. 25 meeting.

There were over 50 people who registered to speak at the meeting, causing the session to last  well over eight hours. There were many conservation organizations with representation at the meeting as well as individuals representing only themselves. 

Population objectives

Mike Brust, who has been vocal about the wolf plan and who has been deeply involved in the wolf issue since the animals’ return to the state, spoke representing the Wisconsin Bow Hunters Association.  

In the beginning, he said, wolves were to be only in “vast, roadless wilderness tracts in Northwest Wisconsin.” At the time, the department felt there could be a possibility for the state to be home to up to 100 wolves. 

“This plan, unfortunately, is a double-cross by the DNR to the sportsmen and sportswomen of Wisconsin,” he told the board. 

In the beginning, he said $1 million of hunter license dollars was used to fund the wolf program. At the time, conservation groups agreed, as the idea was for wolves to stay within that portion of the state where they would not often interact with humans and cause conflicts. He said that agreement was based on specific conditions and promises which he said had been systematically and consistently broken by the DNR.

One point of contention for Brust and many others has been the lack of a specific, low population goal for wolves in the state.

The 1999 plan and the 2007 plan saw 350 wolves as not only a goal, but one that would allow the animals to have a sustainable population in the state, he noted. 

The current draft plan lists the population now to be in the range of 800 - 1,100. DNR large carnivore biologist Randy Johnson has stated the biological carrying capacity in the state for wolves is approximately 1,200, based on how much the population had grown. Brust posited, however, that, as he sat on the wolf stakeholders’ committee which held monthly meetings from 2012-2014, that same 350 animal goal was being written into that plan — up until such time as the DNR told the group to cease work on the plan.

Other conservation organizations in the state, such as the Wisconsin Wildlife Association and Hunter Nation, have also asked for a population goal of 350 or less. Tyler Wenzlaff of the Wisconsin Farm Bureau said it was his understanding that 350 was still considered a sustainable number.

NRB chair Bill Smith said he recognized the issues of Wisconsin’s producers and felt the wolf plan would put state management ability in a favorable light that would help lead to the eventual delisting of wolves. That delisting would then put lethal abatement options in the hands of producers who were experiencing repeated depredations. 

“This is the most compelling issue we face in wolf management is to get to the people that are dealing with wolf depredations, the agricultural farms, their businesses, their properties, and to provide them the full range of options and help that they need,” Smith said. 

This has been one of the main reasons Smith has been in favor of this plan. 

While it walks a tight line between those who want to see fewer wolves in the state and those who want to see, if not more, at least current population numbers, he said he believes this plan puts the state’s best foot forward in showing the federal government the state is capable of managing a sustainable wolf population. This, he noted, is one of the main requirements for achieving delisting. 

Wenzlaff stated the 350 mark was not something the Farm Bureau wanted to see as an immediate goal, but it would remain steadfast on the wish to move closer to that number over time.

He stated that, even in the eyes of the federal judge who was behind the last re-listing of the wolf, the Great Lakes region would be able to have a sustainable wolf population, even with that goal in place.

Smith said he was unsure if the plan would get enough scientific support from U.S. Fish and Wildlife when it came to delisting if the population number written into the plan stayed at 350. 

He said he, and others, felt the plan as it sat, with the adaptive management approach and a population range, would be more likely to help get and sustain a wolf delisting.

Ultimately, the board did approve the wolf management plan, but with one change.

Subzone changes

One change was proposed in the form of an amendment to the motion to approve the draft wolf management plan. 

That amendment was proposed by new board member Doug Cox, an enrolled member in the Menominee Tribe and former chairman for the Wisconsin Conservation Congress. He asked for a change in how the quota in the subzones around the reservations would be handled. This subzone is divided into four portions, one each around the Red Cliff, Bad River, Lac Courte Oreilles, and Flambeau reservations. He did not propose a change to the overall quota for the subzone, which is four. However, he proposed that if two wolves were harvested in any one of those individual portions, that particular portion would close while the other portions of the subzone may remain open until the quota had been harvested.

Wisconsin Wildlife Federation president Kevyn Quamme spoke about the subzone quotas as well. He asked for the quotas in those zones, rather than being a set number, to allow for adjustments if warranted from year to year.

In the end the board approved Cox’s recommendation of closing a portion of a subzone should two wolves be taken from the area around any of the four reservations. The remaining areas of each subzone would remain open until four total animals were taken from those subzones as a whole.

Permanent rule

An accompanying permanent rule regulating the wolf harvest was also approved by the board. This permanent rule remained somewhat the same as the emergency rule it will replace, other than some changes to reflect those changes in the wolf plan. 

The rule reflected an 8-hour registration time from the time of recovering a harvested animal. This was a change from the previous 24 hours. 

Carcass tags will now also be valid only in the specified zone, according to the rule. The rule would also put into place enhanced reimbursements for producers who are the victim of multiple depredations in one grazing season. 

Rather than receiving simply fair market value for the loss of livestock, these producers would receive 1.25 times that amount.

With some small changes, the board approved the permanent rule. The full Oct. 25 NRB meeting can be found on the WDNR YouTube Channel, as can other recent NRB meetings.

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