More deer killed by wolves than hunters in some Wisconsin counties

[Northwoods Labs]

Or there's not actually more deer. Wisconsin's population estimates are done using equations (developed in the 1960s) that take the actual buck harvest data and then apply various factors that account for buck-to-doe ratios and survival rates to arrive at a total population estimate. Seems like under or over estimating certain items like, ohhh I don't know, predator kill perhaps, would result in an inaccurate total population estimate.

I'm not saying its all the wolves fault, just that the WDNR has taken a lot of criticism over the last 10-15 years for what many feel are wildly inaccurate population estimates. Put your article and mine side-by-side (same author, written 2 weeks apart as a side note) and I think you can see where some of this criticism comes from.

OR: the timing of the season and weather were major factors. I hunt in these areas, and I can tell you that the pressure after the snowstorms we had were low. The pressure during the December antlerless season was zero besides me where I hunt. Only other guys out were hound hunters chasing coyotes

 

[Fsmith]

Interested in your comment, could you elaborate?

I didn't read this in entirety, so who knows what I missed. The first page did make it sound pretty rosy.

https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/documents/Deerfallforecast2019.pdf

Deer numbers I suspect are severely inflated. Numbers not jiving at the state level aren’t only limited to some western states. In northern Wisconsin deer numbers are as low if not lower than the years immediately following the severe winters in the late nineties. On my families private land as an example, in the mid 2000’s from the most productive stand on the farm watching trails between bedding and feeding areas 70-100 whitetail in an all day sit wasn’t out of the ordinary. Typical year 3-5 respectable bucks tagged off this one stand during the 9 day rifle season, been that way since the early 1980’s with the exception of the late 90’s. This year same location over the 9 day rifle 6 deer one of which was a spike, the only buck. In this region the private farm land always has been king when it comes to whitetail and it’s been more famine than not for hunters on the public grounds there. Many people I know from the area hunt both private and public almost all are having the same experience. This didn’t happen overnight we noticed the downward effect about 10 years ago. We restricted our harvest on the property. The wdnr denied wolves being in the state for years when people had them on cameras. I put zero faith in their system. Seems like the fix has been for the past 25 years, if worried about low deer density the state will issue more antlerless tags. Now living in Montana I’m afraid we’re going down the same road with Muleys.

 

[bluespruce]

OR: the timing of the season and weather were major factors. I hunt in these areas, and I can tell you that the pressure after the snowstorms we had were low. The pressure during the December antlerless season was zero besides me where I hunt. Only other guys out were hound hunters chasing coyotes

Well, do you think the whitetail population is really at an all time high?

 

[Northwoods Labs]

Well, do you think the whitetail population is really at an all time high?

The data is collected through the years and trends are determined. It is an estimate. What I "think" does not matter, and what happens on the few acres I hunt is not enough to state whether an estimate is right or wrong. I will agree that the density of deer in Wisconsin is certainly not evenly distributed across the landscape.

 

[SAJ-99]

sometimes you end up with large areas of prime wildlife habitat being largely unused.

Seriously? Any examples?
I largely agree with your premise (within the thread, not that last sentence) if you accept that humans are predators.The real debate, but no one wants to engage in it, is how to divide up the pie.

 

[mtmiller]

Don’t believe everything you read in the media!

Deer numbers I suspect are severely inflated. Numbers not jiving at the state level aren’t only limited to some western states. In northern Wisconsin deer numbers are as low if not lower than the years immediately following the severe winters in the late nineties.

Seems like the fix has been for the past 25 years, if worried about low deer density the state will issue more antlerless tags.

Gotcha. Not an issue with the media, just the lying DNR.

 

[JLS]

Predator control IS HABITAT IMPROVEMENT.

No it's not. When you look at the purest definition of habitat, it's "The area or natural environment in which an organism or population normally lives. A habitat is made up of physical factors such as soil, moisture, range of temperature, and availability of light as well as biotic factors such as the availability of food and the presence of predators.

It's rather disingenuous to suggest that removing a predator is a habitat improvement, given all of the intricacies that go into a given habitat.

Also, I'm not sure your recollection of Lewis (sic) and Clark finding huge areas devoid of wildlife is entirely accurate. I know everyone likes to use the Bitterroot crossing as the poster child of this, but let's not forget the Lochsa and Selway herds were absolutely famous following the stand clearing fires of the early and mid 1900's. The reason there may have been very few elk could have simply been a point in time in the interval of fire succession.

 

[JLS]

How many corn ear worms, tomato horn worms, aphids, and squash bugs would you like on your garden? Enough to eat more of your garden than you eat? If you’re okay with that, it’s probably because you at least have the option to go buy your produce. That produce comes from someone who controls all of those pests.

So, we are comparing a personal crop on (I'm assuming here) private property. Obviously, the person investing in the crop will likely do what they can to maximize their yield in a sustainable manner. While you can attempt to make an analogy here with wildlife management, you are now dealing with a resource (not a crop), held in public trust, that utilizes a variety of landscapes. Is our goal to maximize our wildlife yield? If so, at what cost?

I would love for someone to buy a few cattle and chickens, and plant a garden in the middle of wolf country, avoid putting up any barrier to protect against predators, avoid shooting predators, avoid any kind of pest control in their garden, never consume any food product that doesn’t come from their very own livestock and garden, and see how long they stick it out. Remember, no protective fencing or shelter, no trapping or killing, no control or deterrent of any kind. You can’t “begrudge other living things the right to eat”.

Again, you are drawing parallels between commercial endeavors and a public resource. Not to mention, the scenario you just painted would be stupid if the goal is to produce a commercial crop. The "begrudge other living things the right to eat" is simply a red herring argument here, because it has ALWAYS been held a person has the right to protect the property from damage. Show me a state that does not allow a person to kill virtually any predator for preying or attempting to prey on their livestock.

The goal of wildlife management is not to produce a commercial crop. It is to manage for sustainable populations within the confines of the habitat. If you want maximum numbers of deer, go to a game farm.

People conveniently forget the Public Trust Doctrine does not allocate ownership of the wildlife to hunters. It allocates it to ALL of us, and for every person who thinks we should kill more wolves so we in turn have more deer to shoot, there is someone else who thinks if you can't kill a deer because of the wolves, tough shit.

 

[JLS]

I’m sure such tactics win some arguments at the bar or in the locker room, but they’re not likely to win many debates judged by an educated and sober committee.

I don't argue in the bar or locker room, and I've had the opportunity to discuss wildlife management with a number of highly educated, very respected, and completely sober wildlife professionals. Actually, one of them was Ed Bangs, and we had a wonderful, respectful, and pragmatic conversation by a campfire in elk country, both of us completely sober.

Deer and elk habitat are limited, therefore deer and elk populations are limited.

Habitats are limited, but more importantly they are constantly changing, either for better or worse.

That said, there is no getting around the fact that a certain level of mortality caused by predation will decrease the allowable mortality caused by hunters. The questions are, how much should we accept, and how much are we willing to accept.

At least now we are truly getting down to the reality that we don't NEED to manage wolves, we WANT to so we have more deer to shoot.

I could easily be missing it, but when I hear from the wolf and grizzly crowd, there are a few things I never hear. How many deer or elk tags will we lose as a result of their increased populations? How many deer and elk tags will be considered too many and result in a change of the wolf or grizzly management plan?

Yes, you're missing it. Personally speaking, I have never said deer or elk numbers would not decrease with a higher presence of predators. At a certain point though, I think it's worth asking is it a legitimate reason to suppress predators so we have more deer to shoot, or should we be focusing our efforts on ways to improve forest succession, reduce the impacts of highways, restore migration routes that have been altered, and so on. How many deer die a year on highways? Do we need to manage cars?

We've altered many of our ecosystems, and quite honestly, I feel we have some obligation to try and restore them as much as we can. That certainly comes at a cost, and there is no doubt the success of wolf reintroduction in the Rocky Mountains came on the coattails of the success story of the PR Act and conservation efforts by sportsman. There is no doubt the wolf population in the Great Lakes is thriving because of strong deer numbers. It seems many are only conservationists when it directly benefits them.

 

[Fsmith]

Gotcha. Not an issue with the media, just the lying DNR.

Well the state did pay Dr. Deer to come in to “fix” the system, yet his study was ignored. So yeah laugh it up!

 

[ImBillT]

No it's not. When you look at the purest definition of habitat, it's "The area or natural environment in which an organism or population normally lives. A habitat is made up of physical factors such as soil, moisture, range of temperature, and availability of light as well as biotic factors such as the availability of food and the presence of predators.

It's rather disingenuous to suggest that removing a predator is a habitat improvement, given all of the intricacies that go into a given habitat.

Also, I'm not sure your recollection of Lewis (sic) and Clark finding huge areas devoid of wildlife is entirely accurate. I know everyone likes to use the Bitterroot crossing as the poster child of this, but let's not forget the Lochsa and Selway herds were absolutely famous following the stand clearing fires of the early and mid 1900's. The reason there may have been very few elk could have simply been a point in time in the interval of fire succession.

In the definition of habitat “natural environment” includes other organisms present in that environment. Improvement is relative to perspective. From the perspective of elk and thipredator control IS an improvement in their “natural environment“.

If you can find anywhere that I’ve said that anyone found a place that was completely void of game, I’ll be impressed, because I didn’t say it. Stop changing my words.

 

[JLS]

Hate to break it to you, but we have intruded on nature far too much for that to work. That hardly works anywhere in the continent of North America, thats why we adopted a model of conservation referred to the North American model. You have to regulate and control all species in a an ecosystem, especially when they do not have any predators or anything that controls them themselves. Nature can not control nature anymore when there are towns every couple of miles, roads cutting and dividing everything, and houses all over; when animals are then confined by these spaces. The whole idea of let nature do nature has never worked and never will work, humans live on the plant too and are apart of ecosystems as well. Everything needs to be regulated when we grown and covered so much.

Hate to break it to you, but your statements are not factually correct.

We adopted the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation to provide for equal and public ownership and interest in our wildlife resources, and make them off limits for commercial exploitation.

In many ways, the North American Model started as a direct response to the European system of elite ownership. Unlike the feudal European model of landed gentry having exclusive ownership of wildlife, the American model establishes that wildlife is not ‘owned’ by anyone. Instead, the government manages wildlife in trust as a sustainable resource for all of its citizens, regardless of whether they are consumptive (ie. hunters, fishermen, etc.) or non-consumptive users. For the consumptive users, an extensive system regulates the controlled harvest of game, fish, and foraged plants as renewable resources, while also promoting the wellbeing of the larger ecosystem.

The notion we have to regulate and control every animal is the paramount of arrogance. Nature can control nature just fine. The problem is that doesn't fit within existing paradigms. The notion we must control everything and nature taking it's course doesn't work is why we have vast forest systems that are dying from disease, further degrading wildlife habitat.

This quote is also one of the seven sisters of the North American Model, it's worth inserting.

Perhaps the most important tenet, this stipulates that wildlife management and policy must be based on sound scientific evidence. Special interests and emotional/sentimental arguments are not grounds for consideration. Policy and practices must serve the best interests of the ecosystem, while taking into account the needs of the various stakeholders. A scientific basis also ensures that the management plan is adaptable as conditions change and as new data and research emerges. This directly influences hunting and fishing seasons, bag limits, manner of taking, and other regulations.

I have a hard time believing the best thing for the ecosystem is intensive predator control so we can maximize the number of deer we shoot.

 

[JLS]

In the definition of habitat “natural environment” includes other organisms present in that environment. Improvement is relative to perspective. From the perspective of elk and thipredator control IS an improvement in their “natural environment“.

If you can find anywhere that I’ve said that anyone found a place that was completely void of game, I’ll be impressed, because I didn’t say it. Stop changing my words.

My bad Bill

Louis and Clark saw very little game in areas where it is abundant today.

What areas were you referencing here?

 

[JLS]

From the perspective of elk hunters who don't want competition and thipredator control IS an improvement in their “natural environment“.

Fixed it for you. Do you really think the elk gives hoot if they end up cougar shit or get flushed down a toilet? I doubt it.

 

[ImBillT]

I’m referencing the difference between

My bad Bill



What areas were you referencing here?

“very little” and “void”

 

[ImBillT]

Fixed it for you. Do you really think the elk gives hoot if they end up cougar shit or get flushed down a toilet? I doubt it.

I guess elk like predators.

 

[JLS]

I’m referencing the difference between

“very little” and “void”

I was asking for a geographical area.

 

[JLS]

I guess elk like predators.

I'm not saying they do Bill. Answer my question. Do you think they care how they die? And, relating that back to your "habitat improvement", did you really improve the habitat or just exchange one predator for another? Let's be honest here and cut through the BS. The reality is you didn't improve the habitat, you just hopefully improved the odds you filled your elk tag.

 

[ImBillT]

I'm not saying they do Bill. Answer my question. Do you think they care how they die? And, relating that back to your "habitat improvement", did you really improve the habitat or just exchange one predator for another? Let's be honest here and cut through the BS. The reality is you didn't improve the habitat, you just hopefully improved the odds you filled your elk tag.

Im sure they care IF they die. Hunter harvest is controlled, wolf kills are not. Hunting season is limited. Wolves hunt 24/7/365.

 

[BrentD]

Fixed it for you. Do you really think the elk gives hoot if they end up cougar shit or get flushed down a toilet? I doubt it.

It may not matter to them dead, but it does matter to them alive, which is the point that is continually avoided.