This page is designed using Cascading Style Sheets. You are being shown the raw text because the style sheet has not reached your browser. In order to view the page as intended, you will need to upgrade your browser.
Illinois
Danger may lurk in wolf ruling
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Protection of animals could bring backlash
By DAN EGAN
Posted: Feb. 5, 2005
Conservation groups were overjoyed last week when a federal judge
ruled in their favor that the gray wolf should be put back on
the endangered species list in most states, but one of the world's
foremost authorities on wolf biology frets that their victory
might
come back to bite them.
The ruling means that wildlife officials in almost every northern
state, including Wisconsin, will no longer be able to kill wolves
that develop a taste for livestock or otherwise become a menace.
The goal in providing such protections, of course, is to pull
a beleaguered species back from the brink of extinction.
But Wisconsin's wolf population is thriving. The federal recovery goal was a combined population of 100 in Wisconsin and Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Today, there are more than 700, which biologists say is probably more than the Wisconsin and UP North Woods can support; 24 nuisance wolves were trapped and destroyed in Wisconsin last year, and wolves spilling south have already been killed on I-94 near Milwaukee, and a few have met their demise as far south as Illinois, Indiana and Missouri.
The question is no longer whether the wolf can recover. The question now is whether humans can learn to live with it, and renowned wolf biologist David Mech says the no-kill rule for problem wolves in a place such as Dairyland could actually spell trouble for the wolf everywhere. If cow-attacking wolves can't be destroyed, he says, the bad actors could cost the entire species its tenuous public relations revival.
"I like to compare it with something like the bison," said Mech, a biologist with the U.S. Geological Service. "We could have bison all over the place too, but they'd be running into cars and through wheat fields. With all these species, you have to have some control on their numbers."
Conservationists blame Bush
The court case that tossed the wolf back onto the endangered species
list is as much about bureaucracy as it is about biology.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has carved on the nation's map three distinct wolf populations - a Southwestern population, a Western population and an Eastern population. The Eastern area stretches from the Dakotas to Maine and includes Wisconsin.
. Recognizing the strides Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan had made in bringing back the wolf, in spring of 2003 the Fish and Wildlife Service dropped the wolf from the endangered species list in the Eastern recovery zone and designated it as threatened, one notch up the recovery ladder.
Unlike "endangered" wolves, "threatened" wolves can, in some cases, be killed for getting in the way of humans trying to make a living.
But the problem, according to conservationists, is that Fish and Wildlife's "downlisting" order for the Eastern zone, driven by the success in the Midwest, also lifted the no-kill protections in New England states where suitable wolf habitat exists but the animal still needs every bit of help the government can offer.
Fish and Wildlife's 2003 rule also changed the wolf's endangered status in much of the Western recovery zone. Because of its recovery in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, the agency upgraded the wolf from endangered to threatened across the entire region.
Conservationists pounced on the 2003 ruling, arguing in court that the sweeping downlistings for the Eastern and Western zones would kill any chance for wolf recovery not only in the Northeast, but also in northern California, Oregon and elsewhere in the West.
On Monday, Federal District Judge Robert Jones sided with the 19 conservation groups that took the case to into his Portland, Ore., courtroom.
"Today's decision shows that the Bush administration is not a true partner when it comes to species conservation, that they only want to remove species protections as quickly as possible, regardless of what the science shows," declared Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife.
DNR caught off-guard
Fish and Wildlife responded to the ruling the next day by telling
Wisconsin DNR officials to stop its wolf-killing program until
attorneys can sort through the legal ramifications of the ruling.
"It's unfortunate," says Ron Refsnider, Fish and Wildlife's regional endangered species listing coordinator. "We felt we'd done it (the downlisting) all properly and under all the rules and regulations."
DNR officials were caught off-guard by Tuesday's orders to stop killing problem wolves.
In the 22 months since the wolf was moved from endangered to threatened, wildlife officials in Wisconsin have killed 41 problem animals, said Adrian Wydeven, head of the DNR's wolf recovery program.
Before the 2003 downlisting, the only tool Wisconsin had to manage problem wolves was to trap them and release them somewhere else.
Wydeven says that is what the state will have to do now that the judge has declared the species endangered again, but he worries there are few places remaining where a transported wolf will be able to make it on its own because state forests are virtually filled with them.
In some cases, existing wolf packs in an area attack and kill a transplanted animal. In others, it's human hostility that dooms a transplanted wolf.
Wydeven says several Wisconsin counties, including Oconto, Taylor and Lincoln, have passed rules or resolutions that prohibit the DNR from transporting wolves across their boundaries. Wydeven says counties don't have the legal authority to ban the DNR from moving wolves, but his department gets the message nonetheless - marauding wolves are wearing out their welcome in the state.
He said that last year eight wolves were illegally shot in Wisconsin. In 2002, the last year Wisconsin could not kill problem wolves, the number of illegal killings was double that.
Nobody happy
Conservationists are thrilled with what the ruling means for wolves
on a national level, but nobody is happy about what it means
now for Wisconsin. Not the farmers who have to live with wolves
prowling the pastures. Not the biologists who have made careers
out of restoring the predator to the top of the food chain. Not
even some of the organizations that liberally use the wolf's
image to stir public passions - and donations - for their conservationist
agendas.
"The Great Lakes states got caught up in the national rule, and frankly got kind of held back by the fact that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had lumped Great Lakes states, which do have healthy wolf populations, together with the Northeast, which does not have any wolves," said Nina Fascione, a vice president for Defenders of Wildlife. "Wisconsin has done a good job, and I'd be supportive of Wisconsin being able to play a greater role in management of the state's wolves, but that won't happen now."
The timing of the ruling is particularly stinging to Wisconsin biologists, because this was the year when three decades of recovery efforts were finally supposed to pay off with the wolf being removed altogether from the federal threatened and endangered lists and its management turned over entirely to the state.
The species was first listed as endangered in 1974, the year after passage of the Endangered Species Act. The crux of the federal plan to bring the king of the carnivores back to the deer-rich state forests was remarkably simple: Do nothing.
Doing nothing meant, most importantly, not killing wolves that roamed over from Minnesota, which, unlike Wisconsin, never completely lost its wolf population in aggressive hunts in the previous century. Minnesota's wolves, which have been listed as threatened since 1978, were not affected by last week's ruling.
In 1973, Wisconsin had zero wolves. It had 25 by 1980, and 248 by 2000. Today, there are more than 370 wolves roaming the state and a similar number in the Upper Peninsula.
The relatively smooth natural recovery in this region occurred in stark contrast to controversy it sparked in the Western states, where wolves were plucked from Canada and transplanted into the wilds of central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park in an exercise many perceived as more about federal muscle-flexing than wildlife biology.
"What separates the northern Great Lakes from many other places is that wolves walked back here - we didn't reintroduce them," says Pam Troxell, of Ashland's Timber Wolf Alliance. "There really was no human control, except protection."
Trouble ahead?
Some fear the judge's ruling has endangered Wisconsin's wolf population
- not just legally, but literally.
"Because the wolf is a top predator, it is a very controversial species and when it causes damage, which it does, it engenders very strong feelings," says Signe Holtz, director of the DNR's endangered resources bureau. "As a result, we in the DNR feel very strongly that we want to be able to manage those conflicts between humans and wolves, and by managing them I believe we build more support for having wolves as part of the natural world in Wisconsin."
Representatives of the farming industry see problems ahead.
"I don't think this is going to help wolf recovery," Eric
Koens, board member for the Wisconsin Cattlemen's Association. "It's
going to har
Get the Journal Sentinel delivered to your home. Subscribe now.m recovery because it's going to create so much animosity."
"There is going to be a greater burden on Wisconsin," acknowledges conservationist Fascione.
Fascione said the solution is for Fish and Wildlife to designate Upper Great Lakes wolves as a distinct population. That, she explained, could reopen the door to killing problem wolves in this region, without relaxing protection measures in Northeastern states.
But federal bureaucracies are as lumbering as wolves are nimble, and some predict the fur will be flying soon if something isn't done.
"There is going to be more illegal action in taking wolves," predicted Koens. "I don't think that would be a surprise to anybody."
Biologist Mech looks at the big picture, and he doesn't like what he sees, not just for wolves in Wisconsin, but for wildlife recovery efforts across the country.
"I worry about backlashes, in terms of Congress," said Mech. "Will this make Congress more apt to want to modify the Endangered Species Act?"
Back to Latest Wolf News Menu
__________________________________________________________________
Feds wrong to downgrade wolf from endangered to threatened, judge says
The Seattle Times
By JEFF BARNARD
Feb1, 2005
The Associated Press
GRANTS PASS, Ore. – A federal judge has struck down a Bush administration rule that lowered Endangered Species Act protection for wolves that are migrating out of strongholds in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes into neighboring states.
In a ruling released Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones in Portland rescinded the April 2003 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that divided wolf range into three areas, and reclassified the eastern and western populations as threatened instead of endangered. Wolves in the Southwest had remained endangered.
"Interior Secretary Gale Norton tried to gerrymander the entire contiguous 48 states so that wolves in a few areas would make up for the absence of wolves in much larger regions," said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the 19 environmental groups bringing the lawsuit.
"Now, instead of drawing lines on the map based on political considerations, any future lines must be based on science."
Under the court order, Fish and Wildlife will have to rescind federal rules that allow ranchers to shoot wolves on sight if they are attacking livestock, Robinson said.
Practically speaking, that only affects wolves now established in northwestern Montana, because the ruling does not cover experimental populations established in the 1990s in Yellowstone National Park, central Idaho, and Wyoming, said Ed Bangs, wolf restoration coordinator for Fish and Wildlife.
But it will become more important as wolves migrate into neighboring states such as Oregon, Washington, and Colorado, said Robinson.
In recent years, three wolves have been confirmed in Oregon, though none are known in the state at present. Oregon's Fish and Wildlife Commission is set to vote next week on a state wolf management plan that would allow ranchers to shoot wolves attacking livestock, based on the 2003 rule lowering protection to threatened.
Sharon Beck, an eastern Oregon rancher and former president of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, said the ruling leaves ranchers with little recourse but to break the law — known around the West as "shoot, shovel and shut-up" — when wolves move into their areas.
"Even though the environmentalists won this round, this may
be the thing that really ends it all for them," she added. "They
are so insistent that wolves need to be everywhere to follow the
Endangered Species Act, there are going to be a lot of people who
disagree with that."
The judge ruled that Norton improperly applied the policy for
designating distinct population segments, extending the boundaries
from core areas where wolves are doing well in the Northern Rockies
and Western Great Lakes to include vast areas of the West and
East where they are just hanging on or extinct.
As a result, the status of populations within the western population, for example, varied dramatically, from recovered in parts of Montana, to precarious in Washington, to extinct in Nevada, the judge ruled.
The judge also found that Fish and Wildlife did not to consider five factors listed in the Endangered Species Act in evaluating the wolf's status across its range: the state of habitat; over-exploitation for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes; threats from disease and predators; the inadequacy of existing regulations, and other natural or man-made factors affecting survival.
Fish and Wildlife expressed disappointment in the ruling.
"We believe our rule provided for biologically sound management of the core population of wolves in areas where we knew they could thrive as stable viable populations," the agency said in a statement. "We also believe the rule was correct as a matter of law under the Endangered Species Act."
Fish and Wildlife was considering what needs to be done legally and biologically to get back on track, and whether to appeal, Bangs said.
Mike Senatore, vice president of Defenders of Wildlife, said the ruling would make it more difficult for the Bush administration to reduce or eliminate Endangered Species Act protection for wolves and other species that have blocked development of their habitat.
"There is a pending proposal out there to delist the wolf in the eastern part of the country, the Great Lakes and Northeast," he said. "This decision certainly is going to make it virtually impossible to move forward on that proposal."
Virtually wiped out in the lower 48 states to control attacks on livestock, wolves were reduced by the 1970s to a small population in northern Minnesota. In the 1980s, a small number migrated naturally into northwest Montana from Canada.
Gray wolves were reintroduced in and around Yellowstone National Park in 1995 and 1996, and federal wildlife officials have declared their recovery a success. Officials estimate there are now 825 or more wolves in the western population in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. About 3,200 wolves estimated to be in the eastern population in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan.
A small number of Mexican wolves were reintroduced in the Southwest in 1998.
Back to Latest Wolf News Menu
______________________________________________________________________
March 10, 2004
NEWS TRIBUNE
The final version of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's budget
includes $1 million for wolf management in Minnesota, Wisconsin
and Michigan.
The money will be used by the federal government's wildlife damage
control program, which traps and kills wolves near where livestock
and pets have been killed and where the attacks have been verified
as committed by wolves. The money is the same amount approved last
year.
The wolf control program has been under way in Minnesota for two
decades but is a year old in Wisconsin and Michigan, where wolf
protections were recently relaxed by the federal government.
Wolves have recovered to exceed the government's goals for their
success after being protected under the Endangered Species Act.
In Minnesota, about 175 wolves are trapped and killed annually,
although that number dropped to 125 in 2003, a nearly 30 percent
reduction. The wolf population may be down because of an outbreak
of mange in recent years.
Last year in Wisconsin was the first year problem wolves were killed.
Seventeen were trapped and destroyed after reports that 20 cattle
and 24 sheep were killed at 23 farms.
Back to Latest Wolf News Menu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 27, 2004
by Susan Quick/Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
If you knew you were more than twice as likely to get roughed up in front of doorways that were painted blue rather than red or green, you'd probably avoid those stoops altogether, or at least get your police to patrol them.
In a way, identifying such danger zones is what a team of Wisconsin, Minnesota and New York scientists have tried to do - except, instead of targeting high-crime doorsteps, the scientists have mapped areas where wolves are most likely to attack livestock in the upper Great Lakes region.
And they hope this research will enable state and federal wildlife agencies to focus their energy on potential hot spots - allowing them to prevent and respond more quickly to livestock killings, said Adrian Treves, lead author and researcher at the Wildlife Conservation Society in the Bronx, N.Y.
Their work appears in the most recent edition of the journal Conservation Biology.
The loss of livestock to wolves in Wisconsin and Minnesota has caused a lot of grief, anger and frustration among livestock farmers who live in established wolf ranges.
According to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, wolves killed 20 cattle and 24 sheep on more than a dozen farms in the state last year. They also killed one game farm deer and six hunting dogs in the same period.
In Minnesota, where the wolf population is about seven times larger than in Wisconsin, wolf numbers, trappings and depredations were down last year - the result of the nasty skin disease mange that has swept through the population. Minnesota has nearly 2,500 wolves, and Wisconsin has about 350.
But the livestock situation is likely to get worse, particularly in Wisconsin, where the wolf population is increasing and its range is spreading.
It is this fear, with a splash of anger over lost farm animals, that has livestock farmers calling for wolf numbers to be decreased.
And it is the acknowledgment that things will likely get worse that has wildlife experts and conservationists looking for ways to prevent, or at least soften, the inevitable increase in domestic animals killed.
According to Treves' and his colleagues' work, wolf management is difficult. Outright killing of wolves is something they hesitate to recommend, believing it can undermine endangered-species protections and incite criticism from groups other than livestock farmers.
But, they know doing nothing is not a solution, either.
Indeed, a recent study by Treves and his wife, Lisa Naughton-Treves, a professor of geography at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, showed that 36.5% of northern Wisconsin residents wanted the state's wolf population maintained and 13% wanted it expanded, while a similar percentage wanted the population reduced (33.1%) or eliminated (17.4%).
These numbers leave management agencies in a predicament: Anything they do is going to make somebody unhappy.
So Treves, Naughton-Treves, Adrian Wydeven, a wolf biologist with the DNR, and others searched for a more efficient method of management, one that would help state and federal agencies anticipate and pinpoint future wolf attacks on livestock.
Currently, most of the wolf management zone in Wisconsin is in the northern third of the state. Minnesota has two zones - one with wolves and one without.
These vast expanses of land make it difficult for state and federal agencies to monitor wolves, which can make management ineffective, expensive and diluted.
By narrowing the zones to towns, Treves and his colleagues believe they will enable agencies to manage the wolf problem better.
So, to create a new, focused system, the researchers scrounged up data on wolf attacks on livestock and reviewed the locations. Looking at 975 verified sites of livestock killings by wolves in Wisconsin and Minnesota between 1976 and 2000, they analyzed each site.
They asked a series of questions: Was it in a prairie? If so, how big? Was it in a crop field? Near conifer woodlands? Open water? Wetlands? In a town?
Based on the localities of each of these incidents - and the commonalities, if any - they tried to predict where farmers would find future fatalities.
They discovered that wolf attacks tend to take place in towns composed of lots of pasture with dense deer populations but also have low proportions of cropland, coniferous forest, herbaceous wetlands and open water.
The number of roads also seemed to be a factor: Fewer wolf problems were reported in areas with lots of roads.
Entering this data into statewide maps, they were able to pinpoint areas that are at high risk. Some of these areas don't have settled populations of wolves anywhere near them, but, if wolf populations continue to spread, those areas could see some trouble.
One such place includes the livestock farms of southwestern Wisconsin. The geography in this region could make them prime targets for killings by wolves, if they were to get there.
But this area may be a bit insulated because most of the cattle are dairy, Treves said.
That's because dairy cows are generally kept close to human-inhabited areas such as farmhouses.
The cattle most at risk, said Wydeven, are those that stray from frequent human supervision.
"The best method for preventing wolf depredations" is to have a person watching the herd 24 hours a day, Treves said.
Other methods to keep wolves at bay - such as fences and guard dogs - are not as effective, Wydeven said.
Fences can work, said Eric Koens, a livestock farmer in Bruce and a director with the Wisconsin Cattlemen's Association, though they have to be at least 8 feet highand buried at least 2 feet in the ground to keep the wolves from digging through.
And the maintenance would be formidable, he said.
David Mech, a senior research scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey and a renowned wolf biologist, agrees.
"We just don't know of anything that would work as a panacea" to prevent wolf depredations, said Mech, who was not involved with the research.
"Where there are wolf and livestock, living side by side, there's a good chance that at some point, they'll prey on livestock," he said.
Treves and Wydeven disagree. They say there are good packs and bad packs. Most wolf packs can live by cattle or sheep farms for years and never attack. But there are a few that do.
Although Wisconsin DNR officials have shown interest in the map, they'd like to know if its powers of prediction hold true before they start using it, Treves said.
The researchers will collect data on killings since 2000 and see how it fits with the map's predictions.
If the map predicted accurately, Koens and his fellow farmers will, at the very least, be able to take preventive measures if they are unfortunate enough to be in one of the hot spots.
Back to Latest Wolf News Menu
---------------------------------------------------------------
State Gets Approval to Control Wolves in Some Cases
Wisconsin Ag Connection - 04/07/2005
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service last week granted a special permit to the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to trap wolves for scientific
purposes and to destroy depredating wolves under some circumstances.
DNR officials had been allowed to kill wolves on farms with depredation
on livestock after the federal agency moved wolves in the region
from endangered to threatened status in April 2003.
Federal court action in the State of Oregon invalidated the downlisting,
making it unlawful for Wisconsin to use lethal control.
"This permit should allow the Department of Natural Resources and our partner, U.S. Department of Agriculture-Wildlife Services, to adequately deal with wolf depredation problems in 2005," said Signe Holtz, director of the DNR Bureau of Endangered Resources.
DNR and USDA-Wildlife Services staff destroyed 17 wolves for depredation on domestic animals from April 1, 2003 until December 31, 2003 and destroyed 24 wolves involved in depredation during 2004. USDA-Wildlife Services provides wild animal control services to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
The Wisconsin wolf population was estimated at
373 to 410 during the winter of 2003-2004. Department biologists
again expect the wolf population to be at about 400 during the
winter of 2004-2005. On April 15, biologists, technicians, and
volunteers will meet in Wausau to analyze field data and determine
the current wolf population.
Back To Latest Wolf News
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on Wed, Apr. 06, 2005
Wisconsin wolves won't be removed from protected species list
ROBERT IMRIE
Associated Press
WAUSAU, Wis. - The process of removing Wisconsin's growing population
of gray wolves from federal protection is on hold and it's raising
fears about a public backlash against the animals, the coordinator
of the state's wolf management program said Wednesday.
The wolf is again considered an endangered species in Wisconsin because of a federal judge's ruling in Oregon restricting the state's efforts to manage the population, said Adrian Wydeven of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
All talk of having a possible hunting season for them is now off, he said.
The animal's designation was changed to a threatened species in April 2003, meaning federal agents could kill problem wolves in Wisconsin rather than trap and relocate them to prevent them from preying on livestock and other domestic animals. There was hope the wolf would be completely removed from the federal species list by this summer, giving the DNR total say on how to manage them, including possibly creating a hunting season to control them.
Even though the wolf is back on the endangered species list, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service granted the DNR a permit last week to kill up to 34 problem wolves this year under some circumstances, Wydeven said.
"Things are kind of up in limbo right now and we may, for a few years, have to just go by year-to-year permits from the Fish and Wildlife Service to get special authority until we are delisted," he said.
U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones in Portland, Ore., ruled in February that the Bush administration violated the Endangered Species Act when it relaxed protections on many of the nation's gray wolves.
Jones ruled the government acted improperly by combining areas where wolves were doing well, such as Montana, with places where their numbers had not recovered.
The judge also found the Fish and Wildlife Service did not consider certain factors listed in the Endangered Species Act in evaluating the wolf's status, including threats from disease, predators or other natural or manmade dangers.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not decided whether to appeal Jones' decision and is awaiting the outcome of another related lawsuit in Vermont, Wydeven said.
Wydeven estimates Wisconsin's wolf population at about 400 - some 50 more than the DNR's goal.
The wolf is a native species that was wiped out in Wisconsin by the late 1950s after decades of bounty hunting. Since the animal was granted protection as an endangered species during the mid-1970s, wolves migrated into the state from Minnesota and their numbers have been growing ever since.
Minnesota has the largest wolf population in the lower 48 states at around 2,400.
Wydeven said there had been hope that the wolf could be completely delisted in Wisconsin by 2000. Now it looks like that goal could still be years away, he said.
It is creating frustration, antagonism toward the wolves and possibly even some backlash as public support for the animals is being jeopardized, Wydeven said.
"They are big predators and they do
occasionally kill domestic animals," he said. "If we keep the population at or slightly below the current levels, we can kind
of minimize that. But if the population continues to increase and
expand, the domestic killing is likely to increase, creating more
animosity and backlash."
Back To Latest Wolf News
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opposition voiced to proposed wolf damage rules
By: Kevin McCullough , Lakeland Times, February 24, 2005
“The DNR pooped the bed on this matter, now they’re unwilling to clean up their own mess.”
That’s how Carrie Murphy concluded her statement at a public hearing pertaining to the Department of Natural Resource’s proposed rules to pay for property damage caused by wolves. Murphy, of Butternut, was the first of 12 speakers who submitted statements regarding the wildlife damage payment program at a hearing in Rhinelander Feb. 16.
Of the 11 speakers who followed, nine echoed sentiments similar to Murphy’s – complete disagreement with the proposed rules – while two others offered statements supporting livestock payments, while disagreeing with reimbursement for hunting dogs and pets.
Stemming from the Jan. 26 Natural Resources Board meeting in Madison, the public hearing in Rhinelander was one of five held across the state last week. Hearings also took place in Spooner, Black River Falls, Green Bay and Madison. Laurie Ostendorf of the DNR’s Bureau of Wildlife Management reviewed the proposed rules for NRB members and sought approval to send the rules out to public hearings.
The proposed rule differs in four ways from the existing rule:
• A maximum payment of $15,000 per claimant, per year;
• A $250 deductible per claim (which could be submitted with each occurrence or annually as a group);
• Only one hunting dog payment would be made within a five-mile radius of a previous kill site;
• No payments for personal property other than hunting dogs or pets.
The program to pay for damage done by species listed as endangered or threatened in Wisconsin was established in the mid-80s. Funds for the payments come from the endangered resources voluntary payments fund.
The endangered resources program has administered the payment program since 1985 without permanent rules because the species on the state’s endangered and threatened list could change from year to year, there were relatively few claims per year, and little controversy surrounded the program, according to analysis of the rules prepared by the DNR.
There is now a need for permanent rules because the endangered resources program has responsibility for the reimbursement payments regardless of legal status, claims have increased due to wolf damage, and today there is significant public controversy about the wolf damage payment program, the DNR asserts.
Through the end of the state fiscal year 2003-04, the Bureau of Endangered Resources has settled 199 damage claims totaling $381,655.08. The majority of those claims – 164 claims for $341,845.29 – have resulted from damage done by gray wolves. The remaining claims were made for damage accrued by fish farms through bald eagle, osprey and great egret depredation, trumpeter swan damage to personal property, and double-crested cormorant damage to commercial whitefish fishing.
The first wolf payment of $200 was made for a depredated sheep back in 1985, the entire total for that year. No payments were made in 1986 and 1988, but the first payment for a dog – $2,500 – came in 1987. Payment totals have fluctuated in the intervening years from a low of $400 in 1989 to a high of $109,941.60 last year.
The number of dog depredations remained in single digits through 2000 before jumping to 14 claims in both 2001 and 2002. Dog claims dropped to seven in 2003, then jumped back up to 13 last year.
Livestock claims, particularly sheep and calves, also increased substantially in the past few years. Only 18 claims for sheep were made from 1985-2001, with no claims in many of those years, but a total of 53 claims were filed from 2002-04. There were 32 claims for calves between 1985 and 1998, a number which increased dramatically to 205 claims between 1999 and 2004. There were 102 calf claims last year alone, and seven claims have already been filed this year.
Wolf damage payments ranged from $200 to $12,000 per year from 1985 to 1998. From 1999 through 2004, wolf damage payments have averaged $43,800 per year.
The increase in claims is mirrored by an increase in the wolf population across that same time period. The state was home to an estimated 25 wolves in five packs in 1985, while estimates in 2004 placed the number of individual wolves at 373 (with at least 13 loners) and the number of packs at 108. Wolves were not reintroduced to the state, but migrated back in on their own.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service federally reclassified wolves to threatened April 1, 2003, and began the process for complete delisting – which would return all management to the state – in July of 2004. On Jan. 31 of this year, however, wolves were relisted as endangered when U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones in Portland, Ore., ruled that the Bush administration violated the Endangered Species Act when it relaxed protection on many of the nation’s gray wolves.
Adrian Wydeven, DNR mammalian ecologist at Park Falls, said the department will appeal that decision. Although wolves are still delisted in Wisconsin, the recent federal ruling takes precedence over the state, he said.
Against the rules
The majority of the dozen people who spoke at the Rhinelander hearing spoke in opposition to each of the four proposed changes to the damage payment rule, both in terms of livestock and dogs.
Minocqua’s Don Engel said that the DNR has been supported by most sportsmen’s groups for years, but the timber wolf issue is “driving a wedge between us.” The DNR must stick to its word regarding full payment of claims made for wolf depredations, he said, adding that the number of wolves in the state is “somewhat out of hand.” He urged the DNR and sportsmen to seek common ground and reject the proposed rule.
“From the beginning the DNR promised we would be paid for the loss of our animals, now that the number of claims is going up they’re putting restrictions on it,” Engel said.
Scott Meyer of Gleason, speaking on behalf of the Wisconsin Bear Hunter’s Association, said that group “strongly objects to the rules.” The $15,000 cap on claims is an inequitable payment plan that places undue hardship upon livestock producers, he said. The five-mile radius rule is “absolutely unacceptable,” he said, questioning the DNR’s statutory authority to implement such a rule.
“We as an association feel all of the proposed rules create adverse affects for livestock owners and the owners of hunting dogs and pets,” Meyer said.
Timothy Schlichting of Merrill stated that “all of the rules are ridiculous,” but took particular exception with the five-mile radius rule.
When the DNR verifies wolf depredation of a dog on land open to public hunting, hunters will be notified by public notice in a statewide news release and a local news release with copies to affected legislators. Other notice deemed reasonable by the DNR, including posting of warning signs in the vicinity of the depredation, will also be made. Additional dogs killed within five miles of the posted depredation site will not be eligible for payments for the remainder of the calendar year after 48 hours following the publication of the wolf depredation notice in the official state newspaper.
“I hunt hounds near Tripoli,” Schlichting said, questioning the logic of the 48-hour rule, “and a lot of houndsmen go out to their shacks or camp out with no TV, radios or newspapers.”
Out of touch at camp, he questioned how hunters could be expected to become informed within 48 hours about the depredation and resulting five mile radius. He also said that once the blood line of a predated dog is lost, it’s gone forever.
Speaking for the wolf
Speaking on behalf of the Timber Wolf Alliance (TWA) at the Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute in Ashland, Nancy Warren said the TWA “understands the enormous impact livestock owners face” due to wolf depredations.
“We do not believe, nor do most, that livestock owners need to do this alone. We are all aware that livestock producers are at risk of carrying the financial burden of wolves on the landscape and no one is turning their back on this real concern,” she said.
“TWA supports reimbursements for confirmed and probable losses. When it comes to unconfirmed or other losses, such as stress to animals in the herd and perceived decrease in milk production in dairy cows or decreased weight in beef cattle, the ability to measure such unknowns becomes subjective.”
TWA also supports the need to euthanize depredating wolves, Warren continued, adding that the group also thinks it is of utmost importance to continue research in and support of non-lethal control options.
The group is less supportive regarding financial reimbursement for hunting dogs and pets, however.
“Will the compensation for pets and hunting dogs deplete funds to the point that drastic cuts slice reimbursement payments for those who depend upon livestock for their livelihood?” she questioned.
“Losses of hunting dogs and pets to wolves, while unfortunate and emotional, are not uncommon, and can be nearly eliminated through preventative actions.”
Warren explained that possible steps to alleviate wolf-pet conflicts would be to: avoid keeping a pet outside at night unless in a secure kennel; not allowing pets to roam forested areas without an owner nearby; avoid feeding deer near homes, coaxing wolves to areas where pets may be located.
“If these commonly accepted measures are followed, losses of pets to wolves should be minimal and the need for reimbursements should not be a factor,” she said.
“Hunting dogs, on the other hand, are at a much greater risk just by the very nature of the sport. They face many more hazards than the threat from wolves.”
Because of that, TWA supports the rule proposal to notify hunters where dog depredations have occurred, as well as the accompanying five-mile radius, 48-hour rule, she said.
Norm Poulton, representing the Environmentally Concerned Citizens of the Lakeland Area Wolf Task Force, said that organization agrees with the proposed new rules “with additional qualifications.” While supporting payment for livestock depredation, the group does not support reimbursements for hunting dogs and pets – particularly in light of the fact that many hunting dogs are killed and injured during training runs in July and August when wolves and their pups are on their rendezvous sites.
Poulton also questioned the efficacy of the depredation program’s goal of promoting social tolerance for wolves through payments.
That’s not working, he said, since a great deal of anti-wolf sentiment still exists.
That was borne out at the hearing, where many in opposition to the proposed payment rules referred to wolves as the “DNR’s pets” and called for their total eradication.
Back to Latest Wolf News
______________________________________________
Hearings set on
proposed
rules for wolf damage payments
Payments would cover loss of livestock and pets to wolves
MADISON – The public will be able to comment for the record on proposed rules regarding payment of damages to livestock, hunting dogs and pets caused by endangered and threatened wildlife species and gray wolves in hearings scheduled for five locations across the state Feb 15 to 17.
The Department of Natural Resources – Bureau of Endangered Resources has since 1985 been making payments for damages gray wolves cause to livestock, hunting dogs and pets without administrative rules. In recent years, claims for wolf damage have increased, thus creating the need for rules.
The proposed rules would: set caps for maximum payments per livestock animal type; a reimbursement cap of $15,000 per claimant per year; and a deductible of $250 per claim. These payment caps and conditions are similar to those of the wildlife damage claims program.
All the hearings will begin at 6 p.m. on the following dates at the locations listed:
February 15
Spooner - Spooner High School Cafeteria, 500 College St.
Black River Falls - GLI Room, Black River Falls Middle School,
1202 Pierce St.
February 16
Rhinelander - James Williams Jr. High School Cafeteria, 915 Acacia
Lane.
February 17
Green Bay - Room 114. Ag and Extension Service Center, 1150 Bellevue
St.
Madison - UW Madison Union South, 227 North Randall Ave. (parking
is available in UW lots located between University Avenue and Johnson
Street north of Union South)
The proposed rules may be reviewed and comments submitted at the
following Internet site: <http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov>.
Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S.
Mail to Tim Cooke, Bureau of Endangered Resources, PO Box 7921,
Madison, WI 53707. Comments may be submitted until Feb. 18, 2005
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Jurewicz - (608) 267-7507
Back to Latest Wolf News Menu
Daily Globe
12/06/04
ASHLAND, Wis. -- A survey conducted by a group at Northland College
in Ashland shows people in Michigan are very accepting of the presence
of wolves, but still view wolves as a threat to humans.
Nearly 90 percent of respondents felt wolves should be allowed
to live in all parts of Michigan, but 36 percent said they would
be very concerned about the safety of their children if they knew
wolves lived near their homes. Another 31 percent said they would
be somewhat concerned for their children's safety.
Researchers for "The State of the Wolf Project" sent
2,500 surveys to Upper Peninsula residents and 2,500 to residents
in lower Michigan.
Northland College Sociology Professor Kevin Schanning headed the
study. "People really do have a deep-seated irrational fear
of wolves. This persists despite no evidence of wolves attacking
humans in Michigan. Statistically, you are in more danger from
domestic dogs and bees," said Schanning.
Other notable findings show nearly 30 percent of respondents said
there are too many wolves in Michigan, while just over 27 percent
said there are not enough wolves. Forty-three percent said the
right amount of wolves currently live in Michigan.
Fifty-four percent said they didn't think wolves threatened deer
hunting opportunities, while 29.5 percent felt wolves do threaten
hunting.
There are at least 360 wolves in the U.P. and one wolf was recently
trapped and shot in northern Lower Michigan. Most biologists believe
the current population of wolves in the U.P. came from wolves dispersing
from Minnesota through Wisconsin, or wolves coming from Canada.
Schanning said education regarding wolves is extremely important
and he encourages Michigan residents to seek more information. "A
good resource will be available to Upper Michigan residents next
week with the release of a new documentary on wolves in Michigan," said
Schanning.
He encourages residents to tune in to Northern Michigan University
Public Television Tuesday at 8 p.m. (ET) for "Michigan's Gray
Wolf: Ghost of the Big Timber."
Back to Latest Wolf News Menu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Dean Bortz-Editor/Wisconsin Outdoor News
11/19/04
Madison — At least seven conservation and farm groups have joined forces with the hopes of getting the state’s legislators to pass a bill next session that supports public wolf harvest.Representatives from the seven groups met Oct. 20 in Plover and crafted orders for George Meyer and Ron Kuehn to walk the halls of the state Capitol to find legislators willing to offer such a bill. Meyer is the former DNR secretary and is currently the executive director of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation. Kuehn is a Madison lawyer hired as a lobbyist for the Wisconsin Cattleman’s Association.“We have been talking to many groups over the last year and all groups were interested in dealing with this issue,” Meyer said. “Looking at it from a timing standpoint, 2005 is the time to go forward with this legislation. Some would like us to wait for federal delisting to take place, but that may well take a year, and then we’re into the second session of the Legislature and it’s difficult to get anything passed that late. Then we’d be sitting for two more years.”The idea to seek legislation supporting wolf harvest got rolling when Meyer talked with Eric Koens, a beef producer from Bruce who has spent a several years working on wolf committees.“We’re not going to be doing anything to change the state’s wolf plan,” Koens said. “If you look at Appendix J (the part of the wolf plan that discusses public harvest), we won’t change that. We don’t want to conflict with federal delisting.“But, it is imperative to get this in line now if we want anything to happen in the next year or two,” he said. “It’s important to get this done as soon as possible.”Appendix J was written by the DNR in 1999 at the direction of the Natural Resources Board. The board did not include Appendix J as part of the formal plan, but it does outline the DNR’s approach to public wolf harvest at some point in the future.“We need to proceed here with a public harvest plan as soon as possible,” said Steve Oestreicher, Conservation Congress chairman. “There are folks who are certainly against that, but if those folks are truly serious about this management plan, then they need to roll their sleeves up and work with us, not against us. We are not going to let wolf numbers go unchecked, it’s just that simple. By the same token, hunters and trappers will never allow wolves to be eliminated from the landscape. These are conservation-minded people.”The groups that took part in the Oct. 20 meeting included the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, the Wisconsin Farm Bureau, the Wisconsin Bowhunters Association, the Conservation Congress, the Wisconsin Cattleman’s Association, the Wisconsin Trappers Association, and the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association. John Olson, the DNR’s furbearer ecologist, represented the DNR.“I think many wildlife biologists in the DNR believe many of the tools in the management plan are not adequate to address depredation issues,” Meyer said. “The government trapping and the landowner permits, many people think, will not be adequate to deal with all of the depredation problems.“We have pointed out to the NRB that the recovery program has been successful beyond the initial projections,” he said. “There is a full range of management tools available to manage any species, from protected status to game status, that are needed here.”“This is just another piece of the puzzle,” Koens said. “The plan already talks about eventual harvest.”Koens and Meyer say the legislation will not define a season framework. The DNR would do that later, through the administrative rule process.However, the draft bill does specify the following: It calls for a license fee ($10 for application, harvest tag would be $100); sets up an appropriation process so the money is used for education, depredation, and management of system; requires that anyone drawing a harvest permit would have to take a one-day education program on wolves before getting the permit; a hunter or trapper must have a hunting or trapping license to make the wolf harvest tag valid.
Back to Latest Wolf News Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Globe
10/18/04
MINOCQUA, Wis. -- A northern Wisconsin bear hunter recently lost a hunting dog to a wolf attack, according to a report in a Minocqua newspaper.
The Lakeland Times reported this week that the circumstances surrounding a Sept. 19 incident, in which a dog was killed in Price County, are unusual when compared to other wolf attacks, according to dog owner Bill Schmidt of Merrill, Wis.
Schmidt was hunting bear with his son, Daniel, and Don Engel of Minocqua in the Chequamegon National Forest between Minocqua and Phillips.
"The dogs had the bear bayed up on the ground and the wolves came in and attacked the one dog with the bear right there," Schmidt told the newspaper.
Schmidt's son was about 100 yards from the dogs and bear when the dogs went quiet. Later, when the group realized the dogs had been attacked, Daniel Schmidt realized the dogs were quiet because they scattered when the wolves arrived.
It was after Schmidt collected his dogs that he realized one of the dogs, Sparky, was missing. He was able to pick up the dog's collar signal on a tracking box and follow it back to where his son had almost closed on the bear and dogs the first time around.
There he found the dog's carcass, more than half eaten.
"I had never seen this before," Schmidt told the Times. "It's a gruesome sight. In less than an hour, they ate just about the whole dog and then came after the rest."
Engel has made many appearances at meetings related to Wisconsin's wolf management plan and is familiar with the USDA Wildlife Services program and staff who respond to wolf damage problems.
Schmidt contacted Engel on the radio, related the incident and then stayed with the carcass so evidence needed by Wildlife Services to verify the kill would not be destroyed.
According to Schmidt, the kill was confirmed by Wildlife Services trapper Ed Zydzik of Phillips.
"This has been kind of a safe area," Schmidt said. "I don't know what changed. We try to hunt where there are no wolves, but you tell me where you can go in Wisconsin and not find wolves."
Schmidt likens the problem to a more human problem.
"If you get killed doing something you like doing, at least you died doing something you love," Schmidt said. "If you get killed by a drunk driver, that's a tragedy. To me, wolves are the drunk driver in the bear hunting and farming community.
"I don't want the (damage) money. I want my dog back. You can't find dogs like Sparky very easily. You just can't replace a dog like that."
Back to Latest Wolf News Menu
From the Department of Natural Resources
10/05/04
PARK FALLS, Wis. -- To help draw attention to the value of gray
wolves to an ecosystem and the need for hunters and others to be
aware of their presence and status in the Great Lakes region, Oct.
17 through 23 has been designated as Wolf Awareness Week.
“
Wolves play an important role in the ecosystem,” says Adrian
Wydeven, a mammalian ecologist and wolf specialist for the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources. “They help maintain the
health of the deer herd, they can help control beaver populations,
and they can reduce the abundance of medium sized predators such
as coyotes, which is beneficial for smaller predators and for ground
nesting birds.”
The presence of wolves can play a role in redistributing deer over
the landscape, which helps reduce over-browsing by deer and can
help protect white cedar, hemlock, and other tree species that
are favored by deer, Wydeven says.
“
Studies in Wisconsin show that the middle of wolf pack areas have
richer variety of wildflowers than the edge of wolf territories.
Studies in Yellowstone show increased regeneration of aspen and
willow after wolf reintroduction in areas that had been over-browsed
by elk,” he says.
Since 1990, the Timber Wolf Alliance (Exit DNR) (TWA), based out
of the Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute at Northland College
in Ashland, and the Wisconsin DNR have designated a week in October
as Wolf Awareness Week. This year Oct. 17 through 23 is designated
as Wolf Awareness Week in the Great Lakes region and across the
United States.
The designation provides opportunities for Timber Wolf Alliance,
the DNR, and other conservation organizations to educate people
about wolves. It also raises awareness among hunters that wolves
are present in the state and that they need to avoid accidental
shootings during the fall hunting seasons. Hunters are also encouraged
to report wolf observations to help monitor the distribution and
abundance of wolves in the state. Wolf observations can be reported
to the nearest DNR office or through the DNR Web site.
Wolf Awareness Week posters are available at many DNR and U. S.
Forest Service offices or can be obtained directly from the alliance.
To order a poster from TWA, please send a check or Visa/Mastercard
number along with expiration date with information regarding which
poster(s) you would like to receive to TWA, Northland College,
1411 Ellis Avenue, Ashland, WI 54806 or by e-mail at twa@northland.edu.
There is a fee of $6 per poster for shipping/handling.
The gray wolf, or timber wolf, is listed as a Protected Wild Animal
under Wisconsin law, and as a Threatened Species by the federal
government. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently undergoing
a process to delist wolves in Wisconsin and across the eastern
U.S. Comments on the proposal can be made through Nov. 18, 2004 <http://midwest.fws.gov/wolf/>.
“
If this proposal is successful, wolves may be removed from the
federal list in summer 2005, and complete management would be returned
to the state of Wisconsin and other states where wolves roam,” Wydeven
says.
The wolf population in Wisconsin has grown from about 2 wolves
in 1975 to nearly 400 wolves in late winter 2004.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Adrian Wydeven - (715) 762-3204 ext.
107 or the Timber Wolf Alliance - (715) 682-1490
Back to Latest Wolf News Menu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/04
By Chuck Haga / Star Tribune
CLAM LAKE, WIS. -- By most accounts, the revival of the timber wolf in northern Wisconsin is a success story: from no wolves 50 years ago to 400 of the majestic, elusive animals roaming the woods today.
But wolves recently killed and nearly devoured a prized bear-hunting dog owned by Rob Stalsholt of New Richmond. It was one of at least 11 expensively trained trail hounds killed this year by Wisconsin wolves.
The state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has cautioned against "wolf hysteria," but it also has confirmed 21 cases of wolves killing farm livestock this year, up from 14 cases last year and eight in 2002.
The state pays farmers for those losses, but the amount will be topped this year by compensation paid to trail dog owners, whose radio-collared hounds sortie deep into the woods in pursuit of bears.
Stalsholt, who returned to the hunt last weekend with a new pack of trail hounds, carries large color photographs of his mutilated dog to argue for increased controls on wolves, which could include giving landowners who lose livestock or pets authority to shoot or trap problem wolves themselves.
That would require federal delisting of the wolf as a threatened species in Wisconsin. State authorities already have taken that step, but the federal protections take precedence.
Paul Jaeger, from Mellen, Wis., said he knows other hunters who've lost dogs to wolves this year. Wolves also have killed house pets within town limits, he said, and he hit a wolf with his van entering the village of Pence.
"Loggers have been treed, and deer have been taken down within 100 feet of where kids were playing," Jaeger said. "It's just a matter of time before we have a bow hunter out tracking a deer after dark and the hunter becomes the hunted."
Minnesota migrants
Wisconsin removed the wolf from the state endangered and threatened species list in March, and hearings have been held on taking the wolf off the federal threatened list as well.
When the wolf was removed from the more protective federal endangered species list in April 2003, state biologists gained some flexibility in dealing with problem wolves, including authority to destroy wolves that kill domestic animals.
Removing the animal from the federal threatened list would allow the state to authorize trapping of wolves before they cause problems or even a public hunt to reduce numbers.
In the early 1700s, between 3,000 and 5,000 wolves roamed the area that would become Wisconsin. But by the mid-1800s, settlers and others were killing off the animals as well as their main food sources, buffalo and elk. In 1957, the wolf was declared eradicated from the state.
New wolf packs were found in Wisconsin in the early 1970s, almost certainly migrants from Minnesota. The animal was added to Wisconsin's endangered species list in 1975.
In Minnesota, where the wolf population had fallen to between 350 and 700 in the 1960s, a recovery plan set a goal of 1,250 to 1,400 wolves by the year 2000. That level was achieved nearly 20 years early, and the population now is estimated at near 2,500.
Minnesota doesn't allow the use of trail hounds for bear, so dog loss has not been an issue.
Bear dogs are more susceptible to wolf attacks than other hunt dogs because they roam far from their handlers' control.
"And they're running in packs and making a lot of noise," said Rick Horton, Grand Rapids, Minn., wildlife biologist for the Ruffed Grouse Society. "The wolves hear them and think it's another pack moving in."
Horton said that in many years of hunting grouse and other upland game, he's heard of just one bird dog being attacked by a wolf. That dog "had a bad bite in its upper back," he said, but it survived.
In 1989, a wolf recovery plan in Wisconsin set a goal of 100 wild wolves in northern forest areas. A revised plan in 1999 aimed for a steady population of 250 wolves with a long-term goal of 350.
"Our count at the end of last winter was about 400, and there could be 500 to 600," said Adrian Wydeven, a DNR wolf specialist.
"We are seeing an increase in the number of farms reporting wolf depredation," he said. So far this year, wildlife agents have trapped 23 wolves off 12 farms. Of those, 20 were destroyed.
"We're also getting more reports of wolves being seen close to towns, close to people," Wydeven said. "We know that some of those reports are wrong -- they're seeing big dogs or coyotes -- but there have been some bold wolves that have become habituated to people. In some cases, it's a mangy wolf that's crawled under a porch to die."
This year, the state has compensated farmers for more than 30 calves and a few sheep taken by wolves, Wydeven said. But in recent years, "we pay more for dogs than for livestock."
Compensation for a lost bear hound can reach $2,500, he said. The 11 dogs lost this year compare to six killed in 2003. But one large pack of about 10 wolves was responsible for killing nine dogs in five attacks in the Chequamegon National Forest east of Clam Lake, Wydeven said, so almost all the remaining packs are clear of that charge.
"We've been warning people about this one pack," he said.
Beautiful but deadly
Jaeger says the risk is greater than a few "bad" wolves.
He was returning to Mellen from Ironwood, Mich., and was entering Pence when he saw an animal on the road ahead.
"I thought it was a deer -- that's how big it was -- but it was a wolf," he said.
"There have been sightings in the city of Mellen," population 961, he said. "Two years ago, I saw a wolf take down a doe across the river from where my kids were playing.
"The state's numbers are way off. I believe there's that many wolves in Ashland County.
"I don't want to see any animal brought to extinction. The wolf is very beautiful, very graceful. But there's no pressure on them now; they're at the top of the food chain. I know a lot of people who won't go into the woods without a large handgun. I carry a .357 Magnum myself."
Back to Latest Wolf News Menu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By KEVIN O'BRIEN Staff Writer/ The Daily Press
9/30/04
Emotions ran high Wednesday night at a public hearing inside the
Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center to gather input on a proposal
to remove the gray wolf from federal protection under the Endangered
Species Act.
Nearly everyone who spoke supported the delisting of gray wolves
in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan, but many people thought the
process was far behind in responding to the problem of livestock
and hunting dog deaths due to wolf depredation.
Others believed Great Lakes states should be separated from New
England states such as Maine and New York in the delisting process,
as they are currently considered part of the same Eastern Population
Segment even though wolves are virtually non-existent in most eastern
states.
Testimonials ranged from heartfelt tales from hunters and farmers
who have lost animals to wolves to prepared statements from several
conservation and wildlife organizations.
One man brought the mutilated carcass of his dog inside a suitcase
to show the effects of wolf depredation, but was not allowed to
display the remains inside the visitors center.
Rob Stafsholt, a resident of New Richmond and Clam Lake, also brought
photographs of the two dogs he lost to wolves while bear hunting
with his children in August.
"This is the reality I walked into with a child. How do I explain
this?" Stafsholt said, holding up a picture of a bloody . "My problem
is not that this happened. It's that we can't do anything about
it until the wolves are delisted."
Others spoke more subtly to express their views.
Dan Allen of Clam Lake spoke for many frustrated farmers and hunters
in the room when he talked about the large number of wolves near
his home in Chequamegon National Forest.
"My opinion is we should have had this meeting a year ago," Allen
said. "We're that far behind."
Allen had a grim prediction that conveyed the sense of urgency many
others shared about controlling the wolf population.
"I would not be surprised that there will be a human casualty in
the state of Wisconsin because of the wolf before something is done,"
he said.
Other speakers, such as Pam Troxell of the Timberwolf Alliance at
the Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute, stressed the importance
of continued population monitoring once the wolf is delisted so
the numbers do not drop too low again.
"It makes little sense to get the wolf population to this point
and then suffer a devastating loss because of poor planning," Troxell
said. "No one wants to see the wolves placed back on the endangered
species list."
Representatives of several conservation organizations read statements
either supporting the delisting, recommending strong management
practices or opposing it based on the fact that eastern states with
no viable wolf populations or management plans would be included.
Lisa Yee-Litzenberg of the Great Lakes National Wildlife Federation
said two pending lawsuits dealing with eastern wolf populations
could hold up the delisting for states like Wisconsin.
Endorsements of the delisiting also came from the Wisconsin Chapter
of the Wildlife Society, Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, the Wisconsin
Conservation Congress and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Rick Jomarron of the Habitat Education Center faced a tough crowd
when he said the delisting was premature and suggested delaying
it another five to 10 years until more could be learned about the
effect of diseases and lost habitat on the wolf populations.
Farmers, including a representative of the Wisconsin Cattlemen's
Association, showed strong support of delisting as way of controlling
livestock losses.
James Gadamus, owner of St. Anthony's Preserve south of Ashland,
said he spent $20,000 putting skirts on his fences around his 970-acre
property and has taken months at a time just to catch one wolf.
When about 33 of his adult deer and 60 of his fawns totalling $50,000
were killed by a wolf, Gadamus said he was only reimbursed for $7,000
by the DNR.
"How's a farmer supposed to survive in that kind of environment?"
Gadamus asked, claiming the government's wolf counts were "way low."
Ron Refsnider, a longtime U.S. Fish and Wildlife employee, and Laura
Ragan, author the delisting proposal, acknowledged that that wolf
population was it lowest in the winter when they were counted, but
said it was the best time to get an accurate, consistent estimate.
Before the official public hearing, representatives of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service discussed the changing population of gray
wolves in the United States, which was reduced primarily to the
northeastern corner of Minnesota in 1973 when the animal was placed
on the national list of Endangered Species.
Since then, federal protection and recovery efforts have allowed
gray wolf populations to reach levels considered adequate by both
state and federal governments, allowing the animals to be reclassified
from endangered to threatened.
Now that gray wolves in Wisconsin are estimated at 373, above both
state and federal populations, Refsnider said it was time to remove
all federal protections and let state governments enforce their
own management plans.
"We feel there is no possibility of wolves going extinct in the
eastern U.S.," Refsnider said. "So, we need to back out of it. Period."
Back to Latest Wolf News Menu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jim Lee/ Green Bay Press-Gazette
8/22/04
Is a management goal of 350 wolves in Wisconsin (outside Native American reservations) too high, too low or just right?
Should livestock owners on private land or dog owners whose animals are being attacked by wolves on public land be allowed to shoot or use other lethal means to fend off the attacking predators?
Should the Department of Natural Resources continue to reimburse owners of pets and livestock for animals killed or injured by wolves?
Should wolves in agricultural and urban zones be treated differently than wolves in the northern forest?
These are among questions the DNR is submitting to the Wisconsin public as it prepares a five-year review of the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan adopted in 1999.
The purpose of the review is to gather public opinion before presenting an addendum to the plan. Those changes will be submitted to public hearings and the recommendations forwarded to the Natural Resources Board.
The 1999 plan called for a long-term goal of maintaining 350 wolves outside Indian reservations. At the start of 2004, before this year's pups were born, the DNR estimated there were 108 established wolfpacks in the state, consisting of 361 to 398 wolves plus 12 wolves on Native American lands.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials removed timber wolves from the endangered list in Wisconsin in 2003 and from the threatened list on July 16. Thus, management of wolves is reverting to the state in accordance with its 1999 plan, which requires regular five-year updates.
"We wish to assess how well the plan is working and to determine if portions of the plan need to be modified or new items need to be included," the DNR states at the top of its questionnaire.
"... We value you(r) input, and to assure that all are legitimate citizen comments, we will only consider comments when you include your name and address at the end of the questionnaire."
Timber wolves are found in most counties in the northern half of the state and in several public land areas in the central counties. Some livestock depredation traced to wolves has occurred in those areas.
The northern counties encompass the state's prime black bear, ruffed grouse and woodcock range. Hunters pursuing those game species have lost valuable hunting dogs to timber wolves, which have a tendency to pursue and kill large canids (including dogs and coyotes) that invade their territory.
In one of the latest wolf attacks, three bear hounds were killed Aug. 4 in the town of Shanagolden near Glidden in Ashland County.
According to Adrian Wydeven of Park Falls, a DNR wolf expert, this is the first time wolf depredation has been reported in the Shanagolden area, although wolves have been present for several years.
"The Shanagolden pack, with nine to 11 wolves, was one of the largest packs in the state,"Wydeven stated. "Average pack size was less than four."
He said wolves and pups are at rendezvous sites at this time of year but added it is not known if the wolves were protecting such a site.
"Hunters training bear hounds may want to stay away or exercise greater caution if they plan to train or hunt dogs in this area," Wydeven said.
Have your say
DNR officials are asking for responses to the wolf plan questionnaire by Aug. 31.
Copies of the questionnaire and wolf management plan can be obtained on the DNR Web site at dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/forms/wolfsurvey.asp or by mail from: Tim Cooke, Wolf Plan Questionnaire, ER/4, DNR, 101 S. Webster St., Box 7921, Madison WI 53707-7921.
Back to Latest Wolf News Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A History of Wisconsin's
Wolves
Associated Press/ from the Duluth News Tribune
7/16/04
A Wisconsin history of the gray wolf, also known as the timber wolf,
based on information from the state Department of Natural Resources:
1830s - Before white settlement, the wolf population is estimated
at 3,000 to 5,000.
1865 - Legislature passes bounty law, offering $5 each, after complaints
of wolves feeding on livestock. By then, native habitat of Wisconsin
has been transformed by farming and hunting, cutting the population
of deer, a common prey of wolves.
1900 - No timber wolves remain in the southern two-thirds of the
state. With deer hunting gaining popularity, state supports elimination
of wolves, bounties rise to $20 for adult wolves, $10 for pups.
1957 - Wolf bounties are lifted. By then, the state has spent millions
of public dollars to kill off the wolf population.
1974 - The wolf is granted protection under federal Endangered Species
Act. As the wolf population in Minnesota grows, some migrate into
Wisconsin in the mid 1970s and start new packs.
1975 - Wisconsin DNR declares wolves endangered.
1979 - Five wolf packs are identified in Wisconsin, with a total
of about 28 individuals.
1999 - State has about 200 wolves in 54 packs living in at least
20 counties.
May 2004 - DNR says its winter surveys show gray wolf population
has grown to about 400. Natural Resources Board has decided to remove
wolves from the threatened species list.
July 2004 - U.S. Interior Secretary Gale Norton says her department
will take the wolf off the federal endangered species list across
much of the eastern United States, including Wisconsin, Minnesota
and Michigan, with a final rule to be issued late in 2004 or early
in 2005.
Back to Latest Wolf News Menu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 24, 2004 From the Daily Press
By ADRIAN WYDEVEN
Some recent comments on wolves in northern Wisconsin have raised
concerns and have included misleading and incorrect information
on wolves in the state. Some have been somewhat inflammatory and
some appear almost hysterical. I would like to explain what is occurring
with wolves in the state and where people can get further information.
I would also like to alleviate unfounded concerns on wolves in the
state.
The current population of wolves is about 373 to 410 wolves across
the state, not including pups born in the spring. This includes
about 108 packs spread out across the heavily forested areas of
northern and central Wisconsin. Wolves were not reintroduced to
Wisconsin, but arrived here on their own. The population has grown
from animals that have naturally migrated into northwest Wisconsin
from Minnesota.
We do know that wolves kill livestock and the amount of depredation
on farms has increased in recent years. While this is an area of
concern, people need not be overly alarmed. The Wisconsin DNR is
not anti-farmer in its plans for wolf management. Both the 1989
recovery plan and the 1999 wolf management plan, provide extensive
coverage addressing concerns of farmers (http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/publications/wolfplan/toc.htm).
The DNR provides full compensation for all livestock and pets verified
as wolf depredation. Calves are paid for at feeder calf market value,
which can be two to three times the cost of replacement value at
the time of death. The DNR works closely with USDA-Wildlife Services
to help address possible wolf depredation situations on farms. If
either wolf or bear cause livestock depredation, the animals are
trapped from farms by USDA-Wildlife Services, and problem wolves
are euthanized.
Recently two wolves were trapped by USDA-Wildlife Services from
a farm near Mason, after three calves were killed on the farm. A
total of seven wolves have been trapped from farms in northern Wisconsin
so far this spring, and six have been euthanized. The DNR and USDA-Wildlife
Services are very concerned about eliminating wolves that enter
farm land and depredate on livestock. In 2003, 18 wolves were trapped
and removed from five farms.
It has been suggested by some that Wisconsin lacks suitable wolf
habitat because of large number of cattle live in the state, and
about 7,000 farms occur in northern Wisconsin. Until recently most
wolves settled onto wild land areas that were mostly wild forest
on county, state, federal and industrial forest. These public forests
had good deer and beaver numbers, and provided abundant food for
wolves. Wolves generally avoided farm land and areas with human
activity. In recent years some packs began to spend more time at
the edge of the forest near farms and pasture areas, as large wild
areas were filled up by wolf packs. Less than 10 percent of wolf
packs in the state generally cause depredations on livestock.
Some have suggested that the presence of wolves increases risk of
disease spread to cattle. There is very little evidence that this
is the case, and to some extent, the opposite may be true. Wolves
are very good at detecting weaknesses in prey animals. That does
not mean that wolves kill only the weak and sick, but normally they
will kill these debilitated animals before they kill healthy prey.
If sick animals exist in the deer herd, these will be the first
ones eliminated by wolves.
Chronic wasting disease, which is only known to affect elk and deer,
has not been detected in northern Wisconsin. Wolves and other predators,
may help reduce the spread of this disease into the deer herd, because
wolves will readily pick off sick animals and remove them from the
population. Wolves may also reduce the spread of other ruminant
disease such as bovine tuberculosis and leptospirosis, by eliminating
infected deer from the population. Most wolf kills occur in heavily
forested areas and are thoroughly utilized. These kills are also
consumed by bears, ravens, and various other birds and mammals.
The DNR and USDA-Wildlife Service are very dedicated to reducing
wolf depredation on farms. Through payments, trapping of problem
wolves, providing scare devices, and technical assistants, the two
agencies are attempting to reduce depredation on livestock. A pamphlet
on means to reduce wolf depredation and how to report wolf problems
is available electronically and an updated printed version will
soon be available (http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/mammals/wolf/wolvesinfarms.htm).
Farmers who believe they have had animals killed by wolves or are
seeking advice on ways to reduced risk of wolf losses can call USDA-Wildlife
Services at 1-800-228-1368.
Wolves pose little threat to people. Like all large wild animals,
wolves need to be respected, but the chance of an attack by wolves
are less than from bears, coyotes, deer, or the neighbor's dog.
Unless people are providing food for them, wolves normally remain
very shy and fearful of people.
The DNR Natural Resources Board voted in March 2004 to remove wolves
from the state list of threatened and endangered animals. When the
rules are published later this summer, state delisting will be complete,
but we still need to get federal delisting in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin
Wolf Management Plan passed in 1999 states that landowners will
be given authority to kill wolves on their land, as some have requested,
after state and federal delisting is completed. The DNR has been
working hard to encourage federal delisting. The federal delisting
proposal for starting the delisting process is currently in Washington
DC, waiting for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services to start that
process. Anyone interested in getting the process started can contact
their U.S. Congressmen and U.S. Senators and urge them to encourage
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to start the delisting process
for wolves in Wisconsin.
I urge people to not become overly concerned about wolves in Wisconsin.
Wolves are just one of many predators in the state. They have their
place in wildland areas, and if they move into farmland areas and
cause problems, they need to be removed. DNR and USDA-Wildlife Service
are working hard at minimizing any financial and emotional losses
due to wolves. Throughout the state, coyotes and dogs are responsible
for as much loss to livestock as wolves, and in northern Wisconsin
bears also causes similar losses. Therefore even if all wolves were
eliminated, predator losses would not go away.
I encourage people to base their opinions and attitudes toward wolves
by studying our web site, and other references on wolves, and avoid
making rash statement (http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/mammals/wolf/).
We certainly are proud and respectful of our farmers in northern
Wisconsin, who provide food for our homes, but many of us also feel
there are places in the Northwoods that we can share with wolves.
Mammalian ecologist Adrian Wydeven, works for the Wisconsin DNR
in Park Falls.
Back to Latest Wolf News Menu
----------------------------------------------------------------
By Jim Lee / Gannett Wisconsin Newspapers
5/23/2004
As Wisconsin's wolf population keeps growing, the animals continue to pop up in new and unexpected places.
"It was about the last thing I expected to see," said Bryon Buhse as he strolled through a wooded area on the outskirts of Wausau.
"I thought I might see a black bear--they've been seen around here--but not a wolf."
Buhse believes that he and his dog, Buster, encountered timber wolves on at least two occasions earlier this month in the same patch of woods within a mile of Wausau's city limits, just a few hundred yards from a rural subdivision.
"I walk my dog in this area often," he said while giving me a tour.
The property encompasses a mixture of timber types and age groups. It is surprisingly serene with a sense of remoteness despite its proximity to an urban area.
A small creek flows through the parcel and adjacent private lands. The contiguous forest is much larger, cobbled together in an erratic flow flanked by farm fields and suburban homes. Buck rubs and deer trails are common, as are hunters’ tree stands. An eager tom turkey gobbled twice in the distance during our mid-day hike. We flushed two ruffed grouse and could see signs of rabbits and squirrel activity.
Deer, a primary prey of wolves, are present in good numbers, largely due to restricted hunting, abundant food in nearby farm fields and, in the past, a tendency by a few landowners to put out feed during the winter months.
"On Tuesday (May 4), the dog went into that thicket and came running out as fast as he could,"Buhse said, pointing out a dark pocket of brush-filled evergreens. A gray wolf was right behind it.
"At first, I didn't recognize what it was. It saw me, turned and ran. My dog took off after it. "
"When they ran off, I heard howling and kind of a wailing, yapping noise. It was pretty intense. I wondered if I would ever see my dog again. After a while, I heard crashing and Buster chased the wolf within 50 feet of me."
Most dog-wolf contests are over quickly, ending in the wolf's favor and frequently, the dog's demise.
Buhse was fortunate. Buster is not a typical hunting dog or house pet.
"Buster is a mixture of Rottweiler, old English mastiff and pit bull," Buhse said. "He's 17 months old, weighs 120 pounds and is about 2 feet high at the shoulder, maybe higher. The wolf was about 6 inches higher at the shoulder."
There might have been a confrontation between dog and wolf. Buhse said when Buster returned, he had a small cut on his leg that could have come from a bite.
Three days later, Buhse went back "and a darker wolf ran out. The dog started chasing it but I called him back," he said.
"Again I heard that wailing noise. I walked to where the noise was coming from and suddenly there was a different wolf looking at me 40 yards away from the center of a thicket. It barked at me twice."
A day later, Buhse went back with a neighbor.
"I didn't see anything, but he said he saw something run off," Buhse said. "Then we heard that noise again. It was in between a whine and a howl. It was eerie."
Buhse believes the wolves were more concerned about the presence of the dog than the appearance of a human.
The first-time sighting might have been written off as a fluke occurrence, a chance meeting between hiker and a lone, wandering wolf. But when the scenario played out again, along with the appearance of a second wolf, Buhse considered the possibility that a den might have been established and pups born. He faced the prospect that a pack of wolves might be spending the summer in his neighborhood.
"My dog might be able to defend itself against one wolf, but against two, it probably wouldn't have much of a chance," he said.
"And I'm a little worried because kids occasionally come in here to play near the creek, and other people also walk their dogs here."
Buhse, who has access to only 40 acres of the much larger forested block, contacted the Department of Natural Resources to report his experience.
Rick Weide, DNR wildlife biologist for Marathon County, walked through a portion of the area with Buhse recently.
"There was not much evidence of wolves," Weide said. "I looked around for tracks, but we didn't see any sign. But this happens a lot. The animal is not there when I get there.
"I'm chalking it up as inconclusive. We'll have to wait and see if anyone else spots a wolf in that area."
It's possible, he said, that if the animals were timber wolves and had produced a litter of pups, the adults might have moved the den to another, less accessible location.
Weide said the state's wolf population, estimated at more than 400 animals, steadily is expanding southward.
"In the past three months, we've had three wolves hit by cars in Marathon and Portage counties," he said. "They definitely have been in this area.
"I never thought we'd get wolf packs established in Marathon County, but I've been wrong before."
Back to Latest Wolf News Menu
---------------------------------------------------------------
“Did you get a wolf permit this year?”
Summer 2004
From Mazina’Igan, page 9
By Peter David, GLIFWC Wildlife Biologist
The rebound in Wisconsin’s wolf population has some people wondering if this question might someday be legitimately asked in the state. Extirpated from Wisconsin soil less than a half century ago, the gray wolf has fought to regain its foothold here. In the mid 70’s, wolves from a Minnesota population (which had declined significantly itself) began slipping back into northwest Wisconsin, but between diseases and other sources of mortality, they found the early going tough. A decade later the population was estimated at just 15, and the passage of another eight years found it only at 40. Then, in a fairly classical display of a population growth this nucleus took off, displaying an average growth rate of roughly 28% over the next nine years and reaching 327 animals by 2002. Growth has since cooled, as many biologists expected, averaging about 6% overthe past two years, but this level has still been enough to bring the population intothe vicinity of 400 individuals this past winter.Now 400 animals, from some perspectives, is still not a great number.Distribute the same number of our own species across the 5,739 square mile areaconsidered “primary wolf habitat” in the state—lands which biological modelssuggest have a greater than 50% probability of being occupied by wolves—and wewould consider ourselves spread mighty thin. And the harvest of another largemammal found in the state—the black bear—has averaged about seven times the400 level in recent years. Still, this resurgence in the wolf population has beenwarmly welcomed by the Ojibwe community, who view the wolf (ma’iingan) asa brother with whom their fate is intertwined.But to some, including many livestock growers, 400 Wisconsin wolves ismore than enough . It is also, they note, above the 350 figure which the WisconsinDNR lists as its managment goal for the species. And thus the suggestion of a futurepublic take surfaces.No matter which side of the fence you are on, everyone with an interest in theissue realizes that this is nothing that could occur in