cheeser
Well-known member
sorry fat fingers and monday morning
WISCONSIN GOVERNOER LETTER TO STATE SNATE
- Thread starter cheeser
- Start date
bayoublaster7527
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2017
- Messages
- 409
I understand the concern with legislators making prescriptive wildlife management decisions and retaining flexibility for wildlife agencies. But is it really so awful to expect a wildlife agency to have a population goal within their management plan? That is straight out of the anti-hunting playbook, ensure there is never a population goal so that can goal can never be met and then never managed. Admittedly, I am not very familiar with the Wisconsin wolf situation so maybe this is being addressed elsewhere.
Nailed it.
cheeser
Well-known member
Setting a number in statute is problematic for a number of reasons.
First and foremost is that politicians should not be deciding the number of any wildlife species. They have neither the expertise nor the capacity to do so.
Secondly, the number of wolves set in statute would be used against the states for delisting purposes. It was in Idaho, MT & WY when WY demanded a set number of wolves in statute, rather than allow their agency to manage them appropriately. From the perspective of the ESA, which is the overriding management law for wolves in the Great Lakes, this would have been a bigger nail in the coffin of delisting than the other ones already pounded in.
Third, Politicians will always think they have the only answer to wildlife management issues but they're the least likely to get it right. They're responding to the concerns they hear from citizens, but they feel like they need ownership of it, so they take the advice given to them and summarily dismiss it while they move forward with whatever barstool biology fits their ideology*
Lastly, the prohibition on doe hunting is a political stunt and should have never come out of committee. The agency has already dealt with that issue. But it's an election year and now people can go home and say "I tried to do something but man, that Governor really hates hunters."
*This is a bipartisan dislike, so don't @ me w/your silliness.
seeth07
Well-known member
I think there is a little bit of misunderstanding about what has happened or perhaps I'm misguided myself.
I'm pretty sure the point of the bill was to require that if the wolves are delisted and the state has power to manage the wolf resource within its borders that the department (the department of natural resources) has the ability to
1) allow hunting/trapping of the resource
2) provide the regulations for hunting/trapping
3) Required to create a wolf management plan that includes a population goal to maintain.
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see much bad about that? The department of natural resources is the best suited advisors for creating the plan where they are comprised of biologists and scientists to guide their decisions.
I'm pretty sure the point of the bill was to require that if the wolves are delisted and the state has power to manage the wolf resource within its borders that the department (the department of natural resources) has the ability to
1) allow hunting/trapping of the resource
2) provide the regulations for hunting/trapping
3) Required to create a wolf management plan that includes a population goal to maintain.
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see much bad about that? The department of natural resources is the best suited advisors for creating the plan where they are comprised of biologists and scientists to guide their decisions.
seeth07
Well-known member
For what it is worth, WI has an elk management plan and directly related to it is a numerical value in which they use based on spring calf numbers in both herds to determine the amount of tags to issue that fall.
Sturgeon management plan has numerical values in which they set for the winter spearing season on the Winnebago system to ensure a healthy population.
This isn't anything new in the state. They set numerical goals for a population and utilize hunting as a method to stay around that set population goal. The amendment to this bill as presented was to just allow the DNR board the ability to do so.
Sturgeon management plan has numerical values in which they set for the winter spearing season on the Winnebago system to ensure a healthy population.
This isn't anything new in the state. They set numerical goals for a population and utilize hunting as a method to stay around that set population goal. The amendment to this bill as presented was to just allow the DNR board the ability to do so.
Here's the text: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2023/related/vetoedinfull/sb139
The new language is the underlined.
Mea Culpa on the deer thing. Still, that was political gamesmanship.
The rest still stands. Making the agency assign a number through statute will be hugely problematic.
The issue with a numeric goal and an endangered species is about limiting the recovery of an animal that was almost extirpated from the lower 48. Assigning a number beyond the minimum for recovery under the ESA is the purview of the feds, and putting in statute that they agency has too will most certainly be fodder for the anti's.
BrentD
Well-known member
Let me add to that just a little.
Having a set number means one has to count. Counting is hard. REALLY HARD. And expensive. And budgets do not support that.
Counting is so imprecise that getting within a multiple of the true number is often very good, indeed, but that won't satisfy the wolf tritraters. Generally, we hope that repeated counts, may, after some number of years give a reasonably accurate guess of qualitative trends, rather than the true size of the population.
Not all individuals in the population will count the same, biologically. Pups will certainly need to be counted for the wolf haters, but they are unlikely to survive long or have much impact. So WHO you count is as important as HOW MANY you count. If counting any individual is hard, counting types of individuals is orders of magnitude harder.
The correct number to have is better based on outcomes than some magic integer. Measuring outcomes also MIGHT be easier than direct counting. We could get in huge political circle jerks over what sort of outcomes might be desired and what sort of range of variation in space and time is acceptable for those outcomes.
Last, at least for the moment, since wolves are relatively new to this part of the world and regardless, there is no prior data of any particular value or appropriateness (today's forests are not yesteryear's forests, etc), no one really knows that the CORRECT number of wolves should be.
Finally, no matter what number the DNR produces, we all know that it is a deliberate agenda-driven number intended in a direction best predicted by the tribal affiliation of the accusers.
And I'm sure others can add to this litany. Counting sounds so simple, but estimating (which is illegal for human censusing, btw) is really, really hard (and $$$$) and is almost always associated with confidence intervals that are guaranteed to either placate or offend (or both) any group out there.
bayoublaster7527
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2017
- Messages
- 409
I searched for where they set the number in statute and couldn’t find it in the bill. My read of the bill was that the legislature wanted the wildlife agency to set a population goal in the management plan. So a wildlife agency setting a population goal in their management plan prevents delisting from the ESA? I thought wolves were delisted in ID, WY and MT. Just trying to follow the logic.
Yes. It's problematic.
Wolves in the northern rockies were delisted through a rider that made the 2009 delisting decision the one that stuck. They had to use a prohibition on judicial review (something that is rarely ever used) in order to keep the court from invalidating it. Wyoming followed suit later and was able to make changes to their laws and plans to allow for a delisting rule.
Neither of those efforts shielded the states from the 5 year review, which was just released a few months ago and showed that wolves are thriving in the lower 48, and in the west in particular.
The issue with wolves in the GL is a legal one, and is tied to the Distinct Population Segment issue that was successfully litigated by anti-delisting forces. So now the way the rule stands is that wolves in their entire DPS (meaning essentially most of the US except for areas of Mexican and Red Wolves) are counted as one population, which should help with delisting wolves in the GL and make it stick. The previous court cases essentially meant that IL, ID, OH, NY & PA would have to have wolf populations before delisting could occur (I'm going off of memory so I may be off a bit) because of the DPS ruling earlier.
With the service now shifting the population segment to a national one, this help CO, NV, WA, OR, CA, etc manage wolves that migrate out and the thinking is that this could help significantly w/great lakes delisting. Barring that, the only option I would see is a delisting rider like Simpson/Tester. The GL states have done an amazing job of restoring wolves, and the people of those states deserve a huge kudos for the bullshit they put up with.
WIdave
Member
Good! It keeps the population control within the county. Each county has their own board to make population decisions.
That has been working like poop the last number of years.
seeth07
Well-known member
The requirement to set a population goal is just so what happened a few years ago doesn't happen again where the season opens and way more wolves are killed than intended. It is really management 101. The resource we believe has x number of members right now. The habitat and social tolerance allows for it to be around y. If x>y, the tool for reducing x can be hunting.
IMO that is all this state statute is. Granting authority to the department of natural resources to do its job correctly.
IMO that is all this state statute is. Granting authority to the department of natural resources to do its job correctly.
BuzzH
Well-known member
My 2 cents having dealt with population objectives, they're a real pain to deal with via the GF agencies, let alone putting them in statute.
A couple examples of how bad objectives are for management:
1. Montana elk. The population objectives were set via the MTFWP based almost exclusively on socially acceptable levels. Nothing really to do with science, biology, etc. That lead to legislative action to require the MTFWP to hold elk at or below objective.
2. Wyoming elk. Same thing. Objectives were set with an undue amount of influence from the AG community. Elk get over objective and everyone's hair is on fire. Elk being killed by wardens, kill permits, paying people to kill them, auxiliary hunts, event talk of shooting them from aircraft. Once again, very little science biology, etc. goes into the decision making. These areas that they say are over-run with elk, yeah, ok, show me a browse line. Show me damage to winter range. Show me damage to summer range. Fact is, those areas could hold 2-3X as many elk with room to spare.
IMO and Experience, it's bad enough the amount of undue influence that outfitters, landowners, and even the public have on population objectives under GF management. I can't even imagine putting objectives in statute, what a nightmare.
Also, specific to this deal in WI, you don't want a statewide quota to trigger hunting or not. If a few areas of the state crash, the entire population would be off limits with management not happening in areas the populations could support hunting.
Statute hamstrings management, every, single, time.
Running to legislature everytime you don't get your way is hardly ever the answer and only emboldens Legislative meddling into things wayyyyy outside their level of knowledge. It also creates situations where you're fighting 50, 75, 100, 150 totally bad bills every legislative session.
I would oppose any attempt to manage wildlife through the legislature outside them granting the Commission the broad authority to do so.
A couple examples of how bad objectives are for management:
1. Montana elk. The population objectives were set via the MTFWP based almost exclusively on socially acceptable levels. Nothing really to do with science, biology, etc. That lead to legislative action to require the MTFWP to hold elk at or below objective.
2. Wyoming elk. Same thing. Objectives were set with an undue amount of influence from the AG community. Elk get over objective and everyone's hair is on fire. Elk being killed by wardens, kill permits, paying people to kill them, auxiliary hunts, event talk of shooting them from aircraft. Once again, very little science biology, etc. goes into the decision making. These areas that they say are over-run with elk, yeah, ok, show me a browse line. Show me damage to winter range. Show me damage to summer range. Fact is, those areas could hold 2-3X as many elk with room to spare.
IMO and Experience, it's bad enough the amount of undue influence that outfitters, landowners, and even the public have on population objectives under GF management. I can't even imagine putting objectives in statute, what a nightmare.
Also, specific to this deal in WI, you don't want a statewide quota to trigger hunting or not. If a few areas of the state crash, the entire population would be off limits with management not happening in areas the populations could support hunting.
Statute hamstrings management, every, single, time.
Running to legislature everytime you don't get your way is hardly ever the answer and only emboldens Legislative meddling into things wayyyyy outside their level of knowledge. It also creates situations where you're fighting 50, 75, 100, 150 totally bad bills every legislative session.
I would oppose any attempt to manage wildlife through the legislature outside them granting the Commission the broad authority to do so.
Last edited:
Nick87
Well-known member
Was pretty telling how far off the numbers were last time around.
I’m not sure that’s what was being vetoed- perhaps I misread, but it was merely asking that there be an objective set by the DNR (not actually setting it).
Same applies here in northern counties from farmers/logging companies. One of the problems with county “board” recommendations in my opinion.
BuzzH
Well-known member
That would be better for sure. Just be positive what's in the statute and it's what you want, all I'm saying. In comparison it's easier to change regulation, really difficult to change statute most of the time.
seeth07
Well-known member
you are exactly right. The statute isn't actually setting the population objective. Its allowing the DNR the ability to set a population objective. It doesn't have to be state wide even. It can be by whatever they want to set. Just like with the elk, just like with the sturgeon.
