Keep Protecting The Wolves?

[buck460XVR]

Wolves were reintroduced in Wisconsin in the mid 1970s at about the same time Wild Turkeys were reintroduced. We are going on 50 years!

Again, wolves were not reintroduced in Wisconsin. They repopulated themselves by migration from the U.P. and Minnesota, where they were not eradicated like the wolves here in Wisconsin. Wild Turkeys were first reintroduced in the 1950s in the Meadow Valley Wildlife area. The were stocked form a Pennsylvania game farm from 1954-1957. There was even a season on them back then. The problem was the turkeys introduced, were susceptible to Black Head and were affected by the severe winters of the late 50s. When the Missouri strain of Wild Turkeys were introduced in the 70s, they took off like wildfire. The reintroduction of disease resistant strains and the stocking in Ag land helped tremendously. Yet the first two Toms I shot in the early 80s, were descendants from the original stocking in the 50s. Many of those shot in the old Zone 9 at that time were. I would regularly come across tracks during the deer gun season there, and would get the crap scared out of me, when going to a deer stand in the dark back in the 60s and 70s. This was long before we traded grouse for turkeys with Missouri.

I saw my first wolf in the Meadow Valley State forest in 1979. Where the wolves were introduced.

The wolves were there in Meadow Valley, not because they were introduced there, but because it is part of a large tract of undivided forest, that includes not only Meadow Valley, but the Necedah Wildlife refuge, the Black River State forest and the Fort McCoy military installation. These areas have few areas of human habitation and good populations of preferred food. Dick Thiel, the premier authority on wolves here in the Midwest, lived here and I knew him and his family. I also knew the biologist at Fort McCoy at that time. Both confirmed that wolves were here much longer than most folks realized and again, the wolves reintroduced themselves, with no human intervention. While here was no human reintroduction, there was what was called "wolf recovery program" to help them re-establish themselves.

Denial, not just a river in Egypt. I've had dogs kill livestock multiple times.

While I have never had any depredation on domestic animals by wolves, I have have dogs(both the neighbors and feral) kill and harass domesticated livestock. I have alsomwitness them chasing deer and preying on fawns. Here in Wisconsin, by law, a person may intentionally kill a dog if a domestic animal that is owned or in the custody of the person is threatened with serious bodily harm by the dog. One cannot kill a dog if they witness them chasing deer though, which at one time was a common practice. Now you have to inform the authorities and they will determine of the dog needs to be put down. One also cannot assume a dog is feral and kill them, unless they arwitnessed attacking adomestic animal or unless given permision by the local autorities.

 

[WisBorn]

Again, wolves were not reintroduced in Wisconsin. They repopulated themselves by migration from the U.P. and Minnesota, where they were not eradicated like the wolves here in Wisconsin. Wild Turkeys were first reintroduced in the 1950s in the Meadow Valley Wildlife area. The were stocked form a Pennsylvania game farm from 1954-1957. There was even a season on them back then. The problem was the turkeys introduced, were susceptible to Black Head and were affected by the severe winters of the late 50s. When the Missouri strain of Wild Turkeys were introduced in the 70s, they took off like wildfire. The reintroduction of disease resistant strains and the stocking in Ag land helped tremendously. Yet the first two Toms I shot in the early 80s, were descendants from the original stocking in the 50s. Many of those shot in the old Zone 9 at that time were. I would regularly come across tracks during the deer gun season there, and would get the crap scared out of me, when going to a deer stand in the dark back in the 60s and 70s. This was long before we traded grouse for turkeys with Missouri.


The wolves were there in Meadow Valley, not because they were introduced there, but because it is part of a large tract of undivided forest, that includes not only Meadow Valley, but the Necedah Wildlife refuge, the Black River State forest and the Fort McCoy military installation. These areas have few areas of human habitation and good populations of preferred food. Dick Thiel, the premier authority on wolves here in the Midwest, lived here and I knew him and his family. I also knew the biologist at Fort McCoy at that time. Both confirmed that wolves were here much longer than most folks realized and again, the wolves reintroduced themselves, with no human intervention. While here was no human reintroduction, there was what was called "wolf recovery program" to help them re-establish themselves.


While I have never had any depredation on domestic animals by wolves, I have have dogs(both the neighbors and feral) kill and harass domesticated livestock. I have alsomwitness them chasing deer and preying on fawns. Here in Wisconsin, by law, a person may intentionally kill a dog if a domestic animal that is owned or in the custody of the person is threatened with serious bodily harm by the dog. One cannot kill a dog if they witness them chasing deer though, which at one time was a common practice. Now you have to inform the authorities and they will determine of the dog needs to be put down. One also cannot assume a dog is feral and kill them, unless they arwitnessed attacking adomestic animal or unless given permision by the local autorities.

Sorry, you are right they moved in from MN & MI. I thought that they moved some of those wolves down from northern WI to central WI.
MO turkeys in the 70s is why we have good numbers as you mentioned.

 

[H&Hhunter]

Those who say they want to see the wolf protected need to consider that wolves are better off being managed using proven wildlife conservation tools.

That way their numbers are kept in check and your state wildlife agency has a say in their management and general balance within the local environment. Having them federally protected and untouchable is a recipe for disdain, hatred and loss of the ability to properly control the various wildlife population within the area.

That is a long winded way to say they need a properly regulated wolf hunting season. Like they’ve done in several western states.

 

[WisBorn]

Those who say they want to see the wolf protected need to consider that wolves are better off being managed using proven wildlife conservation tools.

That way their numbers are kept in check and your state wildlife agency has a say in their management and general balance within the local environment. Having them federally protected and untouchable is a recipe for disdain, hatred and loss of the ability to properly control the various wildlife population within the area.

That is a long winded way to say they need a properly regulated wolf hunting season. Like they’ve done in several western states.

Well said!

 

[H&Hhunter]

I think people confuse the term “protected” pulling a species off the federally protected list and dropping them into the state wildlife management pool doesn’t mean they are going to be wiped out

Whitetail deer are “protected” in that they are managed by the state wildlife authority. The same would happen with wolves in Wisconsin.

 

[WisBorn]

I think people confuse the term “protected” pulling a species off the federally protected list and dropping them into the state wildlife management pool does mean they are going to be wiped out

Whitetail deer are “protected” in that they are managed by the state wildlife authority. The same would happen with wolves in Wisconsin.

The State of Wisconsin has had wolf seasons in the past!

 

[buck460XVR]

The State of Wisconsin has had wolf seasons in the past!

We have had 4. Once the state agreed we had too many and when they were delisted.

Whitetail deer are “protected” in that they are managed by the state wildlife authority. The same would happen with wolves in Wisconsin.

The state managed the hunts well, going with a quota, instead of a specific closing date. That way, they could assure that the amount of wolves they wanted harvested got harvested. and that not substantially more than their intended quota would be taken.
Tags were given out by draw from hunters that submitted an application and paid a fee. Limited hunters and limited quota. Success rate was high especially for dog hunters. This is a clip from a DNR report from the last season in '21.

The hunt, which lasted just three days, saw hunters and trappers kill 216 wolves, exceeding the state-licensed quota of 119 by 82%.

 

[Random 8]

Wolves were reintroduced in Wisconsin in the mid 1970s at about the same time Wild Turkeys were reintroduced. We are going on 50 years!

I saw my first wolf in the Meadow Valley State forest in 1979. Where the wolves were introduced.
I don't have a problem with the wolves. I do have a problem with the Federal Government not allowing the state to manage the population. A season on wolves is needed in my state. The last time Wisconsin had a season they targeted reducing the numbers by 119. Within a few days hunters shot 218!
This in itself is showing a problem.

Overall very little livestock has been killed by wolves in the state. In most cases farmers have been compensated for their loss. If your dog or cat was killed by wolves shame on you! More pets are killed by coyotes than wolves!!!! Are you hunting coyotes?

It's my understanding that WIs wolf population grew out of migration from MN, that they were never actively stocked

 

[Highland Lofts]

Game departments do stuff behind closed doors.

 

[Terry G]

Leave 'em alone! They gotta eat too.

 

[Highland Lofts]

When the wolves move in the deer disapear

 

[H&Hhunter]

Leave 'em alone! They gotta eat too.

So do deer, should they be left alone too?

 

[horsemen61]

How’s your deer population doing?

This right here I’d way rather see deer than a wolf or hear some nonsense “well their were Wolves here 100 years ago so let’s bring em back” I can tell you for a fact if I saw a wolf or a mountain lion some large predator I’m all for putting it down plain and simple

 

[bearcreek]

I know that's what a lot of people have said. For a fact, no.

Yeah, folks say the same thing about the wolves here in the northern Rockies too. No one seems to be able to back up the statement with verifiable information. They just keep spreading the idea without having any clue if it's actually true. It doesn't really make much sense. I live closer to the area in Canada where the wolves were trapped to re-introduce to Yellowstone than I do to Yellowstone and yet folks claim that these wolves that have made their way north from Yellowstone are somehow vastly different than the ones that were here originally. The climate, prey animals, terrain and vegetation are essentially the same. There's no logical reason that I can see that the original wolves in this area (or in the northern great lakes region) would have been significantly different than the ones from a few hundred miles north. The wolves could have traveled that distance themselves in less than a week if they'd had the notion, and a few were already doing so. We would have had them here anyway eventually. It just would have taken longer.

 

[CraigC]

Yeah, folks say the same thing about the wolves here in the northern Rockies too. No one seems to be able to back up the statement with verifiable information. They just keep spreading the idea without having any clue if it's actually true. It doesn't really make much sense. I live closer to the area in Canada where the wolves were trapped to re-introduce to Yellowstone than I do to Yellowstone and yet folks claim that these wolves that have made their way north from Yellowstone are somehow vastly different than the ones that were here originally. The climate, prey animals, terrain and vegetation are essentially the same. There's no logical reason that I can see that the original wolves in this area (or in the northern great lakes region) would have been significantly different than the ones from a few hundred miles north. The wolves could have traveled that distance themselves in less than a week if they'd had the notion, and a few were already doing so. We would have had them here anyway eventually. It just would have taken longer.

Whether they were or not is really immaterial. What is material is the effect they had on elk herds and livestock. The lives of the people who have to live with them and deal with effects.

 

[bearcreek]

Whether they were or not is really immaterial. What is material is the effect they had on elk herds and livestock. The lives of the people who have to live with them and deal with effects.

It is sort of an important distinction though, since that narrative is often used to justify the elimination of the species. A lot of people, even people who "have to live with them" (like me) aren't entirely comfortable with the idea of wiping an entire species from the earth. Saying that the wolves are some sort of "super wolf" that is different than what was here before helps folks to justify that elimination.

There is no question that the wolves have had an effect. Whether or not they have had as much of an effect as folks want to think they have is up for debate. Several factors coincided with the re-introduction that have had significant detrimental effects on big game populations. We had several very bad winters that decimated the elk and deer herds, ATV use has exploded since then and thousands of miles of new roads have gone in. Roads allow wolves to travel much further distances much faster than they could before and ATV's allow for far greater pressure from humans on elk and deer, both during hunting season and, perhaps more importantly, during calving season in the spring when the elk are at their most vulnerable.

The biggest killer of elk and deer is black bears. A huge percentage of their diet in the spring, when they're teaching their cubs to forage, is calves and fawns. Lions are second, wolves third. Wolves get blamed more because they're the newest kid on the block.

Again, we would have been in the same situation regardless of whether or not the wolves were reintroduced here. We're too close to the places where they were never fully exterminated for them not to have eventually made it here. The only way that they were eliminated before was through the use of full time, government funded trappers using poison, killing everything that came to a bait site. There's no way that that sort of thing would be accepted by society today.

I'm all for management of wolves. They should be managed like any other game animal. I have yet to get one myself, but I buy a tag every year and would not hesitate to shoot one (or two or four) if the opportunity presented itself. I'd love to be trapping them too, but don't have the time at this point in my life.

 

[Highland Lofts]

Please find the time and take out as many as you can.

 

[bearcreek]

Please find the time and take out as many as you can.

If you'd like to contribute financially, I'd be happy to.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Protected or not, there are plenty of local people will and do "take care of" wolves in their neighborhood.

 

[WisBorn]

Protected or not, there are plenty of local people will and do "take care of" wolves in their neighborhood.

This is true.

 

[Random 8]

Protected or not, there are plenty of local people will and do "take care of" wolves in their neighborhood.

Here in Northern MN, they seem to suffer significant mortality from lead poisoning.

 

[WisBorn]

Here in Northern MN, they seem to suffer significant mortality from lead poisoning.

Eating gut piles right

 

[buck460XVR]

Game departments do stuff behind closed doors.

Some types of folks love conspiracy theories. Here in Wisconsin, those types claim that the Deer Tick was introduced to rid the state of deer. Yet Deer ticks do not kill deer. The Species was first identified in Northern Wisconsin in the 60s, mainly because that was where the highest density of deer was at that time. They moved down as the deer did to the more agricultural areas of the state. No conspiracy. Similar to the migration of wolves to the state. Again those folks claim the DNR introduced them to kill off all the deer in the state, yet most intelligent folks know the truth. What gets me, is that these folks want us to believe that the DNR wants to eradicate deer and destroy deer hunting. Yet deer hunting is a financial boon to the state and has a long and cherished history and tradition here. Why would they shoot themselves in the foot?

When the wolves move in the deer disapear

Deer, like the elk out west, get more leery and disperse more, to help themselves survive with the wolves. This makes them harder to find for human predators too. WisBorn has stated he saw his first wolf in the Meadow Valley Wildlife area in 1979. I hunted that area in 1979 and I still hunt it today. Has some of the highest wolf densities in the state and yet there are more deer there now, than there was in the 70s. This is because of better enforcement against poaching, better antlerless tag management and choices made by hunters themselves. Instead of disappearing, they have thrived. I hear this statement all the time from unsuccessful deer hunters. "All I saw today was wolf tracks....not a single deer track. The wolves have eaten them all!". But, why would the wolves still be there hunting, if there were no deer to hunt? Maybe those hunters need to get away from the road and walking trails. The other statement I hear all the time is "I saw one deer all season and I shot it!". Why would any responsible hunter, if they truly wanted us to believed there was only one deer left in the area, shoot it?

Please find the time and take out as many as you can.

Protected or not, there are plenty of local people will and do "take care of" wolves in their neighborhood.

If it is legal to do so, I have no issue with it. I have always endorsed a legitimate hunting season on them in order to keep their numbers in check and to keep their fear of humans and being around human habitation. Hunting only makes them warier and harder to hunt though, so good luck getting them all. In areas where it is not legal, its called poaching. Gotta love it when poachers on Social Media pound their chests and brag about their illegal deeds. Never understood the philosophy of responsible Social Media platforms that allow it and the promotion of such. Old Game Warden friend of mine always told me, "Poachers don't stop with one species. If they poach deer out of season, they catch walleyes out of season and/or keep undersized fish. They don't follow other regulations and they don't respect property lines." IME, this is Gospel. I have nothing but loathing for Poachers and have nothing but the same for those that endorse them. Anyone can poach, it's generally easy. Kinda why those types of folks do it.

 

[CraigC]

It is sort of an important distinction though, since that narrative is often used to justify the elimination of the species. A lot of people, even people who "have to live with them" (like me) aren't entirely comfortable with the idea of wiping an entire species from the earth.

They're not wiping them out from the face of the earth. Just removing an introduced species from their back yard.

There's also a lot of justification from the folks who support their re-introduction. Probably a smattering of truth and lies on both sides.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

If it is legal to do so, I have no issue with it. I have always endorsed a legitimate hunting season on them in order to keep their numbers in check and to keep their fear of humans and being around human habitation. Hunting only makes them warier and harder to hunt though, so good luck getting them all. In areas where it is not legal, its called poaching. Gotta love it when poachers on Social Media pound their chests and brag about their illegal deeds. Never understood the philosophy of responsible Social Media platforms that allow it and the promotion of such. Old Game Warden friend of mine always told me, "Poachers don't stop with one species. If they poach deer out of season, they catch walleyes out of season and/or keep undersized fish. They don't follow other regulations and they don't respect property lines." IME, this is Gospel. I have nothing but loathing for Poachers and have nothing but the same for those that endorse them. Anyone can poach, it's generally easy. Kinda why those types of folks do it.

A poacher someone that shoots a big buck in the middle of the night or kills 3 limits of ducks in a day.
Killing an apex predator in your own neighborhood is not in the same category.
I have never killed a wolf, lack of opportunity is the only reason.

Hunting only makes them warier and harder to hunt though, so good luck getting them all.

Then you should have no worries.