Wisconsin Wolf kill reaches 50% of statewide quota after first day of season; DNR to close three zones

Trial153 said:
What part of that statement is untrue?
It is an embarrassing setback especially when your trying to Illustrate that hunting is the best population management tool available to a non hunting public.
Click to expand...
Glad we were able to get that initial point I made agreed upon. But I’ll disagree with the above.

The 2021 prehunt wolf population estimate in WI was 1,000ish wolves. A quota of 200 was set and 216 were killed. That would leave a post hunt population of 800ish wolves. I think one of the wolf hunts in 2012-2014 that Mr. Durkin implies were much more effectively managed had a prehunt population estimate of 800ish wolves. The DNR has set a management goal of 350 wolves in WI. In my opinion, the facts above don’t paint an embarrassing setback. In fact, I think I could use them to paint the hunt and hunting in a positive light. But hey, who wants a glass half full anyway.

I agree, that the optics of the hunt can be bad - but they don’t have to be. Sure we can go back and forth about the details and use them to make us look bad, but to what point? I’ll stand by my insinuation that Mr Durkin didn’t do hunters or the dnr any favors with his piece - he could have, but didn’t. As hunters we don’t need him implying that hunters deliberately tried to sabotage the quota. Mr Durkin is hunter, fisherman, and career outdoor writer - his piece and opinions give antis and those on the fence “credible” fuel for their fire.

So fellas, have at my comments above. But as I said earlier, to what point?
 
NEWHunter said:
Glad we were able to get that initial point I made agreed upon. But I’ll disagree with the above.

The 2021 prehunt wolf population estimate in WI was 1,000ish wolves. A quota of 200 was set and 216 were killed. That would leave a post hunt population of 800ish wolves. I think one of the wolf hunts in 2012-2014 that Mr. Durkin implies were much more effectively managed had a prehunt population estimate of 800ish wolves. The DNR has set a management goal of 350 wolves in WI. In my opinion, the facts above don’t paint an embarrassing setback. In fact, I think I could use them to paint the hunt and hunting in a positive light. But hey, who wants a glass half full anyway.

I agree, that the optics of the hunt can be bad - but they don’t have to be. Sure we can go back and forth about the details and use them to make us look bad, but to what point? I’ll stand by my insinuation that Mr Durkin didn’t do hunters or the dnr any favors with his piece - he could have, but didn’t. As hunters we don’t need him implying that hunters deliberately tried to sabotage the quota. Mr Durkin is hunter, fisherman, and career outdoor writer - his piece and opinions give antis and those on the fence “credible” fuel for their fire.

So fellas, have at my comments above. But as I said earlier, to what point?
Click to expand...

You cannot leave the tribes quota out of the equation. That's disingenuous and misleading.
Quite franky the fact that you're willing to go so far as engaging in half truths shows no point in having this conversation.
 
NEWHunter said:
Glad we were able to get that initial point I made agreed upon. But I’ll disagree with the above.

The 2021 prehunt wolf population estimate in WI was 1,000ish wolves. A quota of 200 was set and 216 were killed. That would leave a post hunt population of 800ish wolves. I think one of the wolf hunts in 2012-2014 that Mr. Durkin implies were much more effectively managed had a prehunt population estimate of 800ish wolves. The DNR has set a management goal of 350 wolves in WI. In my opinion, the facts above don’t paint an embarrassing setback. In fact, I think I could use them to paint the hunt and hunting in a positive light. But hey, who wants a glass half full anyway.

I agree, that the optics of the hunt can be bad - but they don’t have to be. Sure we can go back and forth about the details and use them to make us look bad, but to what point? I’ll stand by my insinuation that Mr Durkin didn’t do hunters or the dnr any favors with his piece - he could have, but didn’t. As hunters we don’t need him implying that hunters deliberately tried to sabotage the quota. Mr Durkin is hunter, fisherman, and career outdoor writer - his piece and opinions give antis and those on the fence “credible” fuel for their fire.

So fellas, have at my comments above. But as I said earlier, to what point?
Click to expand...
As a longtime lurker, I've finally felt compelled to create an account. I've lived in the state off and on for over 30 years, and have read Pat Durkin for most of that time, and I knew the second we went over the quota that this is exactly what he was going to write. I don't have anything against Durkin personally, and he has the right to express his opinion, but once a month for the last 10 years he writes the same piece bashing some combination of the state Republican party, Scott Walker, James Kroll, and/or Greg Kazmierski. He's a broken record at this point.

I do think blowing past the quota makes it look bad to anti-hunters, but I don't know that there's any number of wolf harvest that they'll ever find acceptable. For the last 10 years, I've spent 10-15 days every year hunting grouse in the north woods. It was cool seeing a wolf the first few times, but over the last 3-4 years, we're having uncomfortable wolf encounters at least once a year, including a dog getting beat up pretty badly. I'm fine with wolves on the landscape, but this isn't 1800 anymore. It's not unreasonable to believe that the state needs to manage the wolf population with a much heavier hand to mitigate conflict.
 
OMB said:
As a longtime lurker, I've finally felt compelled to create an account. I've lived in the state off and on for over 30 years, and have read Pat Durkin for most of that time, and I knew the second we went over the quota that this is exactly what he was going to write. I don't have anything against Durkin personally, and he has the right to express his opinion, but once a month for the last 10 years he writes the same piece bashing some combination of the state Republican party, Scott Walker, James Kroll, and/or Greg Kazmierski. He's a broken record at this point.

I do think blowing past the quota makes it look bad to anti-hunters, but I don't know that there's any number of wolf harvest that they'll ever find acceptable. For the last 10 years, I've spent 10-15 days every year hunting grouse in the north woods. It was cool seeing a wolf the first few times, but over the last 3-4 years, we're having uncomfortable wolf encounters at least once a year, including a dog getting beat up pretty badly. I'm fine with wolves on the landscape, but this isn't 1800 anymore. It's not unreasonable to believe that the state needs to manage the wolf population with a much heavier hand to mitigate conflict.
Click to expand...
Welcome to HT. Great first post - keep ‘em coming.

I’ve resided in WI for almost 40 years straight and your comments regarding Mr. Durkin are spot on.

Hopefully there are more grouse in your corner of the northwoods than there are in mine. I get out a time or two a year near Goodman park in Marinette county and the last few years have been very slim pickings for birds.

Welcome again and good luck this fall.
 
NEWHunter said:
Glad we were able to get that initial point I made agreed upon. But I’ll disagree with the above.

The 2021 prehunt wolf population estimate in WI was 1,000ish wolves. A quota of 200 was set and 216 were killed. That would leave a post hunt population of 800ish wolves. I think one of the wolf hunts in 2012-2014 that Mr. Durkin implies were much more effectively managed had a prehunt population estimate of 800ish wolves. The DNR has set a management goal of 350 wolves in WI. In my opinion, the facts above don’t paint an embarrassing setback. In fact, I think I could use them to paint the hunt and hunting in a positive light. But hey, who wants a glass half full anyway.

I agree, that the optics of the hunt can be bad - but they don’t have to be. Sure we can go back and forth about the details and use them to make us look bad, but to what point? I’ll stand by my insinuation that Mr Durkin didn’t do hunters or the dnr any favors with his piece - he could have, but didn’t. As hunters we don’t need him implying that hunters deliberately tried to sabotage the quota. Mr Durkin is hunter, fisherman, and career outdoor writer - his piece and opinions give antis and those on the fence “credible” fuel for their fire.

So fellas, have at my comments above. But as I said earlier, to what point?
Click to expand...
That 350 number that keeps going around is not the population cap......meaning bare minimum, and is by no means a population goal. I still haven't got an answer, what other species, besides wolves, do you want DNR to manage at a bare minimum
 
Last edited:
Northwoods Labs said:
That 350 number that keeps going around is the population cap......meaning bare minimum, and is by no means a population goal. I still haven't got an answer, what other species, besides wolves, do you want DNR to manage at a bare minimum cap
Click to expand...
A population cap implies a maximum, not a bare minimum - thanks for helping make my point. Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish? Take your negativity and apply it to something non hunting related - we don’t need it.

You never asked me that question. Are you asking me that question? Did I say the state should manage to 350? The answer is, no I didn’t say that. As I mentioned in my post - that’s details we can argue about. I don’t think they should manage to 350 - I don’t know what the right number is, but it’s probably more than 350 and the management plan the dnr is working on will probably come up with a number.

And to folks following this thread, I live in Brookfield as @Northwoods Labs gets at a couple posts back. Apparently residing in WI and hunting here for decades doesn’t doesn’t allow me to have a valid opinion on the recent wolf hunt. My great grandpa first built a cabin on the peshtigo river in 1929 adjacent to nicolet national forest - but that’s in NE WI not NW WI so it doesn’t count. The facts I cited couldn’t possibly be used to see the recent hunt through different optics. Heck I’m sure his is bigger than mine.
Yeah, because I live in Brookfield and not NW WI I couldn’t possibly be familiar with how things work. I also remember when I was in high school too.
 
NEWHunter said:
A population cap implies a maximum, not a bare minimum - thanks for helping make my point. Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish? Take your negativity and apply it to something non hunting related - we don’t need it.

You never asked me that question. Are you asking me that question? Did I say the state should manage to 350? The answer is, no I didn’t say that. As I mentioned in my post - that’s details we can argue about. I don’t think they should manage to 350 - I don’t know what the right number is, but it’s probably more than 350 and the management plan the dnr is working on will probably come up with a number.

And to folks following this thread, I live in Brookfield as @Northwoods Labs gets at a couple posts back. Apparently residing in WI and hunting here for decades doesn’t doesn’t allow me to have a valid opinion on the recent wolf hunt. My great grandpa first built a cabin on the peshtigo river in 1929 adjacent to nicolet national forest - but that’s in NE WI not NW WI so it doesn’t count. The facts I cited couldn’t possibly be used to see the recent hunt through different optics.
Click to expand...

NEWHunter said:
A population cap implies a maximum, not a bare minimum - thanks for helping make my point. Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish? Take your negativity and apply it to something non hunting related - we don’t need it.

You never asked me that question. Are you asking me that question? Did I say the state should manage to 350? The answer is, no I didn’t say that. As I mentioned in my post - that’s details we can argue about. I don’t think they should manage to 350 - I don’t know what the right number is, but it’s probably more than 350 and the management plan the dnr is working on will probably come up with a number.

And to folks following this thread, I live in Brookfield as @Northwoods Labs gets at a couple posts back. Apparently residing in WI and hunting here for decades doesn’t doesn’t allow me to have a valid opinion on the recent wolf hunt. My great grandpa first built a cabin on the peshtigo river in 1929 adjacent to nicolet national forest - but that’s in NE WI not NW WI so it doesn’t count. The facts I cited couldn’t possibly be used to see the recent hunt through different optics. Heck I’m sure his is bigger than mine.
Yeah, because I live in Brookfield and not NW WI I couldn’t possibly be familiar with how things work. I also remember when I was in high school too.
Click to expand...

Proof reading helps, I forgot the word "not"....my bad

Regardless, 350 is not the goal, it is a bare minimum.

The point is, the wolf season was complete mismanagement and sportsmen would be pissed if it were any species besides wolves. Rushing through seasons, when it was obvious the set-up was going to cause this problem, is not how we should manage wildlife. Even more so when it is controversial to the non-hunting public

Being from NW Wisconsin means, despite my love for this place, that I am familiar with certain folks who do not have any respect for game laws, where wolves are poached and it is impossible to get caught. It also means I am familiar with wolf management and taking quota reserved for tribes is problematic....
 
Hydrophilic said:

In the other thread someone responded the deer in the Northern part of state are getting hit hard. I could not find data to support that statement.


There might be around 2 million deer, but tbey arent located in the wolf heavy area. Most of the northern areas have had buks only seasons and or very limited doe tags. Not like Buffalo county where you got 4 doe tags and a buck tag with each license. Map shows they want to increase deer numbers in the northern. O and the green spot in central WI, is whete they introduced a wolf pack a few years ago. Coincidentally deer numbers are low and need to be increased according to dnr.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • DF602C90-A308-4807-AF10-5775AFDE2F90.png
    DF602C90-A308-4807-AF10-5775AFDE2F90.png
    2.3 MB · Views: 19
Northwoods Labs said:
Proof reading helps, I forgot the word "not"....my bad

Regardless, 350 is not the goal, it is a bare minimum.

The point is, the wolf season was complete mismanagement and sportsmen would be pissed if it were any species besides wolves. Rushing through seasons, when it was obvious the set-up was going to cause this problem, is not how we should manage wildlife. Even more so when it is controversial to the non-hunting public

Being from NW Wisconsin means, despite my love for this place, that I am familiar with certain folks who do not have any respect for game laws, where wolves are poached and it is impossible to get caught. It also means I am familiar with wolf management and taking quota reserved for tribes is problematic....
Click to expand...
So it sounds like your issues are with poachers - not with hunters.

“The 350 level was intended to be the minimum level at which proactive control and public harvest would occur. This management goal falls about half way between the delisting level (250 wolves) and the biological carrying capacity (500 wolves) for the state.”

The link to the source document is below - it’s the Wisconsin Wolf Management plan posted on the dnr website. https://p.widencdn.net/hspl5b/ER0099

You and @Trial153 are glass half empty guys, I’m not, no point in arguing. To say the hunt was a complete mismanagement is overly harsh and unnecessary. I also think Wisconsin can do a better job with the next hunt and I think they will.
 
Holy cow your Wisconsin wolf issues make elk in Montana look simple. Can someone explain the tribal quota portion to me, and what are ceded lands? If it's easier you can just point me somewhere else...

From reading here it sounds like the tribes are allocated a portion of the quota but quite transparently declare they won't use it. Is this quota associated with a deeded land base upon which it must be used or is it associated with a larger area that is a traditional hunting area? I'm assuming the latter.

If wildlife managers think that the population can sustain a certain amount of harvest (or would like that amount of harvest based on human tolerance), but they know that the tribal quota will not be used, is it disingenouous to propose a larger quota to account for the tribal non-harvest? Perhaps that is not how it works legislatively.

From 1000 miles away this seems like quite a conundrum. I am not discounting native hunting rights, it just raises the obvious question of how they interplay with a desired harvest outcome. THanks for any information you can shed on this.
 
Motion to have only one dumpster fire thread going at a time ... (the WY tag allotment being the other). Good lord these threads get off the rails quick.

All those in favor say “aye”.
 
@NEWHunter The (now) 22 yr old plan was formulated at a time much of the suitable habitat in the state was not yet occupied, so the authors of Act 169's (Reps. Suder and Revard, 2012) insistence of holding to that number (midway between delisting-250 and 500, the perceived biological capacity at that time) while ignoring then over 13 years of cited research and best science.
DNR management plans generally are 10 years and in the 1999 document, it's even addressed: Pg 4: public review every 5 years (last paragraph on the left hand column)

Pg 8: the plan provides guidelines for the next 10-15 years.
Pg 28: 5 yr intervals of the population status including public review... Obviously a new wolf plan has not been written so this February's hunt was already on weak ground whether one was for or against it. Usually when you hunt a species, one would want to have a current management plan..........

I am not glass half full/empty.........I just want our wildlife managed in a scientific way. When you ram something through by courts and a barstool biologist on the NRB, this is what you get.

Finally, I agree, hopefully the season is done better the next time (unless we want to dig our own graves in terms of state management) that provides opportunity for trappers, allows the fur to be taken at a time when it is prime, and has reasonable safeguards (like our sturgeon seasons) to make sure we don't get over the quota
 
Last edited:
thomas89 said:
Motion to have only one dumpster fire thread going at a time ... (the WY tag allotment being the other). Good lord these threads get off the rails quick.

All those in favor say “aye”.
Click to expand...
No way! These are way better than the non-sense we had going on around here last month. I'm mildly impressed the two threads you mentioned managed to stay on track enough to stay open and not devolve into a complete poo-flinging event.
 
Nunyacreek said:
Holy cow your Wisconsin wolf issues make elk in Montana look simple. Can someone explain the tribal quota portion to me, and what are ceded lands? If it's easier you can just point me somewhere else...

From reading here it sounds like the tribes are allocated a portion of the quota but quite transparently declare they won't use it. Is this quota associated with a deeded land base upon which it must be used or is it associated with a larger area that is a traditional hunting area? I'm assuming the latter.

If wildlife managers think that the population can sustain a certain amount of harvest (or would like that amount of harvest based on human tolerance), but they know that the tribal quota will not be used, is it disingenouous to propose a larger quota to account for the tribal non-harvest? Perhaps that is not how it works legislatively.

From 1000 miles away this seems like quite a conundrum. I am not discounting native hunting rights, it just raises the obvious question of how they interplay with a desired harvest outcome. THanks for any information you can shed on this.
Click to expand...
https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/Fis...in northern Wisconsin,Tribes in 1837 and 1842.

GLIFWC | Ceded Territory

data.glifwc.org data.glifwc.org

Much of this has to do with Walleye, but it explains the ceded territory (much of the northern part of the state).

There is no wolf hunting on the reservations. They had a quota reserved for them, which they do not use. You could say that the non-tribal quota could be increased, but in this case it wasn't.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cheeser
House of Representatives votes to remove gray wolves from endangered species list
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
ismith
ismith
cheeser
Wisconsin legislators press DNR board appointees on hunting wolves, cranes
Replies
17
Views
2K
Nicoli7153
N
cheeser
Forced to hurry to come up with details for a wolf hunt, the DNR will present its plan Monday
Replies
0
Views
542
cheeser
cheeser
cheeser
Wisconsin wolf season determination made
Replies
18
Views
2K
Grepgaston
G
MinnesotaHunter
MN Wolf Hunt Info
Replies
10
Views
3K
MNElkNut
M

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,675
Messages
2,029,234
Members
36,279
Latest member
TURKEY NUT

Share this page

Back
Top