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

‘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.
What other species do hunters (or yourself) want managed at a bare minimum besides wolves? Still looking for an answer........

Also, going over the quota and taking from the tribes quota is a bad look and ONCE AGAIN, if it were ANY other species besides wolves you would not be happy.
 
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."

You give the impression that you don't understand what "compensatory mortality" is.
Either that or you are purposefully trying to deceive people.


Every deer that wolves kill IS one less deer that could be harvested by a human without effecting the deer herd's potential population growth.


The blanket statement of deer populations increasing statewide does not indicate that wolves are NOT lowering deer populations where wolves exist.
 
Every deer that wolves kill IS one less deer that could be harvested by a human without effecting the deer herd's potential population growth.

🙄


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.

 

Attachments

  • 640926B2-787E-4F7F-B5DC-AD858B599DCC.jpeg
    640926B2-787E-4F7F-B5DC-AD858B599DCC.jpeg
    620.3 KB · Views: 3
🙄


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.

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?
 
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.

Which do you think is likely to be LEAST compensatory? Wolves or Montanans with rifles?
 
To believe that they hunt at random is equally bullshit.

Which do you think is likely to be LEAST compensatory? Wolves or Montanans with rifles?
We aren't talking Montana are we? I know you loves your wolves Brent. mtmuley
 
I am just trying educate myself on what effects wolves have on big game populations.

To me, it stands to reason that if wolf populations reach a certain threshold that they would begin to lower the population of their prey thus having a negative impact.

It seems that some posters here would disagree with that reasoning and I am trying to understand why.

It seems like calves and fawns would be a big part of the menu when they are available. Does the taking of these calves and fawns not affect population numbers?
 
No, the "sources" probably aren't "full of it". But to believe that wolves only kill the "predisposed" animals is, well bullshit. mtmuley

mtmuley,

Thanks for your private message and your responses here.

Did you read the sources I provided?


"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."
 

Attachments

  • Predisposition.png
    Predisposition.png
    190.9 KB · Views: 1
  • Compensatory .png
    Compensatory .png
    107.5 KB · Views: 1
To say wolves are having major impacts on Wisconsin's deer herd is also bullshit.........although honestly that narrative it helps me out. Keeps the Illinois people out
 
mtmuley,

Thanks for your private message and your responses here.

Did you read the sources I provided?


"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."


While this information provides a typical general explanation of "compensatory mortality", it in no way provides any information to evaluate whether or not, or to what degree "compensatory mortality" is occurring in Wisconsin with regard to deer and wolves vs other mortality sources including humans.

You have not provided a shred of evidence that wolves are not directly causing high additive mortality impacts on the deer population within areas occupied by wolves.

You have not provided a shred of evidence that deer predation by wolves has not reduced deer harvest by humans in areas occupied by wolves.

As this is your argument, you are responsible to back up your claims.


The concept of 'compensatory mortality" is a two way door between rooms in a house of mirrors.
Perception is everything.
Deer killed by humans and thus not available for wolves, even if this causes the wolf population to be greatly reduced due to starvation, can still be considered "compensatory" if the deer population does not decrease.


More important to this discussion would be a determination of the wolf population threshold of "compensatory mortality".
With 1-2000 wolves at a minimum, this hunt has likely been composed completely of "compensatory" kills, thus a non-event when viewed from your perspective.
 
While this information provides a typical general explanation of "compensatory mortality", it in no way provides any information to evaluate whether or not, or to what degree "compensatory mortality" is occurring in Wisconsin with regard to deer and wolves vs other mortality sources including humans.

You have not provided a shred of evidence that wolves are not directly causing high additive mortality impacts on the deer population within areas occupied by wolves.

You have not provided a shred of evidence that deer predation by wolves has not reduced deer harvest by humans in areas occupied by wolves.

As this is your argument, you are responsible to back up your claims.


The concept of 'compensatory mortality" is a two way door between rooms in a house of mirrors.
Perception is everything.
Deer killed by humans and thus not available for wolves, even if this causes the wolf population to be greatly reduced due to starvation, can still be considered "compensatory" if the deer population does not decrease.


More important to this discussion would be a determination of the wolf population threshold of "compensatory mortality".
With 1-2000 wolves at a minimum, this hunt has likely been composed completely of "compensatory" kills, thus a non-event when viewed from your perspective.

You are doing a good job of misunderstanding me, I will give you that!

I’m not ‘arguing’, I have largely regurgitated WI DNR data and statements, with the exception of my first post which was actually asking for data. Knowing how these threads go, from prior experience, I decided I better look for it myself. What I have read clearly states Wisconsin wolves have little impact on the deer (from a population perspective). Thats coming from the professionals, not the guy who went hunting, saw a lot of wolf tracks, and didn’t get a deer.
I am not declaring predation in WI to be compensatory or additive.

So far, the best ‘argument’ against everything I presented was “bullshit”, and even that didn’t have a citation..
 
You have not provided a shred of evidence that wolves are not directly causing high additive mortality impacts on the deer population within areas occupied by wolves.

You have not provided a shred of evidence that deer predation by wolves has not reduced deer harvest by humans in areas occupied by wolves.
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.

I’m sure wolves do reduce the population but it is a little more complex than we try to make it. That is why we have barstool biology.
 
I don’t believe too many people will disagree with the fact that wolves will not regulate their numbers on their own. As long as there is a food source, they will continue to propagate ! Some States are now allowing wolf numbers to be controlled through hunting with a projected harvest level, which appears to be a reasonable means of controlling numbers. But, I get the impression from some posts, that this is in question of being correct. And, even these control attempts are completely being fought by pro wolf advocates. Just what are the thoughts of these advocates regarding management, or are there none ? Is the basic concept of pro wolf, to allow full protection with no regard to numbers ? We have seen several instances of courts being the deciding factor of control attempts and stopping them from occurring. As stated in other posts, I am not in favor of wolves. But, since they are here and spreading in numbers, it only seems logical that those numbers should be kept in check. The predation that is occurring presently is not going to remain stagnate, it will become worse as wolf numbers increase. It appears that several posters are okay with the wolf issue, but it also appears that advocates are not okay with controls and seem to think that there is no future problem. Just where is the break even point without controls and how are these controls to be handled ??
 
Caribou Gear

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
110,805
Messages
1,935,062
Members
34,883
Latest member
clamwc
Back
Top