Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

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

I think anyone who looked at the rules would know what hunters would do (reporting kill at last possible hour) so hunt would conintue longer before being closed for quota. And also knowing that the tribes would take 50% of quota of the northern ceeded lands, the "real" quota was barely over. I don't believe the 10% objective was even close, meaning I believe there are way more than 2000 wolves in Wisconsin. Long way of saying, I beleve the DNR actaully used common sense on this one and took all of this into account. Yes, I said it:) So what my real concern is that it is being reported that we are were way over quota, when we actual weren't
Actually we were over the quota, that is fact.
 
Yea, the quota was 200 including tribal harvest.......so we dipped into quota reserved for the tribes. The non-tribal quota was 119.......so we went WAY over that
Harvest quota was 200, 216 taken, 8% over, easy math. The tribes had the same season to harvest wolves as the rest of the state but the tribal harvest was always going to be ZERO, everyone knows that, it was a game. I can't believe I'm going to type this, but, intentionally or unintentionally, the DNR actually got one right for a change.
 
Harvest quota was 200, 216 taken, 8% over, easy math. The tribes had the same season to harvest wolves as the rest of the state but the tribal harvest was always going to be ZERO, everyone knows that, it was a game. I can't believe I'm going to type this, but, intentionally or unintentionally, the DNR actually got one right for a change.
The non-tribal quota was 119....you are only happy they got it right because we went over the quota and you have a bias against wolves. If we go over the quota for any other species in this state sportsman are not happy. What other species do we expect DNR to manage at a bare minimum? Zero

 
The non-tribal quota was 119....you are only happy they got it right because we went over the quota and you have a bias against wolves. If we go over the quota for any other species in this state sportsman are not happy. What other species do we expect DNR to manage at a bare minimum? Zero

That's a pinwheel bullseye right there.
 
The non-tribal quota was 119....you are only happy they got it right because we went over the quota and you have a bias against wolves. If we go over the quota for any other species in this state sportsman are not happy. What other species do we expect DNR to manage at a bare minimum? Zero
Give the wolves a few months and no one will even notice the difference. The wolves aren't going away

Also, wolves are competing for the same thing hunters are after, and they're pretty good at it too. I wouldn't expect many hunters to all the sudden have warm fuzzy feelings for them
 
Give the wolves a few months and no one will even notice the difference. The wolves aren't going away

Also, wolves are competing for the same thing hunters are after, and they're pretty good at it too. I wouldn't expect many hunters to all the sudden have warm fuzzy feelings for them
Just listened to the whole WI DNR Web news conference from yesterday, a very good listen if you are interested in what some of the DNR folks think about the season. I found it a lot less editorial than the MJS article linked above.

News Conference: WI DNR 2021 Wolf Harvest - Bing video
 
Just listened to the whole WI DNR Web news conference from yesterday, a very good listen if you are interested in what some of the DNR folks think about the season. I found it a lot less editorial than the MJS article linked above.

News Conference: WI DNR 2021 Wolf Harvest - Bing video
Paul's article was 100% factual. Nothing editorial about it, perhaps you just don't much like the inconvenient truths
 
but if you had wolves chomping down your deer herds for years and couldn't do anything about it, and then legally it was required that the season occur, and then the season occurred, and the DNR deliberately undershot a quota (for GOOD reason), and then a ton of wolves were harvested indicating there are a TON of wolves out there...

Is there data suggesting this will make a difference in the deer or not? I asked for this in another thread but received an opinion.
 
So, I know some people are adamantly against all this...but if you had wolves chomping down your deer herds for years and couldn't do anything about it, and then legally it was required that the season occur, and then the season occurred, and the DNR deliberately undershot a quota (for GOOD reason), and then a ton of wolves were harvested indicating there are a TON of wolves out there...

What's the issue again?


2019: "We are in the neighborhood of all-time record high deer numbers in Wisconsin," Kevin Wallenfang, Department of Natural Resources deer and elk ecologist

If I'm to believe the state's Deer and Elk ecologist, which I typically always do over hunters anecdotal statements, Wisconsin has (or had) a record high population of Wolves coinciding with a record high population of deer.


DNR data


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.

Your statement about wolves 'chomping' down on deer for years doesn't mean anything significant, regarding population trends, without data. Predation can be compensatory, or additive. You can still have a growing deer population with compensatory predation. If predation was compensatory the WI wolf hunt was nothing more than recreational hunting for the purpose of managing wolves at some arbitrary number and completely insignificant to helping the deer. So if you wanted to hunt wolves for fun then hopefully if was fun, if you thought you were saving the deer it was a fantasy...which can still be fun!


"Many deer hunters tend to believe that every deer killed by a predator results in one less deer available for a human hunter to harvest. Research has found the truth to be more complicated. Predators do not, in fact, always reduce the population growth rates of prey. Biologists use the terms “compensatory” and “additive” to describe the impact of predation on any given wildlife population. If predation is “compensatory,” it means the total number of prey to die in any given year does not change as a result of predation. It means the predators remove the number of animals that would have been lost anyway to other causes."


"In Wisconsin, deer populations have continued to increase across much of the state since the mid-1990s, despite increasing wolf and bobcat (and arguably black bear) population densities."
 

Attachments

  • Northern Forest Zone.png
    Northern Forest Zone.png
    33.4 KB · Views: 5
  • Wisconsin Wolves.png
    Wisconsin Wolves.png
    63.6 KB · Views: 5
Last edited:
2019: "We are in the neighborhood of all-time record high deer numbers in Wisconsin," Kevin Wallenfang, Department of Natural Resources deer and elk ecologist

If I'm to believe the state's Deer and Elk ecologist, which I typically always do over hunters anecdotal statements, Wisconsin has (or had) a record high population of Wolves coinciding with a record high population of deer.


DNR data


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.

Your statement about wolves 'chomping' down on deer for years doesn't mean anything significant, regarding population trends, without data. Predation can be compensatory, or additive. You can still have a growing deer population with compensatory predation. If predation was compensatory the WI wolf hunt was nothing more than recreational hunting for the purpose of managing wolves at some arbitrary number and completely insignificant to helping the deer. So if you wanted to hunt wolves for fun then hopefully if was fun, if you thought you were saving the deer it was a fantasy...which can still be fun!


"Many deer hunters tend to believe that every deer killed by a predator results in one less deer available for a human hunter to harvest. Research has found the truth to be more complicated. Predators do not, in fact, always reduce the population growth rates of prey. Biologists use the terms “compensatory” and “additive” to describe the impact of predation on any given wildlife population. If predation is “compensatory,” it means the total number of prey to die in any given year does not change as a result of predation. It means the predators remove the number of animals that would have been lost anyway to other causes."


"In Wisconsin, deer populations have continued to increase across much of the state since the mid-1990s, despite increasing wolf and bobcat (and arguably black bear) population densities."
‘If predation was compensatory the WI wolf hunt was nothing more than recreational hunting for the purpose of managing wolves at some arbitrary number and completely insignificant to helping the deer.’

Good. I support recreational hunting, within limits. And yes wolves do eat deer.

Unless the pornhub server is down, I’m curious why so many folks on this forum are upset about this.
 
Canid reproduction is the antidote to predator control. When populations are put in heavy harvest mode, the females tend to overproduce pups by going into heat multiple times per year, and having larger litters. The peaks & troughs of natural cycles are food dependent, in human dominated habitats like the Midwest, it's pressure related just as much as anything else in terms of overall populations.
Ben, the studies I have seen dealing with this were all dealing with coyotes. Are there similar studies dealing with wolves or fox?
 
I am so, so, so happy that a WI hunting season has already generated 5 full pages of thread + many others going concurrently. In general, us lowly midwestern folk assume y'all Westerners (simplifying here) don't care about our stuff, so ... that's nice.

I'd like to do a tiny pause button and ask for the different camps to take a breather and align on what the arguments are here...

Here's my understanding:
-Legally speaking, the law said that once the wolves were non-ESA, WI had to implement hunting/trapping seasons.
-They were made non-ESA in January, a lawsuit occurred, and then the DNR had to do a last-minute Feb season to .... comply with state law.
-They had a VERY effective infrastructure in place (WI gowild system works great, I think) to administer it
-I believe they basically just rolled forward the quotas from the last season, which was in 2012-ish? ...
-But let's be adults, if wolves haven't been hunted for 8 years, they gonna increase like crazy... so we all know that 'quota' is silly lowball.
-People now are saying, "OMG, IT'S OVER QUOTA!!!!" = chill out it's more like the QUOTA WAS UNDER REALITY... but makes sense because the whole thing was bum-
So, I know some people are adamantly against all this...but if you had wolves chomping down your deer herds for years and couldn't do anything about it, and then legally it was required that the season occur, and then the season occurred, and the DNR deliberately undershot a quota (for GOOD reason), and then a ton of wolves were harvested indicating there are a TON of wolves out there...

What's the issue again?

Or is this just about Aaron Rodgers getting engaged?

Thanks
The issue is that we took quota reserved for the tribes, it is a bad look and something that will end poorly for hunters.
Is there data suggesting this will make a difference in the deer or not? I asked for this in another thread but received an opinion.
Lots of barstool biology studies
 
Back
Top