The DNR already has that authority.
WISCONSIN GOVERNOER LETTER TO STATE SNATE
- Thread starter cheeser
- Start date
The DNR already has that authority.
seeth07
Well-known member
Correct, they do. The statute is however requiring them to do it which since they do it with everything else, I don't see how this is bad.
That’s the whole point. They will not do it on their own.
BuzzH
Well-known member
It isnt setting the population goal, but where does it grant authority beyond a statewide management goal?
I would have opposed this bill for that exact reason, doesn't give the DNR room to manage outside of a statewide quota.
The bill forces a statewide population objective, your Governor did you a favor. If it were me, I'd get actively involved and get this thing right.
29.185 (1m) DEPARTMENT AUTHORITY. If the wolf is not listed on the federal endangered list and is not listed on the state endangered list, the department shall allow the hunting and trapping of wolves and, shall regulate such hunting andtrapping as provided in this section, and shall implement a wolf management plan that establishes a statewide wolf population goal.
seeth07
Well-known member
Its a long but very good read. I did it on the plane last week and really enjoyed it.
Look starting at page 49 called ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
This is exactly what the statute that just got vetoed would force the DNR to include in the wolf management plan going forward.
Here is what the wolf management plan by the state currently has:
BuzzH
Well-known member
Nope, not what that bill would have done. Its cut and dried, would have taken away adaptive management and based it 100% on a statewide management objective.
Read the bill.
IMO, you don't want a statewide quota to trigger or take away management flexibility (hunting/trapping).
Think about it beyond the big bad wolf. Do you want deer managed by a statewide population objective? Wouldn't work for obvious reasons. You wouldn't want the total population used to hold back increasing harvest in southern WI when deer in the North are in the tank. Also, wouldn't want bloated populations in the South influencing large amounts of deer being killed in the North.
You want to manage the entire population, but IMO, I would want flexibility in sub-portions of the State to address rises and drops in local populations, exactly what they do with deer.
Last edited:
I think we need to be careful before awarding either side the moral high ground on this issue. It is political, with political motivations compelling both sides.
As I understand it, the purpose of this was to hold the DNR’s feet to the fire and make them do the bare minimum- assign a state population goal. Wisconsin DNR has done this with wolves in the past, but now refuses. Nothing I have read would have excluded a more detailed management plan under this umbrella. It is certainly possible I missed something here, though.
Those in the DNR and state government view this as a way to apply leverage towards forcing future wolf hunts- they are likely not wrong in that assumption. Many are obviously against a wolf hunt, and it leads to the brinksmanship we have seen in Wisconsin over the past several years.
As I understand it, the purpose of this was to hold the DNR’s feet to the fire and make them do the bare minimum- assign a state population goal. Wisconsin DNR has done this with wolves in the past, but now refuses. Nothing I have read would have excluded a more detailed management plan under this umbrella. It is certainly possible I missed something here, though.
Those in the DNR and state government view this as a way to apply leverage towards forcing future wolf hunts- they are likely not wrong in that assumption. Many are obviously against a wolf hunt, and it leads to the brinksmanship we have seen in Wisconsin over the past several years.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I agree, but again, I would be real careful about what is said, and not said in statute. The way that bill reads, not a chance I'd support it.
I can show you plenty of examples where even statute with good intentions has pretty bad outcomes down the road. Things change over time with game management, regulation and commission authority allows you to be more nimble with those changes.
But, not my pig, not my farm. Its up to you all how you want to proceed.
Good luck.
NEWHunter
Well-known member
What a stupid political statement. The whole point of a numeric population goal is to account for the social, biological, and legal complexities of a recovered wolf population.
NEWHunter
Well-known member
As an FYI, WI has been counting wolves for decades and under charging nonresidents for longer than that. There’s an embarrassing amount of room to increase license/point prices and provide more funding for wildlife.
Similar threads
