What other species do hunters (or yourself) want managed at a bare minimum besides wolves? Still looking for an answer........
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.
Deer population at potential record high as hunters set sights on 2019 Wisconsin gun season
The Department of Natural Resources estimates 2 million white-tailed deer are present in Wisconsin, providing good prospects for hunters in the 2019 gun season.www.jsonline.com
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."
Bullshit. mtmuley
Bad winters, weather, drought, disease, malnutrition, etc can and do kill deer,elk throughout the year. Predators primarily prey on weakened animals that are ‘predisposed’ to die anyway.
When studying up on elk and moose units in certain parts of Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana, it is pretty universally mentioned in the data for these units, regardless of the source, that wolves have negatively impacted elk and moose numbers in those areas. Are all those sources just full of it?
Your statement shows you are assuming hunters will have a chance to legally harvest every deer that’s born, and every deer that survives hunting season will be available next hunting season.
Bad winters, weather, drought, disease, malnutrition, etc can and do kill deer,elk throughout the year. Predators primarily prey on weakened animals that are ‘predisposed’ to die anyway.
Understanding Predation | New Mexico State University - BE BOLD. Shape the Future.
Predation is a much misunderstood ecological process. Most people confuse the act of predation with the effect, believing that the killing of an individual animal invariably results in a negative impact on the population. This view is frequently wrong, and ignores the complexity of predation at...aces.nmsu.edu
Thank you
No, the "sources" probably aren't "full of it". But to believe that wolves only kill the "predisposed" animals is, well bullshit. mtmuley
To believe that they hunt at random is equally bullshit.
We aren't talking Montana are we? I know you loves your wolves Brent. mtmuley
Bullshit on Wisconsin too. Same question. Wolves or rifles?
I kill a bull elk every year. mtmuley
Proof? And to be clear, I am in Montana. You, where there aren't any wolves. mtmuley
mtmuley,
Thanks for your private message and your responses here.
Did you read the sources I provided?
Understanding Predation | New Mexico State University - BE BOLD. Shape the Future.
Predation is a much misunderstood ecological process. Most people confuse the act of predation with the effect, believing that the killing of an individual animal invariably results in a negative impact on the population. This view is frequently wrong, and ignores the complexity of predation at...
"This leads to the most common misconception people have regarding predation, namely that the individual killed by the predator would still be alive if the predator was removed. This simplistic view is used, for example, to justify many predator control programs, and ignores the concepts of predisposition and compensatory mortality. Simply, if predisposition is present, the individual killed by the predator was likely to have died from some other cause anyway. To illustrate, research in New Mexico has shown that individual mule deer killed by pumas were in significantly poorer condition than the population as a whole (Bender and Rosas-Rosas, 2016). This illustrates predisposition; such individuals were increasingly likely to die from some other factor if not killed by a puma. Hence, mortality in these populations was primarily compensatory (Figure 4; Bender and Rosas-Rosas, 2016). Primarily compensatory predation was similarly seen with pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), elk, and desert bighorn (Ovis canadensis) across multiple populations in New Mexico (Figure 4)."
"The direct effect of predation at the level of the individual is that an individual is either killed by a predator or not (potential indirect effects of predation are addressed below). Whether that individual is killed or not often depends upon its degree of predisposition. In other words, is there some characteristic of that individual that makes it more or less likely to be killed by a predator? Many factors can predispose individuals to predation or any other cause of death. For larger animals, perhaps the most important of these is nutritional or body condition (Hanks, 1981; Mech and Peterson, 2003; Bender and Rosas-Rosas, 2016). Individuals in poor shape are more vulnerable for many reasons, including less ability to fight or flee, less environmental awareness and hence less ability to detect the presence of a predator, greater susceptibility to disease and accidents, etc. Other traits can also predispose individuals to predation, including age, debilitation (i.e., injury), and diseases such as chronic wasting disease (CWD) (Errington, 1967; Mech and Peterson, 2003; Mech, 2012; Krumm et al., 2010)."
Wisconsin DNR
"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."
Sorry to jump in, but my statistics alarm went off on those comments. Wouldn’t that be the null hypothesis? No way he can prove a negative. So the negative is the baseline and he (or you) should have to reject it by proving the reverse, I.e that they do have an impact. To do that you would need to figure out when wolves showed up. Wisconsin has deer harvest stats by county to cross reference with known wolf areas. And don’t forget that WI had a wolf seasons a few years back, so that is a variable to control for. And probably should find EHD outbreaks too. Severe outbreak will kill hundreds of deer in a single county alone. But those may get eaten by wolves so not sure if you want to consider that compensatory.
