wisconsin dnr Wolf Depredation Reports in 2018
- Thread starter cheeser
- Start date
cheeser
Well-known member
Horse
Active member
DNR experts will always lean towards blaming the yotes . Hobby farmer in this area had a half grown steer taken down over night. He called DNR and when they looked at the area, they didn't see any "big" tracks, so they told him it must have been yotes. Ya right. And this report doesn't account for incidents not reported. Most farmers aren't calling the DNR when they lose calves whether yote, bear or wolf.
cheeser
Well-known member
if incidents arent reported, how could they possibly be in any report??????????? you lost me on that one.
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
I think he is saying that the report is not a complete picture, as some amount of depredation goes unreported. Implying that the problem is worse than what is represented.
Horse
Active member
Sorry if confusing.. Yes, I think the problem is worse than reported.
Northwoods Labs
Well-known member
They get compensation for the animals. Too say it is worse than reported is just a guess and of course folks will insinuate this because wolves have become the ultimate target to blame for an unsuccessful hunt. I live in the heart of wolf country and I am not observing any of these so called problems
cheeser
Well-known member
You lost me Northwoods, you said you are not observing ANY of these so called problems. please elaborate what you are saying is "so called" problems? the list is "confirmed" wdnr wolf kills report of pets/livestock/hunting dogs.
Horse
Active member
I wouldn't say its just a guess and compensation should have nothing to do with the argument of there being too many predators. . If we're just talking about deer hunting. I read in every issue of WON, how bad northern WI deer hunting is. Guys claiming it was a good season, their group saw a deer. Still having bucks only in certain areas. Yes we have to take it with a grain of salt because we don't know their hunting habits. I do hunt with friends on public and private land actually not too far from Danbury, they haven't shot does in years because of the low numbers. Where I work, I also have friends that hunt different parts of northern WI too. All of them are disgusted with the deer numbers. Each saying that it didn't use to be that way 10 years ago. Wolve and bear numbers are up. No one, not even the DNR, is blaming weather or disease for low deer numbers.
The wolf equation( "ultimate target") keeps playing out over and over again, from out west to here. Wolves introduced, elk and deer numbers go down and less tags given out due to low numbers. Not hard to figure out what the problem is. State set a goal of 100 wolves and they guess its around 1000 now. No one really knows, but thats 900 more wolves eating everyday. How many deer, calves, sheep is that per year?
The graph shows Burnett and Douglas had 20 wolve kills and harassment. They also had 8 more unconfirmed. Apparently other people are seeing it in your area. I'm also guessing your area isn't populated with cattle as other parts of the state. Where there would be more conflict. And its not a guess when I tell you I know first hand of family/friend farmers loosing cattle multiple times to predators. Some have been coyote, but others haven't. They don't call the DNR. So the "reported numbers" isn't the whole picture.
The wolf equation( "ultimate target") keeps playing out over and over again, from out west to here. Wolves introduced, elk and deer numbers go down and less tags given out due to low numbers. Not hard to figure out what the problem is. State set a goal of 100 wolves and they guess its around 1000 now. No one really knows, but thats 900 more wolves eating everyday. How many deer, calves, sheep is that per year?
The graph shows Burnett and Douglas had 20 wolve kills and harassment. They also had 8 more unconfirmed. Apparently other people are seeing it in your area. I'm also guessing your area isn't populated with cattle as other parts of the state. Where there would be more conflict. And its not a guess when I tell you I know first hand of family/friend farmers loosing cattle multiple times to predators. Some have been coyote, but others haven't. They don't call the DNR. So the "reported numbers" isn't the whole picture.
When wolves outnumber the elk 4 to 1... Yet wolves maintain ESA status, something is batshitcrazy!
I've read about the environmentalist heavy wolf funding to obstruct delisting these cute cuddle buddies, https://wiwolvesandwildlife.org/tag/patagonia/ (Another Patagonia funded environmental obstructionist group)
I'm curious what came of Congressman Duffy's legislation?
https://elknetwork.com/wisconsin-congressman-delist-gray-wolves/
For those that desire State run management of wolves, RMEF's on your side.
I've read about the environmentalist heavy wolf funding to obstruct delisting these cute cuddle buddies, https://wiwolvesandwildlife.org/tag/patagonia/ (Another Patagonia funded environmental obstructionist group)
I'm curious what came of Congressman Duffy's legislation?
https://elknetwork.com/wisconsin-congressman-delist-gray-wolves/
For those that desire State run management of wolves, RMEF's on your side.
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
You guys are lucky, as we are in MN, that your DNR does a lot to monitor the deer populations and shares it on their website. It looks like your deer numbers in Burnett bottomed out in 2014 and have been on a steady increase since. Based on what I have seen, looking closely at deer numbers in northern MN, deer can be at very high numbers alongside wolves, but when they have a hard winter or two, wolves can make the bounce back take longer. I hunted Burnett county (East of Siren) throughout the 90's, and then you only heard an occasional rumor of a wolf, but you also looked at fields of 80-100 does, without a buck in sight.
I guess my point is that, while wolves will undoubtedly have an impact on deer, it is very possible to have a thriving deer herd and wolves alongside one another.
https://dnr.wi.gov/wideermetrics/DeerStats.aspx?R=2
cheeser
Well-known member
Oh the irony................................. what's gonna happen to the precious study now??????
after spending untold thousands of dollars in trying to transplant wolves from mainland to artificially rebuild the wolf population on the Isle Royale National Park, only to have one of the transplants take off over the ice bridge from the polar vortex back to Canada. Poetic justice.
https://www.uppermichiganssource.com...505420281.html
after spending untold thousands of dollars in trying to transplant wolves from mainland to artificially rebuild the wolf population on the Isle Royale National Park, only to have one of the transplants take off over the ice bridge from the polar vortex back to Canada. Poetic justice.
https://www.uppermichiganssource.com...505420281.html
Horse
Active member
Heard what happened to the other wolves or afraid of all the moose on the island?
Northwoods Labs
Well-known member
The so called problems are "the deer herd is decimated", "cattle being slaughtered by thrill killing wolves" etc.
I place a high value on native wildlife. Having the 100 wolves as a goal is way too low based on the available habitat. I feel bad for some of the small farmers but let's fact it, every small business has risk. My dad owns a small business so I am familiar with it. If you go by the couple places that have a lot of kills reported around by me, you will find that this is certainly not driving them out of business.
As for all the pathetic letters in Wisconsin Outdoor News, well I absolutely love them as a northwoods local. Not much competition in the deer woods up here. Just keep on spreading the word, there are no deer in northwest Wisconsin-nothing to see up here. Every time I run into a guy on public land who asks how I did, I just tell them "saw nothing but wolf tracks back there."
I place a high value on native wildlife. Having the 100 wolves as a goal is way too low based on the available habitat. I feel bad for some of the small farmers but let's fact it, every small business has risk. My dad owns a small business so I am familiar with it. If you go by the couple places that have a lot of kills reported around by me, you will find that this is certainly not driving them out of business.
As for all the pathetic letters in Wisconsin Outdoor News, well I absolutely love them as a northwoods local. Not much competition in the deer woods up here. Just keep on spreading the word, there are no deer in northwest Wisconsin-nothing to see up here. Every time I run into a guy on public land who asks how I did, I just tell them "saw nothing but wolf tracks back there."
Northwoods Labs
Well-known member
Great joke, I thought wolves were the ultimate killer decimating moose herds across the country?????
Horse
Active member
We'll the argument by the biologists is to release more into the park is so they knock down the current moose population. So they must be able to do a good job at killing. Its about having a balance and not a over population of a certain species. There's countless places out west where wolves were reintroduced, over populated and the elk were thinned out. WI biologists are the ones that came up with the 100 wolves. They must have had a reason for that number. The current number is too high. Hence why the DNR was allowing a wolf hunt, prior to the court rulings.
Being driven out of business? Maybe not, but its cutting into their checkbook and I'd bet they have a different view of how many wolves they want around. Also, it shows that the local habit can't support the number of predators in that area. If your seeing plenty of deer, good for you, its not what the rest of the northwoods is seeing.
Being driven out of business? Maybe not, but its cutting into their checkbook and I'd bet they have a different view of how many wolves they want around. Also, it shows that the local habit can't support the number of predators in that area. If your seeing plenty of deer, good for you, its not what the rest of the northwoods is seeing.
cheeser
Well-known member
Horse/Northwoods,
this is a little different situation the island didn't always have moose or wolves. both species migrated across the ice at various times in history. in the mid- 1900's some wolves migrated to the island over the ice, the moose were on the island at the time, since that time in the 60's I believe the u.s.f.s. has been studying the relationship. they found out early on that the wolves inbreeding was affecting the population. in the last decade the wolves health and numbers dwindled to the point of extinction on the island while the moose population has increased.
so, fast forward to last year, the u.s.f.s. decides to go against everything that they preach , and rather than let nature take it's course and let the last 2 wolves on the island die and let the moose over populate and browse the island down until they slowly eat themselves outta existence, and actually study the nature of the situation unfettered by man's hands. the u.s.f.s. decides to import a half dozen new wolves from the mainland, well I believe 2 have died since being imported and a third has now left the island over the ice. so now there are 3 wolves left one healthy import and 2 inbreds that cant breed.
it's just so 2 faced of the u.s.f.s to be doing this, we (public) cant hardly recreate in our u.s.f.s. lands because of petty regulations they impose on us.but, yet they can play god and transplant species that were dying a very natural death rather than stand back and watch nature work on its own, and watch what happens to the moose and fauna on the island.
here is a google search on recent articles:
https://www.google.com/search?q=wol....69i57j0l5.10871j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
here is a history of the wolf/moose on the island pretty interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolves_and_moose_on_Isle_Royale
this is a little different situation the island didn't always have moose or wolves. both species migrated across the ice at various times in history. in the mid- 1900's some wolves migrated to the island over the ice, the moose were on the island at the time, since that time in the 60's I believe the u.s.f.s. has been studying the relationship. they found out early on that the wolves inbreeding was affecting the population. in the last decade the wolves health and numbers dwindled to the point of extinction on the island while the moose population has increased.
so, fast forward to last year, the u.s.f.s. decides to go against everything that they preach , and rather than let nature take it's course and let the last 2 wolves on the island die and let the moose over populate and browse the island down until they slowly eat themselves outta existence, and actually study the nature of the situation unfettered by man's hands. the u.s.f.s. decides to import a half dozen new wolves from the mainland, well I believe 2 have died since being imported and a third has now left the island over the ice. so now there are 3 wolves left one healthy import and 2 inbreds that cant breed.
it's just so 2 faced of the u.s.f.s to be doing this, we (public) cant hardly recreate in our u.s.f.s. lands because of petty regulations they impose on us.but, yet they can play god and transplant species that were dying a very natural death rather than stand back and watch nature work on its own, and watch what happens to the moose and fauna on the island.
here is a google search on recent articles:
https://www.google.com/search?q=wol....69i57j0l5.10871j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
here is a history of the wolf/moose on the island pretty interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolves_and_moose_on_Isle_Royale
Horse
Active member
Cheeser, I agree its a little different. I think its a little of the same as in game departments and H.S want to place wolves back where they once roamed. But they fail to see that the area has changed. Cities expanding, Sub divisions popping up on old farm fields, more cabins in the northwoods, etc. Things have changed in the landscape, not that its good, but it needs to be looked at more when they decide to release whatever animal. I'm close enough to have gotten some various news update on the park situation. I also read several articles about the history. I agree with you that u.sfs. isn't following what they have preached. It's too bad that there is a excess of moose and they haven't turned to the idea of a hunt to reduce the numbers.
BrentD
Well-known member
Horse, your argument that things have changed applies here in the way that things aren't changing, at least in those ways, on the island, so it is a good place to have wolves.
They also learned a lot more about wolves, moose, and general predator-prey interactions than just "in-breeding hurts". How systems bounce between top-down and bottom-up regulation was a big and important part of it. I hate to say "it's complicated" when talking about ecological dynamics because it is generally pretty simple, however, it is not SO simple that it is just one or the other.
Last, a lot of hunters think that the only important part of having a natural predator in the system is that it kills stuff and hunters can do that just as well. It really IS more complicated than that. Wolves are much more than simply a means of moose population reduction via direct mortality. They also change the very behavior of moose, what they can do, where they go, what they eat. They do it 24/7/365. And that feeds back into the rest of system in its recruitment of trees, distribution of meadows, and many other things. So, substituting 100 moose dead by wolves for 100 moose dead by hunters are not equivalent. I do not think most of the hunting world knows (or maybe even wants to know) this.
Last edited:
Similar threads
