More deer killed by wolves than hunters in some Wisconsin counties

[BWALKER77]

Wow it was later change than I thought it was, "2015" about 20 years after you mentioned per the extreme winters in 1995. We also had some very bad winters prior to 2015 that drove the request for this change. I also believe the intent was to help the Lake Superior water shed deer yarding complexes due to the increased amount of snow vs the Central and Southern yarding complexes.

View attachment 126075

The yards along superior around marquette have been browsed out since before 1995. The area around Harlow lake is still used as a yard, but only because of supplemental feeding. Not sure if that has stopped because of CWD or not?
As you mentioned there where a couple of bad winters after 95-97, but honestly the damage was done by then.

 

[BWALKER77]

I get the feeling that some of you guys morn the fact you were born as a human.
Of course we should manage wildlife to provide for maximum harvests for humans all the while providing for viable, but not overly abundant predator populations.

 

[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.

I did not exchange one predator for another. I’m suggesting that we manage wolves to keep the status quo(generally) in regard to game populations. You’re exchanging one for another by suggesting that we allow the wolf population to increase if it continues to do so even if it reduces tags, and the wolf that your exchanging for a hunter kills all year long. Hunters and hunting pressure are dramatically limited compared to wolves.

I don’t actually think that game populations should be the ONLY management criteria for wolves, but I do think that it should be included, and an important one. Means and methods should only be limited if they are allowing wolf harvest to be excessive.

 

[ImBillT]

I was asking for a geographical area.

But only after you changed my numerical value, which you assumed I’d accept.

 

[JLS]

But only after you changed my numerical value, which you assumed I’d accept.

Actually Bill, it was not an intentional change I assumed you would accept. It was a misread sentence and I acknowledged my mistake, quoting what you actually said. Now, quit being a victim and answer the question.

 

[tzone]

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

We don't hunt all that far from Danbury. The pressure was almost non-existent, even before the storm. There are always a few groups that do some drives but that's it. Shots were way down and so was deer sightings by our group of 5. Typically I see the most deer and I think I saw 2, both does. My son saw 5 or 6 and only one was a buck, one of the other kids saw 3 does I think. That's it. We hunted 7 of the 9 days.

There are a few woof tracks around, but most are coyotes and bear.

 

[SAJ-99]

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

While true, this omits some key variables. Lewis and Clark did hit areas that were largely devoid of game and it was due to predators. The predators were human - native americans. Lewis referenced such and historical review and knowledge of the movements of plains indians across the landscape confirms. This has been studied extensively, so we can't take the point completely out of context in the discussion. Another key factor is, at that time, the native americans (and later pioneers) hunted for subsistence, 365 days per year and they were not picky in what they killed. What they didn't kill they certainly drove out of the area. When they started to run low on food, they moved on to other areas with more game.

It certainly is a fact that humans can impact animal populations. The lack of game in the early 20th century led to the conservation movement we have today. We almost totally eliminated the wolf in the lower 48 the first time by shooting, trapping, poisoning, and raiding dens and killing pups year-round. It is certainly up for debate as to whether modern hunters can impact a population under current regulations of hunting seasons and tag/harvest constraints. The conservation season on snow geese is a perfect example. The geese learned to utilize our changes to the habitat and the population exploded. Now, even after 20years of extended seasons with e-callers, plug less shotguns, and no limits, the season carries on because it hasn't had much of an impact. The few years Wisconsin had a wolf season the limits were set at a level intended to reduce population, and 650 wolves or so were killed, so maybe that was enough to reduce the population if it had continued. Hard to say.

The bottom line is that we as humans are arrogant. We think it is our right to manage and exploit all natural resources and we think we can do so with perfect foresight. Unfortunately, we usually just screw things up. More recent studies have show that when hunters/trappers kill the lead members of the pack, the pack usually disbands and depredation of livestock increases. So hunters might feel like they are making a difference, but they might just be irritating another stakeholder who has a loud voice in the conversation.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I get the feeling that some of you guys morn the fact you were born as a human.
Of course we should manage wildlife to provide for maximum harvests for humans all the while providing for viable, but not overly abundant predator populations.

I get the feeling some folks don't really care about wildlife management & conservation unless they get something out of it. But I'm glad we're finally being honest with each other that the predator control people are really just about themselves, and not about the betterment of habitat & wildlife for future generations.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Do you believe that the greatly reduced elk numbers in YNP and MT hunting district 316 is caused by habitat loss?

That is a function of over harvest of cow elk to fit legislatively mandated populations, some winter range loss due to subdivision, and a variety of other issues that extend beyond predation, which does have a an effect, but as we've seen with limited cow harvest in that region, the herd is returning to above objective.

The idea that the Northern Herd was healthy at 15,000 animals ignores every thing we know about the habitat condition, carrying capacity & social tolerance of the landowners who had to deal with that surplus of elk.

 

[JLS]

That is a function of over harvest of cow elk to fit legislatively mandated populations, some winter range loss due to subdivision, and a variety of other issues that extend beyond predation, which does have a an effect, but as we've seen with limited cow harvest in that region, the herd is returning to above objective.

The idea that the Northern Herd was healthy at 15,000 animals ignores every thing we know about the habitat condition, carrying capacity & social tolerance of the landowners who had to deal with that surplus of elk.

Let's also not conveniently forget the age structure of those herds was completely upside down in the late 90's and early 2000's, and calf recruitment was already in the tank. Couple that with shooting the piss out of them each year on the winter range, add a rapidly growing wolf population, and it isn't too hard to figure out why the regrowth of those herds has been slow. So I say to an educated and sober committee......

 

[ImBillT]

Actually Bill, it was not an intentional change I assumed you would accept. It was a misread sentence and I acknowledged my mistake, quoting what you actually said. Now, quit being a victim and answer the question.

I’ve been out of pocket for a few hours.

I don’t know any specific locations or game numbers, but I’ve heard Steve Rinella mention that expedition specifically and talk about lower numbers of game in areas than in those same areas today. I’ve also heard guests on that podcast and other that were presented as subject matter experts who would get into shifting baseline theory and the like that would also suggest that there are game animals at lower numbers now than in the past, but also game animals that are at higher numbers. Also it appears that while many animals are at lower populations on a national level, they are at higher populations at many local levels. The two time frames often mentioned are the point of European contact(because we all know the poor starving natives couldn’t kill anything) and the Louis and Clark expedition. If you evidence suggesting those things are incorrect, I’ll certainly accept it. I really should not have cited that supposed situation(whether my understanding is correct or not)as direct evidence of what happens when predator populations aren’t controlled for a few reasons. Game populations at those times really aren’t known, and the factors controlling them go well beyond just predator populations.

The point I am attempting to make is that adding poorly controlled or uncontrolled predators to a habitat does not increase the number of game animals that exist in that habitat. If you’re aware of a situation in which adding wolves to a habitat directly increased elk/deer numbers, I think everyone here would like to learn about it.

Yes, I prefer to manage game animals for human benefit. I want to eat game meat, which means that I need tags. I also would prefer that other humans have the opportunity go harvest game meat as well, because I’d rather they had the opportunity to experience hunting, and to feed their family wild and free ranging meat instead of eating cage raised chickens who had their heads stuffed in a funnel before their meat was mechanically separated and pressed into chicken nuggets so that the consumer can call me a murderer.

I’m not an expert game manager, but you don’t have to be an expert to know that there is an awful lot of talk in the hunting community about putting more elk in the woods and more sheep on the mountain, and that putting more wolves in the woods does nothing to put more elk in the woods.

If anyone is okay with putting more wolves in the woods at the cost of tags, I would prefer that it was THEIR tag that gets cut, not mine. If someone wants to “share”game with wolves, it should be them who shares, not me. If they want to “share” with wolves, then they should not harvest or eat any game meat this year, and they should not harvest two year’s worth of game meat next year. If predator populations cause a decrease in game populations and hunting opportunity, then it is those hunters who claim to be okay with that outcome that should experience that loss.

 

[ImBillT]

So I say to an educated and sober committee......

Just to be clear, when I suggested that a previous method of argument might play well in such an environment, it was not a suggestion that you couldn’t argue at a higher level, but rather to point that the statement in question wouldn’t work at higher level. Just saying that it was an attack on that particular statement, not you, and not everything you ever did or ever will say.

 

[BuzzH]

The only point you've made is that once again, its not about proper conservation of wild places and wildlife, but YOUR personal needs as a hunter.

Conservation isn't just about the critters you can run a hook or bullet through, and was never the intent.

You'll never get it...

 

[ImBillT]

Actually Bill, it was not an intentional change I assumed you would accept. It was a misread sentence and I acknowledged my mistake, quoting what you actually said. Now, quit being a victim and answer the question.

Well, such a change is a dirty argumentative tactic often employed intentionally. Just make a minor change to the other person’s statement that makes it easier to argue against, then argue against that instead of what they really said. I try not accept changes to my statements before responding.

I’ll glad accept that you did it unintentionally. I’m sure I’ve done the same. I do not do it intentionally. It drives me crazy when it’s done to me.

 

[SAJ-99]

This is what regulation by nature looks like. Part of Wisconsin problem is it is hard to get a good population estimate on deer from the northern third of the state. Even in YNP, the moose population is wild guess at best.

 

[Fsmith]

So, I finally get it. Ungulates cannot be over objective goal. But conservation is accepting the fact that wolf numbers are at 4x their objective. It all makes sense now!

 

[SAJ-99]

I get the feeling some folks don't really care about wildlife management & conservation unless they get something out of it. But I'm glad we're finally being honest with each other that the predator control people are really just about themselves, and not about the betterment of habitat & wildlife for future generations.

Probably true but one of the "facts of life' we have to deal with. I think the only and best solution incorporates everyone. We know that stakeholders start to get more extreme views and greater apathy of the resource when they don't have a say in the management of that resource. So if giving hunters a say in harvest of wolves and people in NYC a say in simply having wolves means that more people are willing to accept wolves, its a win win. I am sure that doesn't mean they will stop complaining.

 

[Ben Lamb]

So, I finally get it. Ungulates cannot be over objective goal. But conservation is accepting the fact that wolf numbers are at 4x their objective. It all makes sense now!

You're conflating minimum population needed for keeping an animal off of the endangered species list with a population objective. This is wrong. If a state were to manage to that lowest level acceptable, then you'd not see much in terms of actual management of the species, including no hunting or trapping, and only gov't actions designed to minimize conflict, since we'd need every critter in the state populaton to maintain management authority in the state.

 

[BuzzH]

So, I finally get it. Ungulates cannot be over objective goal. But conservation is accepting the fact that wolf numbers are at 4x their objective. It all makes sense now!

Bullcrap...elk are over objective in most all of Montana and Wyoming. Montana loses its mind when elk are over objective, Wyoming not so much.

I talked to my local Warden when I killed an elk about 10 days ago. The unit I was hunting, he found a single herd of elk during a classification flight that exceeded the elk objective for the entire unit. I would bet elk are going to easily be 2-2.5 times over objective in that unit. I also know there will be no increase in permits.

 

[JLS]

Ungulates cannot be over objective goal.

A philosophy brought to you by your Republican legislature, and one that many of us here have outwardly spoken out against.