wisconsin dnr Wolf Depredation Reports in 2018

I am a pro-scientifically, state managed, hunting as a method of controlling their population, but want to see them on the landscape wolf person.

That being said, my opinion of Isle Royale is that the most interesting aspect of it is not how wolves and moose interact, but rather the natural cycles that occur with wolf inbreeding, wolves decline, moose explode, moose eat themselves out of house and home, moose decline, or ice forms and wolves naturally find their way back out there, and the cycle continues. All of this occurring without the encroachment of whitetail deer.

I would have much preferred this happen without the USFS short-circuiting the natural cycle. If we needed any evidence the fact that one wolf crossed off of the island; certainly more would have found their way out there.

Northwoods Labs said:

Great joke, I thought wolves were the ultimate killer decimating moose herds across the country?????

Click to expand...

That is what you like to proclaim for argument sake. Helps fuel your propulsion. Fact of the matter, speaking of "across the country", the fight to delist has greatly divided the middle ground. As is apparent, I am not a fan of wolves though as Brent mentioned, there is a ecological mechanism for their presence beyond the hunter. My regard is to maintain all options available to ensure numbers are managed as best possible. This is not happening.

Wisconsin environmental extremists such as, https://wiwolvesandwildlife.org/ share the following;

What happens if wolves lose federal protections?

2018 has been the worst year for wolves and other endangered species that we have seen in decades. Ultimately, if Wisconsin wolves lose federal Endangered Species Act protections, two-thirds of the population will die at the hands of trophy hunters. The last time federal protections were prematurely stripped from Great Lakes wolves, state agencies opened up brutal hunting and trapping seasons and more than 1,500 wolves were killed in just three years.

Click to expand...

Speak of a, "Great joke"...

MH,
You might be waiting years or forever for wolves to get out there again on their own. There has to be ice and there has to be enough wolves on the mainland and then enough have to migrate out to provide at least a little diversity. There is good reason to think that might never happen again.

Meanwhile, you do know that wolf numbers fluctuate a lot w/o invoking inbreeding. That is certainly the coup de grace for them, but over the decades, there were many ups and downs in the wolves on IR and due to many things. The same things that are happening now with Yellowstone wolves in fact.

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2...lves-isle-royale-national-park-restocking-zoo
Even more educated biologists/wildlife experts can't agree on what should be done. They can still study the island as is now. As pointed out from others, the environment continues to change and cycle. There has been recent ice bridges to the island, maybe a pack will go across in the future and change the moose dynamic.
Where do we stop with this wolf/moose study? Let's say they get the wolves reintroduced on the island. On cold years where a ice bridge may be formed, do the biologist step in and cut ice to keep other wolves from getting onto the island because they haven't been tested and could be carrying disease? I'm not kill all wolves, but I don't agree with spending millions of dollars replacing wolves so someone can continue to study the island with man made dynamics.

BrentD said:

MH,
You might be waiting years or forever for wolves to get out there again on their own. There has to be ice and there has to be enough wolves on the mainland and then enough have to migrate out to provide at least a little diversity. There is good reason to think that might never happen again.

Meanwhile, you do know that wolf numbers fluctuate a lot w/o invoking inbreeding. That is certainly the coup de grace for them, but over the decades, there were many ups and downs in the wolves on IR and due to many things. The same things that are happening now with Yellowstone wolves in fact.

Click to expand...

I guess I am ok with that, they got out there naturally in the first place. I believe there have probably been more wolves that is recorded that have found their way out there. The last documented one I have read about was in 1997; which gave a big shot in the arm to the population. It seems like an ice bridge forms about every 7-8 years, and since 1997, 2 of the 3 ice bridges resulted in wolves crossing, and the current bridge is still there. Who knows maybe another "Old Gray Guy" is going to make his way out there.

The current study has been ongoing for 60 years, I am not sure what else they hope to see? I have spoken with a professor from my alma mater, University of MN Duluth, and based on those conversations the real interesting thing about Isle Royale is that there aren't deer out there, so those moose don't get exposed to the parasites deer have brought with them as they have encroached into core moose areas multiple times in the last 100ish years.

If we really wanted to try something interesting with the petri dish that is, Isle Royale, let's throw some woodland caribou and lynx out there.

All this being said, I am effectively just another barstool biologist, so what do I really know....

MH,
There is plenty to see. For instance, where do beaver fit into this? Beaver are kinda important, I'm sure you will agree. They are also a major summer food source. how much do they alleviate pressure on calf mortality by providing another food source? Or maybe that food source elevates wolf numbers enough that the net effect of beavers on moose is negative (beyond direct competitive interactions).

There is a lot more to learn about how wolves affect forest structure via manipulating herbivores directly and indirectly. The jury is still out on whether the main effect of wolves on moose is via direct mortality or (in the long term) changes to their behavior that affect forest structure that ultimately regulate moose (from below as it were).

The answers are interesting in many ways far beyond moose, wolves, or spruce. So this isn't just about this simple system.

I have never been to IR, but I have never met anyone that has who thought wolves on the island were anything but awesome and fascinating, so there is that too.

http://www.montana.edu/news/7324/gr...nutrition-and-lower-birth-rates-due-to-wolves

"Essentially, they are slowly starving," Creel said. "Despite grazing and browsing during the winter, elk suffer a net loss of weight. If winter continued, they would all die, because dormant plants provide limited protein and energy, and snow makes it more difficult to graze efficiently."

With the presence of wolves, elk browse more - eating woody shrubs or low tree branches in forested areas where they are safer - as opposed to grazing on grass in open meadows where they are more visible, and therefore more vulnerable to wolves.

Browsing provides food of good quality, but the change in foraging habits results in elk taking in 27 percent less food than their counterparts that live without wolves, the study estimates.

"Elk regularly hunted by wolves are essentially starving faster than those not hunted by wolves," said Creel, who shares authorship on the paper with his former doctoral students John Winnie, Jr., and David Christianson.


The decline in the Greater Yellowstone's elk population since the reintroduction of wolves in 1995 has been greater than was originally predicted. In the three winters prior to the reintroduction of wolves, elk on Yellowstone's northern range numbered roughly between 17,000 and 19,000. In the three winters prior to 2008, annual elk counts had declined to between 6,738 and 6,279.

The MSU researchers did chemical analysis of 1,200 fecal samples collected over 4 years, as well as urine samples for the study. They did not find the elevated levels of cortisol that would support the chronic stress theory. However, they did find that those elk living in the presence of wolves had lower levels of progesterone, a hormone necessary to maintain pregnancy, than those elk that didn't live with wolves.

"The elk are trading reproduction for longevity," Creel said. "Elk are potentially long-lived, and many prior studies have shown that, in species like this, natural selection favors individuals who do not compromise their own survival for the sake of a single reproductive opportunity."

If predators commonly affect the reproduction of their prey, it will change the thinking about predator-prey dynamics, and might change how wildlife managers plan for the reintroduction of predators, Creel said.

"This research shows that the total effect of a predator on prey numbers can be larger than one would determine simply by looking at the number that are killed," he said.

Click to expand...

BrentD said:

MH,
There is plenty to see. For instance, where do beaver fit into this? Beaver are kinda important, I'm sure you will agree. They are also a major summer food source. how much do they alleviate pressure on calf mortality by providing another food source? Or maybe that food source elevates wolf numbers enough that the net effect of beavers on moose is negative (beyond direct competitive interactions).

There is a lot more to learn about how wolves affect forest structure via manipulating herbivores directly and indirectly. The jury is still out on whether the main effect of wolves on moose is via direct mortality or (in the long term) changes to their behavior that affect forest structure that ultimately regulate moose (from below as it were).

The answers are interesting in many ways far beyond moose, wolves, or spruce. So this isn't just about this simple system.

I have never been to IR, but I have never met anyone that has who thought wolves on the island were anything but awesome and fascinating, so there is that too.

Click to expand...

I am flexible enough to change my mind, not sure I have yet, but what you mention is interesting. They have been studying the wolf-beaver-moose relationship for a long time. I don't know if there is still question to be answered on that front.

For arguments sake; what would you think is the difference in augmenting the remaining two artificially vs. artificially reintroducing wolves once biologoists get a chance to see what the impact of no wolves is?

Here is a link to MTU's most recent annual report on the studies on IR, not sure if you have seen these in the past.
http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/sites/default/files/annual-report-pdf/wolf%20moose%20annual%20report%202018.pdf

I don't disagree with you on any of this, I think it comes down to whether or not a person would like to see the natural dynamics that can occur in such a unique place, or if there is greater value in using this unique place as a isolated environment to conduct research. I can understand both arguments and am fine with either. Maybe if I had a more detailed understanding of what the researchers hoped to discover, I would feel more strongly one way or the other.

There are tons of islands and mainlands that have moose and no wolves. So we have some opportunities for that. With wolves is another issue.

I'm not aware of much in the way of quantitative studies of beaver-wolf-moose interactions. Phenomenological, yes, but quantitative, not that I know of. I certainly have missed stuff, but I can't believe I've missed a whole bunch.

Waiting to get determine the impact of no wolves is a many decades thing. And like I said, we have other places to look for that. I don't know what you mean by augmenting the two remaining wolves unless it is the reintroduction of new wolves.

FWIW, augmenting failing populations of wildlife because of inbreeding issues is becoming depressingly common. Prairie chickens in Illinois, panthers in Florida are two the come to mind right away. It may become something we have to do with many/most species eventually. 100 yrs from now, wildlife will be even less capable of making it on their own. Assisting like this is something that we should, perhaps, get good at, 'cuz it's the future.

BrentD said:

There are tons of islands and mainlands that have moose and no wolves. So we have some opportunities for that. With wolves is another issue.

I'm not aware of much in the way of quantitative studies of beaver-wolf-moose interactions. Phenomenological, yes, but quantitative, not that I know of. I certainly have missed stuff, but I can't believe I've missed a whole bunch.

Waiting to get determine the impact of no wolves is a many decades thing. And like I said, we have other places to look for that. I don't know what you mean by augmenting the two remaining wolves unless it is the reintroduction of new wolves.

FWIW, augmenting failing populations of wildlife because of inbreeding issues is becoming depressingly common. Prairie chickens in Illinois, panthers in Florida are two the come to mind right away. It may become something we have to do with many/most species eventually. 100 yrs from now, wildlife will be even less capable of making it on their own. Assisting like this is something that we should, perhaps, get good at, 'cuz it's the future.

Click to expand...

I guess I am not familiar with the other islands where we are studying moose in isolation.

We do have lots of are with wolves and moose though too, but isolation from deer and definable wolf/moose populations may be the thing that makes them want to look at IR versus anywhere else.

As for the likely hood of continued genetic augmentation of species, the difficulty I have in this regard is that 14ish miles across the ice is a boat load of wolves (in fact, for sure the highest densities in the lower 48), with all kinds of genetic diversity, that have gotten out there on their own. I think we are talking a little about apples and oranges when one instance is the preservation of a species, and the other is preserving the viability of a study where a natural phenomenon is wreaking havoc.

That being said, as I mentioned in my previous post, I am ok with the idea that we continue to use IR as a big petri dish to study. You seem like you are possibly a pro at this type of stuff, versus myself who is just a very interested observer. I like to think I have an inquisitive mind rather, than than just a bunch of concrete opinions that I cannot shake in the face of rational discussion.

I am not saying "we" are studying anything anywhere. Just that we could on many other islands in Superior, the other Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River, and the entire state of Maine for instance. I have no idea what, if anything is being done by anyone in any of those places. Just that they exist. Some with deer, some not.

As for movement out of Minnesota (or much more likely Ontario Canada), it hasn't happened very often. Thunder Bay is a pretty big place that blankets a good portion of the land closest to the island and undoubtedly poses and bit of a barrier to mainland wolves, as does Grand Portage in the case of Minnesota wolves. Much of the lake shore is not as wild as the hinterlands. Anyway, demonstrably, dispersal has not be common enough.

Playing with genetics (and some other factors like quantifying indirect effects in a relatively simple system) make this a very good opportunity to learn a lot about things that may make us more successful at saving other species from extinction. If we only study these phenomena at in the twilight of their existence, the door will close on most of them before we can change the outcome. It may also give us some handle on what to expect and how to interpret how other systems will behave. That includes, but is not limited to, the wolves of GYNP which are both similar and very different.

There are good reasons to not mess with Isle Royale, but there are also good reasons to not-not mess with it too. In this case, I've come around to agreeing that the second option is better than the first.

I'm a population and community ecologist (sub-type university rat, sub-sub type basic (as opposed to applied) science), so I think about these things at a little different scale than most.

brent, the wolf/moose dynamic has been studied for 60 yrs, why not study the moose/island dynamic till it plays out? if wolves make it across the ice let it happen.

they knew about the inbreeding and deformities in the wolves long ago, it wasnt until the last 10 yrs that the deformations/inbreeding really kicked in, why do it over again/again/again/ lets study something else as long as we have the golden opportunity?

my 2 cents

link to wolves studies:

https://www.google.com/search?q=rol...-android-alco&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

cheeser,
There is not a lot of interest or use for studies of the dynamics of genetically deformed predators. It has little application anywhere, and no very generalizable to other settings.

It is an interesting place and system. Where it goes next will be every bit as interesting as where it has been.

I think you misunderstand my point, I am not in favor of any transplanting of wolves, I would much rather is see how the whole moose vs fauna plays out without the wolves. The wolves have been studied long enough.

now,why dont we allow the nature take its course and study something we havent looked at before. In reading your last post I got the impression you were in favor or transplanting wolves. We already know now that the deformity/inbreeding kicks in pretty early in such a small population of wolves, that was documented early in peterson's studies it just took much longer time to really impact them. Just curious, I dont know how much you have heard lately on the subject but shortly after the transplants happened the MDNR actually shot like 4-6 moose on the island this winter in hopes the the new wolves would "figure out they were supposed to eat". That also, kinda flies in the face of the U.S.F.S. just saying it seems effed' up to much outside pressure is my guess.

Cheeser,
My points was that there is not a lot to be learned from the 2-wolf remains of the population.

I do not agree the wolves have been studied "long enough". If that were the case, then elk, deer, pheasants and just about every other game animal has been studied WAY MORE than enough. l don't really know what enough means.

I have read much of Rolf's work on Isle Royale, I have seen some of his professional presentations, and talked with him personally. But I'm not in his back pocket by any stretch. So, I do not know what he is thinking about future science to be done. I have tried to allude to some things that I think would be interesting and very useful for IR and far beyond even just wolves and moose. But those are just my opinions from outside looking in.

Am I in favor of adding them back? Yes, more or less. It's not that big a deal on my radar but given the persecution they get everywhere else, then why not put them somewhere that minimizes human conflict issues? For certain, the tourists want them back so that's a no brainer in that dimension.

I do know that about half the wolves added to Isle Royale came from Michipicoten Island where they had been preying on moose and caribou, but were starving out. I think they probably know about big game prey. Why the park people shot moose, I don't know. I won't speculate.

Isle Royale is National Park, I believe. I don't know what "flies in the face" of USFS or USNPS, but I don't see so much "effed up". Reintroductions are hard, and unpredictable, did you expect it to go like some sort of drill sergeant routine? I don't follow you on that.

One thing that I'll add in closing. There is at least an implicit feeling I get reading here or elsewhere in the hunting world, that management can titrate populations of anything like we regulate water flowing from the kitchen faucet. And further, that failure to do so is the result of "idiots", "liberals", or some anti-something manifesto. In reality, "management" is doing damn well when really bright, hard working folks can manage to keep the system at least on the rails, without having species disappear entirely, or explode to the point where they prevent some semblance of sustainability (see for instance, whitetail deer and oak forest almost anywhere east of the RMTZ). And they have to do this balancing all the squabbling that means no matter what they do, they will still be idiots or whatever in the eyes of the public. I don't know how the heck they do it and keep their sanity. My hat's off to those men and women that make our wildlife possible.