The Law

Act 169 was signed into law by Governor Walker on April 2, 2012 creating a wolf hunting and trapping season in Wisconsin under the emergency rule procedures.

Components of the law include:

• Season that begins 10/15 and runs through February
• Baiting and predator calls are allowed
• Authorizes hunting wolves with shot larger than size BB
• Radio collared wolves can be killed
• Fees collected will be used to reimburse livestock and dog owners who suffer depredation from wolves, including dogs in the act of training/hunting game (except wolf)
• Cable restraints can be used for trapping, no method of kill is banned, and therefore, clubbing an animal to death is permitted.

Beginning with the first Monday after the end of gun deer season (this year 11/26), through February, the following practices are allowed:

• Hunting with up to 6 dogs
• Night hunting
• Can use flashlights at the point of kill

To read Act 169 in its entirety, go to:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/acts/169

The Wisconsin DNR

As bleak as it may seem for Wisconsin wolves, there are things you can do.   WI DNR is in the process of developing the rules and regulations for the wolf hunting / trapping season.   The DNR will be establishing zones, including areas that should be closed to wolf hunting / trapping.  They will also be establishing the number of tags to be issued.

WI State statute establishes that the Natural Resource Board (NRB) possesses the rule making authority for the DNR.  The NRB has the authority to amend, reject or modify rules that are recommended by the DNR secretary.

The board will be considering wolf-related rules this summer.  The WI DNR will be requesting approval to initiate the rules process at the board’s May meeting. Public input will be taken at that time. The board will consider the proposal again when it adopts a rules package, a special meeting in July.   The agenda for the May 22/23 meeting in Madison has not yet been posted.  However, you can notices for the meetings at the board’s website when they are established at http://dnr.wi.gov/about/nrb/agenda.html

Contacts

Refer to Act 169 and send comments to:

1.   Natural Resource Board, Chair David Clausen

               608 516 4328 (cell) DNRNRBCHAIR@Wisconsin.gov

2.    Natural Resource Board, Liaison Laurie Ross

               608 267 7420 laurie.ross@wisconsin.gov

3.    WI DNR Secretary, Cathy Stepp

                608 267 7556 DNRSecretary@Wisconsin.gov

Talking Points

• This law was created without minimal opportunity for public input; public hearings across the state should be held.
• Urge the WI DNR utilize peer-reviewed research and scientific data as the basis for the rules and regulations in creating the wolf hunting season.  
• Ask that predator calls that involve howling not be allowed
• Close National Forests to all wolf hunting and trapping.  National Forests belong to all of us, not just Wisconsin residents.
• Establish refuges for wolves that protect core wolf habitat and ban hunting and trapping in those areas.
• This law was created as a guise to reduce depredations, therefore, the hunting season should be designed as to target wolves and wolf packs either responsible for livestock depredation or likely to cause depredations.
• Mandate landowners who receive reimbursement for wolf damage open their lands to hunting/trapping.
• Limit the amount paid as depredation payments to $200 for dogs killed by wolves while training or actively pursuing game.
• DNR must be very conservative in the number of tags that are issued.
• The number of landowner permits issued must be counted toward the total number of tags issued.
• Require trappers to post warning signs whenever traps are placed on public lands.
• WI DNR should begin the process to revise the Wolf Management Plan that incorporates the biological carrying capacity for the state which is estimated to be 700-1000 wolves
  • Captive raccoon, bobcat, black bear, rabbits, coyote and fox can be used for dog training purposes.  Currently, wolf hound hunters cannot train their dogs using captive wolves or wolf/dog hybrids, however, we need to insure it will not be permitted.   
  • Develop buffer zones around tribal lands

Photo provided by  http://allanimalsblog.org/category/wildlife/wolves-wildlife/

On Jan. 19, 2012, the Montana Fish, Wildlife, Parks Commission voted, 3-2, to tentatively approve an extension of the wolf hunt to the end of February in Wildlife Management Unit 250 (which includes the Bitterroot Valley).  During the subsequent comment period, hundreds of wolfwatchers  submitted statements opposing the proposal not only because it was not based in science, but it was ethically wrong to hunt a pregnant animal – no other animal is treated in this manner. 

Upon consideration of the comments received, MtFWP Commissioners showed restraint by unanimously voting against the extension of the hunt in WMU250 as their final decision.  At that time, they also made some strong statements re: use of science and ethics in decision-making.  Thus, the Commissioners heard our voice!

Interestingly, during MTFWP Commissioner Moody’s radio interview on KUFM-89.1 on Mon., January 23rd, he reported, “The Department pursued every device to remove wolves from the Bitterroot. Sooner or later, you have to think about the real reason for the decline in elk. Just because everyone in the room believes wolves are the cause of declining elk populations, it doesn’t mean they are correct. That is why we insist that the Dept.’s model of wildlife management be based on valid science and all the science is not in yet. First the preliminary reports from the study say it’s not the wolves, it’s the mountain lions….the Bitterroot has to accept that all predators are responsible, not just one species as well as the human manipulation of habitat in the area….serial bad winters, overharvest of cow elk, and habitat fragmentation happened collectively and you cannot single out the wolf, eradicate the wolf and think that will fix the problem. If you do that, it only means there is one less excuse for what the real problem is.”    The rest of this radio interview is quite interesting, and it can be accessed in its entirety at,  http://www.mtpr.net/program_info/2012-01-23-132  (“Click to Listen”; comes after a brief report on medical marijuana)

May, 2012 – Montana gives initial OK to wolf-hunt plan http://www.newstalkradiowhio.com/news/ap/environment/fwp-commission-hears-wolf-hunt-plan/nN2D4/   

Regarding Montana’s public meeting (May 10, 2012), the article states, “The  ranchers, hunters and politicians who spoke in favor of the proposal – or demanded the commission loosen the restrictions even further – outnumbered opponents at a rate of about 2-to-1. Supporters said the measures were needed to protect livestock and prevent big-game species numbers from dwindling, and they urged the agency to take further steps, such as allowing snaring.” 

IT’S THE 11^TH HOUR – It’s time MtFWP heard more voices on behalf of Montana’s wolves. The public comment period ends on June 25th, and we respectfully encourage your participation with comments that demand science-based, ethical decision-making via the agency’s website at: http://fwp.mt.gov/doingBusiness/contactUs/

The  proposals include allowing:

(1) hunters to kill more than one wolf,

(2) the purchase of more than one hunting license,

(3) the use of electronic calls,

(4) trapping,

(5) increasing the quota for the number of wolves killed, and

6) extending the wolf hunting season.

Talking points:

•I expect Montana FWP to demonstrate its commitment to ensuring scientifically responsible and highly ethical wildlife management policy. By doing so, its policies will help sustain Montana’s wildlife, in general, and the targeted wolf population, in particular, so that it can serve its vital ecological function in Montana.   This can only happen through deliberate retraint.

•Science has taught us that drastic and sudden reductions in wildlife populations can have broad implications on the health of a species. In the case of wolves, which have complex social networks, it can lead to the disruption of existing packs and a loss of genetic diversity.  Because of this, I urge you to consider all aspects of the wolves’ ecology in your plans.

•As the human population increases and moves into and uses the habitat of the wild creatures, further conflicts will continue. Independent research, non-biased recommendations by all special interest groups as well as the general population should be done and considered equally before any policy is put into effect.

• As wolves recover in parts of our state, there is a growing need to develop both a better understanding of wolves and how to live harmoniously with them so that we can be afforded the ecological benefits they provide across the landscape.    By helping communities – livestock producers, landowners, hikers, hunters, anglers, outdoor enthusiasts and resource professionals – identify and implement working solutions to wolf conflict, we learn to share the landscape with them for the benefit of healthy ecosystems across Montana.

•Until now, recreational trapping and snaring have not been allowed in Montana.  Trapping and snaring Montana’s wolves on public lands will further undermine this ecologically vital animal, expose other wildlife and non-target animals to unintended injury and death, and unleash a wave of wolf hatred and societal conflict  that would only increase with their sport-killing in such an inhumane manner.

Do you think about wolves and wish you could see them every single day?  Well, if you are like us,  take the opportunity to do just that. The Wolf Conservation Center in South Salem, NY has partnered with WildEarth.tv  and currently there are four active enclosure and web cams monitoring the activities of Red wolves and Mexican Gray Wolves around the clock. This is some pretty exciting stuff!  We are hoping that the mating pairs in each enclosure produce a litter of newborn wolf pups, and if they do you will be able to watch it unfold before your very eyes!

If you remember watching Lilly the bear deliver her cub to the world on a similar cam setup, this is the same folks that are providing you access to the wolf dens.

Click on the direct link below ( Wolf Conservation Center Logo)and choose a wolf pack.  What is cool to do is to open up all four web cams( enclosures) once the howling begins and it is like being at a wonderful  wolf symphony!

Marilyn McGee and Gail McDiarmid have been “on the road” sharing their knowledge about the red and gray wolf. These two ladies know the importance of predators in the wild. That is why wolf conservation is dear to their hearts! Participants’ (ages 3-83) have heard them speak, viewed slides, and touched pelts, tracks and radio collars, all items from a Discovery box from the Red Wolf Coalition. In a three week time span, these two sisters presented six programs!

Marilyn tailored her program to meet the needs of a younger audience by performing a skit about Little Red Riding Hood. Members of the audience joined her and learned how folklore and misinformation can cause fear of the wolf. Other props that were used to maintain interest of the young learners included a one pound potato (the birth weight of a red or gray pup) and a two foot, red ribbon to represent the gestation period of the wolf (one foot=30 days). Creativity is always needed when working with young children!

Gail however, presented to an older audience. Sociology students at Furman University in Greenville, SC listened intently as she discussed the history of wildlife management in the early years in Yellowstone National Park. Using a wide range of media types from You Tube videos to a power point presentation, she and the students examined attitudes of people and their feelings toward the wolf reintroduction. This discussion allowed Gail and the class to discuss the positive impact that the red and gray wolf have had on their natural environments since both predators have returned.

Their book, Running for Home is a fictional chapter book that examines the effects of the return of the gray wolf. With the reintroduction of this top predator, grazing habits of elk are greatly altered; returning the ecosystem to a

more diverse and balanced habitat. Please follow their progress on face book as they move closer to publication!

*We are proud to have both Marilyn and Gail as key advisers  at National Wolfwatcher Coaltion*

During these difficult economic times, it is important to remember these centers who play a critical role in wolf conservation. Please “like” their Facebook pages and consider a contribution in support of wolf education, research and conservation.  Thank you.

Wolf Conservation Center http://www.nywolf.org/

California Wolf Center http://www.californiawolfcenter.org/

Chattanooga Arboretum and Nature Centerhttp://www.chattanooganaturecenter.org/www/docs/133

Colorado Wolf and Wildlife Center http://wolfeducation.org/

Endangered Wolf Center http://www.endangeredwolfcenter.org/

International Wolf Center  http://www.wolf.org/wolves/index.asp

Mission Wolf http://www.missionwolf.com/

Adirondack Wildlife Refuge http://www.adirondackwildlife.org/

Lakota Wolf Preserve: http://www.lakotawolf.com/Wolf_Watch.htm

Red Wolf Coalition : http://redwolves.com/rwc/index.html

Wildlife Science Center http://www.wildlifesciencecenter.org/

Wolf Haven International http://www.wolfhaven.org/

Wolf Education and Research Center http://www.wolfcenter.org/default.aspx

Wolf Mountain Sanctuary  http://www.wolfmountain.com/

Wolf Hollow http://www.wolfhollowipswich.org/

Wolf Park http://www.wolfhaven.org/

Wolf and Grizzly Discovery Center http://www.grizzlydiscoveryctr.com/

This week, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a law removing wolves from Endangered Species Act protection in Idaho and Montana.   This prevents any environmental group from challenging the wolf management plans of these states in court. Even more alarming, it provides lawmakers with a road map that helps them to write laws that cannot be challenged in court.

In 2011, Wyoming House of Rep. Cynthia Lummis had tucked a similar “no judicial review” budget rider into the 2011 Interior Department Appropriations Bill.  If passed, it could have prohibited lawsuits against a pending agreement to remove Wyoming wolves from the endangered species list.  Fortunately, the Lummis rider was rejected in Dec. 2011.

Wyoming has been trying for years to remove its wolves from the federal endangered species list. But USFWS had rejected all of Wyoming’s previous wolf management plans, saying unregulated shooting in most of the state would reduce the state’s wolf population below federally required levels.  

Wyoming’s current wolf plan is the “kissing cousin” of Wyoming’s previously rejected plan.  So if USFWS approves the plan in its current form many believe it could be legally challenged. A decision is expected by September.

This sets the stage for Wyoming’s Congressional delegation to attempt, once again, to pass another “no judicial review” rider that would eliminate ESA protections for Wyoming wolves and prevent conservationists from challenging the legality and the science of the state’s wolf management plan.

Listen to this feed as Wyoming is gearing up for Wolf Hunting Season:

http://k2radio.com/wyoming-game-and-fish-one-step-closer-to-management-of-wolves-audio/

Therefore, we must let Congress know that we are aware of the Wyoming Congressional delegation’s intentions, and we will not tolerate any more riders that protect its inferior plan from being challenged in court if it is passed.

Please find your Congressional representatives by typing your address into this link, and then send them a short message or call them.  http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

Talking points are provided below. 

• The congressional budget bill rider that lifted ESA protections on wolves is “undemocratic” because it set a precedent for future political meddling with endangered wildlife.  Science should guide decision-making, not politics.

• We demand that Wyoming have a legally and biologically defensible plan instead of circumventing the rules with another Congressional rider that includes a “no judicial review” clause.

• Micromanagement by backroom deals and appropriation riders is not good government. We demand that US Fish and Wildlife Service and the governor come up with a plan that follows the law.

Diane Bentivegna, Ed.M.

diane@wolfwatcher.org

On behalf of:

National Wolfwatcher Coalition

Board, Officers and Advisory

National Headquarters 401-884-2808

PO Box 141, Lolo, Montana, 59847

(photo by NWC Adviser Brandi Nichols)

 We believe it is safe to assert that the nature of calculating wolf populations is not an exact science; current wolf population numbers are merely estimates and not confirmed data.

• Scientific studies show that human killing of wolves is associated with an increase in total overall wolf mortality; we believe that wolf populations will decline beyond the predictions of the management agencies, as a result. The altered pack structure that results from human-caused mortality is a significant concern for wolf conservation because it results in additional wolf population losses beyond the mere number of wolves directly killed by humans.  The effects of both the loss of the wolves planned or expected to be killed by humans directly – plus an increment of additional wolf population loss that will result from reduced breeding and survival resulting from the altered pack structure has been inappropriately discounted.

• In a recent peer reviewed scientific study, (Hunting Wolves in Montana – Where Is The Data? Nature and Science, 2011; 9(9): 175-182),   independent biologist, Jay S. Mallonee, revealed that the data collection methods used by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks re: wolf populations in the state did not follow scientific protocol.  Thus, the resulting data generated by these collection methods must be not be considered conclusive at this time and should not be used as a reference point by other wolf managers in the region. 

• The recovery target is 100 wolves/ ten packs per state. The Recovery Plan’s standard would provide for only 20 breeding individuals (two alphas in each pack). The best available science supports what is known as the 50/500 rule.  This standard for a minimum viable population indicates that 50 breeding individuals are needed for a population to be ecologically viable over the short term.  Under the 50/500 standard, 500 breeding individuals are needed for a population to be evolutionarily viable over the long-term – i.e. 100 years.  Because the breeding population is only likely to be 10 to 20 percent of the total population, the 500 rule translates to a total population of approximately 2,500 to 5,000 individuals for long-term viability.  [Soule and Wilcox (1980), Frankel and Soule (1981), Lande (1988), Lande (1995), Frankham (1995), Franklin and Frankham (1998), Fallon (2008), and Palstra and Ruzzante (2008).]

 Based on recent announcements, it appears that the states of Montana and Idaho still seek to reduce the numbers of wolves in the state using measures that some may consider unconventional and even highly controversial (i.e.: trapping, snaring, electronic calls, baiting and lures, poisoning, aerial gunning, etc.)  We feel these measures will not ensure sustainable wolf populations and may, in fact, increase the risk of relisting the wolf as an endangered species.

• Over 500 wolves have been killed thus far in 2011 as a result of the wolf hunts in Montana and Idaho (which has not closed its season yet). 

• Montana plans to be much more aggressive in hunting wolves in upcoming seasons, according to Fish, Wildlife and Parks Director Joe Maurier. Options include allowing wolf trapping, the taking of more than one wolf per person, approving the use of electronic calls, reducing the price of nonresident wolf hunting licenses from $350 to $50, and/or lengthening the season. FWP also is looking at removing quotas, so wolves could be hunted across the state throughout the season. [Reference -  http://missoulian.com/news/local/state-says-wolf-hunts-will-be-more-aggressive-in-coming/article_c112c65c-68d1-11e1-b652-0019bb2963f4.html ]

• In Idaho, wolf numbers are down for the second consecutive year. At the end of 2011, the state’s population was estimated at 746 wolves, down from a high of 856 at the end of 2009. Despite this, Idaho continues an extremely aggressive wolf hunt with no quotas, a long hunt season,  and the use of highly controversial practices. [Reference: http://lmtribune.com/article_66c6d346-688b-11e1-8e5f-001a4bcf6878.html ]

• Wyoming’s highly controversial “shoot on site” plan (which includes hunting on national park land) is presently awaiting final USFWS approval. Many believe that the plan outlined in this legislation, with its dual classification and a predator zone in most of the state, is not legally defensible. So now, Wyoming is looking to Congress to protect its controversial plan by passing another “no judicial review” law to prevent the plan from being challenged in court.

Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that a cut in federal wolf management funding comes along with taking wolves off the Endangered Species List.  This is a federal agency, and, thus, we are all stakeholders in the management of wolves in this country.    We must tell the Dept. of the Interior and USFWS that we vehemently disagree with its conclusions regarding wolf management in the Northern Rockies, and we hold them accountable for the potential second wave of wolf extermination in the West.

CONTACT US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE –

To leave a comment - http://www.fws.gov/duspit/contactus.htm

Telephone: 1-800-344-WILD between 8AM-8PM Eastern time, Monday-Friday

CONTACT US DEPT. OF INTERIOR

Phone: (202) 208-3100

E-Mail: feedback@ios.doi.gov

Web Feedback form – http://www.doi.gov/feedback.cfm

All Contacts: http://www.doi.gov/public/contact-us.cfm

Both wolf plan bills call for:

• hunting at night with lights,

•  hunting with up to 6 dogs
  

• using predator calls, baits and lures

• allowing trapping and subsequent clubbing of trapped wolf (or killing by other means); the use of steel jaw traps and cable restraints.  

• a season that lasts from October through February which can potentially impact wolf breeding/denning/pup season.

•  reimbursing dog owners for dogs injured or killed by wolves, other than when  hunting
  

 Richard Thiel, a DNR wildlife biologist for 34 years, created and managed the wolf recovery plan for the last 30 years. He urged restraint recommends postponing a wolf hunt for at least a few years. There is a plan in place for “problem wolves” who prey on livestock. The best approach, at this point, it the current DNR plan with frequent and ongoing reassessment.

Dr. Adrian Treves, associate professor in University of Wisconsin’s Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies and head of the Carnivore Coexistence Lab, said in his testimony that according to his research, the vast majority of Wisconsinites support wolf hunts as long as they are designed to reduce wolf depredations, where wolves attack livestock or pets, without putting in question the wolf population.  He testified that these bills do not ensure sustainable wolf harvests nor does it target wolf depredations and, if it passes, it would increase the risk of relisting the wolf as an endangered species.

Treves said in his testimony:

• “The bill is inadequately focused on preventing wolf attacks on farm animals or threats to people. In short, although this bill claims to address depredations, the proposed rules for the hunt suggest that recreation and indiscriminate take are the goals.”

• “Wolf depredations have been the greatest obstacle to public acceptance of the wolf in Wisconsin for the last 33 years.  This bill does not adequately address depredations because it ignores how predictable these depredations are and how spatially localized they have been.”

• “Wisconsin scientists are still debating the amount of illegal killing of wolves and how this might change with a legal wolf-hunt. The answer will help to determine the sustainable annual quota of wolves that might be huntable. I recommend the committee amend the bill to allow one or more years delay in the wolf hunt until this issue is resolved scientifically. Haste makes waste.”

Based on scientific evidence and testimony, Wisconsin’s wolf plan bills are unacceptable because they dangerously threaten the recovered wolf population in the state. We need to flood the offices of the Wisconsin Legislature and tell them why we oppose this bill.   When you call or write, please state that you are opposed to all management plans that can potentially compromise the future sustainability of wolf populations in the region.

PLEASE CONTACT GOVERNOR WALKER.  Tell him that you want him to veto SB 411 and send it back to legislators for a reasonable and sound-science wolf management plan.

Govgeneral@wisconsin.gov

PHONE: 608-266-1212

FOR WISCONSIN RESIDENTS – Contact your legislators to tell them that you want them to delay this bill in order to give the DNR time to implement its wolf management plan.   Find your legislators via http://legis.wisconsin.gov/w3asp/waml/waml.aspx

FOR OUT OF STATE RESIDENTS: Connect yourself to the state either through tourist dollars and/or through the economic impact of abstaining from Wisconsin’s products. 

Wisconsin Senators’ email addresses:  http://legis.wisconsin.gov/w3asp/contact/EmailDirectory.aspx?house=senate      

Wisconsin Assembly members’ email addresses:  http://legis.wisconsin.gov/w3asp/contact/EmailDirectory.aspx?house=assembly

FOR BOTH RESIDENTS AND NON-RESIDENTS:  Contact Wisconsin’s Dept. of Natural Resources – remind them that it is entrusted to manage wildlife on our national forests, paid for through our tax dollars. We want them to be a strong voice in opposition to these wolf plan bills because they are not based in science.   http://dnr.wi.gov/contact/

As a matter of fact, in a recent peer reviewed scientific study, (Hunting Wolves in Montana – Where Is The Data? Nature and Science, 2011; 9(9): 175-182),   independent biologist, Jay S. Mallonee, revealed that the data collection methods used by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks re: wolf populations in the state did not follow scientific protocol.  Thus, the resulting data generated by these collection methods must be considered flawed and must not be used as a reference point for making future decisions about wolf management in the state.

A copy of Biologist Mallonee’s study can be found here: http://www.wolfandwildlifestudies.com/downloads/natureandscience.pdf

Despite this, Montana FWP still aims to reduce the numbers of wolves in the state. It is presently examining its wolf management plan and considering proposals for a more aggressive hunting season next year – all based on flawed data!    These proposals include allowing: (1) hunters to kill more than one wolf, (2) the purchase of more than one hunting license, (3) the use of electronic calls, (4) trapping, (5) increasing the quota for the number of wolves killed, and (6) baiting wolves, and (7) extending the wolf hunting season.

Thus are asking our supporters to contact Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks via Biologist Mallonee’s website to make a comment in support of his peer-reviewed study and to urge Montana FWP to disclose the scientific data that supports its plan for a more aggressive wolf hunt next year:  http://www.wolfandwildlifestudies.com/blogreviewpaper.php

(Photo of black wolf by Brandi Nichols)