Johnson presents wolf plan to NRB

Department of Natural Resources (DNR) large carnivore biologist Randy Johnson presented the state’s updated draft wolf management plan to the Natural Resources Board (NRB) at their meeting last week in Manitowish Waters. The plan, he said, has taken approximately 2 1/2 years to compile.

The goal statement of the plan is to “ensure a healthy and sustainable wolf population that fulfills the numerous ecological, cultural and recreational benefits of wolves, while being responsive in addressing and preventing wolf-related conflicts and recognizing the diverse values and perspectives of all residents in Wisconsin.”

After a lengthy public comment period, the department held many discussions, and out of those discussions came the current plan. Johnson told the board the plan was created as part of a commitment to a healthy and sustainable wolf population in Wisconsin, which he said was not a change from previous efforts.

However, one change from previous management plans was the fact that the population goal was retired for this plan. Instead of a specific population goal, the plan includes six objectives meant to create a framework for what a sufficient wolf population might look like. 

Those objectives included ensuring a healthy and sustainable wolf population, addressing and reducing conflict and providing the cultural and recreational benefit of wolves. The lack of a numeric population goal has been a point of consternation for many conservation groups in the state as well as those in the northern and central parts of the state whose lives have been, and continue to be, impacted by wolves, sometimes on a daily basis. Much of the public comment was aimed at understanding what to expect when it comes to the number of wolves on the landscape.

Johnson explained the highlights of the plan. 

According to the plan, the department would continue the annual monitoring that is being done. This includes winter snow tracking surveys in some areas, radio collaring and population monitoring.

The integrated wolf conflict program would also continue under the new plan. All of the tools to address and reduce wolf conflicts would still be on the table. This includes the state’s conflict compensation program. The plan also includes a large focus on ecology, public education, science and collaboration, he said. 

Of course, the plan also addressed wolf harvest. At such a time when the wolf is no longer listed on the federal Endangered Species List (ESL), state law requires the department to create a wolf harvest season. The plan outlines a shortened harvest registration timeline, zone-specific licenses and a more deliberate approach to the number of licenses issued in each zone.

Management zones have also been updated for this new draft plan. Additionally, subzones around tribal reservation lands have been created. These subzones have been another point of contention for some. The plan creates a greatly reduced harvest area around tribal reservations in the Ceded Territory in these sub zones. Conservation groups such as the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, as well as private land owners whose property falls within those sub zones, have spoken out about this portion of the plan, arguing that it would negatively affect those property owners by not allowing harvest of wolves should those zone close early. Some have even said it could affect property values.

There are also sub zones that would target harvest pressure in some areas that have historically been shown to have high conflicts, Johnson explained.

 This, he said, would help to alleviate those conflicts by allowing higher harvest numbers in those sub zones.

Johnson also provided a table regarding wolf populations and management outcomes based on population sizes. The biological carrying capacity of wolves in Wisconsin is between 1,200 and 1,300 animals, he said.

“Changes in wolf population abundance and distribution would be the result of natural wolf population dynamics as well as varying levels of regulated public harvest of wolves,” Johnson’s presentation slide stated. “This approach is expected to generally maintain statewide wolf abundance and distribution levels comparable to recent years (overwinter estimates of approximately 800 to 1,200 wolves), while explicitly allowing for fluctuation in local wolf densities…”

“The plan cannot tell us what’s the right number of wolves for the state,” Johnson said. “It cannot tell us what’s the right quota for the next time we have a season. Instead, it provides us a framework for having these discussions and for making these decisions in a way that, I believe, is effective and responsible and based on good science and certainly brings in public input as well.”

Board member Sandra Naas asked for clarification on the 350 population number in the old plan. She made the point that this was a threshold, not a management goal. Johnson said this was the number at which public harvest would be considered and where more liberal control would be applied when it comes to depredation. At the time, he said, there were only a “couple hundred” wolves in the state. At that time, 350 was an upward looking goal. At that threshold, those things would be considered. 

He said it was never meant to be a cap and the new plan goes beyond that. Several conservation groups have come forward in the past months to say they would only support a population goal of 350, and some wanted even less wolves on the landscape.

Board member Jim VandenBrook asked if there might be a better way to get buy in from the public for the plan and for the estimated population. Johnson said he believes the department needs to do a better job relaying how the wolf counts were done and the tools used.

“I think so,” Johnson said, when board member Marcy West asked him if he felt he had truly listened to the people from the north, who live with wolves on a daily basis.  “I think we’ve heard, through all of these difference processes, that we’ve heard that, that we recognized that.” He felt there were aspects of the plan that developed as a result of that input. West said she felt the public needed to better understand that the recovery of the wolves is a success story. At the same time, she said, there is also a need for the department to understand those who were experiencing wolf conflicts and depredations.

There was also a discussion about protecting rendezvous sites, which Johnson likened to a “day care” for the pups. He explained that protections for rendezvous sites was not recommended in the last plan, and also was not in the plan, as pups are mobile and able to move to another rendezvous site if one is disturbed. Language was included, however, for protection of denning sites.

Johnson said having a plan that is science-based and adaptable was likely the first step in getting the wolf delisted. To show the state was not only interested in keeping a sustainable wolf population, but was willing to have conflict abatement in place as well would show the wolf could be delisted without fear of populations dropping to a level where the species would require relisting in the future, he said.

NRB chairman Bill Smith said people who live with wolves have had his ear. The general consensus among these people is that they are “outnumbered, outvoted and are going to be overlooked.”

“I keep trying to convince them this is not a fully democratic voting process,” he said. “I’d like to hear assurance and maybe a stronger position that those people who are experiencing negative situations with wolves, particularly the depredation, that that’s an issue that’s going to be dealt with.” He said he did not want to disregard the broad public interest, as it was very important, but within that, he said, there were individual people who were experiencing extremely difficult impacts on their lives and their ability to make a living. The department must be committed to dealing with that, he noted.

Smith also spoke about the 350 population goal that many have referenced over the creation and drafting of the plan. He asked if the state were to put out a plan with a goal of 350 wolves, what influence that would have on a possible delisting.

“It’s speculation, I think the federal government would look at that and say that state wants to cut their wolf population in two-thirds,” Johnson said. He said he felt that would be a red flag for not delisting. There has been complimentary response at the federal level to the plan as it is currently drafted.

“No matter how good the plan is,” Smith said. “If we can’t get delisting and we can’t get state authority, a vast majority of the plan is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to implement. We aren’t going to have the tools to manage the population.” He asked if, armed with a plan like this, the state could be more influential in the delisting decision. He felt it was the state’s place to help procure the tools citizens needed to reduce conflict while still keeping a sustainable wolf population. Johnson agreed that would be the case.

“Without the plan and the delisting that goes with it, we aren’t going to be able to influence the population,” Smith said. He said non-lethal means of influencing the population are often not successful as wolves will acclimate to those means and, at times, lethal control is the only option left. Having state authority to control wolves was crucial and the plan would help to move that needle.

He said the state would have to ensure they were conducting themselves in a way that would handle wolf management in a constructive fashion.

Johnson said he felt there was still a fair amount of misinformation among the public. He said he wanted to communicate the department’s desire to help people who are living with wolves and he felt this plan is a step in the right direction. He called for all stakeholder groups to pick a constructive path forward.

NRB chairman Bill Smith asked Johnson what kind of lead time the board would have on the wolf management plan as well as the permanent rule. 

DNR secretary Adam Payne said the hope was to have the materials at least two weeks before. 

DNR general counsel Cheryl Heilman was present at the meeting and said the material would be made available to the board with all deliberate speed, recognizing it is a complicated area, but it would certainly be made available two weeks before the meeting, when it was noticed to the public.

Johnson brought the plan to the NRB this month as an information only item. The plan and permanent rule will be brought back to the NRB  for final approval. 

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