DEPT. DF NATURAL RESOURCES Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan October 27, 1999 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7921 Madison, WI., 53707 PUBL-ER-099 99 WISCONSIN DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan Compiled by the Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee for the Division of Land of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources This plan outlines the long term management of wolves in Wisconsin. The plan was presented to the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board for its approval at Hayward, WI., on August 24, 1999 and revised at the Board's direction for its meeting in Madison on October 27, 1999. oward S. r kenmiller, Director ~~re:joftLL Steven W. Miller, Administrator Division of Land Bate ' /a Date 77 WISCONSIN WOLF MANAGEMENT PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY by the WISCONSIN WOLF ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee reports to the Bureau of Endangered Resources Director and Division of Lands, Land Leadership Team of the Department of Natural Resources. Plans prepared by the Wolf Advisory Committee are subject to approval of the Natural Resources Board The gray wolf returned to Wisconsin in the mid-1970's and was listed as a state endangered species in 1975. A state recovery plan, initiated in 1989, set a goal for reclassifying the wolf from state endangered to threatened once the population remained at 80 or more wolves for 3 consecutive years. By 1999, the population had increased to 197 wolves, and had been at 80 or more since 1995. Therefore the Wisconsin DNR, has reclassified wolves from endangered to threatened, and developed this plan to manage wolves as a threatened and eventually as a delisted species. Efforts have also begun to federally reclassify or delist the gray wolf by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 8. encouraging interagency cooperation; 9. establishing a system for program guidance; 10. encouraging programs for volunteer assistance on wolf conservation; 11. recommending future research needs; 12. regulating wolf-dog hybrids and captive wolves 13. establish a protocol for handling wolf specimens; 14. encouraging reasonable ecotourism of wolves and their habitats. Four zones will be used to manage wolves (Figure 8). Management actions will vary according to wolf population status (Table 1). This plan will delist the wolf from state threatened to a nonlisted, nongame species when the wolf population reaches 250 animals based on late winter count across the state in areas outside Indian reservations. A management goal of 350 is recommended. Zone 1 consists of Northern Forest deer management units and Menominee County. Limited lethal control would be allowed on problem wolves, but generally lethal control would not be exercised on wolves inhabiting large blocks of public land in areas of suitable wolf habitat. Fourteen strategies were developed for managing wolves. These include: 1. managing wolves in 4 different management zones; 2. intensely monitoring wolf populations through threatened status and delisted status; 3. monitoring wolf health; 4. cooperatively managing wolf habitat; 5. controlling nuisance wolves and reimbursing landowners for losses caused by wolves; 6. promoting public education about wolves; 7. establishing regulations for adequate legal protection of threatened and delisted wolves; Zone 2 includes Central Forest deer management units. Limited control would be allowed for handling nuisance wolves, but lethal control would normally not be conducted on large blocks of public land. Zone 3 consists of areas south of Zone 1 and surrounding Zone 2. Protection would be provided for dispersing wolves, but more liberal control would be allowed for handling nuisance wolves. Zone 4 represents areas with little or no wolf habitat where liberal control would be allowed on problem wolves. 3 Wolf population and health monitoring would remain intense for the foreseeable future and will include radiotelemetry tracking, wolf howl surveys, and track surveys. Management activities for Wisconsin's wolf population shall! be based on a late winter count. Cooperative management of wolf habitat will continue to be recommended for a threatened and delisted wolf population in suitable habitat. Habitat management would include access management, vegetation management, protecting corridor habitat, and protecting den and rendezvous sites. Management of wolf packs living within Native American reservation boundaries will be coordinated with tribal governments. Depredation control activity will focus on preventive methods, while also providing adequate control of nuisance wolves. Once wolves are reclassified as federally threatened, wolves that are verified habitual killers of livestock, may be euthanised. Lethal wolf control activity will not be carried out generally in large blocks of public land in areas of suitable wolf habitat. Once wolves are state and federally delisted, euthanization of depredating wolves may be permitted by landowners or occupants on their private land. Proactive depredation control may be used by government trappers in areas with historical wolf problems after the population level of 350 has been exceeded. Public education about wolves will continue to be an important strategy of wolf conservation in Wisconsin. Education will involve preparation of special education material, work with cooperating organizations to promote education on wolves, provide special training on wolf management to agency personnel, and continue agency presentations on wolves. The efforts will emphasize the positive aspects of wolves to Wisconsin's forest ecosystems. Specific regulations will need to be developed for wolves listed as threatened or delisted. Regulations will focus on maintaining a high level of protection, even for a delisted wolf population. Cooperation among various federal, state, county, local and tribal governments will be an important aspect of future wolf conservation in Wisconsin. A Wisconsin DNR Wolf Advisory Committee will continue to incorporate a diverse group of individuals to address policy and management concerns. The Wolf Advisory Committee will annually review wolf management in Wisconsin with a citizen stakeholder group. Policy or management changes will be recommended to the Department of Natural Resources Land Leadership Team for Natural Resource Board approval. A public review of the plan and management goals will be conducted every five years by the Department of Natural Resources. 4 Volunteer programs will be used to provide education on wolves and assist with wolf population surveys. Research will continue to be used to address management concerns as wolf populations increase and emphasis will be on developing accurate and economical survey techniques, as well as continued evaluation of future impacts on wolf populations and their habitats. Legislative authorization will be sought to restrict ownership of hybrids and to obtain authority to control freeroaming wolf-dog hybrids. Wolf Management costs will increase from a base level of $130,000 yearly at approximately 10% per year from a base year of 1997-98, for the next five years; this does not include depredation costs. License fees from hunting, fishing or trapping will be used for wolf management only if the species is open for public harvest. Full reimbursement should be made to owners who have lost pets or livestock to wolves; normal costs are estimated at $20,000 to $40,000 per year when wolves have reached management goals. The cost of removing depredating wolves and either translocating them to suitable habitat or euthanizing them is estimated at $15,000 to $30,000 per year. Therefore the total cost of wolf management activities is estimated at from $165,000 to $200,000 per year. By its nature, the gray wolf interests not only traditional hunters, but many persons who are interested in nature viewing, photography, hiking and nature study. As an apex species, the management of wolves impacts other forest species. It is appropriate for funding for wolf management to come from alternative funding sources, instead of traditional license fees, or strictly from endangered resources funding. New funding sources need to be identified to provide the Department of Natural Resources the resources to continue reimbursement at fair market value for losses and to maintain a sufficient depredation response program, as well as maintaining sufficient monitoring of the wolf population. Table 1. Management actions as prescribed by the DNR wolf plan for specific zones (See details in text) STATE LISTING AND ALLOWED MANAGEMENT OPTIONS Nongame Protected Status Endangered <80 wolves <{ao.25o wolves) iot.ie zo'Ne· .•. zO~e. ZONE ZONE 2 3 4 yes yes yes no no yes yes yes no no no yes no yes yes yes no yes yes yes no yes yes yes no no no no yes in part no no no STATEWIDE Depredation: USDA live trap (250-350 wolves) ZONE MANAGEMENT ACTION ·3··· ZONE and translocate Confirmed depredation: USDA live trap and euthanize • Depredation: government trapper proactive control**• USDA/DNR/Law Enforcement euthanize nuisance wolves• Depredation:Private Citizen: Lethal control by permit*** Depredation: Landowner may kill wolf attacking stock or pets on private land*** Public Harvest••• Coyote hunting closure during firearm deer season * Federal down listing to threatened status must first occur before these actions can take place. **Lethal Controls would rarely be authorized on large blocks of public land in areas of primary wolf habitat ••• Federal delisting must first occur before these actions can take place. Nongame or Furbearer Status Table of Contents Title Executive Summary I. Introduction II. History of Wolves in Wisconsin and Public Attitudes Ill. Wolf Biology and Ecology ~Management Goal and Criteria for Determining Endangered, Threatened or Delisted Status ~Wolf Management Strategies >4. Wolf Management Zones B. Population Monitoring and Management Population Monitoring Population Management C. Wolf Health Monitoring D. Habitat Management Potential & Favorable Wolf Habitat Access Management Vegetation Management Habitat Linkage & Corridors Management of Den & Rendezvous Sites Role of Wilderness & Other Forest Reserves E. Wolf Depredation Management F. Wolf Education Programs G. Law Enforcement H. Inter-Agency Cooperation and Coordination I. Program Guidance and Oversight J. Volunteer Programs K. Wolf Research Needs L. Wolf-Dog Hybrids & Captive Wolves M. Wolf Specimen Management N. Ecotourism ~· Wolf Management Budget ~I literature Cited Glossary Appendices A. Wolf Depredation 1976-1998 B. Population Viability Analysis C. GIS Analysis of Wolf Habitat & Potential Population in the Great Lakes States D. Citizen Involvement E. Impact of Wolves on Deer in Wisconsin F. Wolf Health Monitoring and Mortality Factors G. Wolf-Dog Hybrid Cases in Wisconsin H. Public Attitudes Toward Wolves in Wisconsin I. Alternative Wolf Management Considered 6 1 3 8 8 12 15 16 16 19 19 20 21 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 26 27 28 28 29 29 30 31 32 33 34 37 39 39 41 46 50 58 61 64 66 71 WISCONSIN WOLF ADVISORY COMMITTEE Adrian P. Wydeven, Chair, Mammalian Ecologist, WDNR, Park Falls Randle L. Jurewicz, Staff Biologist, WDNR, Madison David A. Weitz, Public Affairs Mgr., WDNR, Eau Claire Kerry A. Behler, Wildlife Health Specialist, WDNR, Madison Kenneth W. Jonas, Wildlife Biologist, WDNR, Spooner Ronald N. Schultz, Endangered Resources Tech., WDNR, Woodruff John F. Olson, Furbearer Ecologist, WDNR, Park Falls Gregory K. Langrehr, Conservation Warden, WDNR, Park Falls Sheri A. Buller, Naturalist, WDNR, Woodruff Richard P. Thiel, Natural Resource Educator, WDNR, Babcock Laine R. Stowell, Wildlife Damage Specialist, WDNR, Madison Bruce E. Kahn, Mammal Research Biologist, WDNR, Rhinelander Eric M. Anderson, Wildlife Management Professor, UW-Stevens Point Robert C. Willging, Wildlife Damage Biologist, USDA-WS Rhinelander Kelly A. Thiel, Wildlife Damage Biologist, USDA-WS Rhinelander Tony M. Rinaldi, Wildlife Biologist, USFS, Rhinelander Peter F. David, Wildlife Biologist, GLIFWC, Odanah David S. Majewski, Co. Forest Administrator, Florence Co. Florence William Wengeler, Co. Forest Administrator, Lincoln Co. Merrill Ronald Spry, Wildlife Biologist, USFWS, Green Bay Mike Lentz, WI Conservation Congress, Merrill Richard A. Alvin, WI Conservation Congress, Sarona Terry Valen, Wildlife Management Supvr. (retired) WDNR, Eau Claire Acknowledgement: Numerous people have assisted in the preparation of this Wolf Management Plan. They include Nancy Cervantes, Sarah Boles, Sharon Wasko, Janine Dobson, Ron Refsnider, David Mladenoff, Ted Sickley, Keith McCaffery, Pam Troxell, Robert Rolley, Julee Barnett, Peggy Cunningham, Matthew Wilson, Robert Haight, Raleigh Fox, Reul Fleming, Jim Bishop, Patricia McConnell, Chuck McCullough, David Mech, Jane Wiedenhoeft, Fred Strand, Greg Kessler, Bruce Bacon, Sam Moore, Jack Koch, Ron Eckstein, Rich Wissink, Dave Evenson, Mike Reed, Steve Miller, Barbara Zellmer, John Zekowski, Don Quintans, Roger Sabota, Wendy Sanders, Jeff Amo, Ed Barkett, Tim A. Andryk, Wayne Hall, Mike Zeckmeister, Tracy Fretwell, N. Tim Weiss, Matt Zine and the Publishing & Design Staff of the Department and members of the Wolf Discussion Group which met in Wausau in April, 1999 (See Citizen Involvement Appendix D) 7 I. INTRODUCTION The gray wolf (Canis lupus) was listed as a Federally Endangered Species in 1967 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and was again listed in 1974 under provisions of the 1973 Endangered Species Act. All gray wolves in the lower 48 states were considered Endangered by the U.S. Government. In 1978 wolves in Minnesota were upgraded to threatened status. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) listed the state population as Endangered in 1975, as wolves began to recolonize the state after being extirpated for 15 or more years. A recovery plan for Wisconsin wolves was initiated in 1989, and its goal of 80plus wolves for the state was first achieved in 1995. The State of Wisconsin downlisted wolves to state threatened in 1999. The federal downlisting process to reduce wolves from endangered to threatened will be initiated in 1999 and should be completed in 2000. Federal delisting from both the endangered and threatened lists should begin in 2000 and be completed within two years. Because Wisconsin's gray wolf population has recovered from an endangered status, guidelines need to be developed for managing wolves as a threatened species and eventually as a nonlisted species. This plan provides guidelines for managing wolves in Wisconsin for the next 10 to 15 years. These guidelines provide a conservation strategy for maintaining a healthy viable population of gray wolves in the state, and contribute toward national recovery, while addressing problems that may occur with wolf depredation on livestock or pets. The WDNR is directed by State Statute 29.605 (formerly s.29.415) to implement programs "directed at conserving, protecting, restoring and propagating selected state endangered and threatened species to the maximum extent practicable". This management plan provides the guidelines for managing a threatened wolf population, supply criteria for delisting wolves as no longer in jeopardy of extirpation, and provide a conservation plan for managing a delisted wolf population. This management plan is based on state listing of endangered, threatened, or delisted wolves in Wisconsin. Mention in the plan of listing criteria and management actions will only refer to state listing, unless specifically called "federal" listing. Although the management actions in this plan are related to st.ate listing, in some cases, federal downlisting or delisting will also need to occur before the management actions take place. Therefore although state listing criteria may be met, in some situations, it may be necessary for federal actions to take place before certain activities are permitted. Across the State of Wisconsin are numerous Indian Nations which have management authority on tribal lands. While wolves are federally listed, tribes are required to follow federal guidelines, but once federally delisted, wolves will be managed independently on tribal lands. Portions of northern Wisconsin also consist of lands ceded from the various Chippewa bands who reserved hunting and gathering rights on these lands. Management actions proposed for this region will require cooperation with the tribes, including considerations of public harvest. evidenced by their prominent role in culture and spiritual beliefs. Early fur traders were generally indifferent to the presence of wolves because they posed no threat, and were not considered valuable furbearers (Thiel 1993). Negative attitudes towards wolves prevailed among Europeans who settled in the Territory in the late 1830's. After the end of the Civil War, wolves were perceived as a menace to livestock, and in response, the state legislature instituted a bounty in 1865 (Thiel 1993). II. HISTORY OF WOLVES IN WISCONSIN AND PUBLIC ATTITUDES Wolves occurred throughout Wisconsin prior to settlement (<1832) (Jackson 1961, Thiel 1993). Estimates of presettlement numbers vary, with the more credible being 3,000-5,000 (Wydeven 1993, Jackson 1961 ). Prior to settlement, five species of ungulate were found in Wisconsin: bison, elk, moose, caribou and white-tailed deer (Scherger 1942, Scott 1939). All five species were potential prey for wolves (Mech 1970). Indeed, fur traders in the Wisconsin-Minnesota region between 1770 and 1830 documented wolf predation on bison and deer (Thiel 1993). By 1880, deer were the only wild ungulate species remaining in viable numbers within the state (Scott 1939). Wolves were exterminated from southern Wisconsin during the 1880's (Scherger 1953). The last wolf in central Wisconsin was killed in Waushara County in 1914 (Thiel 1993). By 1930, wolves were restricted to less than a dozen counties in northern Wisconsin. By this time, sport hunters also favored a bounty on wolves because wolves were considered unwanted competitors for deer (Fiader 1974, Thiel1993). The wolf population declined from an estimated 150 in 1930 to less than 50 by 1950 (Thiel 1993). Wolf range was also reduced to less than 10% of the state (Figure 1). The last wolf packs in Wisconsin disappeared by 1956-57, Native Americans occupying Wisconsin at the time of European contact revered wolves as 8 [~ WJ Probable Wolf Range O,ft.f,ii..O ~ ~ ~ N A o ==:::J50......._ 100 km Figure 1. Gray Wolf Distribution in Wisconsin in 1950. 9 e Territory With Radio-Collared Wolf ., I I ' • ' ..... ' L-1 Moose Lake Pnck I Territory Without Radio-Collared Wolves Probable Wolf Range Possible Pack Activity N A Figure 2. Gray Wolf Distribution in Northern Wisconsin: Winter 1979-1980. 197 No. of Wolves No. of Packs 1980 Figure 3. '81 '83 '64 '85 '86 '87 '88 '&i) '90 Changes in Wisconsin Gray Wolf Population: 1 980 - 1 999 10 '91 '02 '93 '94 '95 96 97 \J8 \)9 e .. '.-' Terrltority With Radio-Collared Wolf Territority With Pre-/IC•US Aadio·CollarEd Wolf T.;.rritorl~1 Wllllcut Aadio·Collared Wolf D Probable. Wolf Rw1ge ? Pos.sible Pack AcHvity 50 HX'>krr Q Figure 4. Gray Wo~ Dlstribution in Wisconsin: Winter 1998 - 1999 Radio-collared Packs ~ Movement of Dispersing wol•1es ersal el \.Visconsin Wolves 11 just when the state legislature removed the timber wolf from the bounty. The last Wisconsin wolves were killed in 1958 and 1959 (Thiel 1993). (Nelson & Franson, 1988) Recently surveys found that in 1997, 78% of hunters felt protection of wolves and other predators was important, and that only 20% opposed increasing the wolf population (See appendix H). Between 1960 and 1975 the wolf was considered extirpated in Wisconsin (Thiel 1978). In 1973 wolves were afforded the protection of the federal Endangered Species Act. The Minnesota wolf population began expanding (Thiel and Ream 1995). In winter 1974-75, a wolf pack was discovered in the border area between Wisconsin and Minnesota south of Duluth-Superior (Thiel 1993). By 1980, five wolf packs were found in Wisconsin: four in Douglas County near the Minnesota border, and the other in Lincoln County (Figure 2)(Thiel 1993, Wydeven et al. 1995). In 1986, the WDNR created a Wolf Recovery Team to develop a state wolf recovery plan. Public input was a critical factor in developing a plan that would lead to the successful recovery of wolves. The Wisconsin Wolf Recovery Plan was approved by WDNR in 1989, and has been the template, guiding managers in decisions that affect wolf recovery in Wisconsin (WDNR 1989, Thiel and Valen 1995). The plan's goals were to: 1) support a minimum of 80 wolves for a minimum of 3 consecutive years; 2) reclassify the wolf as state threatened; 3) contribute to federal down listing of the wolf to threatened in the Great Lakes Region. An intensive wolf monitoring program was instituted by the WDNR and the USFWS in 1979. During the 1980's wolf numbers fluctuated between a low of 15 animals (1985) to a high of 31 (1989) (Wydeven et al. 1995). High mortality rates (greater than 35% annually) were caused primarily by humans, with gunshot the leading cause of death (Wydeven et al. 1995). The recovery goal of 80 wolves was first achieved in 1995 when 83-86 wolves were counted. By 1999, the population was up to 197-203 wolves (Figure 3), distributed in 54 territories in 20 northern and central Wisconsin Counties (Figure 4). A Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee was formed in 1992 to oversee wolf recovery in Wisconsin, and develop a Wolf Management Plan with criteria for reclassification. The Wolf Advisory Committee conducted a public review of the Wolf Recovery Plan in 1994, and found public support for contiunued wolf recovery. The Wolf Advisory Committee began work on development of a new Wolf Management Plan in 1996. Attitudinal surveys of deer hunters conducted in the early 1980's indicated that as many as 20% of Wisconsin gun-deer hunters in Douglas and Lincoln Counties harbored negative attitudes towards wolves (Knight 1985). In general, most (69%) of northern hunters believed wolves should not be eliminated from Wisconsin. Generally farmers, as a group, were less supportive of wolf recovery, and 50% of farmers in northern Wisconsin opposed wolf recovery in the 1980s. The WDNR downlisted wolves to state threatened in 1999. The USFWS has announced plans to federally downlist wolves in Wisconsin and plans to complete the process in 2000 or 2001. Ill. WOLF BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY Physical Characteristics: Gray wolves resemble large dogs but usually have longer legs, larger feet, and a narrower chest (Banfield 1974). Their tail is straight rather than curving upward, and their head appears more massive due to wide tufts of hair that project down and outward from below the ears (Mech 1970). Adult males captured in Wisconsin averaged 77 pounds (57102 pounds) and adult females averaged 62 pounds (46-75 pounds)(Wydeven et al 1995). They are 4.5 to 6.5 feet long from tail tip to nose tip and stand 28-34 inches at the shoulder. Pelt color seldom varies from a grizzled gray/brown, but at least 2 black individuals have been recently observed in Wisconsin. The gray wolf, Canis lupus, also known as "timber wolf', originally occurred across North America, Europe and Asia (Nowak 1995). Coyotes, Canis latrans, are sometimes called "brush wolves" but are not true wolves. Wisconsin's wolves were formerly classified as the subspecies, Canis lupus lycaon (Eastern timber wolf) when the 1989 Timber Wolf Recovery Plan was approved (WDNR 1989). Recently the number of subspecies of the gray wolf has been reduced from 24 to 5 (Nowak 1995). The revised classification places all wolves in the Great Lakes Region west of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan with the subspecies Canis lu~ nubilis (Great Plains Wolf). For the purpose of this management plan, we will refer only to the species, Canis lupus. Social System: Wolves live in family groups called "packs" that consist of a dominant breeding pair ("alphas"), and generally surviving offspring from the previous year, and the current year's pups (Mech 1970). Occasionally older offspring remain with the pack or an 12 unrelated adult wolf may be a member. Pack size in Wisconsin ranges from 2-10 wolves and averaged 4.3 wolves during the 1996-97 winter (Wydeven and Cervantes 1997). Each family group occupies an exclusive territory of 20-160 square miles, averaging 70 square miles in Wisconsin (Wydeven et al. 1995). Territories rarely overlap and are defended against other wolves (Peters and Mech 1975). and heartworm (Mech et al. 1985, Archer et al. 1986, Thiel, unpubl. data). Mange has been observed frequently in Wisconsin wolves since 1992, and has been diagnosed as the primary cause of death for at least nine wolves in the past 5-6 years. In 1992 and 1993, 58% of wolves handled by WDNR had signs of mange, but this has declined to 15% in recent years (WDNR files). Yearling wolves normally disperse from their natal packs, usually during October-January, to seek a mate and their own territory. Adult dispersal has also been noted (Fritts and Mech 1981). Dispersers may travel up to 500 miles in less than 10 months (Fritts 1983). Wisconsin wolves dispersed an average of 71 miles from natal territories and have traveled 300 miles (Figure 5) (Wydeven et al. 1995). Food Habits: In the 1940's, deer occurred in 97% of 435 wolf scats found in Wisconsin, at a time when deer populations were very high and beaver numbers were low (Thompson 1952). Deer comprised 55% of scats collected between 1980 and 1982 and analyzed by Mandernack (1983). Beaver comprised 16% and snowshoe hare 10% in his analysis. Miscellaneous items accounted for the remainder. Some wolves have also killed domestic animals in Wisconsin in recent years (Appendix A). Reproduction: Wolves are sexually mature at 22 months but generally only the alpha male and female breed (Mech 1970). The alpha pair normally inhibit sexual contact between other mature members (Packard et al. 1983). Breeding takes place between late. January to early March, and gestation is 60-63 days. Pups (4-8) are born in early to mid April (Fuller 1989). The pups are kept at a den site for 6 to 8 weeks. By mid June the pups are moved to rendezvous sites where they stay while adults search for food. Throughout summer, wolves utilize 2-3 rendezvous sites (Fuller 1995). In September and October, when the pups become large enough to travel with the adults, rendezvous sites are vacated and the pack moves as a single unit throughout its territory. Mortality: Keith (1983) found that wolf populations declined when annual mortality rates of wolves greater than 6 months exceeded 30-40%. Wydeven et al. (1995) reported that average annual mortality rates for Wisconsin wolves greater than one year old decreased from 39% during 1979-85 to 18% during 1986-92. Wolves are susceptible to diseases, predation, human persecution, starvation, and accidents. Human-caused deaths declined from 72% in 1979-85 to 22% in 1986-92. In recent years (1993-1996) 50% of wolf mortality was caused by humans, and over 25% of mortality was caused by vehicle collisions (WDNR files). Mortality rates for wolves 1 year old or older continues to be less than 20% annually. Diseases such as canine distemper, canine parvovirus, Lyme disease, and blastomycosis have been observed in Wisconsin wolves. Wydeven et al. (1995) felt that canine parvovirus negatively impacted Wisconsin's wolf population during 1982-86. Parasites observed in Wisconsin wolves include protozoans and intestinal worms, ticks, mites, lice, Habitat Requirements: Wolves are adaptable and can survive on large landscapes with adequate prey populations and low rates of human persecution (Fuller 1995). Pack territories are typically 70 square miles (average pack territory size) and contain low human densities, limited public accessibility, and minimal livestock production (Thiel 1985, Mech 1986, Fuller 1995). Fuller (1995) suggested that clusters of 2-3 packs (areas of 200 square miles) represents the minimal number of packs necessary to support a viable population. The large land requirements of wolves can conflict with human use of those lands. Examples of direct conflict over land use by humans include livestock production, urban areas, and intensive recreational activities. Conflicts may also arise anywhere people have the opportunity to encounter wolves either accidentally or intentionally. Keith (1983) and Fuller (1989) found that over 90% of the variation in wolf densities could be accounted for by variation in prey populations. In northeast Minnesota, Mech (1986) and Nelson and Mech (1986) reported a density of 1 wolf per 17 square miles in an area with deer densities of about one deer per square mile, but moose and beaver also occurred in this area. In north-central Minnesota, wolf densities of 1 wolf per 10-13 square miles were found in an area supporting 10-26 deer per square mile (Fuller 1989, Fuller 1990). Average deer density in deer management units comprising Wisconsin's Northern Forest, which includes most of Wisconsin's wolf range, was 22 deer per square mile during the 1996-97 winter and density of wolves in 2,200 square miles of wolf range was 1 wolf per 15 square miles (Wydeven and Cervantes 1997). Prey abundance should not be a limiting factor in Wisconsin. Mladenoff et al. (1995) estimated that approximately 5,700 square miles of suitable wolf habitat exists in Northern Wisconsin and that it is highly fragmented. 13 They suggested that human-caused mortalities and Primary mlf habitat Secondary wolf habitat N A 0 25 Figure 6. Primary and secondary wolf habitat in Wisconsin. Primary habitat represents those areas with a 50% or greater chance of supporting a wolf pack. Secondary habitat represents those areas with between a 10% and 50% chance of supporting a wolf pack. The remainder of the state is designated as unsuitable, with a less than 10% chance of supporting a wolf pack. Based on Mladenoff, et al, 1995. 14 continued habitat loss due to human development could reverse wolf population trends in a fragmented region such as Wisconsin. An update of IV. MANAGEMENT GOAL AND CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING ENDANGERED, THREATENED OR DELJSTED STATUS The Wisconsin DNR proposes to delist wolves as neither state endangered or threatened when a late winter count of 250 wolves are achieved outside of Native American reservations in the state. At the delisted level, landowner control on nuisance or problem wolves can occur, and control can be expanded for law-enforcement officers. The state population management goal would be a late winter count of 350 outside of Native American reservations. At the management goal, proactive depredation control by government agents can be authorized. A. Background The Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee spent a great deal of time developing the delisting level and establishing a population management goal. Four major factors were considered in the development of the population goals: 1. The goal needed to meet or exceed federal recovery criteria. this analysis shows 5,812 mi 2 of primary wolf habitat. 5,015 mi 2 of secondary habitat, and 45,252 mi 2 of unsuitable habitat on a statewide basis (Figure 6). the bare minimum level at which federal delisting can be considered for the region. The wolf population in Wisconsin needs to avoid approaching this level to prevent wolves from becoming relisted as Federally Endangered or Threatened. A second concern was an assessment of the potential habitat base in Wisconsin. Studies done in Wisconsin using a Geographic Information System (GIS) with known pack territories, showed that 5812 mi 2 of land had a high probability of being settled by wolf packs (Miadenoff et. al. 1995, Appendix C). As many as 300 to 500 wolves could occur on the most suitable habitat at full occupancy (Miadenoff et. al. 1997, Appendix C). If wolves also occupied secondary or marginal habitat, possibly 500 to 800 wolves could occur in the state. On the other hand, if wolves are unable to fully occupy the most suitable habitat, and few occupy marginal habitat. the potential population could be considerably less than 500. Based on this assessment. 500 wolves occurring on about 6000 mi 2 of suitable habitat seemed to be a reasonable estimate of the potential carrying capacity of wolves in Wisconsin. Therefore, in the first draft of the wolf plan, an upper limit of 500 Table 2. Wisconsin Wolf Listing/Delisting Criteria 2. The goal must represent a population level that can be supported by the available habitat. Wolf Population State Listing Federal Listing 3. The goal needed to be compatible with existing information on gray wolf population viability analysis. less than 80 Endangered 4. The population goal needed to be socially tolerated to avoid development of strong negative attitudes toward wolves 80 or more for 3 yrs. Threatened Threatened 100 plus for five years Wisconsin and Michigan Threatened Delisted 250 wolves for 1 year. Delisted Delisted The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1992) Recovery Plan for wolves in the eastern U.S. recommended maintaining a minimum of 100 wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan to federally delist wolves in the region. Since the Wisconsin - Michigan population was located within 100 miles of the much larger Minnesota population (2450 wolves in 1998), 100 wolves was considered adequate for maintaining a regional viable population. The same plan recommended that if a second wolf population in the eastern U.S. was more than 100 miles from the Minnesota wolf population, it should consist of at least 200 wolves. Therefore, 100 wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan represents Endangered Decline to less than Reclassify as Delisted 250 for 3 yrs. Threatened Decline to less than Reclassify as Not Specified 80 for 1 yr. Endangered 15 L-------------------------------~ dressed in developing a population goal is the social intolerance of wolves that may develop at a high population level. Habitat modeling, literature reviews, and population viability analysis provide somewhat systematic means for determining viable levels and potential populations for state wolves, but determining levels of social tolerance is more subjective. The Wolf Advisory Committee settled on a management goal of 350 wolves as a reasonable first attempt at assessment of social tolerance. The 350 level was intended to be the minimum level at which proactive control and public harvest would occur. This management goal falls about half way between the delisting level (250 wolves) and the perceived biological carrying capacity (500 wolves) for the state. During the review of the second draft of the wolf plan, of persons commenting on the population goal, 38% supported the goal, 38% felt it was too low, and 24% felt it was too high. Therefore, the goal seemed to be a reasonable compromise between population capacity, minimum level of viability, and public acceptance. wolves was established for Wisconsin. Because of concerns expressed by many on the first draft, the figure was modified to a management goal of 350. The management goal represented the minimum level at which a full array of population control activities could occur including pro-active depredation control and the possibility of public harvest. Long term viability of the Wisconsin wolf population was a third concern addressed by the Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee. Fritts and Carbyn (1995) conducted an extensive review of wolf population viability analysis, and determined that although no one really knows the minimum viable population of wolves, it appears that 100 or more wolves would be needed to maintain viability in isolation. Others have suggested that as many as 500 wolves may be necessary for long-term viability in isolation (Soule" 1980). Haight et. al. (1998) determined by modeling, that 16 wolf territories could maintain long-term survival in disjunct populations if immigration was adequate and portions of the population are highly protected; Haight et al. (1998) considered packs to average 4-8 wolves, or an overall average of about 6 wolves. Thus, the 16 territories would represent about 96 wolves, and with an average 15% loners, would consist of about 110 wolves. Therefore, Haight et. al. (1998) would further support the idea that about 100 wolves could maintain viability if adequately connected to other populations. Thus, the literature seemed to suggest that about 100 wolves would be adequate if highly connected, but if isolated, populations may need to be at levels of 200 to 500 wolves to maintain long-term viability. B. Delisting and Relisting Criteria Delisting and relisting criteria for Wisconsin wolves are shown in table 2 and figure 7. Table 2 also illustrates federal listing criteria. State reclassification from endangered to threatened occured in 1999. The state delisting level may be achieved within 2 more years and the management goal could be achieved in 5 years (Figure 7). Federal criteria for downlisting to threatened were achieved in 1997 and the downlisting process may be finalized in 2000. The federal delisting process will probably begin in 2000 and should be completed sometime in 2001 or 2002. Some management proposed under state delisting will not be possible until federal delisting also occurs. Federal reclassification from endangered to threatened will allow DNR and USDA-WS to kill wolves causing depredation to livestock and pets. Total federal delisting will be required before the following can occur: lethal control by landowners; and proactive control by government trappers and public harvest. We further examined population viability analysis by conducting analysis of the Wisconsin population (Appendix B). Population viability analysis provides a useful way of looking at the dynamics of a wildlife population, but needs to be cautiously interpreted and should not be used by itself to set management goals (Bessinger and Westphal 1998, Reed et. al. 1998). When examining varying levels of reproduction, environmental variability, and catastrophes, risk of extinction or relisting as endangered were often fairly high at 100 animals. But at populations of 200 or more animals, risk of extinction or relisting declined drastically, and the risks for 300 to 500 animals were similar and relatively low for most categories. The analysis was done on an isolated population to provide a conservative estimate of animals needed for longterm viability if exchange of wolves among the Great Lakes population declines in the future. Based on this analysis, a population between 200 to 300 seemed appropriate for delisting wolves in Wisconsin. V. WOLF MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES A. Wolf Management Zones The fourth area of concern that needed to be ad- 16 Zone management is frequently recommended as part of wolf recovery plans and management plans (Mech 1995) and the establishment of protective areas helps assure long-term survival of small, disjunct wolf populations (Haight et al., (1998). The Federal Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf provides 5 different zones for managing wolves in Minnesota (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992). Fritts (1990, 1993) suggested 3 levels of zone management for wolves in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Fritts (1990) indicated that normally only 3 zone levels would be needed for wolf management to avoid unnecessary confusion. On the other hand, the soorr----~----~------r-----r-----~~~~-----r- 1-1----~----+----_,---•~---~~----rs Management Goal 300 ~r-------,-+---------r--------+---~~--~-------4---------r--------4-- t.-4----•---~----~•--ru+----~---~- Delisting LeveJ Threatened 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Years Figure 7: Wisconsin Wolf Population GrCMI'th If carrying Capacity Is 500 Wolves 2020 Alaska Board of Game adopted a strategy for wolf management in 1991 that incorporated 7 zones, ranging from Zone 1 (Full Protection) to Zone 7 (High Use/Intensive Management) (Anonymous 1992). The purpose of zone management is to vary management depending on potential wolf habitat and the possibilities of conflicts between wolves and humans. Fritts (1993) listed 3 assumptions inherent in zone management for wolves: 1) Wolves belong in some areas and not others because of potential conflicts with humans. 2) Adequate habitat to support a viable population should exist in the zone(s) where the species is afforded the most protection. 3) The species should receive high priority in the areas of most suitable habitat. Generally the fewer the zones, the more simplified the management and greater the understanding by the public and agency personnel (Fritts 1990). A disadvantage to fewer zones is that less fine tuning of man-..__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___, agement is possible. Fig. 8. Wisconsin Wolf Management Zones The WDNR will utilize 4 zones to manage wolves in the state (Figure 8). Such a system provides maximum protection in most portions of suitable habitat, yet allows a flexible system for controlling wolves in less suitable areas where higher levels of conflict are likely to occur. The characteristics of the 4 zones under this management system are listed below. On tribal lands, tribal governments will determine management of wolves once the species is delisted. elude livetrapping and translocation if suitable habitat exists, or euthanization of depredating wolves. Agents of the USDA-Wildlife Services; Department of Natural Resources and law enforcement agencies could euthanize nuisance animals within 0.5 miles of depredation sites. Normally lethal control would not be authorized on or adjacent to large blocks of public land in suitable wolf habitat. Wolf habitat maintenance would be encouraged on suitable portions of public lands by access management, protection of den and rendezvous sites, and forest management to support adequate prey populations. An existing coyote hunting closure during the deer firearm season would remain in effect for Zone 1. This would be an acreage reduction from the existing coyote closure area of 44% of the state to 33% of the state. Following state delisting control of depredating wolves could be done by landowners /occupants acting on private land under WDNR permit; they also will be allowed to kill wolves in the act of attacking pets or livestock on their land. If the management population is exceeded, proactive trapping by government trappers may occur in areas with chronic wolf depredation problems. Zone 1 Northern Forest: This zone consists of 18,384 square miles within the Northern Forest Deer Management Units and Menominee County. About 634 square miles of Zone 1 would consist of Indian reservations that have unique management systems and in many cases would provide additional protective areas for wolves. Zone 1 could support an estimated 300-500 wolves. Habitat consists mainly of forest and contains relatively little farm land or urban area. The zone includes 90% of the states' favorable (primary) wolf habitat. Reimbursement for losses and perhaps payments for abatement practices would be provided. Depredation controls would in- Zone 2 -Central Forest Zone: This zone consists of 4,521 square miles in the Central Forest Deer 18 dation on their land. Proactive trapping by USDAWildlife Services would be considered If the wolf population builds up in an area and causes chronic problems after the wolf population exceeds 350. Management Units. The area is capable of sustaining approximately 20-40 wolves. Wolf habitat maintenance would be encouraged on suitable portions of public lands by access management, protection of den and rendezvous sites, and management for younger forests to support prey population. No major change in management would be required in this zone as the wolf is delisted. The wolf population would be allowed to fluctuate with the deer population. Deer populations are primarily impacted by hunter harvest, and winter severity. Reimbursement for losses and perhaps payments for abatement practices could be provided. Depredation controls would include livetrapping and translocation if suitable habitat exists and euthanization of wolves within 0.5 mile of a depredation site. Agents of the USDA-Wildlife Services; Department of Natural Resources and law enforcement agencies could euthanize nuisance animals. No coyote closed area is being proposed for this zone. Following state delisting control of depredating wolves could be done by landowners /occupants acting on private land under WDNR permit; they also will be allowed to kill wolves in the act of attacking pets or livestock on their land. If the population exceeds 350, proactive trapping by government trappers may occur in areas with ongoing wolf problems. Zone 4 -- This zone represents areas that have almost no opportunity for colonization by wolf packs. Wolves entering this zone have a high probability of conflicting with people. This zone would include southern and eastern counties that have less than 20% wildlands and would include all the urban areas across the state. The zone would cover about 16,000 mi 2 . Few wolves are likely to occur in this area. Although non-depredating wolves that avoid areas of human or livestock concentration can receive some level of protection, any wolf or wolf-like animal that lacks fear of people and readily approaches pets, livestock or people should be captured or controlled. Many of the wolf-like animals that would be controlled under such circumstances would probably be free roaming wolf-dog hybrids. Along with federal and state trappers, local law enforcement and animal control officers will be allowed to control nuisance wolf-like animals in this zone. Following state delisting, landowners or occupants could be granted WDNR permits to kill wolves or wolflike animals on their land and would be allowed to kill wolves in the act of attacking pets or livestock on their land. Proactive control by government agents could begin once delisting has occurred at the state population level of 250, unlike other zones where the proactive control would not occur until a management goal of 350 is reached. Zone 3 - Wolf Buffer Area: This zone represents areas having very limited habitat for packs to colonize, but probably contains patches of suitable dispersal habitat that connects the north and central management zones. The zone covers about 18,000 mi including the mixed foresUfarming areas of central Wisconsin and the rugged Coulee country of western Wisconsin (counties are 20% to 60% forested) . Most of the area has less than a 10% chance of being occupied by wolf packs, but some of the rugged bluff country or bottom land areas along the Mississippi River have greater than 25% chance of being occupied by wolf packs. Generally less than 20 wolves are likely to occur in this zone. Because of the importance of maintaining genetic diversity in the Central Forest wolf population, some level of protection will be provided for dispersing wolves in this area. Unless these wolves cause problems, they will not be controlled. Wolves that do become depredators on livestock or pets will be vigorously controlled. Trapping by government agents can be conducted up to 5 miles from depredating sites. Wolf packs that establish may be allowed to persist, but if depredation occurs the whole pack may be removed. Following state delisting, control of depredating or nuisance wolves could also be done by the landowners /occupants on their land with WDNR permits; in addition the landowners I occupants would be allowed to kill wolves in the act of depre- B. Population Monitoring and Management 1. Population Monitoring Accurate counts are necessary to determine if wolves are attaining management goals. Radio tracking of collared individuals is the most precise way to monitor wolf populations (Mech 1974). By observing collared wolves with other pack members, complete counts can be made of wolf packs in winter (Mech 1974). One or two radioed animals per pack enables biologists to monitor whole packs. However, the presence of a collared wolf is not always a guarantee that the whole pack will be monitored. Sometimes collared wolves disperse prior to winter, or a pack may occur in dense conifer cover where few observations are possible. Snow tracking can be used to estimate pack size (Thiel and Welch 1981, Wydeven et al. 1996). Counting wolves by snow tracking is less precise than observing wolves from the air, but is useful for assessing wolf numbers, especially if done in conjunction with radio telemetry. The tracks of a wolf pack need to be observed several times over a winter to get an accurate count. Howling surveys are useful for determining summer home sites for wolves and pup production (Harrington and Mech 1982). These surveys are done mainly from July to October. Although howling surveys rarely allow opportunity for precise counts, the technique allows as- 19 4) Wolf reports by the general public and agency personnel (rare mammal reports) will be collected, investigated, placed in a data file and used to guide winter and summer DNR surveys. 5) Bow hunter surveys of wildlife observations by bow hunters. 6) Reports from USDA Wildlife Services on depredating wolves. 7) Additional population modeling may be possible in the future using indices from other surveys, as well as information from road kill and depredation controlled wolves. 8) Occasional statewide population counts may be done similar to Minnesota where field people are asked to assess areas occupied by wolves and the population estimated is based on known densities, pack size and other parameters of the wolf population (Fuller et al. 1992). sessment of relative numbers and helps separate packs. Since 1979, the Wisconsin DNR has surveyed the state wolf population using the techniques described above. Wolf live-trapping has been performed during each spring and summer (approximately May 1 to September 15), and 317 wolves were caught and radio-collared each year. Wolves were located by airplane 1-2 times per week and remained on the air from 1 week to 4 or more years. Normally about 1520% of the population was captured each year and 30-40% of the population had active transmitting collars during the year. During the winter about 50-60% of packs had at least one collared wolf. Usually 2 crews, each consisting of 2-3 people, conducted live trapping each year. A volunteer carnivore track survey was initiated by the WDNR in fall 1995 (Wydeven et al. 1996). Surveyors were asked to conduct 3 or more surveys of 20 - 30 miles each on snow covered roads in each of the 123 survey blocks (200 square miles each). In 1996, 32 of 46 (67%) surveys were returned for assigned survey blocks, and in 1997, 37 of 51 (75%) blocks were surveyed. Surveyors in 1997 conducted 3,317 miles of survey, averaging 90 miles and 4.7 surveys per block. Volunteer surveyors were very close to WDNR estimates of wolf numbers in 1996, but much less in 1997, probably due to poor tracking conditions. Once the volunteer tracking program has been adequately tested and refined, it may also be used as a monitoring tool, and be turned over to a volunteer organizations such as the Timber Wolf Alliance (TWA) and Timber Wolf Information Network (TWIN). It requires 10-12 days to trap each wolf. Radio collars placed on wolves cost about $350 and it normally costs about $300 to locate all the collared wolves using aerial surveys. It costs about $1 ,000-1 ,500 to capture each wolf. Livetrapping and radio-tracking is the most precise system for monitoring wolves, but is expensive. Snow tracking has been used to supplement telemetry data on wolves. Most winters, 2,500 3,000 miles of survey were conducted in suitable habitat. These surveys normally proceed at about 4-5 miles per hour thus representing 500-750 hours of track surveys. General recommendations for wolf population monitoring under threatened status and as a delisted population are described below. During summers, howling surveys are conducted in pack territories across the state to determine pup production. These surveys take about 100 hours to complete. Threatened and Delisted Status - Live-trapping of wolves and radio-tracking will continue. As the wolf population increases, the percentage of wolves captured and radio-collared each year will decline. Emphasis would be on collaring packs in new areas, core areas, Central Forest Areas, or in research projects where special funding is available. Other packs would be monitored mostly by snow tracking and summer howling surveys. Greater reliance would be on tracking and howling surveys conducted by volunteers. Other WDNR surveys would also be used more extensively for comparing wolf abundance with track and telemetry surveys. Meetings will be conducted each spring with agency wolf surveyors and members of the general public to determine the overwinter wolf population. Monitoring efforts need to expand with population growth for the foreseeable future. Federal funds for monitoring will be eliminated 5 years after federal delisting. The WDNR will survey wolves at current rates of monitoring for the next five years and will incorporate information from other surveys to supplement and enhance wolf population information. Efforts will be made to more thoroughly gather reports of wolf observations by the general public. Existing and potential surveys that could help assess wolf abundance include: 1) Furbearer winter track counts, consisting of 2 ten-mile segments per county of snow covered roads that are examined for furbearer abundance each winter by wildlife managers. 2) Annual reports of observations by DNR field people on selected state mammals. 3) Marten surveys done by Endangered Resources and Science Service personnel by snow tracking 100-300 miles in the Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forest. 2. Population Management The Wolf Advisory Committee believes population growth will be slowed by actions listed in this plan, including take by USDA-Wildlife Services related to depredation, control by law enforcement officers, and the take by private landowners of wolves in an act of depredating, or landowner control by permit in chronic problem areas. 20 A public harvest can be considered if other control activities do not adequately maintain the population near the 350 goal. All other control activities such as government trappers, law enforcement officer controls, and landowner controls will first be used to attempt to maintain the population at this goal. The Wisconsin State Legislature would have to approve authority for a controlled public harvest of wolves. USDA-WS will be allowed to use lethal control as soon as federal reclassification occurs. Landowner control throughout the state and proactive control by government agents in Zone 4 can occur when the wolf population exceeds 250. Such control actions, along with normal mortality, will impact overall population growth. If the population exceeds 350, proactive depredation control by government trappers will be allowed in all four zones and public harvest can be considered. The development of legislation that would allow a limited public harvest of wolves would require extensive public interaction as part of the process. Harvest by private citizens is controversial, but the taking of wolves in a recovered population is consistent with the management of other furbearers in the state of Wisconsin. Any public harvest would be closely monitored to ensure that the population does not decline below the management objective of 350 wolves. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources adheres to the principles of adaptive management, and the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan will be periodically reviewed, and adapted to meet changing biological and social conditions. Threatened Status --- Only wolves causing depredations on pets or livestock would be euthanized while wolves are classified as threatened. All depredation control activity would be conducted by WDNR or USDA-WS. Under special circumstances, authorization to control nuisance wolf-like animals can be given to local law enforcement or animal control officers in urban areas. Landowner control would not be considered while wolves are listed as threatened. C. Wolf Health Monitoring Delisted status - Once delisted, the gray wolf would be classified as a "protected nongame species" (similar to the badger) . Most control activity would continue to be done by WDNR or USDA - WS personnel. Within Zone 4 and urban areas, local law enforcement officers and animal control officers could be authorized by WDNR permit to control wolf-like nuisance animals that are free-roaming in urban areas. Control in these type of situations should be flexible and be based on animal behavior. Most wolf-like animals that would be controlled in these situations would probably be wolf-dog hybrids or captive raised wolves. Health monitoring is necessary to assess impact of diseases and parasites on the wolf population. Health monitoring includes collection and analysis of biological samples from live-captured wolves, analysis of wolf scats, and necropsies of dead wolves found in the field. While federally listed as endangered/ threatened, biological samples of live captured wolves and analysis of scats will be conducted by WDNR, and wolf necropsies will be conducted by the National Wildlife Health Lab in Madison. When federal delisting occurs, all health monitoring will be the responsibility of WDNR. Intensive health monitoring will continue while wolves are listed as a state endangered or threatened species. Live-captured wolves will be tested for diseases, physiological condition and parasites. Ideally about 10% of a population of 100 wolves should be examined, but as the population continues to increase, the percentage of the population live-captured will decline. In recent years 12 to 17 wolves were captured annually. Wolf scats will be collected to monitor canine viruses and parasite levels. Dead wolves will be necropsied to determine cause of death, physical condition and disease status .. Once wolves are delisted landowners/ occupants may be issued permits to kill nuisance wolves on their land. Landowners/ occupants would also be allowed to shoot wolves in the act of attacking pets or livestock on their land, with the requirement that a Conservation Warden must be contacted within 24 hours. All wolves killed by landowners must be turned over to the State. Proactive control by government trappers would be used by the WDNR to control the wolf population once the management goal of 350 is achieved. This would consist of lethal controls in areas with a history of depredation problems, or areas with a high probability of wolf-human conflicts. Such control would have the effect of slowing or perhaps stabilizing the growth of the wolf population. Following state delisting, live-trapping will continue, but the percentage of the population captured each year will decline. Periodic scat analyses will be done to test for diseases and parasite loads. WDNR will continue to examine dead wolves. Special research studies may occasionally be done on wolves and these should include health monitoring. Wolf health monitoring should be part of the capture protocol of all live-capture studies of any wild wolves in Wisconsin, and should be carefully coordinated with WDNR wildlife health specialists. 21 increased tolerance for slightly higher road densities in recent years (WDNR unpubl. data; per comm. Bill Berg, MN DNR). D. Habitat Management 1. Potential and Favorable Wolf Habitat Based on computer models, Wisconsin contains large tracts of potential wolf habitat (Miadenoff et al.1995, 1997, Appendix C). The variables used to determine what makes up potential habitat include human population density, prey (deer) density, road density, vegetation cover, spatial landscape pattern, and land ownership. Of these, density of improved roads and complexity of spatial pattern are most important. Wolves have selected areas that are most remote from human influence, and with the least amount of landscape pattern (e.g. least amount of agricultural land, lakes, and other separate land cover patches). Based on these findings, there are currently 5,812 mi 2 (15,052 km 2) of favorable wolf habitat in Wisconsin (Figure 6). Favorable (primary) habitat is defined as areas that have a greater than 50% probability of being occupied by wolf packs. Most of this favorable (primary) wolf habitat is located on public land, especially county forests, followed by national forests, and private industrial forests (Miadenoff et al. 1995 Appendix C). Wolves have naturally expanded into Wisconsin and have better defined what favorable habitat is to them by currently occupying 2,200 mi 2 (5,700 km\ most of which is also within the areas identified as favorable through computer models (Figure 6). Access management is important for many economic, social, and biological reasons. Managing the amount, type and level of public motorized access is recommended for Zone 1 and 2. Access management can include avoidance of new road construction, using temporary or winter-only roads, closure of existing roads not needed for management or public access with gates berms or large rocks, and road obliteration. Emphasis in access management should be on maintaining existing low road densities in areas of suitable habitat. Access management may help reduce maintenance costs, provide remote recreational experiences, and may benefit certain wildlife including bear, marten, bobcat, moose, goshawk, and spruce grouse. In deciding upon an access management program, variables such as administrative controls, economic and recreational land use, human population demographics, ownership patterns, atti- Primary Wolf Habitat by Land Ownership State ounty 28% lndustri 10% The Wolf Advisory Committee· will facilitate cooperative habitat management efforts with land agencies and industrial forest and private land owners, especially in the 5,812 mi of the most favorable habitat (Miadenoff 1995, Appendix C). Habitat management should include efforts at access management, corridor protection, vegetation management, and den site protection. Such habitat management should continue for wolf populations listed as threatened or delisted. 5% 18% tudes of the local population towards wolves, and historic trends in wolf mortality need to be taken into account. Low standard roads (the ones that are not shown on county maps, including Forest Service class D roads), off-road motorized vehicle trails (including all-terrain vehicles and dirt bike areas), and open areas, are access situations not adequately addressed in the Wisconsin Wolf Recovery Plan. Low road density correlates well with wolf colonization because road density is directly related to levels of human access. Impacts associated with open areas where off-road vehicles are not restricted to trails, and the occurrence of low standard roads are difficult to measure, but probably have similar effects on wildlife species such as wolves. Development of low quality roads or trails for motorized vehicles should receive thorough review when being proposed in areas with suitable wolf habitat. 2. Access Management Wolf populations are affected by human caused mortality (see Appendix F). Motorized access, and the level of human use on such access, has been shown to be a key factor in establishing and maintaining wolf populations (Thiel, 1985; Mech et al. 1988). These studies suggest that wolves exist primarily in areas with less than, or up to, one linear mile of open improved road per square mile (0.6 km/km\ Mladenoff et al. (1995) showed that road densities within pack territories were lower, averaging 0.37 mil mi 2 (0.23 km/km2 ). The expanding wolf population in the Lake States, however, has shown 3. Vegetation Management 22 !ember or early October when wolves begin their nomadic hunting period of fall and winter. Rendezvous sites often consist of grassy areas or sedge meadows near beaver ponds or forest streams, often near dense conifer cover. Wolves require deer, beaver and other prey to survive. Deer are generally most abundant in early successional forests. Historically, disturbances such as windstorms and fires created this vegetation condition, but in recent times timber harvest and other forest management practices have provided this habitat. Beaver are especially fond of aspen for food. Aspen, jack pine, and regenerating forests of all types are preferred by deer. Oak is important to deer in central Wisconsin, and seasonally throughout the state for its periodic acorn crop. Dense conifer cover such as hemlock, cedar and mixed conifer swamps are important as winter thermal cover for deer. Small grassy upland forest openings are important components of deer summer range. Wolf pack territories have a higher proportion of mixed conifer-hardwood forest and forested wetlands than non-pack areas (Miadenoff et al. 1995). Wolf territory size tends to increase as local deer populations decrease, and territory size decreases when deer numbers increase (Wydeven et al. 1995). Active den sites and rendezvous sites in areas of suitable wolf habitat need protection. Areas within 330 feet (1OOm) should receive total protection from tree harvest, and areas within 0.5 miles (0.8km) would be recommended for protection from disturbance such as logging from March 1 to July 31. These recommendations would generally serve as policies on public land, and be encouraged on private land in areas of suitable wolf habitat. Den and rendezvous site protection should be included even after wolves are delisted. Wildlife biologists responsible for designating such sites, and foresters will be encouraged to cooperate to manage logging operations to protect wolves during forestry projects. Normally only one or two den sites would be affected within a 50-square mile area. 6. The Role of Wilderness and other Forest Reserves Federal wilderness (69 mi 2 , 5 areas), state wilderness (50 mi 2) and other non-timber managed forest reserves with limited or no motorized access contribute to wolf habitat in that they provide refuge areas where wolves are not subject to high human disturbances. Although designated wilderness areas are used by wolves, experience in Wisconsin and other areas of the Great Lakes have shown that managed forests with adequate access management also provide suitable wolf habitat. Therefore it is not necessary to designate areas as wilderness for the benefit of wolves. An ecosystem management approach to forest management on public and private land will balance considerations for wolves with other forest species. Young forests provide summer habitat for deer and mature conifer forests provide wintering areas. Young forests provide higher populations of prey, and large blocks of forest with a low density of roads provide seclusion for wolves. E. Wolf Depredation Management 4. Habitat Linkages and Corridors Wisconsin is more fragmented with roads, towns, and open agricultural land than is northern Minnesota and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. To maintain a wolf population in Wisconsin, it is important to provide forested habitat linkages and corridors for wolf dispersal to and from Minnesota and Michigan, as well as within Wisconsin. Forested blocks of land that connect wolf habitats across Wisconsin should be maintained. The WDNR will encourage private landowners, tribal governments and public land agencies to cooperatively manage corridor habitats. Protection of corridor habitat should be a factor in considering acquisition of public land for other conservation purposes. Wolf depredation management is one of the most sensitive segments of this Wolf Management Plan. WDNR is charged with protecting and maintaining a viable population of wolves in the state, but also must protect the interests of people who suffer losses due to wolf depredation. Wolves occasionally kill livestock, poultry, and pets. Although wolf depredation is not anticipated to impact a significant portion of the livestock growers, poultry producers, and pet owners, it can bring hardship to individuals. Minnesota currently has more than 2,000 wolves but fewer than 1% of the farms in wolf range experience wolf depredation problems. WDNR paid $55,575 in wolf damage compensation claims for 45 calves, 11 sheep, 140 turkeys, and 36 dogs during 1976-98. (See Appendix A.) Depredation on dogs represented 76% of reimbursement payments provided by WDNR. Only 0.4% of the farms in the current wolf range have experienced wolf depredation problems. Through 1998, six wolves have been translocated as a result of depredations. 5. Den and Rendezvous Site Management Wolf pups are born in dens in April and remain there until mid to late June. Dens may be excavated in the ground, or may be hollow logs and stumps, old beaver lodges, or rock caves. Wolf pups are moved to rendezvous sites in mid or late June which are used until late Sep- Reclassifying wolves from federally and state endangered to threatened status will provide an option to euthanizing 23 depredating wolves. Under threatened status only government agents would euthanize wolves. Once wolves are delisted, permits may be issued by WDNR to enable private landowners to take depredating wolves. Public comments in autumn 1996 revealed concerns about killing wolves, particularly through public harvests. Other comments strongly supported public harvest. Most who supported euthanizing depredating wolves felt this should only be done by government professionals. Many urged educational programs and preventive efforts by livestock producers to minimize depredation losses. There was strong support for continued damage compensation programs. 1. Depredation Management Plan The objective of the wolf depredation program is to minimize depredations and compensate people for their losses. Euthanization is listed a depredation management option statewide, but depredation management will focus on prevention and mitigation rather than wolf removal. The Department will work with the livestock industry to develop guidelines for preventing or minimizing wolf depredations. Wolf removal without adequate prevention and mitigation, will likely result in large annual expenditures of time and money. 2. Verification Procedures Quick, uniform, and accurate verification of wolf depredation is critical. Previous experience has shown that the majority of wolf complaints turn out to be non-wolf problems when properly investigated. Immediate response to complaints by qualified people is necessary to reasonably determine cause of death. A. Upon receipt of a possible wolf depredation complaint, WDNR will immediately notify USDA-WS agents responsible for investigating complaints. B. USDA-WS will contact the complainant by phone within 24 hours and make an onsite inspection within 48 hours of receipt of the complaint if it appears to be legitimate. C. USDA-WS will classify the complaint under one of the following categories: 1. Confirmed Depredation. Clear evidence that wolves were responsible for the depredation, such as a carcass present with bite marks and associated hemorrhaging, wolf tracks in the immediate vicinity or other wolf sign. 2. Probable Depredation. Carcass missing or inconclusive but presence of good evidence such as kill site, blood trails, wolf tracks and scat in the immediate vicinity 3. Confirmed Non-Wolf Depredation. Conclusive evidence that something other than a wolf killed the animal. Wolf-dog hybrids and wolves that appear to have been raised in captivity. will be treated as domestic animals. 24 4. Unconfirmed Depredation. Any depredation or livestock loss that does not meet the above criteria. This could be missing animals, animals that died of other causes, and even animals killed by wolves but unconfirmed because of lack of evidence. The first two categories, "Confirmed" and "Probable" are the only ones that will warrant further action. If the investigating USDA-WS agent classifies a depredation complaint as "Confirmed Non-wolf Depredation" or "Unconfirmed Depredation", no further action will be taken except that the incident will be recorded and, if the depredation is determined to be caused by wild animals other than wolves, USDA-WS will provide the appropriate assistance. 3. Control Response Options Five control response options are available to resolve confirmed or probable depredations. (Table 3a and 3b) The depredation management program will use a combination of these options as appropriate depending upon the individual situation. These include: 1. Technical assistance to help prevenVminimize problems, 2. Compensation for losses caused by wolves. 3. Livetrapping and translocation of wolves causing problems. 4. Trapping and euthanization of depredating wolves by government agent. 5. Landowners /occupants may be allowed to kill depredating wolves by DNR permit after delisting has occurred. They would also allowed to shoot wolves attacking pets or livestock on their land. Under cases of "Confirmed Depredation" or "Probable Depredation", the local WDNR Wildlife Biologist, the WDNR Regional Wildlife Expert, and USDA-WS will jointly determine appropriate management activities using the following criteria: A. Technical assistance will be provided in all Wolf Zones. These may suitable include abatement materials or practices. This may also include development of a depredation prevention plan for the farmer and recommendations for increased abatement measures which would be cost-shared by WDNR. B. Compensation will be provided in all Wolf Zones for verified and probable losses of domestic animals to wolves. The present compensation program is funded through Endangered Resources revenues, but following delisting, compensation for damage done by gray wolves may no longer be available. The WDNR is seeking sources for funding the compensation program . The Mammalian ecologist will notify possible claimants of the findings of USDA-WS within 7 days of receiving verbal notification that a wolf kill has occurred. The Madison Office of the WDNR will respond to a claimant within 14 days, either affirming the claim and initiating processing, or seeking additional justification for the claim. Farmers must follow any technical assistance recommendations to remain eligible for com- pensation payments. Damage appraisals will continue to be performed by USDA-WS to provide accurate, timely and fair compensation for losses. C. Translocation -Depredating wolves may be translocated from Zones 1,2 and 3. Translocation may be effective in some situations, but success will vary depending on the trapping history of a problem wolf. Eventually translocations may be limited as the number of suitable Table 3a. Depredation Management Options by Management Zones For a Threatened Wolf Population in Wisconsin (80-250 wolves) Possible Depredation Control Activity Zone 1 Zone2 Zone 3 Zone4 Technical Assistance and Compensation allowed allowed allowed allowed Translocation of Wolves allowed allowed allowed not allowed Euthanize Wolves (USDA-Wildlife Services) allowed* allowed allowed allowed Private Landowner Control not allowed not allowed not allowed not allowed Table 3b. Depredation Management Options by Management Zones For a Delisted Wolf Population in Wisconsin (250+wolves) Possible Depredation Control Activity Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone4 Technical Assistance and Compensation allowed allowed allowed allowed Translocation of Wolves allowed allowed allowed not allowed Euthanize Wolves allowed* allowed allowed allowed allowed allowed allowed allowed (USDA-Wildlife Services) Private Landowner Control .________, ______________ _ * Lethal Control will rarely be used on large blocks of public land. 25 D. 1) 2) 3) 4) release sites are occupied by wolves. Identification of release sites and agreements with appropriate land owners/ managers must be done before translocation efforts can be initiated. Euthanization- Some wolves may be euthanized in the future due to conflicts with humans. This option can be used when: there have been significant documented, confirmed losses at a site, the producer has a signed depredation management plan for the property and follows abatemenU husbandry recommendations, the USDA-WS Depredation Specialist recommends euthanasia, and the WDNR approves. wolf-dog hybrids will be euthanized in any zone where they are captured at depredation sites. Initiation of translocation and/or euthanization efforts will depend upon the Wolf Management Zone in which the depredation problem occurs and the status (threatened or delisted) of the wolf population. Guidelines for each Wolf Zone are as follows: 1. Zone 1 -On large blocks of public land in primary wolf habitat, euthanization of wolves will not normally occur. 2. Zones 1 and 2 - While wolves are state threatened trapping efforts will be initiated only in cases with repeated depredation problems. Trapping will be limited to areas within 0.5 miles of the confirmed depredation site. Wolves will be translocated or euthanized. After wolves have been state delisted landowner /occupant control with DNR permit will b~ allowed at depredation sites on their property which have had a history of recurring problems. 3. Zone 3- While wolves are state threatened trapping efforts will be limited to repeated depredation problems and to areas within 5.0 miles of the depredation site. Wolves will be translocated or euthanized. After wolves have been state delisted, private landowner control will be allowed with DNR permit to control wolves on their property. 4. Zone 4 - While wolves are state threatened livetrapping will be done on any wolf causing depredation with no limits from depredation sites on trapping Such wolves will normally be euthanized. After wolves have been state delisted, proactive trapping may take place, local law enforcement officers may be allowed to kill wolves, and private land owners or their agents may be given permits to kill depredating wolves. F. Wolf Education Programs Public education about wolves was a major factor in the success of wolf recovery in Wisconsin. Education emphasized greater acceptance of wolves, and have reduced unfounded fears and myths. Education about wolves will continue to be important in future wolf management, with more focus on ways to live with wolves, 26 needs for wolf control activity, and needs for more of an understanding of the role of wolves in forest ecosystems. Educational information will also be needed to explain the reclassification and delisting process to the general public as wolves pass through threatened and delisted status. A multifaceted and multi-agency approach will be used to encourage wolf education in Wisconsin. Some of the major education steps are listed below. 1. Develop Special Education Materials a. The current (1996) edition of the "Timber Wolf Life Tracks" publication will be updated about every 5 years or when major changes in status or population occur. b. A pamphlet will be developed between WDNR and USDA-WS on means for livestock owners to reduce or avoid depredation problems by wolves and other predators. c. A booklet will be prepared that explains Wisconsin wolf management to general audiences. d. Periodically write and publish news releases and articles on Wisconsin wolves for state newspapers, magazines, and others include the "Wisconsin Natural Resources Magazine". e. Incorporate information on wolf identification protection, and trap release methods in hunt~ ing and trapping pamphlets, and incorporate wolf identification/ecology information into hunter and trapper education courses. f. Incorporate wolf information on the WDNR's Web Page (www.dnr.state.wi.us) 2. Work with other organizations WDNR will continue to work with other organizations to promote wolf education including: Timber Wolf Alliance (TWA}, Timber Wolf Information Network (TWIN}, International Wolf Center, and other organizations involved in promoting wolf education. The WDNR will provide a person to serve on the advisory committee for TWA, provide training at TWA workshops, review and edit educational material for TWA, and help TWA promote the annual "Wolf Awareness Week". The WDNR will assist TWIN with workshops when requested and provide survey information for TWIN to use in developing educational materials. Periodic updates on Wisconsin wolf status and management will be provided to the International Wolf Center. WDNR will assist other wolf organizations, schools, colleges, and educational organization to teach members about wolves and assist in developing wolf education material. 3. Provide Special Training As wolf populations continue to expand, and wolf management becomes more decentralized, there will be more of a need to teach others about wolf management including WDNR wildlife biologists and technicians, other WDNR field workers, other agency personnel and tribal natural resources personnel. Education on wolf management would include: identification of wolves and wolf sign, methods of determining local wolf populations, methods of trapping and releasing wolves, procedures for wolf habitat management, and means for reducing wolf depredation problems. The WDNR will develop and conduct such programs to teach others about wolves. Other programs in which WDNR wolf program personnel will be involved would include training for USDA-WS trappers, and track training for WDNR, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC), tribal natural resource personnel, Forest Service, and other agency personnel conducting furbearer and carnivore surveys. WDNR wolf program personnel will assist in the training of university personnel conducting wolf studies on methods of trapping, handling and monitoring of wolves. 4. Provide general wolf presentations The WDNR wolf program coordinator will continue to provide presentations to the general public on Wisconsin wolves, as will others working on the wolf program. But as wolves become delisted and wolf management becomes more decentralized, no one individual will be as intensely involved with the wolf program. Therefore the need to give wolf presentations should be shared more broadly with other WDNR wildlife biologists, park naturalists, other agency biologists, and trained volunteers. G. Law Enforcement Strict legal protection has been a key in the improved status of wolves in Wisconsin and the Great Lakes region. In Wisconsin, important factors in the increase of wolves has been the closing of coyote hunting across the northern half of the state during the firearm deer hunting season, increased fines for killing of endangered species, and vigorous investigation of illegal killing of wolves. Changes and potential regulations necessary for reclassified and delisted wolf populations are listed be! ow: 1. Threatened Status Regulations a) The term "threatened species" needs to be added to Wisconsin Stats. 29.65 (civil actions for damage caused by law violations), and 29.9965 (wild animal protection assessments). These statutes would set the value of an illegal killed wolf at $875, the value 27 set for all endangered species, but currently not including threatened species. This amount would be added to the penalty for illegal killing of a wolf upon conviction. b) Penalties for killing threatened species remains the same as for endangered species, that being (Wisconsin Stats. 29.605 (formerly ss 29.415 (5) (a) (1 ): ) Unintentional violations would be subject to a fine of $500 to $2,000 and 1 year loss of hunting privileges. Intentional violations would be subject to a fine of $2,000 to $5,000 or up to 9 months in prison, or both, and loss of hunting privileges for 3 years. c) A state endangered or threatened species permit would be required for possessing of captive wolves. d) Coyote-closed zones during the gun-deer season would be modified to cover Zone 1 (Figure 8), and would reduce areas with restricted coyote hunting from 44% to 33% of the state. e) While wolves remain federally listed as endangered or threatened, all law enforcement work will be coordinated with the USFWS. Decisions as to whether to prosecute violations as state or federal will be made by federal and state wardens in consultation with the local district attorney. Generally, federal violations carry much heavier fines and longer periods of imprisonment. 2. Delisting Regulations a) The wolf should be added to the animal list in Wisconsin Stats. 29.65 (1) (6) and 29.9965 (1) (6) (2). It would be added to moose, elk, fisher, prairie chicken, and sandhill crane as animals valued at $262.00 for illegal kills. b) The wolf should be added to the list of species for which unlawful hunting would result in a "forfeiture of not less than $1,000 nor more than $2,000 and revocation of hunting privileges for 3 to 5 years" which currently exits for moose, elk, bear, and deer. c) Additional regulations should be added to Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 29 making it illegal to possess either wolf or wolf-dog hybrids in captivity without obtaining a permit from the WDNR. Legislative authority should be sought for Conservation Wardens to destroy free-roaming wolf-dog hybrids. d) Wolves would be added to Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 10.02 (1) as a "protected wild animal". e) A coyote-closed zone would be maintained during the gun-deer season only in Zone 1. f) Investigations of illegal killing of wolves would be done by Wisconsin Conservation Wardens or Tribal Wardens, and federal involvement would not occur unless transport of illegally killed wolves crosses state lines. g) Wolf dens would be included under the category of regulations against disturbing or molesting in Wisconsin Administrative Code under NR 10.13(2) and create a new subparagraph "(d) Molest or disturb any gray wolf den". H. Inter-Agency Cooperation/Coordination Achieving the objectives of this plan requires the continued involvement and cooperation among many agencies, private individuals and organizations. The WDNR will continue to mesh its objectives with the USFWS Recovery Plan (1992), Minnesota DNR, Michigan DNR, Wisconsin counties, industrial forests owners, Native American Nations, and other concerned agencies and organizations. In 1992 a Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee was formed similar to other species advisory committees coordinated by the WDNR. The Wolf Advisory Committee is charged with reviewing and making recommendations on policies and management procedures affecting wolves. The current management plan was developed by the Wolf Advisory Committee. Advisory committee membership includes WDNR, USFWS, U. S. Forest Service, GLIFWC, County Forests, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, USDA- WS, and Wisconsin Conservation Congress. The committee will continue to meet regularly once the plan is approved to review and monitor progress. Committee meetings are open to the general public and other agencies. Since 1989 Great Lakes Wolf Stewards (an informal group of state, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service biologists working with wolves) has met during most years to discuss wolf management issues affecting the Great Lakes region. This group consists of representatives from various agencies and private organizations from Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The "GIS Analysis of Wolf Habitat in the Great Lakes Region" (Miandenoff et al. 1995) and "Guidelines for Wolf Management in the Great Lakes Region" (Fuller 1995) are two products that resulted from these meetings. The WDNR will continue to promote, support and occasionally sponsor Great Lakes Wolf Stewards meeting. The chair of the Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee and the U.S. Forest Service representative also serve 28 on the Federal recovery team for the eastern population of gray wolves in the U.S. This committee is reviewing the 1992 recovery plan to determine if reclassification and delisting criteria are being met. The Wisconsin members serve on the federal recovery team with members from Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin Chippewa tribes, and the National Park Service. This committee will finalize recommendations for federal delisting in close cooperation with the states. Once wolves are state delisted, the Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee will meet at least annually to review wolf management in the state. Wisconsin biologists will meet periodically with biologists from Michigan and Minnesota to coordinate wolf management especially maintenance of habitat corridors that connect wolves across the three states. I. Program Guidance and Oversight A Wolf Advisory Committee will continue to oversee state wolf management in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee reports to the Bureaus of Endangered Resources and Wildlife Management and Division of Lands, Land Leadership Team of the Department of Natural Resources. Plans prepared by the Wolf Advisory Committee are subject to approval of the Natural Resources Board. The chairperson of the wolf advisory committee will be the coordinator for wolf management activity in the state. Composition of the Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee ( DNR Wolf Technical Committee) may include the following: a) The chairperson should be the mammalian ecologist in the WDNR Bureau of Endangered Resources. b) WDNR wildlife biologists from regions that have wolves, c) WDNR wildlife education specialist, d) WDNR wildlife depredation specialist, e) WDNR wildlife health specialist, f) WDNR conservation warden, g) USDA-WS, h) USFWS biologist, i) USFS biologist, j) Tribal biologists, k) WDNR mammalian research ecologist, I) WDNR public affairs manager, m) Conservation Congress representative, n) County Forest Administrator, o) WDNR Furbearer Ecologist, and p) GLIFWC biologist Q) WDNR, BER Staff Biologist The DNR will also create a stakeholders group that will include agencies, organizations, and other members of the general public interested in wolf management (Appendix D ). The Wolf Advisory Com- mittee should meet at least once per year with the stakeholders group to assess the state wolf population, assess wolf management zones, review depredation control activities, assess impact of educational activities, review problems and determine needs for new policies or management procedures. The stakeholder group will provide a balanced spectrum of publics concerned about wolves. Other public involvement techniques also will be used to encourage all persons who are interested in wolves to participate in discussions. All interested people should have a chance to make their viewpoints known. Annually the Wolf Advisory Committee (technical group) will make a written report to the public. At 5 year intervals, a thorough review should be made of the state wolf population status, and a public review should be made to assess concerns and support of wolf management. J. Volunteer Programs Many people have volunteered for wolf recovery efforts since the development of the Wisconsin Wolf Recovery Program in the 1980's. Volunteers have assisted in education programs, population monitoring, and financial donations to wolf management. Such efforts have expanded levels of wolf recovery work, provided additional funding, and helped foster citizens that are very committed to wolf recovery. As the wolf population expands, and are reclassified to threatened and eventually delisted, greater reliance will be placed on volunteers to conduct wolf conservation activity. Timber Wolf Alliance (TWA) was formed in 1987 as a means for involving private citizens into Wisconsin wolf recovery efforts. The Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute out of Northland College, Ashland, Wisconsin sponsors TWA, in a similar fashion as it has sponsored Loon Watch, a successful program for volunteer monitoring of loon populations in the Great Lakes. TWA has developed a speakers bureau of volunteers that give wolf talks and assist at wolf education programs at sports shows and other events. TWA also has an Adopt a Pack program which provides education to groups and donates part of those proceeds from the program to DNR wolf population monitoring efforts. Students of Northland College and UW-Stevens Point have monitored wolves. Students monitor wolves through snow tracking, howl surveys, and radio-tracking. Programs such as these can continue, and could expand to include universities, technical college and high schools. Timber Wolf Information Network (TWIN) was formed in 1990 to encourage wolf recovery through wolf education programs. TWIN provides a wolf 29 ecology course through which many people have been taught about wolves. TWIN also has an Adopt a Pack program to teach schools and youth groups about wolves and encourage wolf research. Volunteers trained through TWIN's workshops have assisted on wolf population monitoring efforts in the state. The WDNR initiated a volunteer tracking program in 1995, to use trained volunteers to search for wolves in winter and assess abundance of other medium and large carnivores in Wisconsin. Forested portions of north and central Wisconsin were delineated into 123 survey blocks averaging 200 square miles each. Volunteers are requested to conduct 3 or more good snowtracking surveys, covering about 30 miles each of snow-covered roads on their survey block each winter. Opportunities for volunteers to work directly with WDNR wolf workers are limited, therefore WDNR will continue to work with other organizations and develop the volunteer tracking program. The WDNR will continue to search for other opportunities for volunteer involvement. Work with volunteers will also be important in developing methods for preventing depredation and providing factual information to members of the public about wolf behavior. It may be desirable to enlist a volunteer organization to fund wolf depredation claims once delisting occurs and WDNR endangered species funds are no longer available. K. Wolf Research Needs The WDNR has been monitoring the status of the wolf population in the state since 1979. Emphasis has been placed on determining population status, pack sizes and distribution, mortality rates and factors, productivity, rates of recolonization, dispersal behavior, and disease/health status. More intensive research was initiated in 1992 in extreme northwestern Wisconsin to determine the impacts of highway expansion on resident and dispersing wolves near U.S. Highway 53. Results of these efforts have provided excellent data for tracking the progress of Wisconsin's recovering wolf population. Reclassifying of wolves from "Endangered" to "Threatened" status, and hopefully down to "Protected" status in the future will require additional research to safeguard the wolf population and develop/evaluate future wolf management practices. Future wolf research needs include: 1) 2) Development of reliable, but more economical wolf census techniques to accurately document numbers and distribution. Re-measurement of public attitudes towards wolves and recovery in the state to define reason- able wolf population goals and acceptable wolf habitat. 3) Identification of wolf travel corridors and development of appropriate management practices for travel corridors to allow continued interchange of wolves among Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. 4) Development of a model that can predict potential den and rendezvous sites within suitable wolf habitat so these areas can be protected from human disturbance. 5) Continued health monitoring to identify factors causing low pup survival and to document any future outbreaks of diseases or parasites that may have significant negative impacts on the wolf population. 6) Development of policy/procedures for handling depredating wolves and explore possibilities to minimize depredation problems. 7) Identification of factors apparently limiting wolf colonization in northeastern Wisconsin 8) Conducting special long-term research on wolf ecology, population growth, and depredation concerns in central Wisconsin. 9) Documentation of the impacts of future wolf populations on deer, beaver, coyote and other wildlife within wolf range. 10) Conduct research on non-lethal means of reducing wolf depredation and thoroughly examine the ecology of depredating wolves. 11) Developing models that estimate the state wolf population using existing survey and population data, as well as identifying needs for additional surveys. Use modeling to further examine viability of the state wolf population. Availability of funding and personnel will determine the rate at which these research needs will be met. Other research priorities may arise with changes in wolf populations, human development, and land management practices. Some research would be conducted by WDNR, universities and other cooperators. Attempts will be made to secure outside funding to allow more thorough research than possible under current funding. L. Wolf-Dog Hybrids and Captive Wolves A wolf -dog hybrid is the offspring of the mating of a wolf (Canis lupus) with a domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Normally these are bred in captivity because wild wolves rarely breed with dogs. These animals have rapidly grown in popularity in the late 1980's and 1990's, and seem to be the pet of choice for a growing segment of the public that wants a pet that is different, intelligent, semi-wild, and independent. The characteristics of wolf/dog hybrids make them highly desirable to some people, but also highly unpredictable. Estimates of the number of privately owned hybrids in this 30 country run as high as 400,000 (Hope 1994). The normal "predatory behaviors" of wild predators like the gray wolf have been lost in most domestic dogs. However, in hybrids these instincts are present to varying degrees, yet the animals commonly lack a fear of humans. Attacks, maulings, dismemberment's and deaths caused by wolf/dog hybrids have received national media attention. Four children are known to have been killed by hybrids between 1981 and 1988. The death of a four year old in Florida in August of 1988 seemed to heighten media attention on this subject. In this case a publicly trusted institution-an animal shelter--featured a hybrid as the "pet of the week". Two hours after the animal had been brought to it's adoptive home, it killed the neighbor's child. The shelter paid a $425,000 settlement to the boy's family. This tragedy set a national precedent for animal shelters/agencies: wolf/dog hybrids are to be put down or returned to their original owner, but are not to be adopted out to an uneducated, unsuspecting public. This precedent makes it very difficult for distressed owners of unmanageable adult wolf/dog hybrids to find a "good home" for the animal they still love but just can't live with anymore. There are numerous wolf and wolf/dog hybrid shelters throughout the country, however, space is limited and such shelters are often filled. Unfortunately for the animals and the reputation of wild wolves, many overwhelmed hybrid owners resort to "setting their wolf free" when they cannot find a suitable home for them. These freed hybrids however lack the hunting skills and pack structure needed to survive by hunting wild prey. When these animals become hungry , they instinctively return to humans for food, invariably get into trouble, and often are shot to death by local enforcement officers. There have been twenty-one cases of free-roaming wolf/dog hybrids in Wisconsin between 1989 and 1998. (see Appendix G). Free-roaming hybrids, and the problems they cause give wild wolves a bad reputation. Wildlife biologists may spend an extensive amount of time attempting to identify wolf-dog hybrids, document problems, and attempt to rectify such problems, which diverts time and expenses from management of wild wolves. Wildlife biologists are concerned about escaped or released wolf/dog hybrids interbreeding with wild wolves--diluting the gene pool with the instincts and behaviors of domestic dogs (Hope 1994). Dog genes in a wolf population may reduce long term viability and increase rates of livestock depredation. Attacks on humans by captive wolves and wolf/ dog hybrids will continue to contribute to a negative image of wolves to the public. Additionally, released/escaped hybrids have the potential of destroying the genetic purity and hence, the legal status, of wild wolves in Wisconsin. Possession of pure wolves is presently allowed only by WDNR permit. While this species is listed as Endangered or Threatened the WDNR Bureau of Endangered Resources is responsible for issuing such permits. These permits can only be issued for "zoological, educational, or scientific purposes or for propagation for preservation purposes" (s.29.604 WI Stats.). The possession of wolves will continue to be highly regulated following delisting. The WDNR will promulgate specific Administrative Rules to ensure this. Possession of wolf/dog hybrids also needs to be regulated due to their potential impact on wild, free ranging wolves. The WDNR will seek statutory authority to regulate the ownership of these animals in the state. Twenty-five other states presently regulate the possession of these animals; these regulations range from simple registration to a total prohibition of possession. Free-roaming wolf-dog hybrids trapped at depredation sites will be euthanized unless collars provide the identification of an owner. The owner of such an animal may be responsible for the cost of depredations. Legislative authority will be sought to allow Wisconsin Conservation Wardens to destroy free-roaming wolf-dog hybrids. Local law enforcement officers may kill animals which cause a substantial risk or threat to human life by attack or aggressive behavior. M. Wolf Specimen Management To date wolf carcasses found in the wild have been necropsied (examined) to determine cause of death and health status. While wolves were listed as endangered, the DNR policy was to have all wolf carcasses studied by the National Wildlife Health Lab in Madison, Wisconsin. Eventually all became specimens at research institutions, with most wolf specimens deposited at the University of Wisconsin - Zoology Museum in Madison. With reclassification and eventual delisting, the management of wolf specimens will be modified. The Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee developed guidelines for managing wolf specimens under threatened and delisted classification. 1. Wolf Specimen Management -Threatened With reclassification to threatened, research, population monitoring and health evaluations of dead wolves found in the wild will remain the top 31 priority. Additional wolf carcasses will be made available as euthanasia of depredating wolves become possible, and accidental mortality caused by vehicle collisions increases. All wolf carcasses will be necropsied (examined) by the National Wildlife Health Lab, and specimens will be turned over to interested research museums when there is an identified need and use for such specimens. If specimen remain available after research needs have been met, the second priority for use of wolf carcasses would be for education purposes and Native American cultural and religious purposes. Such carcasses can be made available to tribal governments" nature centers, state parks, wolf education organizations, WDNR and other agency offices. Carcasses would not be available for private ownership. Wolves found dead in the field should be collected by wildlife biologists, wildlife technicians or conservation wardens and placed in WDNR freezers until arrangements can be made to ship the carcasses to Madison. Any wolves euthanized by USDA-Wildlife Service will also be turned over to WDNR for necropsies. All carcasses should be tagged, and labeled with all pertinent information kept with each carcass. The WDNR regional wildlife expert should be notified of all wolf carcasses found in his/her region. The wildlife expert will coordinate shipment, necropsies, and eventual designation of specimens. Regional wildlife experts will keep lists of organizations interested in receiving carcasses, and will coordinate distribution of carcasses. Reports will be submitted at the end of each year to WDNR- Endangered Resources by regional wildlife experts on carcasses collected, and final disposition of each. Any wolf suspected of being killed illegally will be held for conservation wardens until legal investigation and prosecution are completed. 2. Wolf Specimen Management - Delisted When wolves are no longer listed as threatened or endangered in Wisconsin, ownership of wolf carcasses can be broadened. Wolf carcasses would be available from depredation control activities, natural mortality, illegal kills, and accidents. Research will continue to be an important priority, but will require a research proposal identifying needs and anticipated results, and such proposals would need WDNR and/or tribal approval. A portion of carcasses collected each year may be requested by WDNR-Wildlife Health specialist to evaluate health status, and all skinned carcasses may be requested most years. Following research and health monitoring, wolf education and Native American cultural use would be the next priority for ownership of wolf carcasses. Skins and skulls would be made available for Native American tribal governments, schools, nature centers, state parks, WDNR and other agency offices, tribal centers, and wolf education organizations. Wolf specimens could be turned over to private individuals if specimens are not needed for above purposes. No carcasses should be provided to landowners conducting control on their land, or to persons involved in accidental killing of wolves. Dead canids suspected of being wolf-dog hybrids, but which appear to be mostly wolf, should be treated as wolves for the purpose of wolf specimen management. Regional wildlife experts will coordinate wolf specimen management in each WDNR region. The wildlife experts will maintain lists of organizations and individuals interested in receiving specimens, and will determine disposition of carcasses. Annual reports will be submitted to WDNR Endangered Resources on carcasses collected and handled in each region, including biological information and final disposition of carcasses. N. Ecotourism Ecotourism has developed in recent years as a means for obtaining financial benefits from natural ecosystems and wild animals, while also encouraging protection of wildlands (Hunter 1996). Ecotourism at times can be a double-edged sword; it may encourage protection and conservation of biological diversity, but at times could cause disturbance of wild animals and disruption of their habitats. Guidelines and occasional regulations may be necessary to prevent or minimize negative affects of ecotourism. Wolves can at times contribute to ecotourism. In Ely, Minnesota, tourist visits to the International Wolf Center provide a $3 million annual impact to the local economy (Mech 1996). Ecotourism dealing with wolves is not likely to be as profitable in Wisconsin, but there are means that ecotourism involving wolves could impact local economies. Howling sessions could potentially be conducted by tour guides across portions of northern Wisconsin. Tours of wolf territories to search for wolf sign could be done during winter months. Snowmobiling and A TV tours of wolf territories have been suggested for the Minocqua area. Volunteer or paid naturalist at resorts could include wolf programs and tours of wolf territories. Naturalist programs by WDNR, Forest Service or National Park Service could attract tourist use of surrounding areas by providing wolf programs. Persons attending wolf workshops at Drummond and Tomahawk, make use of restaurants, taverns, gas stations and convenient stores in the local areas. Ecotourism could also potentially have negative im- 32 pacts on wolves in Wisconsin. Excessive howling sessions could cause abandonment of preferred rendezvous sites, and perhaps displace wolves to less suitable areas Disturbance of den areas may cause premature abandonment of den sites, and may expose pups to mortality; wolf pup mortality is already fairly high in Wisconsin. The Timber Wolf Alliance and Timber Wolf Information have developed guidelines for minimizing impact from howl surveys on wolves. These guidelines include: avoid howling during the denning period in April-June, limit howls in specific territories to once per week or less, avoid repeated howlings at individual wolf packs, and refrain from visiting rendezvous sites. Similar guidelines would be recommended to others planning to conduct wolf howls in Wisconsin. Encouragement will be made to groups conducting wolf tours or howl sessions to minimize impact on wolves, avoid certain portions of wolf territories, and refrain from excessive visits to wolf areas. It would also be recommended to any groups conducting such tours that these be conducted by individuals knowledgeable in wolf ecology and behavior. It may be necessary in the future to regulate wolf tours done for profit, in a fashion similar to existing guide permits. VI. WOLF MANAGEMENT BUDGET Expenditures for the Wisconsin wolf recovery program by fiscal year are shown in the Table 4 below. A total of$1,547,333 ($1,139,225 federal, $408,148 state funds) was spent on wolf recovery efforts since 1979 (Table 4). Since 1990, when a recovery plan became effective program expenditures have averaged $ 115,326 per year during the past eight fiscal years (i.e. 1990-1998); Federal funds accounted for 77%, state funds 23%. Federal funds have come from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (source: Federal Endangered Spe- cies Act, Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act) and from the U.S. Forest Service. State funds have come from the Wisconsin Endangered Resources Fund (ie the check-off on Wisconsin income tax forms and Endangered Resources License Plate funds), donations from The Timber Wolf Alliance and gifts from the public. The Wisconsin Endangered Resources Fund pays for all damages done by state listed (endangered/ threatened) species in addition to partially funding the wolf recovery program. Between 1984 and 1998, $55,575 has been paid to compensate people for losses due to wolves. Compensation payments are not included in the tables below. Table 4. WI Timber Wolf Recovery Program Expenditures Year . 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 PROJECT TOTAL: YEARLY AVERAGE: State Federal Total $5,000 $5,425 $7,734 $13,013 $27,905 $11,804 $23,625 $44,129 $14,864 $23,888 $20,411 $15,508 $25,769 $38,651 $19,006 $19,404 $30,819 $29,909 $31,284 $15,000 $16,275 $35,000 $35,200 $51,440 $28,125 $60,600 $56,305 $62,592 $18,069 $48,319 $95,198 $67,443 $58,893 $68,893 $91,265 $112,119 $120,450 $98,039 $20,000 $21,700 $42,734 $48,213 $79,345 $39,929 $84,225 $100,434 $77,456 $41,957 $68,730 $110,706 $93,212 $97,544 $87,899 $110,669 $142,938 $150,359 $129,323 $408,148 $1,139,225 $1,547,373 State Federal $21,481 $59,959 33 $81,441 It is anticipated that wolf management will cost approximately $130,000 in state fiscal year 1999-2000 and increase about 10% per year each year thereafter. and 24% for other losses. The average livestock loss yearly was $781. Livestock losses have increased in recent years and between 1995-1998 average payments on livestock have been $ 2,800 per year. Generally about $17,000 are available annually in the Endangered Species Depredation Fund. The majority of this money has been spent recently on payment for depredation of dogs. Approximately one-third of the project costs are for the salary of the wolf program coordinator and about $42,000 are costs involving radio-telemetry surveys. Five years after wolves are federally delisted, Section 6 Endangered Species funds will no longer be avail- Once wolves are state delisted, this fund may no able. In recent years Section 6 funds have normally longer be available for damage caused by wolves. ranged from $20,000 to $40,000 and Forest Service The costs of depredation on livestock and pets is promonies have ranged from $6,000 to $12,000. Pittman8-Year Average, State-Federal Funding Robertson Wildlife Restoration funds State would still be available for wolf conservation work, but less may be available due to competition with other endangered species and wildlife management projects. Some Forest 77% Service funds may continue to be available. Currently monitoring costs are: radio-telemetry $40,000 to $45,000 annually, snow track surveys at $15,000 annually and howl surveys at about $5,000 annually. These costs will probably increase as wolves expand across more of Wisconsin. Monitoring must keep up with wolf population as it increases so adequate information is available to make sound decisions about wolf management in Wisconsin. Wolf depredation costs have averaged $3,970 annually since 1984. Of that amount 76% was for dogs jected to be about $20,000 to $40,000. The cost of USDA-Wildlife Services investigating, assessing and controlling depredation is $15,000 to $30,000. The total cost for depredation control is therefore likely to be $35,000 to $70,000 annually. New funds need to be provided for the WDNR is to continue reimbursing livestock and pet owners for losses. The total cost for wolf management will be approximately $165,000 to $200,000 annually including all management activities and depredation controls. VII. Literature Cited Archer, F.R., S.F. Taft, and R.P. Thiel. 1986. Parasites of wolves, Canis lupus, in Wisconsin, as determined from fecal examinations. Proc. Helminthol. Soc. Wash. 53: 290-291. Anonymous. 1992. Alaska's Wolves: How to manage for the 90's. Supplement to Alaska's Wildlife. January-February 16 pp. Bailey, R. (ed). 1978. Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 79 pp. Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. Univ. Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario. 438 pp. 34 Bessinger, S.R. and M.l. Westphal. 1998. On the use of demographic models of population viability in endangered species management. J. Wildl. Manage. 62: 821-841. Flader, S. 1974. Thinking like a mountain: Aldo Leopold and the evolution of an ecological attitude towards deer, wolves, and forests. Missouri Univ. Press, Columbia, 284 pp. Frair, J.L., E.M. Anderson, B.E. Kohn, D.P. Shelley, T. E. Gehring, and D. Unger. 1996. Impact of Highway 53 expansion on gray wolves: Preliminary Results. pp 123-131 l.!:! Defenders of Wildlife: Wolves of America Conference Proceeding. 14-16 November 1996. Albany NY. 306 pp. censusing. J. Wildl. Manage. 46: 686-693. Fritts, S.H. 1983. Record dispersal by a wolf from Minnesota. J. Mammal. 64: 166-167. Fritts, S.H. 1990. Management of wolves inside and outside Yellowstone National Park and possibilities for wolf management zones in the Greater Yellowstone area. pp.1-5 to 1-88 l.o. Yellowstone National Park, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service University of Wyoming, University of Idaho, Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, and the University of Minnesota Cooperative Park Studies Unit, ed. Wolves for Yellowstone? A report to U.S. Congress. Vol. II. Research and Analysis. Fritts, S.H. 1993. Controlling wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Area. pp 173-233 l.o. R.S. Cook, editor. Ecological Issue on Reintroducing Wolves into Yellowstone National Park. Sci. Mono. NPS/NRYELLI NRSM-93/22. USDI, Nat. Park Service, Denver, CO. 328 pp. Fritts, S.H. and L.N. Carbyn. 1995. Population viability, nature reserves and the outlook for gray wolf conservation in North America. Restoration Ecology, 3 (1):26-38. Fritts, S.H. and L.D. Mech. 1981. Dynamics, movements, and feeding ecology of a newly protected wolf Wildl. population in northwestern Minnesota. Monogr. 80: 79 pp. Fritts, S.H., W.J. Paul, L.D. Mech, and D.P. Scott. 1992. Trends and management of wolf-livestock conflicts in Minnesota. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Resour. Publ. No. 181. 27 pp. Fuller, T.K. 1989. Population dynamics of wolves in northcentral Minnesota. Wildl. Monogr. 105: 41 pp. Fuller, T.K. 1990. Dynamics of a declining whitetailed deer population in north-central Minnesota. Wild I. Monogr. 110: 37 pp. Fuller, T.K. 1995. Guidelines for gray wolf management in the northern Great Lakes Region. International Wolf Center, Tech. Publ. #271. Ely, Minnesota. 19 pp. Fuller, T.K., W.E. Berg, G.L. Radde, M.S. Lenarz, and G.B. Joselyn. 1992. A history and current estimate of wolf distribution and numbers in Minnesota. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 20: 42-55. Haight, R.G., D. J. Mladenoff, and A.P.Wydeven. 1998 Modelling disjunct gray wolf populations in semi-wild landscapes. Conserv. Biology 12:879-888. Harrington, F.H. and L. David Mech. 1982. An analysis of howling response parameters useful for pack 35 Hope, J., 1994. Wolves and Wolf Hybrids as Pets are Big Business - But a Bad Idea. Smithsonian 25 (3) :34-45. Hunter, M.L., Jr. 1996. Fundamentals of Conservation Biology. Blackwell Scentific Cambridge, MA. 402 pp. Jackson, H.H. 1961. Mammals of Wisconsin. Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison. 504 pp. Keith, S.B. 1983. Population dynamics of wolves. pp. 66-77 l.o. L.N. Carbyn, ed. Wolves in Canada and Alaska: their status, biology, and management. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rep. Ser. No. 45. Knight, J.M. 1985. Survey of Deer Hunter Attitudes Toward Wolves in Two Wisconsin Counties. Master Thesis. University of Wisconsin, School of Agricultural Journalism. Madison, WI. Kohn, B., J. Frair, D. Unger, J.T. Gehring, D. Shelley, E. Anderson and J. Ashbrenner. 1996. Impact of Highway Development on Northwestern Wisconsin Timber Wolves. Preliminary Findings May 1992 through November 1996. For Wisconsin Department of Transportation by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Unpublished report 20 pp. Mandernack, B.A. 1983. Food habits of Wisconsin timber wolves. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Wisconsin, Eau Claire. 52 pp. Mech, L.D. 1970. The Wolf: the Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species. Doubleday/Natural History Press, Garden City, N.Y. 384 pp. Mech, L.D. 1974. Current techniques in the study of elusive wilderness carnivores. pp. 315-322 l.o. Proc. Xlth Int. Gong. Game Bioi., Stockholm, Sweden. Mech, L.D. 1995. The challenge and opportunity of recovering wolf populations. Conserv. Bioi. 9: 270278. Mech, L.D. 1996. A new era for carnivore conservation. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 24:397-401. Mech, L.D., R.P. Thiel, S.H. Fritts, and W.E. Berg. 1985. Presence and effects of dog louse Trichodectes canis (Mallophaga, Trichodectidae) on wolves and coyotes from Minnesota and Wisconsin. Am. Midi. Nat. 114(2):404-405. Mech, L.D., S.H. Fritts, G.L. Radde, and W.J. Paul. 1988. Wolf distribution and road density in Minnesota. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16: 85-87. Mladenoff, D.J., T.A. Sickley, R.G. Haight, and A.P. Wydeven. 1995. A regional landscape analysis and prediction of favorable gray wolf habitat in the Northern Great Lakes region. Conserv. Biology 9:279-294. Mladenoff, D.J., R.G. Haught, T. A. Sickley and A.P., Wydeven. 1997. Causes and implications of species restoration in altered ecosystems: A spatial landscape project of wolf population recovery. Bioscience. 47(1):21-31 Nelson, M.E., and L.D. Mech. 1986. White-tailed deer numbers and population trend in the central Superior National Forest, 1967-1985. U.W. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Res. Pap. NC-271 8 pp. Nelson, E. and D.F. Franson. 1988. Timber wolf recovery in Wisconsin: The attitudes of Northern Wisconsin farmers and landowners. Research Management Findings No. 13. WDNR, Madison, WI., 4 pp. Nowak, R.M. 1995. Another look at wolf taxonomy. pp. 375-397 l!! L.N. Carbyn, S. H. Fritts and D.R. Seip. (eds). Ecology and Conservation of wolves in a Changing World. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Occasional Publication No. 35, 642 pp. Packard, J.M., L.D. Mech, and US Seal. 1983. Social influences on reproduction in wolves. pp. 78-85 l!! L.N. Carbyn, (ed). Wolves in Canada and Alaska: Their Status, Biology, and Management. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rep. Ser., No. 45. Peters, R.P. and L.D. Mech. 1975. Scent-marking in wolves: a field study. Am. Scientist 63: 628-637 Reed, J.M., D. D. Murphy, and P.F. Brussard. 1998. Efficacy of population viability analysis. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 26: 244-251. Scherger, A. W. 1942. Extinct and endangered mammals and birds of the upper Great Lakes region. Trans. Wis. Adad. Sci., Arts and Let. 34: 23-44. Scherger, A. W. 1953. The white-tailed deer in early Wisconsin. Trans. Wis. Acad. Sci., Arts and Let. 42: 197-247. Scott, W. 1939. Rare and extinct mammals of Wisconsin. Wis. Conserv. Bull. 4(10): 21-28. Soule, M.E. 1980. Thresholds for survival: maintaining fitness and evolutionary potential. pp 151-169 in M.E. Soule, and B.A. Wilcox, eds. Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. Thiel, R.P. 1978. The status of the timber wolf in Wisconsin, 1975. Trans. WI. Acad. Sci., Arts and Let. 66: 186-194. Thiel, R.P. 1985. Relationship between road densities and wolf habitat suitability in Wisconsin. Am. 36 Midi. Nat. 113: 404-407. Thiel, R.P. 1993. The Timber Wolf in Wisconsin: the Death and Life of a Magnificent Predator. Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison. 253 pp. Thiel, R.P. and R.J. Welch. 1981. Evidence of recent breeding activity in Wisconsin wolves. Am. Midi. Nat. 106: 401-402. Thiel, R.P. and R.R. Ream. 1995. Status of the gray wolf in the lower 48 United States in 1992. pp 59-62 l!! L.N. Carbyn, S.H. Fritts and D.R. Seip (ed). Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing World. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Occasional Publication No. 35, 642 pp. Thiel, R.P. and T. Valen. 1995. Developing a state timber wolf recovery plan with public input: the Wisconsin experience. pp. 169-175l!! L. N. Carbyn, S.H. Fritts and D.R. Seip (ed.). Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing World. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Occasional Publication No. 35, 642 pp. Thompson, D.Q. 1952. Travel, range, and food habits of timber wolves in Wisconsin. Journal of Mammal. 33: 329-442. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf. Twin Cities, MN. 73 pp. Wisconsin DNR. 1989. Wisconsin Timber Wolf Recovery Plan. Wisconsin Endangered Resources Rep. 50: 37 pp. Wydeven, A.P. 1993. Wolves in Wisconsin: recolonization underway. Int. Wolf 3(1): 18-19. Wydeven, A.P. 1997. Gray wolf population 1996-97. Wisconsin Wildlife Surveys. 7(5): 118-122. Wydeven, A.P. and N.M. Cervantes. 1997. Recovery of the Timber Wolf in Wisconsin, Performance Report, 1 July 1996-30 June 1997. Wisconsin Endangered Resources Report #117. Madison, WI. 24 pp. Wydeven, A.P., R.N. Schultz, and R.P. Thiel. 1995. Monitoring of a recovering gray wolf population in Wisconsin, 1979-1991. pp. 147-156l!! L.N. Carbyn, S.H. Fritts, and D.R. Seip (eds.). Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing World. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Occasional Publication No. 35, 642 pp Wydeven, A.P., R. N. Schultz, and R. A. Megown. 1966. Guidelines for carnivore track surveys during winter in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Endangered Resources Report #112 Madison, WI. 11 pp. VIII. Glossary Abatement - Techniques for reducing risk of depredation by creating exclusions, establishing barriers, or using scare methods. Abatement practices that may be used to reduce wolf depredation would include fences, guard dogs, scare devices and other techniques. Access - Refers to the ability of humans to penetrate an area and is usually measured by roads per square mile. Carrying Capacity The population at which a population stabilizes (births=deaths) with its environment; This is generally referred to as biological carrying capacity. The maximum population level tolerated by people is called the sociological carrying capacity and is usually considered less than biologically carrying capacity. The estimated biologically carrying capacity of wolves in Wisconsin was estimated at 300500 in areas of primary wolf habitat but could be 50% or more higher if wolves readily occupy secondary habitat. Critical Habitat -Term used in the Federal Endangered Act whereby certain areas are defined as critical to the survival of a species. Such a classification may restrict land use activity within designated areas. No areas in Wisconsin have been classified as critical habitat for timber wolves by the Federal Government. Favorable Habitat- As used in GIS analysis of potential wolf habitat (Miadenoff et al. 1995), refers to areas that have a 50% or greater probability of being settled by wolf packs. Such areas may also be called suitable habitat or primary wolf habitat. Areas of favorable wolf habitat have less than 0.7 mile of road per square mile, less than 10 people per square mile, and consists of over 90% forest or wildlands. GIS -Geographic Information System - This is computer mapping that allows for comparison of multiple landscape features and allows the comparison of landscapes with occurrence of animal or plant species. GLIFWC - Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission; this agency conducts wildlife and fisheries management activity for the Chippewa tribes in the ceded territories of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. International Wolf Center - A wolf educational organization located in Ely, Minnesota that promotes wolf education for worldwide wolf conservation activity. Livestock - Any domesticated animal owned and raised as stock; or pen-raised animals raised on licensed game farm operations. Delisting - Refers to the act of removing a species from both endangered and threatened species classification. The act of delisting does not mean a species is no longer protected. Delisting federally indicates that a species no longer has Federal Endangered Species protection, but would fall under state management and protection authority. National Wildlife Health Lab- Facility formerly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and now in the National Geological Survey in the U.S. Department of the Interior. The Madison, WI., health lab conducts research on wildlife diseases affecting migratory birds, federally endangered and threatened species, and other wildlife species of national concern. Depredation - Refers to predation on domestic animals or animals that a predator would not normally encounter or kill in natural habitat. Necropsy - an examination of an animal body after death to determine cause of death or character and changes produced by disease. Endangered - Federal designation of the term "endangered species" means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range." [Federal Code 16USC SS 1532 (6)]. Pets -Any domesticated animal not raised as stock. State designation of endangered species means "any species whose continued existence as a viable component of this state's wild animals or wild plants is determined by the Department to be in jeopardy on the basis of scientific evidence. [Wisconsin Statute 29.604]. 37 Potential Habitat-Habitat that is likely to be occupied in the future and includes mainly those areas that have a 50% or greater probability to be occupied. Predation - Refers to the act of killing by predators for food. Predation usually is used to refer to predators killing normal prey species, whereas killing of domestic animals is referred to as depredation. Primary Habitat- (See Favorable Habitat) Proactive Depredation Control - Control activity conducted on predators before verified depredation has occurred, or control activity used before verification has occurred in the current season. Such activity would occur in areas of unsuitable habitat with high probability of depredations or conflict. Control activity would refer to euthanizing or translocation of potential depredators. Reclassification -Refers to the act of changing listing from endangered to threatened, the delisting of species as neither endangered or threatened, or the relisting of species as endangered or threatened. Roads - Generally this includes any travelways used by motorized vehicles. In GIS habitat analysis, roads refers to travelways that are driveable by 2-wheel drive vehicles on a year-round basis. Low quality roads may also have some impact on wolf habitat, but are often more difficult to accurately measure and assess. TWIN -Timber Wolf Information Network - Wolf education organization that is independently operated by volunteers out of Waupaca, Wisconsin. USDA-WS -U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Service - The Federal agency responsible for dealing with problems caused by wildlife species, especially in agricultural situations; formerly known as Animal Damage Control (ADC). The WDNR contracts USDA-WS to assist wildlife management controlling depredating wildlife in the state including problems caused by bear, beaver, geese, plus timber wolf and other endangered species. USFWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - The Federal agency in charge of programs on federally endangered and threQtened species, as well as managing migratory birds and species having national significance. Wilderness -Land under federal and state statues that are set aside to maintain these areas in primitive condition and are closed to any timber harvest or mechanized equipment. Secondary Habitat - Areas providing food and cover for wolves of a quality that would have a 10% to 50% probability of being settled by wolf packs as defined by Mladenoff, et. al. (1995) Wildland - Land covered mainly be native vegetation and does not include agricultural, urban, or industrial areas. Species - Organisms that are capable of interbreeding and is designated by a binomial term in Latin. The species designation of timber wolf or gray wolf is Canis lupus. WDNR -Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources the state agency responsible for wildlife and fisheries conservation, including responsibility for managing state endangered and threatened species. Subspecies -A grouping of organisms that differ from other members of their species by color, size or various morphological features; also referred to as race. Wolves in Wisconsin had been referred to as the Eastern timber wolf Canis lupus lycaon, but have recently been reclassified to the Great Plains wolf Canis lupus nubilus. The specific subspecies classification is not critical for determining wolf conservation needs. Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee - Wisconsin DNR sponsored committee responsible for proposing and evaluating policy and management programs for the state wolf population. Threatened - Wisconsin's designation of threatened species is "any species of wild animal or wild plant which appears likely within the foreseeable future on the basis of scientific evidence to become endangered" (Wisconsin Statutes Sec. 29.604 2)). Federal designation of threatened species is "likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (Federal Code 16USCSS1532(20)). TWA - Timber Wolf Alliance - Wolf education organization working out of the Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute, Northland College in Ashland Wisconsin. 38 sheep. Therefore wolf depredation has affected only 0.4% of farms in the area. Live trapping was used on 7 occasions and 6 wolves were translocated from farms (4 long distance moves of 40+ miles and 2 local relocation of less than 10 miles). APPENDIX A Wolf Depredation 1976-1998 By Robert C. Willging, Adrian P. Wydeven, Randy L. Jurewicz, and Kelly A. Thiel. Depredation by wolves on livestock or pets has been a rare event since the return of wolves to Wisconsin in the rnid 1970's. These depredations will continue to be infrequent events, but will increase somewhat as the wolf population expands. Wolf depredations have generally been handled by U. S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Wisconsin DNR (WDNR), or USDA-Wildlife Service.. Complaints were generally investigated by USFWS and WDNR in the 1970's and 1980's, and since 1990 have mostly been investigated by USDA-WS. The WDNR has provided ·, payments for losses caused by state endangered and threatened species since 1984, using moneys from the Endangered Resources Check-Off Funds. Live trapping of depredating wolves has been done by WDNR and USDA-WS. Under federal endangered status, euthanizing of depredating wolves was not allowed in Wisconsin, and live-captured wolves were relocated from depredating sites. Thirty-six cases of depredation on dogs were documented in Wisconsin including death of 27 dogs and injury on 9 dogs. Of these 36 dogs, 28 were attacked while being used for hunting or training on predators, 4 for hunting hares, 2 were non-hunting dogs roaming in wildland areas and 2 were attacked near homesteads. Seventeen dog depredations occurred while hunting or training on bear. Most wolf attacks occurred on freeroaming dogs. Many wolf attacks occurred when dogs approached den, rendezvous sites, or kills (prey) being defended by wolves. Some expansion of wolf depredation will likely occur in the future. Once wolves are reclassified to a federally threatened species, euthanization of depredating wolves will be permitted in Wisconsin. Generally only wolves that are habitual depredators on livestock would be euthanized. New funds will need to be located to provided reimbursement payments for wolf depredation on livestock and pets once wolves are delisted in Wisconsin. Hunter education may be necessary to reduce wolf depreTable A2 lists all known cases of wolf depredation on dation on dogs. Hunters need to become familiarized with pets and livestock in Wisconsin from 1976 through wolf sign, and avoid sending hounds into areas where wolf 1998. Most of these cases represent confirmed depreactivity is concentrated. Careful documentation needs to dations, but a few also represent probable depredation be made of wolf depredations on dogs so that circumwhere strong circumstantial evidence existed of wolf stances under which such depredations occur can be betdepredation. Fifty-four cases of wolf depredation octer understood and recommendations for reducing losses curred in Wisconsin during the 23 year period includcan be developed. ing 45 calves, 11 sheep, 140 turkeys, and 27 dogs killed and 9 dogs injured. (See Table A1) Payments on wolf depredations totaled $55,574.91 including $13,269.75 payments on livestock TableA1. and $42,305.16 payments on dogs. Depre- Total Wolf Depredation on Pets and Livestock dation on dogs represented 76% of reimTime Period: 1976-1998 bursement payments provided by the Animals Lost Number of Payments WDNR. Farms/Homesites During the 23 year period at least 130 wolf complaints were investigated by agency personnel, but only 54 were confirmed as probable wolf depredation. Many depredations were caused by coyotes or other animals. Depredations occurred on livestock and poultry on 19 different farms in northern Wisconsin. Wolf depredation on livestock occurred on 7 farms in Douglas County, two in Burnett, one in Oneida, three in Price, two in Taylor, one in Washburn, one in Bayfield and one in Rusk counties. The 14 counties of northern Wisconsin that included wolf pack territories in the period 1990-1998, contained 4,900 farms with 167,200 cattle and 4,400 Calves Killed Calves Injured Sheep Killed Turkeys Killed Chickens Killed Dogs Killed Dogs Injured Deer Killed Total: 39 45 1 11 140 2 27 9 4+ 14 1 3 1 1 1* 1* 1 $11,600.00 $9.75 $584.00 $1,076.00 $0.00 $41,000.00 $1,305.16 Pending $55,574.91 TableA2. Year Wolf Depredation on Livestock and Pets in Wisconsin Time Period: 1976-1998 Payments Actions Taken No. Cases Animals Lost 1976 1985 1986 1989 1 1 1 2 1990 1991 1 2 1992 3 1993 3 1994 1995 1996 2 4 6 1997 6 1998 22 Totals: 54 Cases $0.00 $200.00 $2,500.00 $400.00 $2,500.00 $187.55 $44.00 $851.00 $1,300.00 $340.00 1 calf 2 sheep 1 dog 1 calf 1 dog 2 dogs injured 1 sheep 115 turkeys 2 dogs 8 sheep 1 calf 1 calf injured 25 turkeys 2 chickens $9.75 $225.00 $0.00 wolf killed illegally 1 wolf trapped & translocated 1 trapping attempt $5,000.00 $2,650.00 1 trapping attempt 1 trapping attempt $290.00 $9,500.00 $175.45 $3,600.00 * 2 wolves trapped 1 translocated >40 mi. and 1 local relocation $8,250.00 $318.15 $4,660.00 * 3 wolves trapped, 2 translocated >40 mi and 1 local relocation $11,950.00 * $624.01 pending* 1 wolf trapped, died 2 dogs 11 calves 1 calf 5 dogs killed 2 dogs injured 10 calves plus 21 missing 5 dogs killed 1 dog injured 20 calves killed 21 missing 11 dogs killed 4 dogs injured 4+ deer Stock Affected Payments 197/ivestock $13,269.75 and poultry 35 dogs killed $42,305.16 or injured 4+ deer from deer farms 40 Actions Taken 7 wolves trapped 4 wolves translocated >40 mi 2 wolves relocated< 10 mi 1 wolf trapped and died 1 wolf illegally killed APPENDIX B Wolf Viability Analysis By Robert E. Rolley, Adrian P. Wydeven, Ronald N. Schultz, Richard T. Thiel and Bruce E. Kohn. Population Viability Analysis (PVA) is the estimation of extinction probabilities by analyses that incorporate identifiable threats to population survival into models of the extinction process (Lacy, R. C. 1993. VORTEX: a computer simulation model for population viability analysis. Wildlife Research 20:45-65). The extinction process involves both deterministic processes (eg. over-harvest, habitat destruction, competition or predation from introduced species) and stochastic processes (random variation of demographic and genetic events and the effect of environmental variation on demographic and genetic events). Stochastic processes are especially important for small populations. Demographic variation is the normal variation in the population's birth and death rates, and sex ratio caused by random differences among individuals. For example, in extremely small populations, it is possible through random chance for all offspring born during one generation to be of one sex. Variation in environmental conditions (eg. periodic favorable or severe weather conditions) often cause variation in reproduction and survival rates. In addition, rare catastrophic events, such as disease epidemics, fires, or floods, can greatly affect small populations. Lastly, small populations can be affected by the loss of genetic variation through genetic drift and inbreeding. Computer simulation modelling provides a tool for exploring the viability of populations subjected to many complex, interacting deterministic and stochastic processes. We used the VORTEX simulation model (Lacy, R. C., K. A. Hughes, and P. S. Miller. 1995. VORTEX: a stochastic simulation of the extinction process. Version 7 User's Manual. IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, MN, USA.) to estimate the viability of the gray wolf population in Wisconsin. VORTEX is an individual-based model that simulates birth and death processes as discrete, sequential events, with probabilistic outcomes. The model generates random numbers to determine whether individual animals lives or dies and the number of progeny produced by each female each year. The model can simulate inbreeding depression as a decrease in viability of inbred animals. Model Inputs and Assumptions We modeled the Wisconsin wolf population as a single interbreeding population with no ingress from or egress to other populations. Based on observed 41 litter sizes in Wisconsin, as well as literature records, we assumed a mean litter size of 5.3 pups/ litter and the sex ratio at birth of 50:50. We further assumed a Poisson distribution of litter sizes, with a ma~imum of 11 pups. We assumed that the proportton of females breeding was density dependent. However, due to uncertainty of the proportion of females breeding, we evaluated two possible reproductive scenarios. In the high reproduction scenario, we assumed the age of first breeding was 2 years, 90% of females bred when population size was low, and 60% of females bred when the population was at biological carrying capacity. In the low reproduction scenario, we assumed the age of first breeding was 3 years, 80% of females bred when population size was low, and 50% of females bred when the population was at biological carrying capacity. Based on the observed survival rates of radio-collared wolves in Wisconsin, we assumed mean annual pup mortality was 70%, mean annual mortality of yearling and adult females was 16%, and mean annual mortality of yearling and adult males was 30%. Based on 17 annual estimates, we estimated the standard deviation (SD) of pup mortality was approximately 10%. However, data were not available to estimate the effect of environmental variability on adult mortality rates or the proportion of females producing pups. We believe it is likely that environmental variation has a greater effect on pup survival than on adult survival or the proportion of females breeding. Due to the uncertainty of the effects of environmental variation on survival and reproductive rates, we evaluated 3 scenarios. in the low environmental variation scenario, we as~umed the SD in the percentage of females producmg was 2%, the SD of pup survival was 5%, and the SD of adult survival was 3%. In the moderate environmental variation scenario, we assumed the SD in the percentage of females producing was 4%, the SD of pup survival was 10%, and the SD of adult survival was 6%. In the high environmental variation scenario, we assumed the SD in the percentage of females producing was 6%, the SD of pup survival was 15%, and the SD of adult survival was 12%. We assumed that variation in survival was concordant with variation in reproduction, i.e., years of poor reproduction were associated with years of poor survival and years of good reproduction were associated with years of good survival. Few data are available to estimate the frequency of catastrophic events in wolf populations. The Wisconsin wolf population has experienced 2 epidemics during the past 17 years. To assess the effect of catastrophic events on the viability of wolf populations we evaluated 3 scenarios. We simulated population trends assuming a 0, 5, and 10% probability of a catastrophic event per year. We as- sumed that a catastrophic event reduced both reproduction and survival by 50%. decreased from 0.48 for initial populations of 100 to 0.31 for initial populations of 500. We assessed the effect of initial population size on viability by simulating trends with initial populations of 100, 200, 300, 400, and 500 wolves. The age distribution of starting populations were set to reflect stable age distributions based on the reproduction and survival rates. The probability of catastrophic events greatly affected the probability of extinction. When the probability of catastrophic events was 0, PE was less than or equal to 0.02 for all initial population sizes in all reproduction and environmental variability scenarios evaluated. When the probability of catastrophes was 0.05, PE was less than 0.05 for all initial population sizes in the low and moderate environmental variability scenarios, regardless of reproduction. When environmental variability was high and the probability of catastrophe was 5%, PE was 0.05-0.09 in the high reproduction simulations and 0.09-0.20 in the low reproduction simulations. When the probability of catastrophe was 10%, PE increased markedly as environmental variability increased. In the initial series of analyses we assumed a biological carrying capacity (BCC) of 500 wolves and that BCC was stable over time. Whenever simulated populations exceed the biological carrying capacity, additional mortality was imposed to reduce the population back to carrying capacity. For each of the 90 combinations of the 2 reproductive, 3 environmental variation, 3 catastrophic event, and 5 initial scenarios we calculated 100 iterations of simulated population change over 100 years. We estimated the probability of extinction (PE) as the proportion of the 100 iterations in with the number of individuals of one sex declined to 0. In addition, we estimated the probability of relisting (PR) wolves as endangered as the proportion of the 100 iterations that declined to less than 80 individuals at least once during the 100-year simulations. In all simulations, we assumed that the population was not harvested or augmented. We did not attempt to simulate the effect of inbreeding depression in these analyses. We conducted a second series of simulations to assess the effect of managing the population at a level below that of the assumed BCC of 500. For these analyses, we assumed a cultural carrying capacity (CCC) of 300. Because the hypothetical CCC was lower than the BCC set by food availability, we assumed that the percentage of females breeding when the population was at CCC only declined to 80% in the high reproduction scenario and to 70% in the low reproduction scenario. In these analyses, we used initial population sizes of 100, 200, and 300 wolves; assumed a 5% probability of catastrophe; and evaluated the 2 reproduction and 3 environmental variability scenarios described above. Results Most simulated populations increased rapidly from the initial size to BCC and fluctuated around BCC, occasionally decreasing due to unfavorable environmental conditions or catastrophic events. Within the range evaluated, initial population size had little effect on the probability of extinction (Tables 81-86). Averaging across reproductive levels, environmental variability, and the probability of catastrophic events, PE for initial populations of 100 was 0.086, compared to 0.061 for initial populations of 500. In contrast, initial population size did effect the probability that simulated populations would decline below 80 wolves and be relisted as endangered. Mean PR 42 Probability of extinction differ among the 3 levels of environmental variability. Mean PE was 0.013 for low environmental variability, 0.036 for moderate environmental variability, and 0.153 for high environmental variability. The effect of environmental variability differed among levels of reproduction and probability of catastrophes. The increase in PE as environmental variability increased was 2 times greater for low levels of reproduction than for high levels of reproduction. Similarly, the increase in PE as environmental variability increased was markedly greater when the chance of catastrophic events was 10% than when The proporthe chance of catastrophes was lower. tion of females breeding affected the probability of extinction. Mean PE under the high reproduction scenario was 0.04, compared to 0.09 under the low reproduction scenario. The effect of reproduction differed depending on levels of environmental variation and the probability of catastrophe. The difference in PE between reproductive levels was substantially greater with the high environmental variation scenarios than with the low environmental variation scenarios. Likewise, increasing the probability of catastrophe increased the difference in PE between the two levels of reproduction. With low to moderate environmental variability and probability of catastrophe less than or equal to 0.05, less then 5% of the simulated populations when extinct (Tables 81 ,82,84, and 85). However, with a 5% chance of catastrophe, the proportion of simulated populations that declined below 80 wolves varied from 0.02 to 0.38 (mean = 0.15) in the low to moderate environmental variation scenarios. The risk of extinction and relisting increased considerably under the high environmental variability and 10% chance of catastrophe scenarios. Managing wolves at a hypothetical cultural carrying capacity of 300 instead of allowing the population reach a biological carrying capacity of 500 had little effect on the risk of extinction (Tables B7 and B8). However, managing for a lower population approximately doubled the proportion of simulated populations that declining below 80 individuals under the low and moderate environmental variability scenarios. Virtually all simulated populations declined below 80 individuals in the high environmental variability scenarios. Discussion PVA is a process of assembling all available demographic information, explicitly incorporating what we do know into an overall model, and evaluating the impact of what we do not know on the predictions from the model. Computer simulation modeling is a tool that permits estimation of the approximate probability of population extinction, and facilitates testing of various hypotheses about the viability of small populations. The estimates and predictions are only as good as the data and assumptions input to the model. Because many population processes are stochastic, a PVA can never specify what will happen to a population. Instead, PVA forecasts the likely effects of those factors incorporated into the model. An essential component of PVA is sensitivity testing, evaluating ranges of plausible values for uncertain parameters to determine the effects of uncertainty on model predictions. Our analyses suggest that estimates of the probability of extinction and relisting are very sensitive to uncertainty about environmental variation and the probability of catastrophes. PVA is, by definition, an assessment of the probability of persistence of a population over some specified number of years. However, prevention of extinction is only the first step for effective conservation of a species. Management goals may need to be greater than simply preventing extinction if wolves are to be functional members of Wisconsin's biological communities. In these analyses, we assumed no ingress to determine viable levels for a Wisconsin wolf population that would be independent of wolf populations in adjacent states. We had included ingress in some preliminary analyses, but by definition, a population with constant ingress would never go extinct. Therefore, we believed that including ingress in the model provided little useful information on long-term viability. The main objective of the management plan is to ensure that wolves will not have to be relisted or endangered. Our current (1999) population estimate is 197 to 203 wolves. This PVA suggests that a population of 300 to 500 wolves would have a high probability of persisting for 100 years under most of the scenarios evaluated. However, given the information currently available, we cannot exclude the possibility that a population of 300 to 500 wolves may decline to the poinl· that relisting as endangered will be necessary in ·:he future. In fact, with only moderate environmental variability and a 5 percent chance of catastrophic events 10 to 40 percent of simulated population declined below 80 wolves. Given the effect of uncertainties on model predictions, this PVA should be viewed as a component of an adaptive management process. In adaptive management, the lack of knowledge adequate to predict with certainty the best course of action is acknowledged, management actions are designed in such a way that monitoring will generate new understanding and refinement of the model, and corrective adjustments to management plans are made whenever accumulated data suggest that the present course is inadequate to achieve the goals and a better strategy exists. Our uncertainty about the magnitude of environmental variation and the frequency and severity of catastrophic events emphasizes the importance of continued monitoring of the Wisconsin gray wolf population to insure its long-term persistence. As additional information becomes available, the model can be revised, and if necessary corrective management can be implemented. Table 81. Effect of initial population size and probability of catastrophic event on estimated probability of extinction and relisting for a hypothetical gray wolf population during 100 years assuming a biological carrying capacity of 500, low environmental variability and high reproduction. Probability of catastrophic event Initial popul. size 0 0.05 0.1 Extinct. Relist. Extinct. Relist. Extinct. Relist. 100 200 300 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.24 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.53 0.3 0.35 0.29 c;nn n n n n nLt n n~ n ?R 43 Table B2. Effect of initial population size and probability of catastrophic event on estimated probability of extinction and relisting for a hypothetical gray wolf population during 100 years assuming a biological carrying capacity of 500, moderate environmental variability and high reproduction. Probability of catastrophic event Initial popul. size 100 200 300 400 500 Relist. 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.05 0 Extinct. Extinct. 0.01 0 0 0 0 Relist. Extinct. 0.23 0.08 0.14 0.07 0.12 Relist. 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.64 0.48 0.53 0.49 0.45 Table 83. Effect of initial population size and probability of catastrophic event on estimated probability of extinction and relisting for a hypothetical gray wolf population during 100 years assuming a biological carrying capacity of 500, high environmental variability and high reproduction. Probability of catastrophic event Initial popul. size 100 200 300 400 500 Relist. 0.44 0.23 0.18 0.14 0.11 0 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.1 0.05 0 Extinct. Extinct. 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 Relist. Extinct. 0.74 0.64 0.47 0.44 0.49 Relist. 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.23 0.2 0.92 0.85 0.87 0.89 0.8 Table B4. Effect of initial population size and probability of catastrophic event on estimated probability of extinction and relisting for a hypothetical gray wolf population during 100 years assuming a biological carrying capacity of 500, low environmental variability and low reproduction. Probability of catastrophic event Initial popul. size 0.05 0 Extinct. 100 200 300 400 500 0 0 0 0 0 Relist. Extinct. 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 44 0.1 Relist. 0.38 0.18 0.09 0.14 0.11 Extinct. 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.05 Relist. 0.81 0.51 0.56 0.63 0.46 Table 85. Effect of initial population size and probability of catastrophic event on estimated probability of extinction and relisting for a hypothetical gray wolf population during 100 years assuming a biological carrying capacity of 500, moderate environmental variability and low reproduction. Initial popul. size Probability of catastrophic event 0 Extinct. 100 200 300 400 500 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.05 Relist. 0.04 0 0 0 0 Extinct. 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Relist. Extinct. 0.36 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.2 Relist. 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.91 0.75 0.71 0.6 0.69 Table 86. Effect of initial population size and probability of catastrophic event on estimated probability of extinction and relisting for a hypothetical gray wolf population during 100 years assuming a biological carrying capacity of 500, high environmental variability and low reproduction. Probability of catastrophic event Initial popul. size 0.05 0 Extinct. 100 200 300 400 500 0.01 0.01 0 0.02 0 Relist. 0.54 0.36 0.22 0.25 0.19 Extinct. 0.2 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.1 Relist. 0.85 0.7 0.75 0.74 0.67 Extinct. 0.56 0.43 0.53 0.41 0.41 Relist. 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.94 Table 87. Effect of initial population size and environmental variability on estimated probability of extinction and relisting for a hypothetical gray wolf population during 100 years assuming a cultural carrying capacity of 300, a 0.05 probability of catastrophic event, and high reproduction. Initial popul. size Low Extinct. 100 200 300 0 0 0 Environmental variability Moderate Extinct. Relist. Relist. 0.39 0.16 0.15 0 0.01 0.01 0.4 0.36 0.32 High Extinct. 0.08 0.08 0.09 Relist. 0.91 0.84 0.85 Table 88. Effect of initial population size and environmental variability on estimated probability of extinction and relisting for a hypothetical gray wolf population during 100 years assuming a cultural carrying capacity of 300, a 0.05 probability of catastrophic event, and low reproduction. Initial popul. size Low Extinct. 100 200 300 0.02 0 0.01 Environmental variability Moderate Extinct. Relist. Relist. 0.5 0.4 0.33 0 0.01 0.01 45 0.56 0.4 0.36 High Extinct. 0.21 0.16 0.11 Relist. 0.97 0.9 0.87 APPENDIXC GIS Evaluation of Wolf Habitat and Potential Populations in the Great Lakes States by Adrian P. Wydeven, David J. Mladenoff, Theodore A. Sickley and Robert G. Haight GIS was used recently to determine the type of landscape features that packs occupy in Wisconsin and the adjacent states of Michigan, and Minnesota (Miadenoff et al 1995, 1999). Additionally, work was done to determine how many wolves could occur in Wisconsin and Michigan (Miadenoff et al 1997). A geographical information system or GIS is a computer mapping system that allows researchers or managers to examine various layers of landscape simultaneously. By examining various landscape features, biologists can determine why a species occurs in a specific location. Various landscape features were initially examined in 14 wolf territories that were monitored by the Wisconsin DNR using radio-collared wolves during 1980-1992. These known territories were compared to 14 random areas the size of wolf territories scattered across northern Wisconsin. Wolf territories were also compared to the overall landscape of northern Wisconsin. Landscape features that were examined included human population density, prey (deer) density, road density, land cover, land ownership, and several spatial indices. An additional 23 new packs were examined in an update of the analysis (Miadenoff et al. 1999). Gray wolves lend themselves well to exammmg of their habitat selection using GIS. Wolf packs occupy fairly discrete areas that are maintained as territories, and represents the breeding potential of a wolf population. In the Great Lakes region wolves normally occupy territories that cover 20 to 120 square miles. By discerning the characteristics of suitable pack habitat (breeding habitat), we can determine the extent of area that wolves can occupy, and the size of a wolf population that an area can support. Table C1 illustrates some of the important features of wolf habitat in Wisconsin. In general the aver- Table C1. Average values for characteristics of wolf pack habitat versus overall Northern Wisconsin Study Area. landscape Features Land Cover Urban area Agricultural and open land Total forest Upland forest Lowland forest Marsh or bog Water land Ownership Public lands Private industrial forest Other private lands Density Roads Density Human Density Deer Density Wolf Pack Habitat Mean Value Wolf Pack Habitat 90% Cut-off Level Northern Wisconsin Mean Value 0% 2% 93% -<7.5% 1% 21% 73% 68% 25% - ----- 59% 14% 4% 1% ---- 2% 4% 70% 10% 21% ----<50% 27% 5% 66% 0.4 mi/mi2 4.0 persons/mi2 22.2 deer/mi2 <1.0 mi/mi2 <10.8 persons/mi2 --- 1.1 mi/mi2 11. 3 persons/mi2 21.3 deer/mi2 46 Primary wolf habitat Secondary wolf habitat N A 0 25 ED Mles Figure C1. Primary and secondary wolf habitat in Wisconsin. Primary habitat represents those areas with a 50% or greater chance of supporting a wolf pack. Secondary habitat represents those areas with between a 10% and 50% chance of supporting a wolf pack. The remainder of the state is designated as unsuitable, with a less than 10% chance of supporting a wolf pack. The map shows 5,812 square miles of primary wolf habitat and 5,015 miles of secondary habitat statewide. There are 45,252 square miles which are considered unsuitable habitat. (Graphic by Ted Sickley, Department of Forest Ecology & Management and Land Information and Computer Graphics Facility, University of Wisconsin-Madison based on Mladenoff et al, 1995) 47 age wolf territory contained no urban land, very little farmland, and was 93% forest. Nearly 30% of an average territory was in wetlands, especially conifer swamps and bogs, compared to only 16% overall for northern Wisconsin. Wolf territories consisted mainly of public and industrial forest land (80%), even though these areas cover only about 1/3 of northern Wisconsin. Wolf pack areas had about 1/3 the road density and human population density of northern Wisconsin in general. Road density was the best predictor of suitable wolf habitat, as had been found by Thiel (1985) and others. Areas that contain less than 0. 7 miles of road per square mile have a 50% chance or greater of being settled by wolf packs if adequate space and prey are available. Blocks of land with less or equal to 0. 7 miles/mile 2 was considered suitable wolf habitat for management purposed. Land with more than 1 mile of road/mile 2 is least suitable and has less that 10% chance of being settled by wolf packs. An update of the GIS analysis confirms that road densities continue to be good predictors of suitable habitat in Wisconsin (Miadenoff et al. 1999). Although road density is an important indicator of good wolf habitat, wolves do not have an aversion to roads. Wolves readily travel down roads for hunting and dispersing, especially dirt and gravel roads. The reason road density is important to wolf habitat, is because higher road densities equate to higher risks of vehicle collisions or illegal kills. In recent years vehicle collisions have become almost as high a mortality factor as illegal killing in Wisconsin. During an 8 month period in 1994-95, 5 wolves died in central Wisconsin due to vehicle collisions. Area of potential wolf habitat in northern Wisconsin are illustrated in Table C2. A total of 5,739 square miles have greater than 50% probability of being settled by wolf packs and are listed as primary wolf habitat in Table 2. The majority of the primary habitat (71 %) occurs on public land or industrial forest land. Land that has a 10 to 50% probability of being settled by wolf packs is listed as secondary wolf habitat and covers 4,704 square miles; slightly over half the secondary habitat occurs on private land (Table C2). About 12,393 square miles of northern Wisconsin appears to be poorly suited as wolf habitat, and most unsuitable habitat occurs on private land. Some of the areas of less suitable habitat may be occupied by wolf packs if these areas occur close to areas of suitable habitat. Landscapes that are not likely to be settled by wolf packs, may still have potential for dispersing wolves, especially in forested habitats near existing packs. The initial analysis we conducted on potential wolf habitat examined about 23,000 square miles of northern Wisconsin, but did not examine land in central Wisconsin (Miadenoff et al. 1995). In fall 1994 a wolf pack was verified in central Wisconsin, therefore GIS analysis was conducted for the remainder of Wisconsin in spring 1996. A small area of favorable wolf habitat was identified in central Wisconsin (207 square miles) and included the three wolf territories located in the region in 1996. No other sizeable areas of primary or secondary potential habitat occur in the state, but a few small scattered parcels of secondary habitat exist in central and western Wisconsin. The chance of wolves settling into these small parcels is remote, but these areas may be used by dispersing wolves. The potential wolf population for Wisconsin and Michigan were determined by Mladenoff et al. (1997) using two methods. A habitat based estimate used the average territory size (69 mi 2 ) average sized pack (4.1 wolves), average space between territories Table C2. Distribution of potential wolf habitat across Northern Wisconsin. Habitat potential is classified by the probability of being occupied by wolf packs. VlO.F HABTAT ClASSES Prirrary V\tM liDtt (>fOlio frd>. dass) SecadaryV\tM liDtt (>1£1'/o to . dass) lklst.italje V\tM liDtt (<1£1'/ofrd>. dass) Tctal La-d kea AR::AS USTEDIN SCLfi.'REMLES Cany Federal Tribal CENSI1Y a= I State ROAfS 1:[/ Ptivcte <0.7/ni2 $7(45%) 1623(51%) 1028(45%) 29:XSJ>/cy 570::4ff/cy 1€£1(12%) <1.Q'ni2 2ffi(2Jl/cy 784(:ZSO/cy 821(F/cy 172(31o/cy 22CX19'/cy 2421(17>/cy >1.Q'ni2 402(32'/cy 772(24°/cy 431(19'/cy OC(16%) 381(3Y/cy 10,317(72'/cy 11255 13179 48 122m 1552 11171 11~399 (37%), and assumed 15% loners in the population within areas of primary wolf habitat. A wolf-prey based estimation developed by Fuller (1989) was also used to estimate the potential wolf population within primary wolf habitat, based on abundance of deer. Table C3 illustrates estimated potential wolf population of 380 and 462 by the two methods. The habitat area based estimate is probably the more reliable projection of the potential population, because it has a more narrow confidence interval, and the prey based projection includes estimates of wolf densities that are higher than any mainland densities reported for wolves in the Great Lakes region. Therefore a reasonable estimation would be a potential wolf population of 300-500 wolves in northern Wisconsin, and 600-1000 wolves in Michigan. could support far more than the goal of 100 for both states for federal delisting as neither endangered nor threatened. The current (1999) population for both states of about 370 wolves, already far exceeds the goal. The GIS results of delineating suitable habitat and potential populations will be very useful for future management planning for the Great Lakes States. The GIS data will provide an important bench mark for evaluating the success of wolf recovery in the Great Lakes region. Literature Cited. Fuller, T.K. 1989. Population dynamics of wolves in north-central Minnesota. Wild I. Mongr. 105, 41 pp. Mladenoff, D.J., T.A. Sickley, R.G. Haight, and A.P. Wydeven. 1995. A regional landscape analysis and prediction of favorable wolf habitat in the Northern Great Lakes region. Conservation Biology vol. 9 (2):279-294 The populations projections made by Mladenoff et al (1997) includes only potential habitat in northern Wisconsin. Based on the size of suitable habitat and wolf densities in other areas of Wisconsin, central Wisconsin could support an additional 20-40 wolves. More Mladenoff, D.J .. , R.G. Haight, T.A. Sickley, and A.P. research is necessary to better assess habitat and wolf Wydeven. 1997. Causes and implications of species population potential in cen- . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , tral Wisconsin. Table C3. Potential Wolf Population for Wisconsin and Michigan Figure C 1 shows the statewide potential habitat as as Determined by Two Methods. calculated following the study. It shows 5,812 square miles of primary Wisconsin 90% Michigan 90% habitat and 5,015 square Estimate Confident Estimate Confident miles of secondary habitat Interval Interval in Wisconsin. Our potenHabitat Area Model 380 324-461 751 641-911 tial wolf population was based on full occupancy of Prey Based Model 462 262-662 581-1357 969 primary habitat, but if secondary habitat were also fully occupied, the potential wolf population could ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' be 50% higher or more. Behavioral adaptions by restoration in altered ecosystems: A spatial landwolves and greater acceptance by humans could allow Bioscape project of wolf population recovery. for a considerably higher population. Conversely, if science vol. 47(1):21-31. wolves are less accepted by people, and are unable to fully occupy even primary habitat, then the potential Mladenoff, D.J., T.A. Sickley and A.P. Wydeven. wolf population could be lower. 1999. Predicting gray wolf landscape recolonization: logistic regression models vs. new field data. EcoThese results suggest that Wisconsin and Michigan logical Applications. 9:37-44 49 Appendix D Citizen Involvement in Development of the Wolf Management Plan. By David A. Weitz and Adrian P. Wydeven The Wisconsin Departme.nt of Natural Resources (DNR) began work in 1996 to develop a new wolf management plan for the state. The initial effort by the Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee was directed at obtaining public opinion on ideas, issues, and concerns of wolf management in Wisconsin. Initial Issue and Concern Identification From October 15, 1996 to October 17, 1996 ten public forums were conducted across the state to obtain public opinions. (Sites were at Florence, Superior, Milwaukee, Park Falls, Madison, Stevens Point, Black River Falls, Rice Lake, Rhinelander and Green Bay). A total of 228 people attended the forums. Verbal comments were made by 122 of -~·_.r those in attendance. In addition 98 written > & and email comments were received during ) later weeks. Notifications of the forums ~-L.~ .. along with information on the DNR Wolf Management Planning effort were sent to 1 ,200 media outlets and individuals throughout Wisconsin. Additionally copies of a '--~ .. "White Paper" on wolf management was sent to a list of about 800 individuals and groups who had expressed some interest in development of the original Wolf Recovery Plan in Wisconsin. gested methods of raising dollars for wolf monitoring, education and management. In general people indicated support for some type of wolf population control at a future time but disagreed on the number of wolves that should exist in Wisconsin. While some thought hunters should be allowed to take wolves, and one person suggested using volunteers to control depredating wolves, in general most who discussed the issue felt that only Department of Natural Resources professionals should control wolf numbers. 0--~~~=~-T~ I T __j~ () 0 "'~f-~L~n~ j-1l0 : 0 i ~-~r -~ () L_j·-i l \ ) ~ ( 0.1 0). The over winter management goal~ for the units with wolves is 18.7 deer per square mile. The management goals for the units without wolves is 21.3 deer per square mile. These goal differences reflect habitat and climatic effects unrelated to wolves. It appears that habitat and climatic effects have greater impacts on deer population trends than wolf predation. Furthermore, the average rate of herd increase from post-harvest to subsequent pre-harvest (1981-199_7) was 1.33 for units without wolves and 1.31 for umts with wolves. Thus recruitment (net increase in herd size) was similar in both sets of management units. Overall it does not appear that wolves are likely to be a major mortality factor to deer in northern Wisconsin under current conditions, or in the near future. Even with a population of 500 wolves, annual predation. of 9000 deer would represent only 2.6% of the overwmter population of 343,000 deer in the Northern Forest and Central Forest. The area has an average fall population of about 450,000. Much of the predation by wolves would probably compensate for other natural mortality because it occurs year-round. A large proportion of northern Wisconsin deer die from natural causes, which can vary drastically depending on severity of winter (Creed et al. 1984). Wolves would probably remove some of these animals that would die from other causes. A deer killed by wolves won't be killed by winter stress or other mortallities. Wolves may also displace other predators such as coyotes (Peterson 1995); under some circumstances coyote predation may have more of an impact on deer populations than wolves (Mech 1984). The current deer management system in Wisconsin adjusts antlerless deer harvest in individual deer manage- Figure E1. Northern Forest Deer Population compared to Winter Severity Index 600 T I ~f 4oo l I /- 300 i l 200 _)_ 100 ...... _, "- ............../ -. / 1 1 ' \ ~,------ -~------ I ~- + ---+-- I --+---1--- -- i \ . . "'; ' ~ ' I I Severity Index -Deer Population II I oL--+ -+ - - Year ment units by limiting the number of hunter choice permits per unit (VanderZowen and Warnke 1995). This system should be able to adequately adjust for the impacts of wolf predation in deer management units. Generally, wolf predation would have very limited impact on the number of hunter-choice permits issued, or the overall deer harvest within specific management units. Literature Cited: Creed, W.A., F.P. Haberland, B.E. Kahn, and K.R. McCaffery. 1984. Harvest management: The Wisconsin experiences. Pages 243-260 in L.K. Halls, ed. White-tailed Deer Ecology and Management. Wildl. Manage. lnst., Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 870 pp. Fuller, T.K. 1990. Dynamics of a declining whitetailed deer population in north-central Minnesota. Wild I. Monogr. 110. 37 pp Fuller, T.K. 1995. Guidelines for gray wolf management in the northern Great Lakes region. International Wolf Center, Tech. Publ. #271. Ely, Minnesota. 19 pp. Gasaway, W.C., R.D. Boiertje, D.V. Grangaard, D. G. Kellyhouse, R.O. Stephenson, and D.G. Larsen. 1992. The role of predation in limiting moose at 59 low densities in Alaska and Yukon and implications for conservation. Wildl. Monogr. 120. 59 pp. Mech, L.D. 1984. Predator and predation. pp. 189200 in L.K. Halls, ed. White-tailed Deer: Ecology and Management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 870 pp. Mech, L.D. and P.O. Karns. 1977. Role of the wolf in a deer decline in the Superior National Forest. USDA. For. Serv. Res. Report. NC-148. 23 pp. Peterson, R.O. 1995. Wolves as interspecific competitors in canid ecology. Pages 315-323 in L.N. Carbyn, S.H. Fritts, and D.R. Seip. Ecology and conservation of wolves in a Changing World. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Occ. Publ. No. 35, 642 pp. VanderZouwen, W.J. and O.K. Warnke. 1995. Wisconsin deer population goals and harvest management: Environmental assessment. Wisconsin Department of natural Resources, Madison, WI. 305 pp. Wydeven, A. Wolf carrying capacity. Pages 43-47 in W.J. VanderZouwen and O.K. Warnke, eds. Wisconsin deer population goals and harvest management: Environmental assessment. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI 305 pp. Figure E2. Northern Wisconsin Deer Management Units With Wolves Compared to Northern Wisconsin Deer Management Units Without Wolves 35r------------//--~~---,I~'"~..~! ~ Units Without \"11 Wolves·~~nt J!LAn~ 350 wolves outside of Indian reservations). Translocations will be conducted in accordance with “Guidelines for Conducting Depredation Control”. LETHAL REMOVAL: When appropriate wolves may be lethally removed in order to manage depredation incidents. Wolves may be trapped by USDA-WS and euthanized, or shot. While wolves are listed as federally endangered or threatened, lethal controls would be restricted to ½ mile or 1 mile from depredation sites, depending on 4d rule designation or authority issued through special permits from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Once wolves are delisted by the federal government, lethal controls by USDAWS or DNR will be authorized up to 1 mile from depredation sites in Zones 1 and 2, to 5 miles in Zone 3, and no distance restrictions in Zone 4. Any lethal removal of wolves will be in accordance with the latest version of the “Guidelines for Conducting Depredation Control”. PRIVATE LANDOWNER CONTROL: Will not be allowed while wolves are federally listed as threatened or endangered. Once wolves are delisted by the federal government, landowners and lessees of land would be allowed to kill a wolf, “in the act of killing, wounding, or biting a domestic animal” with requirements that a conservation warden be contacted within 24 hours (Wisconsin Administrative Rule, NR 10.02 (1) (b)). Landowners/lessees would also be allowed to obtain permits from DNR to control a limited number of wolves during specific time periods on land they owned or leased if they had suffered from wolf depredation. INTENSIVE CONTROL MANAGEMENT SUB-ZONES: To be determined. PUBLIC HARVEST: To be determined. Literature Cited: Lehmkuhler, J., G. Palmquist, D. Ruid, B. Willging, and A Wydeven. 2007. Effects of wolves and other predators on farms in Wisconsin: Beyond verified depredations. Wisconsin Wolf Science Committee, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, 15pp. http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/publications/pdfs/wolf_impact.pdf 23 USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services, 2006. Final Environmental Assessment for the Management of Wolf Conflicts and Depredating Wolves in Wisconsin. USDA-APHISWildlife Services in cooperation with U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Sun Prairie, Wisconsin. 156 pp. K. Wolf Research Needs: Additional research needs that have been identified since the 1999 plan include the following: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Continued health monitoring to document significant disease events that may impact the wolf population and to identify new diseases in the population (Modify from, "Continued health monitoring to identify factors causing low pup mortality............."). Investigation of the role of sarcoptic mange in wolf population dynamics, including spatial and temporal differences and trends in this disease. Comparison of health parameters between wolves involved in livestock depredation and other wolf packs to determine whether disease plays a role in depredation behaviors. Investigation of the role wolves play in the ecology of important zoonotic and livestock diseases, such as human ehrlichiosis and bovine neosporosis. Conduct social survey of in northeast Wisconsin to determine attitudes and possible factors hindering public acceptance and poor establishment of wolves. Conduct a survey similar to Nelson & Franson 1988 on attitudes of landowners and farmers in northern Wisconsin toward wolves. Examine impact of ATVs and other recreation activities on wolves. Conduct economical analysis of the costs and benefits of a wolf population in northern and central Wisconsin. Update habitat analysis of wolf habitat in Wisconsin (Mladenoff et al. 1995, 1997, 1999), and project future declines in wolf habitat due to housing and road development across north and central Wisconsin. Examine canid spacing in relationship to depredation management by wolves, bears, coyotes, and domestic dogs. Examine the degree and impact of dog gene introgression into the Wisconsin wolf population. Continue to examine impact of wolves on elk, and on elk movements and dispersion on the landscape. Examine ecosystem impacts of wolves on the landscape by effects on abundance, distribution on habitat use of deer, beaver, and mesocarnivores. Update examination of wolf population viability with updated population information. Assess changes in mortality and survival of adult wolves with changes in status and application of new control programs. Determine productivity, mortality factors, and survival rates of pups, and examine factors that contribute to greater productivity and survival. 24 • Examine non-predation impacts of wolves and other predators on farms including negative and potential positive impact, economical and social. (Lehmkuhler et al. 2007). Literature cited: Lehmkuhler, J., G. Palmquist, D. Ruid, B. Willging, and A. Wydeven. 2007. Effects of wolves and other predators on farms in Wisconsin: beyond verified losses. Wisconsin Wolf Science Committee, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin 15 pp. http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/publications/pdfs/wolf_impact.pdf M. Wolf Specimen Management To date wolf carcasses found in the wild have had necropsy evaluations to determine cause of death and health status. While wolves were listed as endangered, the DNR policy was to have all wolf carcasses studied by the National Wildlife Health Center in Madison, Wisconsin. Eventually they became specimens at research institutions, with most wolf specimens deposited at the University of Wisconsin - Zoology Museum in Madison. With reclassification and eventual delisting, the management of wolf specimens will be modified. The Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee developed guidelines for managing wolf specimens under threatened and delisted classification. 1. Wolf Specimen Management – Threatened With reclassification to threatened, research, population monitoring and health evaluations of dead wolves found in the wild will remain the top priority. Additional wolf carcasses will be made available as euthanasia of depredating wolves become possible, and accidental mortality caused by vehicle collisions increases. Carcasses of collared wolves from the DNR Wolf Monitoring Program will be necropsied by the National Wildlife Health Center, and specimens will be turned over to interested researchers, when there is an identified need for such specimens. If specimens remain available after research needs have been met, the second priority for use of wolf carcasses would be for education purposes and Native American cultural and religious purposes. Such carcasses can be made available to tribal governments, nature centers, state parks, wolf education organizations, WDNR and other agency offices. Carcasses would not be available for private ownership. Wolves found dead in the field should be collected by wildlife biologists, wildlife technicians or conservation wardens and placed in WDNR freezers until arrangements can be made to ship the carcasses to Madison. Any wolves euthanized by USDA-Wildlife Service will also be turned over to WDNR. All carcasses should be tagged, and labeled with all pertinent information kept with each carcass. The WDNR wolf program manager should be notified of all wolf carcasses found. The wolf program manager will coordinate shipment, necropsies, and eventual designation of specimens. The wolf program manager will keep lists of organizations interested in receiving carcasses, and 25 will coordinate distribution of carcasses. Any wolf suspected of being killed illegally will be held for conservation wardens until legal investigation and prosecution are completed. 2. Wolf Specimen Management - Delisted When wolves are no longer listed as threatened or endangered in Wisconsin, management of wolf carcasses can be broadened. Wolf carcasses would be available from depredation control activities, natural mortality, illegal kills, and accidents. Research will continue to be an important priority, but will require a research proposal identifying needs and anticipated results, and such proposals would need WDNR and/or tribal approval. A portion of carcasses collected each year may be requested by WDNRWildlife Health Team to evaluate health status. Following research and health monitoring, wolf education and Native American cultural use would be the next priority for ownership of wolf carcasses. Skins and skulls would be made available for Native American tribal governments, schools, nature centers, state parks, WDNR and other agency offices, tribal centers, and wolf education organizations. Wolf specimens could be turned over to private individuals if specimens are not needed for above purposes. No carcasses should be provided to landowners conducting control on their land, or to persons involved in accidental killing of wolves. Dead canids suspected of being wolfdog hybrids, but which appear to be mostly wolf, should be treated as wolves for the purpose of wolf specimen management. Eventually regional wildlife supervisors will coordinate wolf specimen management in each WDNR region. The wildlife supervisors will maintain lists of organizations and individuals interested in receiving specimens, and will determine disposition of carcasses. Annual reports will be submitted to WDNR Endangered Resources or Wildlife Management on carcasses collected and handled in each region, including biological information and final disposition of carcasses. Currently while wolves continue to be listed as federally endangered or threatened, wolf specimen designations will be coordinated through Endangered Resources central office, in Madison. VI . WOLF MANAGEMENT BUDGET The budget costs of the wolf program have grown extensively since the start of the recovery/management program in 1979-1980, and grew at higher rates than anticipated in 26 the 1999 wolf plan (Table 4). In the period 2000-2005, annual costs for wolf management ranged between $218,000 to $309,000. The 1999 plan had expected management cost to grow from $130,000 in FY 99-00 to $209,000 in FY 04-05. The actual costs were about 50% higher. Some of the cost increase reflect major increase in airplane flights raising costs to fly and locate all collared wolves across the state from about $300 to about $1000. Additional costs were also incurred by more DNR personnel spending time on wolf related issues, and the growth and spread of wolf population. The source of funds for the wolf management program had been from 77% federal funds and 23% state funds in the 1990s, but in recent years the proportions of state funds have increased. Federal funds had included grants from U.S. Endangered Species Act, Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act, and U.S Forest Service funds. State funds were mainly from the Endangered Resources Tax Check-Off, and Endangered Resources License Plate. Private funding came from Timber Wolf Alliance, Defenders of Wildlife, National Wildlife Federation, Milwaukee Zoo, Timber Wolf Information Network, and donations from private citizens. U.S. Endangered Species grant money declined in the 2000s. Recently additional Pittman-Robertson funds were found to cover more of wolf management costs. The wolf program was not successful in obtaining any funding through the new State Wildlife Grants program. It is expect that wolf management costs in the near future will continue to be in the range of $250,000 to $300,000, and efforts will continue to try to find additional funding for the program and depredation payments. Cost of depredation reimbursement was higher than anticipated. The 1999 plan had assumed annual depredation reimbursements cost of $20,000 to $40,000, but in recent years costs have ranged from $23,000 to $77,000. Higher costs have occurred in part due to higher rates of depredation due to lack controls because federal delisting had not occurred as had been expected. Also DNR had started paying for some missing livestock, that were previously not considered for reimbursement payments. Cattle prices also improved in recent years which in turn increased reimbursements provided for wolf losses. Funding for depredation reimbursement when 3 % of Endangered Resources License plates funds were added to the 3 % of Endangered Resources Tax Check-Off, which doubled the wolf/endangered resources depredation payments account to about $34,000 annually. During years when this amount had been exceeded, other portions of the Endangered Resources funds (Check-Off & License plate) were made available for wolf payments at the cost of other Endangered Resources programs. Donations to these funds have declined in recent years, thus the impact on other Endangered Resources has been magnified. Availability of the new federal State Wildlife Grants program have offset some of these losses to other Endangered Resources. One area where WDNR cost have declined was the funding for USDA-Wildlife Service, which at the time of the plan was funded mainly by WDNR at cost of up to $30,000 annually. Since the early 2000s, USDA-WS has been able to secure separate federal appropriations from the Department of Agriculture, so that DNR no longer needed to fund out of state money 27 Table 4. Wisconsin Gray Wolf Program Expenditures by WDNR Fiscal Year (FY) Year State or Donated Federal Total Management Expenditures Depredation Payment 1979-80 5,000 15,000 20,000.00 ___ 1980-81 5,425 16,275 21,700.00 ___ 1981-82 7,734 35,000 42,734.00 ___ 1982-83 13,013.44 35,200 48,213.44 ___ 1983-84 27,905.18 51,440 79,345.18 ___ 1984-85 11,804.38 28,125 39,929.38 200.00 1985-86 23,625.24 60,600 84,225.24 0.00 1986-87 44,128.80 56,305 100,433.80 2,500.00 1987-88 14,864.00 62,592 77,456.00 0.00 1988-89 23,887.60 18,069 41,956.60 400.00 1989-90 20,410.94 48,319.47 68,730.41 2,500.00 1990-91 15,508.40 95,198.40 110,706.80 187.55 1991-92 25,768.83 67,442.88 93,211.71 1,535.00 1992-93 38,650.75 58,893.00 97,543.75 1,600.00 1993-94 19,005.61 68,893.00 87,898.61 6,125.00 1994-95 19,404.31 91,264.75 110,669.06 1,800.00 1995-96 30,818.99 112,118.50 142,937.49 4,163.12 1996-97 29,908.92 120,450.21 150,359.13 7,465.45 1997-98 31,283.68 98,038.62 129,322.30 16,081.97 1998-99 40,358.72 160,506.58 200,865.30 19,787.19 1999-00 48,423.15 210,251.08 258,674.23 71,450.47 2000-01 43,059.61 209,117.83 252,177.44 22,808.20 2001-02 54,637.44 219,124.67 273,762.11 60,940.20 2002-03 46,888.69 170,997.18 217,885.87 54,585.37 2003-04 172,861.62 136,213.19 309,074.81 67,715.43 2004-05 195,746.86 153,224.97 348,971.83 76.867.32 28 APPENDIX A-2 Wolf Depredation in Wisconsin through 2005. By Adrian P. Wydeven, Robert C. Willging, David Ruid and Randle L. Jurewicz Although wolf depredations on domestic animals were relatively rare events in Wisconsin prior to the mid 1990s, by the late 1990s depredations had become a fairly regular activity (Treves et al. 2002). Rates of depredation on livestock in Wisconsin by the early 2000s were similar to the rates in Minnesota in the early 1980s (Fritts et al. 1992). Between 1985 and 2005, the Wisconsin DNR paid $469,430.88 for 270 calves, 13 cows, 74 sheep, 44 deer (deer farm), 6 horses (5 foals), 114 chickens, 148 turkeys, 83 hunting hounds, 12 pet dogs, 4 injured cows and 32 injured dogs. These reimbursements included $184,226.42 for dogs, $197,181.56 for livestock, $82,850.00 for deer, and $5172.90 for poultry. Most of these payments were for verified depredations (confirmed or probable), but some payments were also made for missing livestock when wolves were believed responsible for some of the losses. Table A-3 summaries wolf depredations losses and wolf controls in Wisconsin between 1976 through 2005. Total verified wolf depredations included 5 horses killed, 1 horse injured, 50 sheep killed, 184 cattle killed, 7 cattle injured, 38 deer killed, 264 poultry killed, 99 dogs killed and 30 dogs injured. A fairly strong relationship was found between wolf population level and number of cattle killed (r2 = 0.66, P < 0.01), dog kills (r2 = 59, P < 0.01), and farms with depredation ( r2 = 0.75, P < 0.01) between 1989 and 2003 (Wydeven et al. 2004a). Numbers of farms with depredations on domestic animals averaged 2.8 farms annually in the 1990s, but increased to mean of 14.0 farms annually between 2000 and 2005. By 2005, the number of farms with depredation had grown to 25, and between 2001 and 2005, 54 farms had at least 1 verified livestock depredation Prior to 2005, all depredations on livestock and poultry occurred in northern Wisconsin (Zone 1 and northern portions of Zone 3). In 2005 a farm in the Central Forest (Zone 2) lost two calves, the first livestock depredation for that region. Total farms for 16 counties with wolf packs (2002) in northern Wisconsin was 6445 farms (USDA, NASS, 2002 Census of Agriculture Profile), thus the 53 farms with wolf depredation represent about 0.8 % of farms in the region. Although this would suggest that total farms with wolf depredation are relatively low, not all the farms had livestock available, and most farms were outside of wolf range. Thus a small number of farms received most of the wolf depredation losses. Between 1991 through 2005, 118 wolves were trapped or shot at depredation sites by USDA Wildlife Services or WDNR, and 74 were euthanized. Prior to 2003 only one wolf was euthanized by special permit. From 1991-2002 a total of 32 wolves were translocated long distances (52 to 277 km) away, 3 were released locally (<10 km), 2 died in captivity and 1 was euthanized. Since 2003 federal authority has allowed taking of depredating wolves (threatened status 4d rule in 2003 & 2004, and special permit in 2005), and most captured wolves were euthanized (70 wolves, 90% of captures). Pups 29 captured prior to August 1 were released near capture sites. At least 3 of the wolves translocated at long distances, depredated on livestock in new locations, and a female wolf that had attacked farm deer, attacked dogs at a new location. Generally only a few packs were found to depredate on domestic animals. Through 2000, 68% of packs detected in the state caused no depredation to domestic animal (Treves et al. 2002). Between 1995 and 2002, annually 7% of packs depredated on livestock, 10% depredated on dogs, and only about 2 % of packs attacked both dogs and livestock (Wydeven et al.2004). Generally packs attacking livestock occurred near the edge of the northern forest near agricultural land. Packs in the core of wolf range in large blocks of public forest land, rarely were involved in livestock depredation. Thus control actions of trapping and euthanizing depredating wolves is not likely to affect most of the wolf population. If wolves in the future were able to colonize areas outside the large forest blocks in northern and central Wisconsin, wolf depredation levels would likely increase (Treves et al. 2004). Control trapping will need to continue to address depredation problems and reduce colonization of wolves into agricultural areas. Packs depredating on dogs are more difficult to predict. Dog depredations are generally scattered across wolf range. Generally packs that attack dogs are the larger packs on the landscape, and there apparently is learning involved because 2/3 of packs killing dogs will likely do so again the following year (Wydeven et al. 2004b). Control trapping has not been used on packs killing hunting dogs on public land, and will not likely be used in the future unless such packs also attack livestock on farms or pets near residential areas. Factors that caused increases in wolf depredation in Minnesota were recently examined (Harper et al. 2005). Major factors included range expansion, colonization of new areas in wolf range, and learning behavior. Range expansion by the Minnesota wolf populations apparently stopped in 1998, and depredation levels have declined since that time (W. J. Paul unpublished reports). Range expansion by Wisconsin wolves, especially recent colonization of more agricultural areas has probably increased numbers of farms with depredation in the state. Future management will need to address stabilization of range expansion to minimize depredations to livestock. Work has also been done and will continue to explore better methods of nonlethal wolf control in the state. Testing was done with fladry (special flagging material) and movement activated guard devices (use strobe light and loud sounds) to deter predators (Shivik et al. 2003). Both systems have potentials in certain situations to reduce depredation by wolves, but wolves can probably learn to adapt to them, and such systems are generally less successful when actual killing of livestock by wolves has begun. Testing was also conducted on the use of dog shock collars on wolves to deter them from specific areas (Hawley 2005, Schultz et al. 2005). Shock collars may have use in specialized situation where it is desirable to keep wolves in the general area, but keep them off pastures with livestock or other focal points. Future wolf depredation management is likely to be most successful if an integrated approach is used (USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services 2006). Such an approach will use a 30 combination of technical advice, animal husbandry, nonlethal and lethal controls. The approach will also be an adaptive management procedure that builds on new knowledge and adjusts management as new things are learned. Attempts will be made to also document non-predatory effects of wolves to farms (Lehmkuhler et al. 2007). Careful monitoring and research will be an essential part of future depredation management. Literature Cited. Fritts, S. H., W. J. Paul, L. D. Mech, and D. P. Scott. 1992. Trends and management of wolf –livestock conflicts in Minnesota. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 181, Washington, D.C. 27 pp. Harper, E. K., W. J. Paul, and L.D. Mech. 2005. Causes of wolf depredation increase in Minnesota from 1979-1998. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:888-896. Hawley, J. E. 2005. Experimental assessment of shock collars as a nonlethal control Method for free-roaming wolves in Wisconsin. M.S. Thesis. Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Michigan Lehmkuhler, J., G. Palmquist, D. Ruid, B. Willging, and A. Wydeven. 2007. Effects of wolves and other predators on farms in Wisconsin: Beyond verified losses. Wisconsin Wolf Science Committee, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin 15 pp. http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/publications/pdfs/wolf_impact.pdf Schultz, R. N., K. W. Jonas, L. H. Skuldt, and A. P. Wydeven. 2005. Experimental use of dog-training shock collar to deter depredating wolves. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 33:142-148. Shivik, J. A., A. Treves, and P. Callahan. 2003. Nonlethal techniques for managing Predation: primary and secondary repellents. Conservation Biology 17: 1531-1537 Treves, A., R. L. Jurewicz, L. Naughton-Treves, R. A. Rose, R. C. Willging, and A. P. Wydeven. 2002. Wolf depredation on domestic animals in Wisconsin 1976-2000. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 30:231-214. Treves, A., L. Naughton-Treves, E. K. Harper, D. J. Mladenoff, R. A. Rose, T. A. Sickley, and A. P. Wydeven. 2004. Predicting human-carnivore conflict: a spatial Model derived from 25 years of data on wolf depredation on livestock. Conservation Biology. 18:114-125. USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services. 2006. Final Environmental Assessment for the management of wolf conflict and depredating wolves in Wisconsin. USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services, Sun Prairie, Wisconsin. 156 pp. http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/depredation/WiPermitEA.htm 31 Wydeven, A. P., R. R. Jurewicz, R. C. Willging, R. N. Schultz, J. E. Wiedenhoeft, and A. Treves. 2004a. Depredation on domestic animals by a colonizing wolf population in Wisconsin. The Wildlife Society, 11th Annual Meeting, September 18-22, 2004, Calgary, Alberta, Canada Wydeven, A. P., A. Treves, B. Brost, and J. E. Wiedenhoeft. 2004b. Characteristics of wolf packs in Wisconsin: Identification of traits influencing depredation. Pp. 28-50. in Fascione, N., A. Delach, and M. E. Smith (eds.). People and Predators: From Conflict to Coexistence. Defenders of Wildlife, Island Press, Washington, D. C. 285 pp. 32 Table A3. Summary of verified wolf depredations on domestic animals in Wisconsin from 1976 -2005, and total number of wolves removed in control actions. Resources/ years ≤89 ‘90 ‘91 ‘92 ‘93 ‘94 ‘95 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 Total Farms Affected 2 0 2 2 3 0 4 1 2 8 6 8 5 10 14 22 25 -- Total Losses* 6 2 116 11 28 2 11 8 16 40 74 19 104 66 55 56 64 678 Horses killed Horses injured Sheep killed Sheep injured Cattle killed Cattle Injured Farm Deer Poultry Losses Dogs killed Dogs injured 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 115 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 20 0 4 0 11 5 0 0 0 0 7 0 19 44 2 2 0 0 0 0 6 1 3 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 74 17 1 3 0 7 0 37 0 5 0 10 4 0 0 24 0 20 0 1 0 6 4 0 0 5 0 27 0 6 0 15 3 2 1 3 0 31 4 0 0 17 6 5 1 50 0 184 7 38 264 99 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 2 1 2 0 8 0 18 0 17 17 27 24 37 32 118 74 0 0 1 Wolves captured 0 0 0 Wolves euthanized * total of animals killed & injured 33 APPENDIX F2 Wolf Health Monitoring and Mortality Factors by USGS-National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) and WDNR-Wildlife Health Team The Wisconsin wolf health monitoring program has included necropsy evaluation of all free-ranging wolves found dead or euthanized in Wisconsin, including monitored radiocollared wolves. Table F2 presents a summary of mortality factors identified from necropsies of 269 Wisconsin wolves between 1979-2005. A high percentage of wolf mortality was associated with human causes (70.6%), with vehicle collisions (31.2%) and shooting (18.2%) being particularly important. Since 2003, euthanasia of wolves to control livestock depredation has also added significantly to human-associated wolf mortality (14.9%). Natural mortality factors contribute 23.4% of total mortality, with Sarcoptic mange-related deaths a majority of the 14.5% mortality from disease. Wolves listed in Table F3 included both collared and noncollared wolves, but only those subjected to necropsies by the USGS-National Wildlife Health Center and Wisconsin DNR Wildlife Health Team. Table F3 lists only radio collared wolves found dead in the field from October 1979 through June 2005, but does include some animals that were not necropsied because carcasses were too decomposed. Human caused mortality accounted for 55% of known mortalities, and 51% of all mortalities. The most important human mortalities were shooting (29%), and vehicle collisions (14% of know mortalities), but unlike total necropsy sample in Table F2, only 1% included wolves euthanized at depredations. Natural mortality included 45% of known mortality and 41% of all mortalities. The most common natural mortalities were disease (27%) and other wolves (13%). The overall necropsy samples had lower percentages than the collared sample of wolves dying from illegal shooting, other wolves, and disease, in part because these mortalities were rarely detected unless wolves were collared. The overall necropsy sample had higher percentages of wolves killed by vehicle collisions and euthanized depredators, because these represent dead wolves that most likely will be reported to or collected by WDNR without the help of radio telemetry. Although the collared sample probably more closely matches the overall mortality rates within the population, it is important that all forms of wolf mortality are carefully examined. Collared wolves may not be as representative of wolves living in marginal habitat, where it appears that vehicle collisions and depredation controls, may be important limiting factors on the wolf population. 34 Table F2 Mortality Summary of wolves from Wisconsin and adjacent areas of Minnesota necropsied Oct. 1979-Sept. 2005 by NWHC and WDNR Percent Total Mortality Cause of Death: Number Human Causes: 1 0.4 Euthanasia/Accident 40 14.9 Euthanasia/Depredation 9 3.3 Capture-Related 49 18.2 Shooting 6 2.2 Accidental Trapping 84 31.2 Vehicle Collision 1 0.4 Poisoning 0 0 Unknown Human Cause 190 70.6 Total Human Caused: Natural Causes: Birthing Complications Diseasea Killed by Other Wolves Other Natural Causeb Unknown Natural Cause Total Natural Caused: 63 23.4 Unknown Causesc: 16 5.9 Total Known Mortality: Total Unknown Mortality: 253 94.1 16 5.9 1 0.4 39 14.5 16 5.9 8 3.0 0 0 269 100 Total All Mortality: a includes mange-related deaths b includes blunt trauma of unknown cause (could be prey or vehicle) and debilitated, heavily parasitized animals c animals with no lesions and all tests negative, as well as badly decomposed carcasses with no recognizable cause of death 35 Table F3. Mortality summary of radio-collared wolves in Wisconsin and adjacent areas of Minnesota from October 1979 – June 2005. Cause of Death Number % Known Mortality Capture Related 6 4% Human Causes * 41 29% Shot Wound Trapped 4 3% Vehicle Collision 19 14% Euthanized (depredation) 2 1% Unknown Human Causes 5 4% Total Human Causes 77 55% Natural Causes Accident Birthing Complications Disease Killed by Other Wolves Malnutrition/Starvation Unknown Natural Causes Total Natural Causes 1 1 37 18 2 3 62 1% 1% 27% 13% 1% 2% 45% Totals Known Mortality Unknown Mortality 139 13 100% Total Mortality 152 * 2 wolves were shot by bow and arrow, and 39 by firearms 36 APPENDIX H2 Public Opinion of Wolf Management in Wisconsin, 2001-2005 Adrian Treves COEX-Sharing the Land with Wildlife, Inc. Lisa Naughton University of Wisconsin-Madison Kevin Schanning Northland College Adrian P. Wydeven Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources INTRODUCTION Wolves stir people's emotions and attract public attention far out of proportion to their numbers. Although many U.S. citizens support carnivore conservation and enjoy the environmental, aesthetic, and economic benefits of restoring wolves, the direct costs of conserving these animals fall on a minority of individuals in rural areas who lose livestock or pets to carnivores. Wildlife managers must therefore steward recovering wolf populations in a way acceptable both to the general public and rural communities living with wolves. In the past, voters and special interest groups have removed authority and flexibility from carnivore managers when unpopular interventions were undertaken or when managers catered to one interest group in particular (Harbo & Dean 1983, Torres et al. 1996). This potential threat to adaptive management suggests a need for rigorous assessment of public opinion about wolf management. Public opinion surveys enable managers to float alternative scenarios for management actions and judge the popularity of options across stakeholder groups. This approach also supports democratic, transparent decision-making about management and policy. Because management of large carnivores triggers widespread interest in many groups, managers need diverse methods and added resources for sampling the opinions of the varied stakeholders. Partnerships with university and non -profit groups can extend the outreach and sampling effort of state wildlife agencies. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) has been proactive and energetic in surveying public opinions and supporting partners’ efforts to understand public opinion of wolf management in Wisconsin. Here we describe the results of three surveys of public opinion regarding wolf control, compensation, harvest and monitoring. We focus on these components of management because they are in use or being considered in Wisconsin. We devote special attention to the opinions of key stakeholder groups, including livestock producers, 37 hunters and voluntary contributors to the Endangered Resources Fund of the WDNR (ER fund hereafter), which is the major source of revenue for wolf management in the state at present. This appendix updates information from Appendix H, in the 1999 wolf management plan (pp. 66-70), and addresses K2 under research strategies “Remeasurement of public attitudes toward wolves and recovery in the state to define reasonable population goals and acceptable wolf habitat.” METHODS In 2001 and again in 2004, L. Naughton, A. Treves and R. Grossberg, conducted surveys of state residents using stratified random sampling. The 2001 survey (NaughtonTreves et al. 2003). was aimed at residents of townships in which verified wolf depredations had occurred. The survey was sent to all people who had complained to the WDNR of wolf depredation on domestic animals and residents of the same townships selected randomly from commercially available lists of taxpayers. Overall, the response rate was 81.6% (n=535 respondents). The 2004-2005 survey1 was aimed at residents of six zip codes chosen to span the range of support for wildlife, judged by their relative contributions to the ER fund. Within zip codes, respondents were selected randomly as above. Overall, the response rate was 61.7% (n=1364 respondents), with relatively even response rates across the six zip codes (range 202-272, n=6). A more complete description of findings, sampling bias, and sample population can be found at www.geography.wisc.edu/livingwithwolves/public_reports.htm. In 2003, K. Schanning randomly selected 5000 Wisconsin residents to mail a questionnaire, using all public telephone listings with name and address as the sampling frame. Of these 5000 surveys, 644 were returned, yielding a response rate of 13%. The length of the survey may help account for this low response rate. In late summer 2004, the Wisconsin DNR, conducted a survey to which 1367 people responded (1322 residents of the state, and 45 non-residents). Notice of the survey was listed in news papers and other media sources throughout the state. The DNR sent copies of the questionnaire-based survey to all people who requested it, and made the survey available on the web. We believe this approach sampled a group of people very interested in wolves, both from a negative and positive standpoint. The sample was composed of 66% hunters (compared with 57% in the Naughton/Treves 2003-2004 survey), 16% farmers (compared to 34% who had some experience raising livestock or 15% who raised livestock for commercial purposes in the Naughton/Treves survey), and 66% who identified themselves as environmentalists, 83% who identified themselves as conservationists, and 36% who identified themselves as animal preservationists. 1 for details see www.geography.wisc.edu/livingwithwolves/public_reports.htm 38 Analyses for all three studies are presented without weighting for underrepresented respondents (e.g., women). As a result, the findings should be considered preliminary pending such weighting and peer review of findings. Across the following results and figures and analyses, sample sizes vary as not all respondents answered all of our questions. RESULTS The 2001 survey of wolf county residents by Naughton/Treves offered three conclusions: 1) most respondents favored the presence of wolves in the state provided the population was limited; 2) the existing compensation program for wolf depredations was very popular, but individuals who received compensation payments for reported depredations were no more tolerant of wolves than were individuals claiming losses but who were not paid, and 3) lethal control of wolves was the preferred management response to wolf predation on livestock and pets. The survey also revealed, on average, bear hunters had the most negative attitudes toward wolves and were most critical of current management strategies, while livestock producers were less negative, and other rural residents were the most positive toward wolves and current management practices. In the second survey (2004/2005), Naughton and Treves found again that the majority of respondents supported wolf recovery in the state, but there were significant differences among citizens regarding preferred management strategies. Here we highlight results for two groups selected randomly from the population: voluntary contributors to the ER fund for wolf management and non-contributors. Such a comparison is significant because the WDNR depends heavily on voluntary contributions for wolf management. Respondents who had contributed to the ER fund (contributors) represented 19.5% of the sample; most often gave via the state income tax check-off (Figure 1). 39 Figure 1. To assess individual tolerance for wolves, respondents were asked a series of questions about values and attitudes toward wolves. We present one because all were highly intercorrelated. Respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: "If I were out hunting and saw a wolf, I might shoot it"; 90% of respondents disagreed strongly or were neutral. In this survey (2004-2005) and the previous one (2001), respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with this statement were just under 11% of the entire sample. When asked “If a wolf kills livestock...” or “If a wolf kills a family pet...”, a majority of respondents preferred “capture and relocate the wolf to a wilderness area” (43-57% of all respondents) followed by “kill the wolf” (35-39% of non-contributors) or “take no immediate action toward the wolf but monitor the situation” (21-23% of contributors). By contrast, when asked “if a wolf kills a hunting dog on public land...”, the most popular response was “take no immediate action toward the wolf but monitor the situation” (35% and 64% among non-contributors and contributors respectively) followed by “capture and relocate the wolf to a wilderness area” (31% for either group). Note that wilderness areas in Wisconsin are too small to support whole wolf packs and most were already occupied by wolves, thus the term was subject to respondents’ interpretations. The action “Try to frighten away the wolf or deter it from approaching...” 40 was least popular in all situations. Hence the general population of Wisconsin is less likely to favor lethal control than Northwoods residents (Naughton et al. 2003). When asked, “If there must be lethal control of wolves, who should be allowed to kill wolves?”, most respondents (76% of contributors and 55% of non-contributors) approved of “government agents”. Non-contributors also approved of “private landowners who provide evidence of wolf predation on livestock” (56%); this choice received support from almost half the contributors (48%). No other personnel achieved >49% approval for conducting wolf control. Wolf harvest (not initiated in Wisconsin at the time of writing) received more positive than negative responses among both contributors and non-contributors (Figure 2). However among those respondents approving of a wolf harvest (68% of our sample), few wanted the immediate initiation of a wolf season (2% of contributors and 18% of non-contributors). The preferred timing was “only when depredations become unmanageable” (41% of contributors) or “as soon as biologists think the wolf population can sustain annual harvests” (41% of non-contributors). 41 Figure 2. To assess if support for lethal control depended on the accuracy of removing the individual wolves implicated in depredations, we asked if errors in lethal control affected approval. Seventy-seven percent of contributors and 54% of non-contributors wanted either “no lethal control” or error rates <10%. By contrast 23% of contributors and 48% of non-contributors accepted error rates ≥10%. There are currently no data on Wisconsin wolf removal accuracy nor effective techniques for assessing past or future likelihood of causing depredations. 42 Far and away, the most popular source of funding for compensation was the existing state ER fund (70% and 78% approval among non-contributors and contributors respectively) although “hunting fees” also appealed to a majority of contributors. There was overwhelming approval among both contributors (80%) and noncontributors (69%) for farmer compensation contingent upon “best livestock management practices”. Similar majorities favored compensation “only if government agents find evidence of wolf involvement” (88% and 79% respectively). Compensation for hunters who lose a hunting dog on public land was far less popular, with 51% of contributors favoring no compensation and 52% of non-contributors favoring the following recipe: “He/she should be compensated for loss only if government agents find evidence of a wolf”. We described an incentive scheme as follows: “Some managers propose that landowners living near wolf packs be given a monetary incentive to protect the wolves. The incentive would help offset the risks they face, and compensate for any domestic animal losses. This incentive might also prevent people from illegally killing wolves.” and asked “Assuming you live on or near land suitable for wolves, would you consider participating in such an incentive program?”. This was far more popular among contributors (81% would participate) than among non-contributors (34% would participate). Monitoring and informing rural residents about the locations of wolves was highly popular among both contributors and non-contributors (Figure 3). 43 Figure 3. Results from the Northland College Survey Respondents showed an acceptance of wolves on the landscape, and favored wolves living in National Forests and Wildlife Refuges, while also showing strong support for wolves inhabiting State Forests (Figure 4). 44 Figure 4. Public wolf acceptance on various landscapes in Wisconsin. 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Nowhere National State in WI Forests Forests County Forests National State Wildlife Wildlife Refuges Refuges Other When asked if a public harvest should be used to manage the wolf population, respondents were split about hunting, but, opposed to a public trapping season. However, no other methods of management were found to be more popular than a public harvest. Having the DNR trap wolves was the next most preferred technique, even though only 33% of all respondents supported this method. Relating to methods of managing problem wolves that have caused damage, support was shown for the relocation of problem wolves. Respondents were equally supportive of allowing both the landowner and the DNR to shoot a wolf that had caused harm. However, much more support was shown for allowing farmers to shoot problem wolves in general. Respondents overwhelmingly opposed the hypothetical poisoning of problem wolves by farmers or the DNR. Respondents showed more support for the compensation of livestock loss to wolves than for losses of farmed deer or bear dogs. When given the dollar figure of how much was paid out in compensation to livestock farmers in one fiscal year, 81% of respondents wanted to continue compensation for livestock, while 10% wanted it reduced. Asked the same question about deer farmers, 42% of respondents wanted to continue compensation for deer at current levels, and 25% wanted it reduced. Even less support was shown for the compensation of bear dogs killed by wolves, with 52% of respondents indicating compensation for bear dogs should stop, and 25% wanting it reduced. Most respondents wanted to compensate livestock owners only if they had taken some protective measures against wolves or were using Best Management Practices. However, 40% wanted to continue compensating all livestock owners for depredations, and only 5% wanted to stop compensation altogether. 45 Results from the Wisconsin DNR survey After being told “Currently an intense system of population monitoring is being used including radio tracking, winter track surveys by DNR and volunteers, summer howl surveys, and collection of reports of public observations of wolves.”, respondents were asked “What is your impression of the current level of wolf monitoring?” 43% thought it was about right, 28% thought it was too intense, and 29% thought it was not adequate. Of the wolf population survey methods listed below, respondents were asked whether efforts should increase, decrease or remain about the same: • Live-trapping and radio-tracking: increase 32%, remain the same 38%, decrease 31% • Snow track surveys by DNR: increase 35%, remain the same 46%, decrease 19% • Snow track surveys by volunteers: increase 47%, remain the same 40%, decrease 13% • Computer models estimations: increase 20%, remain the same 49%, decrease 31% • Collect reports from the public: increase 52%, remain the same 37%, decrease 11% The results again supported the conclusion that current monitoring should remain the same, except for the participation of volunteers, which most respondents wanted to increase. Overall, increases in effort outnumbered decreases in effort: The DNR asked about the wolf management zones and provided a map of these zones with definitions of appropriate management in each. When respondents were asked “Do you support the concept of zone management for wolves?”, 33% opposed it, 51% supported it, and the remainder were neutral. When asked “Do you feel the current zone system provides appropriate protection for wolves?”, 44% thought it was too protective, while 29% thought it not protective enough, with many (27%) neutral on the subject. The DNR asked how desirable the following control action would be: “Public harvest if the population goal for the state is exceeded”. 55.5% found it desirable, while 38% found it undesirable. This result is higher than that found by Naughton/Treves (above) who found fewer respondents (40% for contributors, 26% for non-contributors) wanted a wolf harvest “as soon as biologists think the wolf population can sustain annual harvests”. The difference may reflect that Naughton/Treves offered an alternative “only when depredations become unmanageable” that was attractive to many respondents (see above). The DNR asked respondents how desirable the following control activities were: • “USDA-Wildlife Services should continue to provide technical assistance including non-lethal methods to persons who have problems with wolf depredations” 66% desirable, 25% undesirable. • “USDA-Wildlife Services should trap and euthanize wolves that cause depredation on domestic animals on private land.” 60% desirable, 30% undesirable. • “Control trapping should be avoided on public lands (currently trapping is only allowed on private land or public lands immediately adjacent to private lands where depredations have occurred).” 45% desirable, 43% undesirable. 46 These findings match the Naughton/Treves results but there is higher support for lethal control, perhaps because translocation was not offered as an alternative control strategy or because the DNR sampled more hunters and more people with an interest in wolves (see methods). When respondents were asked whether the state should allow trapping of wolves up to 1.0 mile from depredation sites in Zones 1 and 2 to be consistent with 2003 federal regulations, a majority of respondents agreed (58%) with only 27% disagreeing. “Once delisted by both the state and federal government, permits can be issued to landowners or occupants to control a limited number of wolves on land they own or lease, if they have had recent wolf depredations.” Respondents agreed with this procedure in 60% of cases and disagreed in 36% of cases. CONCLUSIONS Examining public opinion broadly, one finds three surveys with similar general findings, namely that a majority of the public approves of current wolf management strategies and policies as implemented by the Wisconsin DNR. This conclusion is robust judging from the very different sampling approaches used by the three surveys that yielded this same general conclusion. However, the details of our results suggest some changes may be needed. A majority of the public approves of changes to the ongoing policies of compensation and control, and wishes to guide any potential future harvest in various ways. Briefly, the compensation program in place with requirements of evidence before compensation is popular, but recently enacted programs to pay for missing livestock with less evidence do not seem to be strongly supported. Although livestock specialists disagree on best management practices for reducing depredations in all situations, if reasonable practices can be found, most of the public seems to support requiring implementation of such practices as part of determining payments. Payments for hunting dogs killed on public land received limited support and many want to see such payments eliminated. The current practice of lethal control of depredating wolves is popular but approval will decline if lethal control is implemented on public lands, or if other than government agents conduct controls. Non-lethal control remains popular and can in some scenarios exceed the popularity of lethal control, but the public is often unaware of limitations of non-lethal methods. Finally, pertaining to a potential, future wolf harvest, there is support among a majority of state residents, contingent upon either biologists’ assessments of the sustainability of a hunt or contingent upon excessive depredations by wolves. It appears that broad acceptance of a public harvest would not likely occur unless such harvest is strongly tied to reduction or elimination of wolf depredation on livestock and pets. A somewhat surprising result, was that almost 11% of hunters would consider shooting wolves while hunting for deer (results from two surveys of different populations). With over 650,000 deer hunters in the state, 72,000 might consider shooting a wolf, although 47 other research in the Great Lakes generally shows support for wolf conservation among about 70% of hunters. Thus, there remains a sizeable subset of hunters that could severely negatively impact the wolf population. Illegal killing of wolves may be one of the factors that will restrict wolves from colonizing open, developed landscapes. Habitat management will need to continue to provide adequate refuge habitat by maintaining forested areas of low road density. While legal restrictions will provide some protection for wolves, we also see the need for additional policies and management supported by a vast majority of the public, including those who might consider killing wolves. These results and others pertaining to public opinion may help the Wisconsin DNR to refine its policies and fine-tune its management actions on the ground. Such alterations of current practices should not be done in pursuit of popularity as an end in itself, but rather because sound management designed with public opinion in mind can help to avoid illicit actions, grassroots political resistance, and high-level political interference in sciencebased management. Surveys of public opinion should be conducted every few years to gauge continued acceptance of management programs, or determine shifts in public attitudes toward wolves. Additional surveys should also be conducted if there are plans for major changes in wolf management, such as public harvests or changes in population goals. LITERATURE CITED Harbo, S. J., jr., and F. C. Dean. 1983. Historical and current perspectives on wolf management in Alaska. Pages 51-64 in L. N. Carbyn, editor. Wolves in Canada and Alaska: Their Status, Biology and Management. Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton. Naughton-Treves, L., R. Grossberg, and A. Treves. 2003. Paying for tolerance: The impact of livestock depredation and compensation payments on rural citizens' attitudes toward wolves. Conservation Biology. 17:1500-1511. Torres, S. G., T. M. Mansfield, J. E. Foley, T. Lupo, and A. Brinkhaus. 1996. Mountain lion and human activity in California: testing speculations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:457-460. 48 APPENDIX K. Wisconsin Wolf Management Questionnaire 2004 By Wisconsin Wolf Science Committee. The questionnaire was available by mail, email or at DNR offices from August 13 through September 13, 2004. A Wisconsin DNR news release went out to media sources throughout the state to let people know about the questionnaire. A total of 1367 completed questionnaires were received, with over 90% being from state residents. The questionnaire and total responses to each question are listed below. The Wisconsin DNR would like your opinion on the 1999 Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan. We wish to assess how well the plan is working and to determine if portions of the plan need to be modified or new items need to be included. Along with asking questions on specific portions of the plan, there will be opportunity at the end of this questionnaire, to include additional items you feel are needed in the plan. Detailed information on each question are found in the 1999 Wolf Management Plan (http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/publications/wolfplan/toc.htm) We value you input, and to assure that all are legitimate citizen comments, we will only consider comments when you include your name and address at the end of the questionnaire. A. Population Goals. 1. Delisting / Re-listing Goal. The state delisting goal (the level at which wolves could be removed from the state endangered and threatened species list) was a population of 250 wolves outside of Indian reservations for one year. . The goal was achieved in 2002 and state delisting was completed in 2004. Wolves would be state re-listed as threatened if the population dropped below 250 for 3 years, and re-listed as endangered if it dropped below 80 for one year. In your opinion, the delisting/re-listing goal of 250 wolves is: { Much too low 273 284 { Somewhat low { About right 256 177 { Somewhat high { Much too high 361 Recommended alternate goal? (Avg. = 160, stdev =331). 2. Management Goal. The state management goal is to maintain a population of 350 wolves outside of Indian reservations. If the wolf population exceeds this level, proactive control by government trappers or public harvest may be used to reduce the population back to this level. 49 In your opinion, the management goal of 350 wolves is: { Much too low 240 283 { Somewhat low { About right 219 167 { Somewhat high { Much too high 440 B. Wolf Management Zones. The state wolf management plan identified four wolf management zones to provide different levels of wolf protection and management. Zone 1 (northern Wisconsin) and Zone 2 (central Wisconsin forest): Zones where wolf presence is most acceptable and given the highest level of protection. Habitat management for wolves would focus mainly on these zones. Control efforts would be allowed on private land to reduce wolf depredation on domestic animals. In 2003-2004, there was a minimum of 306 wolves that occurred in at least 88 packs in Zone 1, and 49 wolves in at least 15 packs in Zone 2. Zone 3 (central and southwest Wisconsin): A buffer area and important dispersing habitat for wolves between Zones 1 and 2, but contains only limited habitat for wolf packs and has high potential conflict with agriculture. Habitat management would focus mainly on maintaining dispersal habitat and corridors. Agriculture is fairly extensive and control on depredating wolves would be fairly aggressive. In 2003-2004, at least 17 wolves occurred within this zone. Zone 4 (eastern and southern Wisconsin): Zone of intense agriculture and large urban areas that is considered unsuitable as wolf habitat. Control on problem wolves would be aggressive. A small number of dispersing loners probably exist in the zone. Three wolves were killed in the zone in winter 2003-2004 from vehicle collisions (2) and illegal kill (1). Do you support the concept of zone management for wolves? { Very Opposed 252 { Moderately Opposed 193 212 { Neutral { Moderately Supportive 354 { Very Supportive 334 Do you feel the current zone system provides appropriate protection for wolves. 421 { It is far too protective { It is moderately too protective 166 { Protection is about right 364 { It is not protective enough 289 { It is not nearly protective enough 104 50 C. Population Monitoring and Management. 1. The level of monitoring necessary to assess the wolf population varies with population status and intensity of management. At low population levels, monitoring needs to be intense to prevent disappearance of wolves from the state. At higher population levels monitoring can be less intense. Currently an intense system of population monitoring is being used including radio tracking, winter track surveys by DNR and volunteers, summer howl surveys, and collection of reports of public observations of wolves. Intense monitoring will also need to continue for 5 years after federal delisting (which could occur in 2005). Intense monitoring will also be necessary if regular harvests are begun, to make sure that over-harvest does not occur. a. What is your impression of the current level of wolf monitoring? 217 { Far too intense 162 { Somewhat too intense { About right 573 250 { Somewhat inadequate { Very inadequate 138 Remain the same Decrease Livetrapping and radio-tracking Snow track surveys by DNR Snow track surveys by volunteers Computer models estimations Collect reports from the public Increase b. Of the survey methods listed below, please indicate whether you feel the efforts should increase, decrease or remain about the same. 420 460 618 259 694 500 615 534 640 496 410 250 178 410 144 2. The Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan recommends different control measures based on wolf population status. When wolves were listed as a State Threatened Species (80 to 250 wolves outside Indian reservations), lethal controls were restricted to government trappers on verified depredators, or government agents on wolves that posed threats to human safety. As a delisted, state protected wild animal, below the population goal (250 –350 wolves outside Indian reservations), landowners would have authority to kill wolves attacking domestic animals on private land, and could also be issued permits to kill problem wolves (as long as federal de-listing had also occurred). Above the population goal (> 350 wolves outside of Indian reservations), proactive control by government trappers could be used to reduce the population by 51 eliminating wolves from unsuitable area. Public harvest could also be considered (as long as federal de-listing had occurred). Desirable Neutral Undesirable Highly Undesirable Control by government trappers on wolves verified as depredators on domestic animals Control by government agents on wolves that pose threats on human safety Landowner authority to kill wolves in the act of attacking domestic animals on private land Landowner permits to kill a limited number of wolves during specific time period on private land with history of wolf depredation Proactive control by government trappers on wolves in areas considered unsuitable because of high risk of human conflict if the state population goal is exceeded Public harvest if the population goal for the state is exceeded Highly Desirable Please circle the response that best describes how you feel about the desirability of each of the following wolf management strategies: 480 332 191 154 185 551 347 188 117 135 669 183 120 170 210 562 142 93 177 375 424 326 205 189 199 635 114 90 89 421 D. Habitat Management. The Wolf Management Plan recognized about 5812 square miles of favorable wolf habitat. By 2003 most areas of favorable wolf habitat in northwest, north central, and central forest were occupied by wolf packs. In portions of northwest and central Wisconsin, wolves have started to occupy less suitable habitat, but in northeast Wisconsin areas of favorable habitat are still not fully occupied. The Wolf Management Plan recommends various levels of habitat management that would be emphasized in Zones 1 and 2. The Wisconsin DNR is interested in your thoughts on these various management tools. 52 What is your opinion on the following aspects of the Wolf Management Plan? Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree The plan encourages maintaining low road densities in Zones 1 and 2 on public lands where wolves occurred, and encourages keeping road densities at or below current levels. The plan encourages managing public forest land in Zones 1 and 2 in diverse forest cover including some areas of early successional forest that maintain reasonable levels of prey populations. Strongly Agree Please circle the response that best describes your level of agreement with each of the following statements. 520 229 201 106 268 483 333 246 88 171 E. Wolf Depredation Management. The Wolf Management Plan discusses five control responses to reduce the impact of wolf depredation on domestic animals. These include: 1. technical assistance including non-lethal methods, 2. compensation for losses, 3. livetrapping and translocating wolves by government trappers, 4. trapping and euthanizing wolves by government trappers, and 5. landowner controls on problem wolves. Wildlife specialists from Wisconsin DNR and USDA-Wildlife Service conduct investigations of possible wolf depredations . These specialists also provide technical assistance, help producers apply nonlethal controls, and if necessary attempt to trap problem wolves. Reimbursements for losses due to wolves come from the state Endangered Resources Fund (from individual voluntary contributions on tax returns) and the sale of special wolf license plates. 53 Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree USDA-Wildlife Services should continue to provide technical assistance including non-lethal methods to persons who have problems with wolf depredations. USDA-Wildlife Services should trap and euthanize wolves that cause depredation on domestic animals on private land. Control trapping should be avoided on public lands (currently trapping is only allowed on private land or public lands immediately adjacent to private lands where depredations have occurred). Strongly Agree Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following policies related to wolf depredation management. 625 266 110 125 216 543 263 133 186 218 383 220 156 184 399 1. In your opinion, should the Wisconsin DNR continue to reimburse owners for depredation on the following groups of animals if killed or injured by wolves? Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following policies Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree related to wolf depredation management. livestock and poultry on private land 780 398 73 44 58 pets on private land 686 347 132 85 101 pets on public land 510 164 148 222 304 pets on industrial forest 493 146 155 233 318 Hunting dogs legally used on public or industrial forest land 539 163 102 183 364 54 2. The 1999 Wolf Management Plan allows control trapping to occur up to 0.5 miles from depredation sites in Zones 1 and 2, up to 5 miles away in Zone 3, and any distance from depredation sites in Zone 4. Do you agree with these restrictions? ο ο ο ο ο strongly agree 178 somewhat agree 383 no opinion 253 somewhat disagree 273 strongly disagree 258 The 2003 federal reclassification of wolves includes regulations that allow the state of Wisconsin to trap problem wolves up to 1 mile from depredation sites while listed as federal threatened. Should the plan allow trapping up to 1.0 mile from depredation sites in Zones 1 and 2 to be consistent with federal regulations? ο ο ο ο ο strongly agree 378 somewhat agree 394 no opinion 207 somewhat disagree 175 strongly disagree 187 3. Wolves have been delisted by the State of Wisconsin, and may be removed from the federal threatened species list in 2005. Once the federal action is completed, the Wisconsin plan may allow private landowners to shoot wolves in some situations. a. Private landowners or occupants on private land would be able to shoot wolves in the act of attacking pets or livestock on private land. The owner or occupant would be required to contact a conservation warden within 48 hours. Do you agree with this procedure? ο ο ο ο ο strongly agree 634 somewhat agree 274 no opinion 33 somewhat disagree 184 strongly disagree 226 55 b. On public land, owners of domestic animals being attacked by wolves would be allowed to harass and scare wolves, but would not be allowed to use lethal force. Do you agree? ο ο ο ο ο strongly agree 365 somewhat agree 245 no opinion 32 somewhat disagree 142 strongly disagree 561 c. Once delisted by both the state and federal government, permits can be issued to landowners or occupants to control a limited number of wolves on land they own or lease, if they have had recent wolf depredations. Do you agree with this procedure? ο ο ο ο ο strongly agree 547 somewhat agree 263 no opinion 51 somewhat disagree 193 strongly disagree 287 F. Wolf Education Programs. Wolf Education Programs continue to be an important part of wolf management in Wisconsin. These include annual wolf awareness week, a pamphlet on wolves in farm country, updated wolf information on the DNR web site, a pamphlet on wolves and dogs, periodic news releases, working with wolf education organizations, and providing wolf talks. 1. In your opinion, the amount of effort DNR spends to educate the public about wolves is: 240 { Far too much effort { Somewhat too much effort 111 387 { About right 368 { Somewhat too little effort 236 { Much too little effort 56 G. Interagency Cooperation. Interagency cooperation has been critical to successful wolf management in Wisconsin, especially with federal agencies, tribes, and state DNRs in Michigan and Minnesota. When wolves are delisted by the federal government, the role of federal agencies will decline. However, some level of involvement will continue by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for 5 years after delisting, and Forest Service involvement in wolf conservation will continue indefinitely on National Forest lands containing wolves. 1. Do the efforts of interagency management of wolves in Wisconsin seem adequate? ο strongly agree ο somewhat agree ο no opinion ο somewhat disagree ο strongly disagree 144 412 454 192 141 H. Volunteer Efforts. The DNR makes extensive use of volunteers in education and survey work on wolves. Each year about 100 people are trained to assist in track surveys. Volunteers from Timber Wolf Alliance, Timber Wolf Information Network, and other organizations provide talks and training to thousands of people each year on wolves. 1. Should DNR continue to support these volunteer efforts in wolf management in Wisconsin? ο ο ο ο ο strongly agree 726 somewhat agree 236 no opinion 134 somewhat disagree 80 strongly disagree 170 57 Of the following wolf management issues, please indicate three that are most important to you (rank 1=most important, 2=2nd most important, 3=3rd most important). 1 2 3 152 147 123 287 196 164 143 164 153 338 156 111 195 181 169 85 171 156 27 38 62 56 105 115 ___ Public Involvement and agency cooperation……. 46 53 126 ___ Law enforcement and legal protection…………... 70 97 114 ___ Diseases Monitoring and Management………….. 32 48 62 ___Public Harvest……………………………………. 233 96 189 ___ Population monitoring ………………………….. ___ Population management and control……….......... ___ Education……………………………………..…. ___ Habitat protection and management…………..… ___ Controlling depredation on domestic animals…... ___ Depredation compensation…………………….... ___ Training of volunteers………………………….... ___ Wolf research………………………………......... Thank you for your comments, The Wisconsin Wolf Science Committee. Please fill out the following: Name: Address: Phone: Email Address if available Additional Background Information (Optional): Have you read the 1999 Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan? Yes (673) No (298). Are you a male (915) or female (72)? 58 Do you hunt? Yes (848) No (444) If yes, which animals do you hunt? ____ Deer (798) ____ Upland Game Birds (662) ____ Bear (375) ____ Rabbits & Squirrels (492) ____ Waterfowl (375) ____ Predators & Furbearers (326) Do you trap furbearers? Yes (165) No (1094). Do you hunt with dogs? Yes (516) No (737). If yes, which kind of dogs and hunting? ____ Hounds for bears and other predators. ____ Beagles & other dogs for small game. ____ Dogs for upland gamebirds. ____ Dogs for waterfowl 224 177 367 230 Do you farm? Yes (205) No (1069). If yes, what kind of farming? ___ Row crop ___ Orchard or Fruit ___ Vegetable ___ Beef Cattle ___ Dairy Cattle ___ Sheep ___ Hogs ___ Poultry ___ Deer or Elk ___ Other 75 26 45 62 23 13 19 38 5 67 Do you consider yourself an environmentalist? Yes (855) No (389). List any environmental organizations to which you belong. ________________________________________________________________________ Do you consider yourself a conservationist? Yes (1066) No (172). List any conservation organizations to which you belong. ________________________________________________________________________ Do you consider yourself an animal protectionist ? Yes (471) No (745). List any animal protection or animal welfare organizations to which you belong. ________________________________________________________________________ 59 Project Name: Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan County: Statewide DECISION (This decision is not final until certified by the appropriate authority) In accordance with s. 1.11, Stats., and Ch. NR 150, Adm. Code, the Department is authorized and required to determine whether it has complied with s. 1.11, Stats., and Ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code. Complete either A or B below: A. EIS Process Not Required The attached analysis of the expected impacts of this proposal is of sufficient scope and detail to conclude that this is not a major action which would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. In my opinion, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required prior to final action by the Department on this project. B. Major Action Requiring the Full EIS Process The proposal is of such magnitude and complexity with such considerable and important impacts on the quality of the human environment that it constitutes a major action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Signature of Evaluator Date Signed Noted: Regional or Bureau Supervisor Date Signed Number of responses to news release or other notice: More than 800 Comments were received in written and verbal form during public comment periods and public forums on three plan drafts. Changes were made to the plan in response to public input. Certified to be in compliance with WEPA Regional Director or Director of Bureau of Integrated Science Services (or designee) Date Signed NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you believe that you have a right to challenge this decision, you should know that Wisconsin statutes and administrative rules establish time periods within which requests to review Department decisions must be filed. For judicial review of a decision pursuant to sections 227.52 and 227.53, Stats., you have 30 days after the decision is mailed, or otherwise served by the Department, to file your petition with the appropriate circuit court and serve the petition on the Department. Such a petition for judicial review shall name the Department of Natural Resources as the respondent. To request a contested case hearing pursuant to section 227.42, Stats., you have 30 days after the decision is mailed, or otherwise served by the Department, to serve a petition for hearing on the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources. The filing of a request for a contested case hearing is not a prerequisite for judicial review and does not extend the 30-day period for filing a petition for judicial review. Note: Not all Department decisions respecting environmental impact, such as those involving solid waste or hazardous waste facilities under sections 144.43 to 144.47 and 144.60 to 144.74, Stats., are subject to the contested case hearing provisions of section 227.42, Stats. This notice is provided pursuant to section 227.48(2), Stats. Wolf Responses by Date Mail First Last NEILS. KAGAN 48104 Drganizatlo Addross NEILS. KAGAN City Statu Codo Commont National Wildlife Federation KAGAN@nwf.org Gt Lks Res. Ann Arbor, Ml Ctr , 530 E. Liberty St. The National Wildlife Federation (*NWF*) has long played a role in wolf restoration efforts nationwide, both in helping to tailor common sense management plans to secure wolf recovery and in educating the public concerningfacts and myths surrounding the animals. In keeping with NWF A2s past involvement in the issue of wolf conservation, and on behalf of NWF A2s 4 million members and supporters, including some 93,000 members and supporters in Wisconsin, NWF submits the comments that follow on the second draft of the proposed Wolf Management Plan for Wisconsin (*the Plan*), prepared by the Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (*WDNR*). INTRODUCTION Although the Plan has many praiseworthy elements, it also suffers from some serious shortcomings. NWF presents its comments below, arranged to correspond with the major sections of the Plan. MANAGEMENT GOAL (Section IV) NWF has several concerns with the Plan, but its overriding concern is that the Plan fails to set a population goal at a level which reasonably assures that the wolf will not have to be re-listed as threatened or endangered. The WDNR itself appropriately identifies *[t]he main objective of the management plan ... [to be] to ensure that wolves will not have to be relisted [sic] or endangered .* Plan, Appendix B, page 41. Elsewhere, the WDNR cites the *long-term conservation of wolf Despite the WDNR A2s stated populations in Wisconsin* as the primary goal of the Plan. Plan at A? I, page 7. goal of avoiding re-listing and endangerment, however, the results of the Population Viability Analysis (*PVA*) indicate a significant probability, between 36% and 40%, that the population will drop below 80 animals within the next 100 years. Plan, Appendix B, Table 88, page 43. Under the state A2s listing criteria, *Wolves would be reclassified as endangered if the population falls below 80 wolves in any year.* Plan at A? IV, page 14. The prediction of a 36% to 40% probability of re-listing is based on managing an initial population of 200-300 wolves to a cultural carrying capacity of 300, assuming low reproduction, a 5% chance of a catastrophic event, and moderate environmental variability. This value set seems to reflect the most realistic scenario for the reasons that follow. The Plan sets no explicit maximum population goal, but a *minimum* goal of 350 wolves to address social concerns. Plan at A? IV, page 14; Letter from Steven W. Miller, Administrator, Division of Land, WDNR, to Concerned Citizens (Mar. 15, 1999), at page 1. Yet, *More intense control will occur when the population exceeds 350.* Plan at A? .IV, page 14. In effect, then, the population will be managed to maintain the population at or near a maximum of 350 wolves. Since the WDNR did not run a PVA for this specific number, the analysis assuming a cultural carrying capacity of 300 seems most realistic. Although the reproductive value is characterized as *low,* that term may be misleading. *Low* reproduction actually translates to an age of first breeding of three years, 80% of females breeding when the population is low, and 50% breeding when the population is at biological carrying capacity. Plan, Appendix B, page 39. These estimates may be conservative, but they seem to be more realistic than estimates for the *high* reproduction value A Fan age of first breeding of two years, 90% of females breeding when the population is low, and 60% breeding when the population is at biological carrying capacity. ld. Even using the high reproductive value, the PVA still indicates a significant probability, between 32% and 36%, that the population will drop below 80 animals within the next 100 years. Plan, Appendix B, Table 87, page 43. The values for a catastrophic event and environmental variability are the middle values of three that were modeled. As the Plan acknowledges, there is little data and much uncertainty concerning these two variables. Plan, Appendix B, page 39. Therefore, using the middle levels seems the most appropriate. Even the middle value for a catastrophic event is an arbitrary and independent value, however. This means that neither the population density of wolves nor the occurrence of a catastrophic event has any effect on the probability of catastrophic events in successive years. This seems unrealistic because the Plan implies that disease has been a cause of wolf population declines in Wisconsin in the past. Plan, Appendix F, page 55. The proposition that diseases are more easily transmitted through a population with higher densities is generally accepted. Also, diseases do not always run their course in a year, meaning that a catastrophic event, e.g., an outbreak of canine parvovirus, might last more than a year, and therefore influence the chance of a catastrophic event in the successive year or years. This question is worth considering Although societal since the effect of catastrophic events in two or three consecutive years would be considerable. 20 attitudes toward the wolf are very important, it is imperative that population viability be given paramount importance in setting any maximum population goal. Reading the Plan as a whole, the WDNR appears to be contemplating the eventual setting of a maximum population goal of between 350 and 500 wolves. Based upon the PVA, even managing for a biological carrying capacity of 500 will result in a 21% probability of re-listing in the next 100 years. Plan, Appendix B, Table 85 (initial population of 200-300, low reproduction, a 5% chance of a catastrophic event, and moderate environmental variability), page 42. Thus, a maximum population goal should be set toward the higher end of this range, to ensure that wolves will not have to be re-listed as threatened or endangered, in accordance with the stated goal of the Plan. WOLF MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES (Section V) Wolf Management Zones (Section V, Subsection A) The Plan A2s four zone system should provide a good framework for successful management, primarily because it includes provisions for protected core areas to act as reserves or sanctuaries. Nevertheless, For instance, after de-listing in specific elements of the management strategies for the four zones are troubling. Zone 1, the Plan provides, *If the minimum population goal is exceeded, proactive trapping by government trappers Page 1 of 61 Thursday, June 24, 1999 Mall First Last Organlzatlo Address City State Codo Commont may occur in areas with historical wolf depredations [sic] problems.* Plan at A7 V, page 15. The phrase *areas with historical wolf depredation problems* is not particularly informative. In a historical sense, nearly the entire state has had *depredation problems* at some point since European colonization . In addition, the need to trap wolves in an area because of past depredation problems is not apparent. If the management goal is truly a minimum of 350 wolves, as opposed to a maximum of 350, why might trapping take place if the population exceeds 350? The Plan already provides for trapping or other depredation controls in the event of an ongoing or current depredation problem. Plan at A? V, page 15. In the absence of a depredation problem, what is the need for trapping or any other form of control? Again, this indicates that the WDNR is actually proposing a maximum population of 350, despite the Another objectionable point is the proposal to Plan A2s assertion that this number is a minimum population goal. eliminate a closed coyote season during the gun deer season in Zone 2. From a strictly biological perspective, Population maintaining a closed season would be appropriate, because it would reduce additional wolf mortality. Five years after the approval of a management plan, if the Monitoring and Management (Section V, Subsection B) wolf population has surpassed a maximum population goal that has yet to be set, the WDNR will consider a managed public take. Plan at A? V, page 18. Within the foreseeable future, the wolf population in the state will exceed the minimum population goal of 350. Both the Plan and the mathematics of population ecology suggest that the rate of increase should begin to slow as the population continues to increase. Considering this , and projecting even an 11% annual increase through the next six years, the wolf population may be approximately 374 in Spring 2005. This number suggests that a managed public take may be proposed in the relatively near future . Accordingly, the WDNR should begin examining potential harvest methods, rules, and their acceptability to the public. Habitat Management In the subsection on habitat management, the Plan makes several statements relating to (Section V, Subsection D) factors such as vegetation management, access restriction, etc. Plan at A? V, pages 19-20. Although NWF agrees with the policy behind encouraging appropriate habitat management, the bottom line is that the WDNR has relatively little direct control over these issues in the majority of primary wolf range in the state. From the figures given in the Plan, only 10% of primary wolf range is managed by the state. Plan at A? V, page 19. An additional 85% is controlled by industrial forest concerns, governmental agencies, and private landowners. ld. To varying degrees all of these entities are interested in timber harvest of various types. Though timber harvest on these lands does not necessarily conflict directly with wolf management as proposed in the Plan, the WDNR A2s influence on such timber harvesting is negligible. This may not have a significant impact on the suitability of the proposed Plan, but it puts in perspective the very positive sounding statements about the WDNR A2s recommendations for habitat management. Paragraph 5 of the Habitat Management subsection dealing with the protection of den and rendezvous sites also sounds more impressive than it actually is. First, the Plan gives no citation or biologically significant reason to support the radius of the areas to be protected around den sites. Second, and this point mitigates the first to some extent, the only way anyone, including a wildlife biologist, is going to have an idea where a den is located would be through intensive radio-telemetry. Even with a visual sighting from pilots conducting aerial telemetry, a day or two of searching on the ground is necessary to find a den. Given the planned reduction in the intensity of radio-telemetry monitoring within the next five years, the ability to designate protected areas around dens will be very limited. The subsection dealing with Wolf-Dog Hybrids Wolf-Dog Hybrids and Captive Wolves (Section V, Subsection L) and Captive Wolves does a fair job of describing the various problems posed by the practice of keeping wolf-dog hybrids as pets. NWF A2s concern is that the Plan does not go far enough. It merely states, *The WDNR should seek statutory authority to regulate the ownership of these animals in the state.* Plan at A? V, page 29. The possession of wolf-dog hybrids should be prohibited in the state. In addition to the very real concerns that feral wolf-dog hybrids can pose a danger to humans and negatively influence the public A2s attitudes towards wild wolves, problems with the dilution of wild wolf gene pools may already be occurring. Banning the possession of wolf-dog hybrids could potentially meet vigorous resistance from some segments of the public, but the benefits to wolves in the CONCLUSION With the exceptions noted in the foregoing comments, the WDNR state outweigh this concern. A2s plan seems sound. NWF looks forward to a continuing dialogue with the WDNR and the Natural Resources Board and the adoption of a management plan that is both biologically sound and socially acceptable. Toward that Yours truly, end, please include NWF on your mailing list. Neil S. Kagan Upper Midwest Wolf Coordinatorcc: Adrian Wydeven, WDNR Ronald L. Refsnider, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Mail First Last 53219 Organizatlo Addross 2065 So. 57th St. City State West Allis Coda Common Gilbert Murawski WI I am a hunter and a fisherman mostly. I just love timber wolves also. Those hunting preserves which are called can hunts are outrageous how can we permit this to happen. Bill Meier Do not allow control by landowners; unreliable to allow poulation monitoring by DNR field personnel & bow hunters; if harvesst allowed no take during breeding season if hunting is allowed ; 01-May-99 Su Neuhauser intelife@uinet.campuscwix.net Having spent long periods every summer for the last 20 years, both in Northern Mich and Northern Wis., and being a private property owner, I have the following comments: 1. The originally proposed population goal of 300 animals for three years should be reinstated .... ! believe that you will find that at the higher population goal, you will have more population drift. IF and WHEN individual wolves cannot find territory they may drift into the U.P. which I believe has a fairly large capacity to absorb excess animals. 2. What will be the burden of proof on landowners who shoot wolves allegedly to protect their property or pets?? 3. Is the coyote population being purposefully curbed in order to allow the wolves to flourish??? This was not clear to me. 4. regarding the PUBLIC 'HARVESTING' of the Wolf population - IF over 350 wolves manage to survive the landowners "defending" their lifestock, the game wardens who have the authority to kill "nuisance wolves", the hunter who will mistake a wolf for a coyote, hunger, starvation, interstate highways and other motorized barriers ,THEN how and when will this "harvest be considered and by whom. Also I did not see any alternatives to slaughter being mentioned .... .Has the state considered the perhaps more costly but certainly more acceptable alternative of using birth control on a give percentage of the femal wolves?????? I have no doubt that for such a operation numerous volunteers from environmental groups, universities , etc. could be easily found ... lt is tragic that we are almost in the year 2000 and that population control techniques that are being proposed are that have been used since the year 200 .. 5. If the interests of the deer hunters are pitted against the interests of the wolf and of those humans who defend wildlife - the wolf willlose .6.Has this plan been discusses as a multi-state issue or has it been dealt with in a vaccum within the state of Wisconsin only. How will the plan impact neighboring states?? What is the position of the State of Michigan, Minnesota, etc. on the proposed plan????? 08-May-98 B Colbern 54659 Taylor 80 to 100 wolves are more than enough for WI. Get the wolf off endangered list before get out of control. If get 300 to 500 wolves will have a lot of claims for damage to livestock and hunting dogs. Keep under control before get out of hand. Mail First Last Drganlzatlo Address 08-May-98 Terry 53941 City State Coda Comment Mittlbauer E3360 Jessop Rd. LaValle WI The wolf population shoud be managed for 80-100 wolves in the entire state ... wolves killing hunting dogs are a real concerned ... there should be no effort to promote a wolf population south of Hwy 64 ... 1 am not totally opposed to having some wolves in Wisc ... l do bellieve your goals are way too many ... if you allow this population to double or triple you will see the problems and nuisance wolf problems increase by 10 to 15 times 08-May-98 NO NAME If the habitat can support more wolves, let's encourage them. I would rather see a wolf than shoot a buck. 08-May-98 Steven 54531 Margitan 5230 Cedar Falls Rd. Hazelhurst WI (Language identical to Prebis letter) urges following fed . recovery plan, favors 200 wolves but not 500, resents competition of wolves for game especially on land the owner improved for hunting 08-May-98 Bill 54729 Herrmann 930 Pumphouse Rd. #3 Chippewa Falls WI Because the wolf program is promoting a predator that is in direct competition with sportsmen it is totally unfair to ask the sportsmen of Wisconsin to fund the project in any way. All costs for the program, including the salaries of all the people working on the program, should come from general revenues. 08-May-98 NO NAME I am very concerned aobut the increasing number of wolves with no end in sight. We haven't heard anything about control. .. If we hunt fox and coyote why not some limited wolf control at 200. 12-May-98 John 94018 Tyler P.O. Box 533 El Granada CA Congratulations to you (A. Wydeven) and all the other participants for a very comprehensive piece of work ... I'm a native Badger ... intensely interested in your progress ... until the end of my graduate school years (63) I spent much time visiting my maternal grandparents in Mellen ... often fished the streams of Ashland and Iron counties ... occasionally I would hear some howling, which I presumed to be coyotes ... one morning on timber road toward a stream near Morse, while selecting a fly from my box, I looked up and caught a glimpse of a lobo crossing the trail about 75 yards ahead ... I thought to myself that it must be the biggest coyote in the country ... thankfully now they're back and in good numbers ... I am hopeful that members of the human population will become increasingly tolerant towards the wolves. But I don't dought that there will continue to be a few trigger-happy shovel-shoot-shutup morons out there in the woods. Mail First 13-May-98 Elizabeth 55127 Last Organizatlo Addrass City Statu Codo Commont Cowie #4 Hawk Land North Oaks St. Paul MN You are to be commended for an excellent and extremely comprehensive report ... l have a second home in Washburn Co ... the draft plan makes sense although I hate to see the wolf downlisted to threatened ... strongly support the coyote hunting ban during deer season ... TWA & TWIN are excellent. .. if a local trapper, hunter, logger could be convinced to help track & survey their particular area it might lead to better understanding ... I hike ... with a setter & want to know where rendezvous sites & dens are located ... so I don't put my dog at risk. If I had a local person (volunteer) to call who would be able to inform me it would be greatly appreciated ... how about involving dog sled competitors ... 15-May-98 John 4358 Glowa RR2, Box 533 South China ME Wisconsin is setting the standard for the rest of the country to follow. The management plan has been well thought through and it has taken into account the public's opinions every step of the way. I believe the management plan will achieve the goal of maintaining a healthy wolf population while minimizing conflicts with humans. The 300-500 population range for wolves seems reasonable ... the Wisconsin wolves (and perhaps the Wisconsin people) don't know how lucky they are to have folks like you to look out for them. 15-May-98 John 54703 Maier 1807 Silvermine Dr. Eau Claire WI no public harvesting, farmers should be encouraged to obtain herding guard dogs, nuisance wolves should be livetrapped and transported even to other states, arbitrary population and range sizes should not be set, all hybrids should be made illegal with substantial fines for breeders, owners of hybrids must have them neutered. 22-May-98 Angela 94112 Olson 82 Havelock St. San Francisco CA I hope the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan will suppoort the wolf so he can persevere in the lands ... the wolf is a spendid creature ... ! also know that many people have an innate 'hate' toward this animal that they will not abandon .. . support the wolf, he deserves his niche in our ecology and I hope that future generations of American children will be able to hear him howl in the wilderness and know that wolves live. 26-May-98 Wayne 98109 Johnson 1500 Westland N. #202 Project Wolf USA Seattle WA There are many good items under consideration .. . unfortunately the move to make the transition from endangered to threatened ill means orne wolves and wolf hybrids will be .. . killed ... we, at Project Wolf USA do not think one more wolf should be killed . If you population is up to 180 or so does that mean that you think it can take a few hits? After what we did to the wolf in Wisconsin, Washington State and nationwide, what possible justification is there for more killing? Livestock depredation? So let's reimburse the farmers, not make the wolf into a victim . This century is ending with the wolf still viewed as a scapegoat for our failure, our encroachment and our shortsightedness. Give these 180 creatures the chances wolves never had -- to live. 01-Jun-98 Robert 53017 Lutz 50 E. Main St.P.O. Box 146 WI Chilton I don't believe 180-- or even 500 -- is enough animals to remove this species as an endangreed resource ... they require the constant overview of the DNR or the nuts in the north woods are going to be back shooting them again ... object strnously to any manner allowing trapping of wolves Mail First Last 05-Jun-98 Tom 54501 Organizatlo Address City Statu Codo Commont Feck 7286 Woodcrest Rhinelander WI I generally support the plan, population goals, zones, disagree with methods of control .. . don't think there should be any control in prime wolf habitat. .. limited control in Zone 2 and liberal ccontrol in zone 3 is acceptable ... against public harvest. ..the best management is to leave (wolves) alone .. . (and) to educate people 05-Jun-98 Gary 53520 Sutherland 1206 W. 2nd Ave. Brodhead WI Way too much money is being spent to spread the wolf popoulation. I think it is foolish that they are even listed as endangered . Please send me a copy of the management plan. 05-Jun-98 Beverly A. 54940 Linke 8682 River Trail Drive Fremont WI I like your plan but I do not see it working .. .there are too many people out there that have a real hate on for wolves. have heard them called vermin, wanton killers and killers of livestock. They have already started horror stories in newspapers and magazines. The biggest of these is Lawrence Krak of Gilman, WI., he hates wolves so much he scares the heck out of me ... He neither understands the first thing about wolves no does he want to ... When some dogs were killed by wolves my heart really hurt for those people. I love dogs; but dogs should not run loose, especially in the Northern and Central parts of WI .. . the wolfs problem is that he is a meat eater. He hunts ... to see them bring down an animal and kill and eat it, is not a pretty site .. . You speak of controlling wolves , and nuisance wolves, and buffer zones . The first two seems rather hard to do. If the leader is killed the whole family pack suffers, sometimes they never recover .. . you are trying to control a wild and very intelligent animal, I don't really think this can be done .. . In the back of my mind the thought came to me, that maybe you want them back so they can be hunted again. I hope not. As I said in the beginning your plan is rather good, but I just do not believe it will work ..... 06-Jun-98 Mrs. Floyd 54304 Hatfield 1007 Cleveland St. Green Bay WI I am writing to ask that you not kill my pups & friends ... the wolves you are trying to make a decision about. .. relocate them to areas of the United States where they have become small in number .. .they are overgrown hyngry pups ... they hunt for food ... Mall First 07-Jun-98 Rep . Marty 53708 Last Drganlzatlo Address City Statu Coda Comment Reynold P.O. Box 8953 WI Madison I'd like to begin by thanking you for the creation of a very informative and comprehensive proposal dealing with the wolf management issue for Wisconsin. Unfortunately, through either reality or perception, it would appear that your proposal lacks an acceptable solution to the issue of population growth in Zone 1 that is going to satisfy the residents of this area of the state. To contend with the reallity of this perceived oversight, therew will be residents who will feel the need to deal with this issue on their own and apart from the Department. There will be those who will justifiably feel that the Department will riot be willing to or able to protect their livestock, poultry and pets, and will take that matter into their own hands. I'd suggest that even if it should run counter productive to your objectives to managing the wolf population in Zone 1, that it might be in your best interest to propose a trapping or hunting schedule at this time rather than waiting until the problem is apparent or out of control. Public acceptance is going to play a major role in the success of this program. if the public consensus is that the department is ignoring their concerns regarding the proliferation of wolves in Zone 1, and the Department's ability to control and protect their livestock is seen to be lacking, then the same public will be forced to deal with the issue in their own way. While I support the concept of a wolf reintroduction plan for Wisconsin, I'd ask that you give additional consideration to the concerns raised in forums in the northern part of this state. Zone 1 contains not only the largest land mass of the three zones, but it also contains the most favorable habitat for our wolf packs. The other two zones would appear to be inconsequential regarding the wolf management plan. Therefore, I'd suggest that the residents most impacted are those who need to be dealt with. In bringing up the issue of forums, I'd also ask that you take a look at the locations of your proposed hearings. Depending on the location of the Black River Falls forum, half of your hearings are being held outside Zone 1. I'd assume that this will tend to skew your findings in favor of the packs and your management proposal, since the residents of Zone 2 and 3 will undoubtedly see the romantic vision of wolf packs in Wisconsin, and not have to deal with the reality of these packs influencing their pets and property. I'd suggest a couple more hearings in Zone 1 would provide a more balanced image. You've made a comment in your draft that 'a disadvantage to fewer zones is that less fine-tuning of management is possible' So, your proposal to create three zones would apepar to make sense, if the wolf packs were equally distributed in those three zones. Unfortunately, all the wolves will be in one zone and your concern regarding 'fine-tuning' becomes not only obvious but also valid. it would appear that the entire pack population of 500 wolves would inhabit Zone 1, so in reality Wisconsin has only one zone, the fewest number possible. As stated earllier, I'd ask that you consider the concferns of the residents of Zone 1 and prepare a schedule or system of control that goes beyond relocation and trapping by government agents. I'd suggest a proposal providing public hunting and trapping to be put in place . If it turns out that there is no need for this to occur, then that's great. However, by incorporating such a proposal, you not only have a back-up plan if needed but it also shows that you're listening to the people of this area. If your plan is going to work, it can only work with the cooperation of the prople who own the land that the wolf packs will inhabit. .. 10-Jun-98 Gary 53159 Babington 10415 2nd St. Pleasant Prairie WI I am not pleased with the decision to reintroduce the wolf... can se no legitimate reason to proceed with this program, the reasons to stop the program and eradicate the wolf from the state are as numerous as the people that frequently use the natural resources of the state and the dollars they bring to the economy ... documentation in the State of Minnesota shows wolf to be non-selective and wasteful predators ... problems that the wolf will cause for agriculture in the state will add to the cost. .. who will pay for the damage ... .is the reintroduction of this uncontro911able and highly efficient predator out weight the pleasure of enjoying the biological diversity of this state ... Thursday, June 24, 1999 Page 7 of 61 Mall First Last Organlzatlo Addrass City Stat& Coda com mont 11-Jun-98 Tom Herschel man Sierra Club, John Muir Chapter Madison WI In November, '97 the Sierra Club John Muir Chapter stated our vision of Ganus Lupis is a population based solely on the genetics and population dynamics of this species, and of the capabilities of the land and habitat to support them. We continue to believe this and the following. We stated the wolf was needed to help in the ecological restoration of native biodiversity. we stated all the citizens and governments of Wisconsin should do what they can to welcome the wolf back to its rightful territory and place in the awesome ecological web of life we call biodiversity. We stated if it becomes a reality that we were opposed to the hunting, trapping and killing of any wolves by anyone other than state or federal Government employees. We stated the state should fund damage from wolves as it does from damage to deer. Compared to deer damage the wolf damage to livestock and pets is miniscule but should be compensated when proven. We stated that we humans have the opportunity to nurture the wolf and share space-water-game resources, and a small amount of resources will be required, with the wolf. We stated the opportunity for righting the historical injustice done the wolf should be taken advantage of. We stated we expected up to 700 wolves . The number is not critical but the concept of allowing wolves to determine their own numbers is important. The chapter feels wolf-dog hybrids should be strictly regulated to prevent injury to children, livestock, and the genetic pool of wolves and to preserve the well-known low incidence of predation among wolves. We strongly support the education of hunters, children and the public of the contributions, behavior, natural history of wolves, and of the need to respect all of nature other than what it can provide on our table or for consumption. We strongly support the education of farmers to take proactive options to reduce the risk to their livestock and the literature is abundant with these options. We stated our relationship with the earth must be based on intelligent, careful, nurturing, scientific, humble .and bio-centric perspectives, and that we must deal with the earth and all its systems and species with mutuality, respect and appreciation, not dominance and extinction. If we love life and our planet, we must love all its creatures and respect the intricate relationships within it. We stated the Wolf Plan is an example of our maturing and willingness to begin the long road of healing the earth. If we are to express our love of the earth, we must nurture the wolf and welcome it back. We stated this Plan is different than the consumption-extractive role we many times fill, but that our support of this plan will produce spiritual dividends other than money and goods. This plan is an opportunity for wolves and humans to both win in non-material norms. Under the Plan just released, we understand some citizens are concerned with loss of deer hunting oppoortunities. This does not fit the facts as wolves consume maybe 1 deer per square mile and with 20 or so deer per squaire mile, this is miniscule. Also, many of the der would die from winter mortality and car collissions, etc. In addition, wolves kill coyotes, which will save fawn predation. Again, the Chapter calls for the dynamics of predator-prey relationships to play the role in wolf numbers. The chapter is concerned that deer are causing the reductions in viabilit of orchards and other plant species requiring extensive interior forest conditions and wolves may be able to reestablish a more traditional balance in this respect. The DNR should not attmept to raise deer densities by, for instance, clearcuts to compensate for the minor der losses due to predations. Regarding the relationship of humans to wolves, the Chapter first wishes to examine the relationship of humans to all public resources. The state and National Forests, and wolves and deer, "belong" to all the citizens and not to northern or southern citizens. Southern citizens have a legitimate right to have a say in the destiny of wolves in this regard. In fact, the concept of ownership is what gets us into trouble . In this regard I, as chair of the Saron Eco-justice Task Force (NOT SIERRA CLUB POSITION) submit the Bill of Biotic Rights enclosed. As respects the wolf this includes 1- the right to participate in the natural competition for existence. This means we humans must allow natural conditions for species to act out their natural role in their entirety overall, without unwarrented human interventions. We submit Right 2- The right to satisfaction of the wolf (and other species) basic needs and the opportunity to perform their individual and species functions 3- The Right to reproduce their own kind 4- The right to fulfill their evolutionary potential with freedom from human induced extinctions. In addition the Sierra Club goes on record opposed to any citizen killing (harvest) of wolves even if numbers exceed 500 wolves. We applaud protection in Zone 1. We oppose private killing of wolves in Zone 1 on private lands as compensation is provided and with education and transporting, this is not necessary. The chapter is opposed to a determined number of wolves, as it is presumptuous to assume we have such a right. It is not the intention of the SC to provide a complete list of recommendations today on the Draft Wolf Plan. This will follow later. Some key points, however, are: 1- No landowners with permits should be alloed to kill wolves 2- The Chapter strongly approves of access management in Zone 1 to reduce encounters between humans and wolves, with non-development of roads and motorized vehicle roads to prevent wolf-human conflicts 3- Due to anticipated reductions in wildness levels in northern WI the Chapter recommends aggressive management for suitable wolf habitat especially low road densities on public lands. 4-We recommend automatic listing as threatened and endangered if wolf numbers reach a pre-established downward threshold. As the wolf viability analysis demonstrates that even 500 wolf numbers may suffer severe diminishment due to catastrophes, disease, habitat destruction, etc., we again calli for no upward limit on wolf numbers. Thursday, June 24, 1999 Com mont Page 8 of61 Mall First Last Organlzatlo Addrass City Stata Coda 12-Jun-98 Robert 53406 Nugent 1203 N. Sunnyslope Dr. Racine WI My wife and I are retired and I am a deer hunter .. .we strongly agree that there must be a viable plan to preserve our wolves ... I applaud efforts to date ... keep up the good work! 15-Jun-98 Jenny 53177 Emerson 1919 Willard Rd . Sturtevant, WI First you write the wolf is endangered, then after only three years, you're going to allow trapping and public hunting end euthanizing. First all traps should be outlawed totally ... all trappers should be trapped themselves ... why do you feel wolfs and people can't co-exist. .. you're supposed to protect animals not kill them because they are bothersome ... ! bought a wolf plate three years ago and kept it lup but will now cancel it. .. gone to Boulder Junction .. . since I was nine ... there aren't any animals left up there ...this is a people problem not an animal one ... Mall Thursday, June 24 , 1999 First Last Organlzatlo Addrass City Stata Coda Commont 15-Jun-98 Stephanie Porter Denver CO U-Colo. Health Sci. Ctr, 4200 E. 9th Ave I was dismayed when I read the sections about wolf hybrids .. . I hope that I can be of help .. . I have a PhD in molecular genetics and have been following the wolf hybrid controversy for many years .. . I recently spent half a year on the State of Colorado Canine and Feline Hybrid Advisory Committee (encloses copy of report) This statement (wolf-dog hybrid is the offpringof the mating of a wolf with domestic dog ... does not represent the most recent view on the relationship between wolves and dogs. The American Society of Mammalogists have reclassified dogs as a subspecies of Canis Lupus .. .there is no way to legally distinguish a wolfdog from any other dog. Statement: normally these are bred in captivity because wild wolves rarely breed with dogs ... although thre is only a little evidence that wild wolves have brfed with dogs in the United States this statement is inaccurate. Wild wolves have bred with dogs in this country and it is possible that the paucity of observed crossbreeding is due to the long-standing diminished wolf population ... Wolf Dogs unpredictable -- This accusation ... is a sccare tactic used by the media ... I have spoken with a number of professional dog behaviorists that work with wolfdogs. They have seen no clear differences in behavior of wolfdogs from that of other dogs ... ignorance by owners should not be translated into known 'fact' ... predatory behaviors of wild predators lost in domestic dogs ... it is absolutely Not True that dogs have lost predatory behaviors ... dogs are especially dangerous when they form packs ... Attacks, maulings, dismemberments and deaths caused by wolf/dog hybrids have received national media attention ... this statement is misleading. It implies that wolfdog attacks on children are unusual. There are over 4.5 million dog bites per year alone in this county ... there are an average of 20 deaths due to dog attack per year in the US and that many other brieds are above wolfdogs on this list. .. Unfortunately ... many hybrid owners resolrt to "setting their wolf free' when they cannot find a suitable home for them ... can you prove wolfdog owners are especially prone to this irresponsible behavior? There have been 11 cases of free-roaming wolf/dog hybrids in WI between 89-96 ... it seems that with over 400,000 wolfdogs in this country 11 running free in WI over the course of 7 years is amazingly smaii ... Wildlife biologists also worry about hybrids interbreeding with wild wolves ... in the few cases where crossbreeding might occur any !rates that are detrimental to survival will be selected against. Twenty-Five othr states presently regulate the possession of these animals ..Colo assist. state vet did an informal phone survey of several states that regulate wolfdogs ... in virtually every state, the administrations of these regulations was problematic ... the critical issue in regulating so meting is being able to unambiguously identify it. Since there is no genetic test for wolfdog and since every identification case brought against wolfdog woners has been won b the owner, one is left with the questionof how to practically regulate these animals .. The reality is that if regulations are imposed on the public the wolfdog owners will go underground ... 80262 16-Jun-98 Matthew 54751 Miller 386 Red Cedar St. , Apt. 120 Menomonie WI I strongly support all (timber wolf, elk, and Trumpeter Swan) management programs ...A zero tolerance position regarding nuisance wildlife is a simplistic and archaic view which contradicts all concepts of modern wildlife management. I think the Wisconsin DNR is doing a great job regarding timber wolf management. My position would allow the wolves to keep expanding their numbers until they reach a desired goal set by wildlife biologists and available habitat not angry farmers or ranchers. In return, a harvest plan could be implemented to keep the wolf population in control and the state would continue to reimburse farmers and ranchers who suffer losses from verified wolf predation ... I believe that the prevailing view today is that both wolves and humans can and should co-exist, a view held by both biologists and the majority of Wisconsin residents. Mail First Last 17-Jun-98 Bob 54410 Drganizatlo Address City Statu Codo Commont Kronsted 7375 Co. Trunk HH Arpin WI I raise beefers and am concerned about the damage I ear about being done by the estimated 180 wolves in the state currently. The draft plan calls for wolf numbers up to 500 animals. With the damage being done by the 180 wolves, I feel you are asking for trouble when you talk about 500 wolves ... the people that will be affected most. .. are ... in the country ... people that live in cities ... will not be affected ... I am also guessing that those same people comning up with these proposals do not llive in the country or farm. They figure it won't affect me, besides, what damage can wolves do to pet dogs, cats or farmers calves .. . how do you place a value on a family pet? How would you like it if your son or daughter's puppy was killed by a wolf? 17-Jun-98 William 54875 Southern W4147 Co. Hwy F Springbrook WI I am pleased we now have wolves ... consider it premature .. .to change the status from endangered to threatened .. . oppose a regulation that easily allows government agents to euthanzie wolves ... support the plan and goal of a wolf population of 500 animals ... 18-Jun-98 Elwyn & Beverly 53946 Minning N3065 E. Little Green Rd. Markesan WI Wolves and deer don't mix. I as a hunter would saner see a few more deer than a wolf track in Sawyer Co! There are enough predators in the woods ... DNR ought to be spending my money on fish restoration instead of listening and watching their collared wolf program. Mail First 22-Jun-98 Richard 54706 Last Vatthauer Organizatlo Address City Statu Codo Commont UWEX Dept. Animal Sciences 284 Animal Sci Building, 1675 Madison WI Observatory Drive UW Thank you for the call relative to the development of the DNR wolf policy discussions. I appreciate the opportunity to share with the group some information that I hope will be useful and some sources of information which can be used for development of strategies for indemnification .. As I indicated in a letter to Randy Jurewicz, the beef industry recognies traditional markets identifiable by types of cattle, market weights and times of the year. Fall is recognized as the market time for weanling calves, animals grazed durin the summer grazing season and cull beef cows. In Wisconsin this is September through late November. Beef producers organize their beef production system around the combination of available resources, weather, growing season, markets and labor. In Wisconsin, our most economical combination of the above production resources drives early spring calving from late March through early June to capture economical sources of feed, grass, normal effective reproductive cycles, labor supply and strong markets in the fall. Thus, Wisconsin beef producers do not fall or winter calve in large numbers because our combination of economics and resource availability do not favor calving at those times. The main function of the beef cow is to produce a calf, nurse it until it can biological! and economically exist on its own . This is the key objective of the beef cow business. The production, mothering, and nursing of the calf to acceptable weaning weight and age is what pays the yearly cost of keeping the cow. The weaned calf is the product for the year. The beef cow is kept solely to produce the weaned calf. Interruptions in this objective of a weaned calf from each cow annually are losses to the beef producer. While purchased calves can be grafted onto beef cows who have lost their calves, the added cost ofthe purchased calf and the added labor of grafting the calf onto the cow are redundant costs and losses to the producer. The cost of hand raising dairy calves to similar weights of beef calves at weaning usually results in the dairy steer costing as much or more per pound than the weaned beef calf market price. The limited number of dair calves reared to weaning weights for meat production is testimony to the challenging economics. The beef producer keys his production system to marketing his resources of land,labor and capitol through weaned calves in the fall. Predator losses can not be replaced by substitution of purchased calves or indemnification at weights and prices other than traditional fall weaning weights and weaned calf markets. I suggest fall weaning weights and prices be used for predator loss indemnification for calves from birt to weaning. This is a very difficult situation on which to develop an acceptable policy position . However, evidence exists thatw olves appear to remove young calves from where they have been killed with the loss of any evidence of the kill. I suggest the group consider qualification of reported unconfirmed predation losses on farms where wolves have been trapped. This qualification of having a predator trapped on or near the pasture should remove losses that in fact did not happen or happened due to other causes. There exissts national survey data on typical calf death losses the first day, day three through three weeks and three weeks to weaning. Such data could provide normal expected death losses producers should expect and accept. Losses beyond the national averages and on farms on which wolves have been trapped and-or seen in calving pastures by producers and officials could be indemnified even if evidence of predation were not found . The United States Department of Agriculture Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Service, annually surveys selected producers ... the National Animal Health Monitoring System uses a survey ... audit. .. indemnification should be considered above these national averages with exceptions accepted for abnormal weather events. The address for the Animal and Plsnt Health Inspection Service National Animal Health Monitoring System is: Centers for Epidemiology and Animal health; USDA-APHIS-VS, attn. NAHMS, 555 S. Howes, Ft. Collins, CO., 80521. www.aphis.usda.gov./vs/ceah/cahm Lobner 24-Jun-98 AI 54454 11321 Blueberry Rd. WI Milladore When the original plan was first introduced I was not that involved with the process nor were a lot of other people ... my opinion is that we the citizens of Wisconsin should not allow the Timber Wolf population to increase any larger at this time. If fact I feel the population should be reduced to the size that was first proposed by the Federal Government. The notion that the wolf is endangered is not valid when there are plenty of wolves in Canada and the northern tier of states. Last Mall First 25-Jun-98 Bruce 54547 Drganizatlo Address City Statu Codo Commont Bacon 3291 State House Circle Mercer WI Agree with a 300 minimum wolf population .. .WI & Ml populations should be treated as one population for viability purposes; management zones look good ...there needs to be lots of flexibility to use a wide variety of options to solve problems .. . by the time we reach 500 the public may be experiencing problems -- 500 is too high -- allow the flexibility to start a management program that includes a regulated harvest if necessary when the population passes 300 wolves ... agrewe with a strong wolf-hybrid captive wolf policy; funding could get quite complicated ... the plan looks good. What I got out of the viability analysis is that a population goal of 300 wolves would likely never run out of wolves, short of some catastrophic event. 26-Jun-98 Walter 53017 Kaufman Colgate 587 Highland WI What good are they? (wolves). Instead of spending money on wolves ... figure how to get rid of the geese in cities ... I vote for not spending any more money on wolves. 26-Jun-98 Joe Komanec Gilman 54433 Wolves are getting pretty troublesome ... do you want wild game or timber wolf? 26-Jun-98 Dale Kuiler WI 53812 Kieler WI I do not believe in the draft wolf plan if we have ten wolves in the state that is too many. Wolves kill too many deer, they will run down & kill good healthy deer .. . maybe you wold like to do away with hunters, like PETA, and the antigunners would like. If wolves kill all our deer, we will not need hunters. 29-Jun-98 Robert P. Rusch 111 E. Division St. 54451 Medford WI I write in support of the proposal to allow the wolf population of WI to increase to at least 500 ... I have for the past 25 years resided in Town of Rib Lake, Taylor Co., .. . 1 am pleased to see sign of the presence of wolves and I am thrilled to hear their howling . I can think of no good reason to oppose a significant wolf population in north Wisconsin . The most repeated argument against is the claim of a decimation of the deer herd ... the deer population growth occurred at the same time of the increase in wolf numbers. I hope that the wolf population would reduce the deer population .. .The other oft repeated argument against wolves are predation on farm animals. This is a legitimate concern . It should be dealt with by prompt and complete payment of damages ... a significant wolf population is a worthy compnent to Wisconsin's north woods . Mail First Last Drganlzatio Address 30-Jun-98 Mike City Lentz Statu Coda Commont Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association The Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association board of directors, on June 26, 1998, adopted the following position. Due to the number of domestic animals that have been injured or killed in Wisconsin by wolves; there is no provision for unding damage reimbursement after wolves are removed from endangered list. hisstory shows Wisconsin has not been successful in managing wildlife at goal, 50% over goal is common . The original goal was 80 to 100 and is already at over 150 wolves. A goal of 150 wolves with a 50% over goal is 225 wolves. A proven system of controlled harvest of the surplus wolves by sport trappers and hunters and not by federal or state employes needs to be in place. Therefore; the board of directors of the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association opposes an increase in the goal of 300 to 500 wolves in Wisconsin at this time . Mike Lentz, Committee Chair. 03-Jul-98 R.T. 54724 Haas 222 Freeway Dr. Bloomer WI First you wanted 80 wolves for Wisconsin and that was too many as far as I was concerned but now you want 300. Sounds like a little kid at a candy counter! ... Farmers are getting angry and nowdays they can and will post land ... you cry short of funds but go off on this wolf idea -- something does not add up ... maybe you should pay attention to this bunch of dumb red-necks or whatever you consider us or do we have to go to the governor to get your attention? 03-Jul-98 Gary 53038 Reinke N6060 Hilltop Lane Gari-Aian Farm Johnson Creek WI I sincerely hope and pray that you keep your wolves far away from our area. We have been raising breeding cattle for 38 years and we don't need to have our cattle preyed upon by wolves .. .farmers have enough problems to contend with and we really don't need wolves added to the list .. .. Your indemnity payments are not going to do much good for a purebred breeder who loses a bull calf that would have been worth $1,000, $2,000 or $5,000 ... .I cannot see why anyone in their right mind would introduce these predators on livestock to our state. 03-Jul-98 Pauline 54727 2442 220th St. Jarozewski Cadott WI I think the wolf management plan is good. Especially controlling hybrid wolf-dogs and captive wolves . Also education of the public. our family adopted two packs through the Timber Wolf Alliance. We are also a hunting family. I'm glad they are back, I agree with the plan, Keep up the good work . 04-Jul-98 Karen 32765 English 1046 Hornbeam St. Oviedo FL Please send me an original copy (of the draft report) I would like to request current population statistics of the wolves and an explaination as to how these numbers were/are determined and by what team/group of experts ... 05-Jul-98 Jim 54412 Kowalski D2390 Ct. Hwy C Auburndale WI Please send me a copy of the wolf management plan Mall Thursday 06-Jul-98 Mary First Last Drganlzatlo Address City Statu Coda Comment Palmer 32303 5810-400 #122 North Monroe Tallahassee FL St. The delistment of the wolf in Wisconsin is inevitable ... in a state whose wolf population was once estimated to be between 3,000 to 5,000 wolves to need a population control plan for 148 wolves is almost unbelievable to me . .. the plan .. . appears to be thrown together haphazardly with no planning what-so-ever if there happens to be a decline in the wolf population ... the plan is vague in areas and lacks organization and fails to address the obvious need of educational and planning committees ... blatant use of manipulation of statistics and one-sided representation of statistics present in the wolf-dog hybrid portion of the draft that makes one seriously doubt the scientific validity of the entire document. .. no emergency review wolf team .. .does not appear to be adequate wolf protection in the zone corridors between zones 1,2,3 .. . no educational teams or agencies in place to educate the clearly intolerant and uneducated public about wolf behavior and hunting habits ... there should be penalties for harassment of den and rendezvous sites, and your state, instead, reimburses for an loss incurred while in the act of harassing wolves .. . ($2,000 for hunting dogs) .. .the wolf-dog hybrid portion of this draft is so inaccurate and misleading in its assumptions and lack of scientific data that the entire scientific validity of this draft becomes questionable to anyone with knowledge of wolf-like dogs ... there is no scieneific information to suggest that wolf-like dogs are unpredictable or display any sort of predatory behavior that is not presently found in the domestic dog. 06-Jul-98 Dan 54311 Karbon 2392 Manitowoc Rd . Green Bay WI I agree with your plan to de list the wolf when the population reaches 300 for 3 years. Letting the population reach 500 may be a bit too high. I feel sorry for the rabbit hunters who lost their beagles ... I have no sympathy whatsoever for the bear hound hunters who let their hounds run attended ... they should not get reimbursed when one of their hounds is killed by a wolf... don't let them try to control your wolf plan. 07-Jul-98 Paul 54451 Malourh W7978 Perkinstown Ave. Medford WI I consider the wolf program to be in utter chaos at this time and that the personnel and the program needs to be scrapped and started over ... Sawyer Co. conservationist hasn't gotten cooperation about a wolf harassing cattle from DNR ... Iets put a bounty on wolves again and get rid of them ... farmers look upon wolves as a curse shoved down their throats by the tree huggers in the DNR ... I would like to see the wolf population remain at less than 150 and every wolf that preys on livestock or other domestic animals trapped and destroyed. 08-Jul-98 David 54627 Klum N20882 Bakken Rd. Ettrick WI I feel ... stick with the original plan of 80-100 wolves. 10-Jul-98 Julie 54 732 29826 CTH S Scheidler Cornell WI I am writing ... because I'm concerned about the (WDNR) ... plan to allow the wolf population to grow to 300 to 500 wolves ... that would nearly triple the current populationof 180. The prime wolf habitat is small and to allow the numbers to grow that high seem to be asking for nothing but trouble ... the numbers show the wolf is no longer endangered in Wisconsin and should soon be removed from the endangered species list. .. with the current wolf population farmers and ranchers in the northern one-third of trhe state are having problems ... it will only get worse with a larger wolf population ... I am not against the wolf recovery plan however I do think the numers are too high ... Mail First Last 10-Jul-98 Dave 54702 Organizatio Address Carlson P.O. Box 47 City Statu Codu Com mont WEAU-TV Eau Claire WI After !listening to testimony and followign the story as I have over 20 years I would like to pass along these suggestions: Allow the wolf population to seek its own level. People will try to dictate what they can accept, and that ususlly will be less than what the wolf can achieve; be prepared to deal with lovestock and other predation complaints ... let's speedily pay fair market damages and if necessary destroy the troublesome wolf... public education, a never-ending task. It must be intensified in every corner of the state. Wolf education must be a priority in Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay and their suburbs and the smaller outlying cities and towns closer to wolf territory. Why not have wolf study and research stations at the new Crex Meadows visitors center, somewhere in north-central Wisconsin, perhaps Treehaven and central Wisconsin near Black River Falls? people have to understand that if Wisconsin cannot deal with timber wolves this time around there might not be another. 11-Jul-98 George W. 54241 Taylor 12395 Sandy Bay Rd. Two Rivers WI Don't want or need wolves in Wisconsin! bird killers, deer killers, dog killers, livestock killers, pet killers 13-Jul-98 Raymond 54768 Karpen E28375 Co. Rd . MM Stanley WI I didn't get to the meeting on wolves at Black River Falls ... I am in favor of more wolves in Wisconsin ... to eat up the wounded and dead deer the bow and arrow hunters leave in the woods ... There are a lot of dogs that run and kill deer in Wisconsin. I seen dogs & hounds running deer in Rusk County where I used to live. 17-Jul-98 Larry 54494 Wagner Sr. 1720 45th St. So. Wisconsin Rapids WI I am not in favor of bring wolves back to Wisconsin. Wisconsin has no wilderness left ... people who live where there are wolves do not want them ... complaints from people with livestock ... ! also read that wolves are killing peoples hunting dogs ... deer hunters are concerned ... businesses are concerned about the loss of revenue because of wolves ... how much have these wolves cost us ...the majorit of the people where the wolves live do not want them there .. . 18-Jul-98 Glen 54451 Ogle W11104 CTH- M Medford WI The wolf program is a joke .. . if you want to study wolves go to the game managers from Canada ... as far as money ... it should not come from the Pittman-Robertson fund or hunting and fishing license money ... it should come from donations from the wolf-loving public. The wolves have already killed 3 dogs close to my cabin & if they kill my good black lab there will be war! No amount of money could replace him! P.S. If you want any 'no wolves' bumper stickers, I Mail First 18-Jul-98 Alice 54739 3510 25th St., Last Drganizatio Address City Statu Codu Com mont Droske Elk Mound WI I support the draft wolf management plan .. many of the anti-wolf feelings and expressions against wolves are based on ignorance ... modifying the goal from 300-500 downword would be an injustice to wolves ... you are the leaders we look to ... I would like to see the public hunting go into effect only if the population exceeded 650 wolves ... I would like to see Zone 1 extended further down into Polk, Barron, Dunn, Chippewa, Clark and Marathon Counties ... any shootings should be prosecuted as a state and federal violation .. .WDNR should seeek authority to regulate ownership of wolf/dog hybrids .. . ecotourism --be careful, you can 'love wolves to death' 19-Jul-98 Lawrence 54536 Krankkala Iron Belt P.O. Box 5 WI I believe the plan is pretty thorough, from a layman's view. I find it very disturbing to hear comments of some deer hunters in this area. If they were have their way every wolf would be shot. These people use public lands and paper mill land to hunt on and feel they have more rights to the deer on those lands than does the wolf... the large problems will be education and law enforcement. 20-Jul-98 Nancy 49938 Warren P.O. Box 353 Ml · Ironwood I fully support the draft wolf management plan ... it can serve as a model for other states .. . I am in full agreement of the zone management system ... strongly support abatement measures ... believe more could/should be done ... farmers should be notified (when wolves are near) ... they could be given a hot line number to call and if wolves visit the farm ... even if no depredation has taken place .. . dnr should increase abatement ... ! do not support compensation for depredation which occurs on public lands .. . allowing cattle or dogs to roam free on public lands carries an inherent risk .. .technical assistance, in the form of education, should be provided ... WDNR should take a stronger position on the ownership of wolf-dog hybrids .. . seek authority to regulate the ownership of these animals ... carcasses of depredating wolves should be used for educational purposes ... support donation of pelts to non-profit organizations such as TWA and TWIN ... 20-Jul-98 Susan 54977 Riederer 645 N. Main St., WI Scandinavia I found the wolf plan both thorough and strongly based on scientific research .. . a plan should be implemented to help control further fragmentation ... I stronglly support continued maintenance of linkages and corridors to and from Michigan and Minnesota ... protect wolf habitats and dens by working with land agencies, industrial forest and private land owners ... off-road recreatinal vehicles shold be severely restricted ... there should be no public hunting of problem wolves ... removal of proven problem wolves should be made by the DNR ... coyote hunting should continue to be closed .. . priority on funding should be placed on pulbic education regarding wolf ecology and behavior ... alternative tracing devices should be made ... l support the trigger mechanism to reclassify the timber wolf... I support the control of wolf hybrids .. .there should not be tourism-based howling or wolf interference ... howling should only be for research -education by trained persons, TIN/TWA or DNR ... I supoort the 3-zone management plan. Page 17 of 61 Thursday, June 24, 1999 Last Mail First 20-Jul-98 Holly 53005 Drganlzatlo Addross City Statu Codo Commont Kuusinen 120 Bishops Way, Suite 134 Brookfield WI I don't want to see a population of 300 wolves in Wisconsin ... I don't want to see a large enough wolf population to ever justify establishing a hunting season ... by encouraging greater population expansion .. .those people are inviting a public relations disaster in 6-10 years ... who will that public be in 6-10 years ... children taught for 18 years an environmental ethic totally incompatable with your statement (on controlled take) .. .they go ballistic down here at the thought of shooting (geese) ... you wouldn't believe the people demanding deer birth control pills vs. sharpshooting ... don't create a social science/public relations nightmare ... if the species carrying capacity stabilized at 155-200 animals great. .. it's still double our wildest dreams.(original member of wolf recovery team) 21-Jul-98 Paul 54456 Pettis W7349 Arndt Rd . Neillsville WI Wolves can be enjoyed if they are legally hunted. I have seen wolves and I would like to have the right to kill them . 22-Jul-98 William 53207 Murphy 313 E. Oklahoma Ave. Milwaukee WI I hunt deer in the northeast section of the state, and as you are probably aware, that section of the state does not need to have the deer population controlled .. . keep the wolves out of my deer woods!! 22-Jul-98 D. Borcherding WI McFarland This .. is to express support for the continued existence of the wolf in Wisconsin ... I sympathize with those who have lost dogs ... things like that will occur if we are to share the wilderness , woods ... habitat with the wolves ... they (wolves) deserve a place .. . let them be. 23-Jul-98 Lois 60202 Engelman 715 Monroe St. IL Evanston I am a summer resident of Wisconsin and am very interested in the return of the wolf to the area around Tomahawk. feel it is too soon (to remove the wolf from End. List) already mange and Iyme disease have afflicted the Lake Superior wolves and may claim lives. 23-Jul-98 Rollis 54479 Weister N8699 Hi-Line Ave. WI Spencer We have a cabin north of Tripoli in the Willow Flowage area. Except for deer all the hunting we do is with dogs, bear, coyote-cat-fox & bird hunting ... .li am nearing retirement age & intended to do a lot of hunting ... last winter while coyote hunting many dayes we saw more wolf tracks than we did coyotes. I see they're in the process, up by us, of gating off more roads but regardlesss I don't think there's enough wilderness left in Wisconsin to keep wolves from conflict with man 27-Jul-98 Paula 54467 Rose 3050 Wilson Ave. #4 WI Plover I am writing in support of the proposed WI Wolf Management Plan ... I believe a self-susstaining wolf population is an important part of a diverse natural resource base in Wisconsin ... I urge you to delist the wolf.. . Page 18 of 61 Thursday, June 24, 1999 Mail First Last 27-Jul-98 Susan 54665 107 1/2 S. Main Drganlzatlo Address City State Codo Commont Hess Viroqua WI I am writing to show my support for the wolf management plan .. .delisting the timber wolf would represent a firm step toward that goal (of reducing human intervention necessary to ensure survival of a species) .. . delisting wolves is the right action to take at this time ... 27 -Jul-98 David 54964 Hochtritt 482 Co. Road F WI Pickett I do support the plan (but) ... have concerns: the past tells us that hunting these animals wouuld be a serious mistake .. .wolves shold not be trapped at any time, especially before they have done any damage to a landowner .. . 27-Jul-98 Karen E. Purves The Animal Protection Institute - Midwest Office IL 3540 N. Southport Ave., Suite Chicago 254 We support most of the elemnts of the plan .. . especially support the emphasis on preventative and mitigative responses to wolf depredation management. We do, however have the following concerns in the areas of the draft plan related to once the wolf is de listed: The plan states the wolf would be listed as a 'protected nongame species; we would oppose any consumptive use of the wolf during this phase; there may be a time when the status of the wolf could be changed to 'game animal' ... we are opposed to such status at any time ... allowing open hunting could significantly affect the population status ... proactive trapping may take place by private landowners in Zone 3. We strongly oppose the killing of wolves before they have done any harm to a landowner. email address: samneph@earthlink.net (733) 975-7840 or fax (773) 975-7924. 28-Jul-98 Jane 53925 Steffenhagen N.4259 Hickory Dr. Steffen-Haus Kennels Columbus WI I am very concerned about the future of the timber wolf. it is unconscionable not to encourage the survival of the timber wolf. 28-Jul-98 Robert R. 54613 Marti 1721 Cottonville Ave. Arkdale WI I am a hunter and trapper from Adams County ... the wolfs time is still today but its place is not in Wisconsin ... in fall of 1997 wolves (4 beagles) were killed .. .which are seldom further from their masters than 150 yards ... The wolf is not an endangered species in North America ... who is the DNR going to reimburse when a young child is walking the family dog down the logging road leaving a campground behind the old hunting shack, at a forested wayside, or just for a squirrel hunt in the back 40 and the pack decides that is their domain and the dog and the child are intruders and both are killed? ... You guys (the DNR) got your 50 wolves, then 100, then 200, now you want 400 .. .the absolute biggest line I have heard is that wolves will create tourism ... 29-Jul-98 Laura 53508 Dulski 594 Kelly Dr. Belleville WI I see the reintroduction of a healthy wolf population as a very desirable goal .. . however ... it seems more than ironic to recommend wolf killing if the population should increase to a mere 500 individuals for the entire state . .. I think the truth is that the great majority of people do not share this blood lust and we are realizing through education that wolves are an extremely interesting species whose social behaviour and organization is will worth studying ... killing or harvesting will push the species back to the endangered level .. . please delete the provision for a public kill .. .the 500 number ... may be too low a number ... Page 19 of 61 Thursday, June 24, 1999 Mall First Last Organlzatlo Address City Statu Codo Comment 29-Jul-98 Roger 53705 Wiere 105 Mer! ham Dr. Madison WI Please keep the wolves in Wisconsin ... some compromise can be reached between no wolves and absolute protection for all wolves. I'm willing to contribute financially toward managing a Wisconsin wolf population. 29-Jul-98 Chipper 54452 Mosser N3267 Highway 17 Call of the Wild Guide Service Merrill WI When this wolf recovery plan started there were not many people in favor of it. You were going to do it anyhow so you had to cover your ass somehow .. . this came in the form of brain washing people (excuse me you's call it education) thru public seminars, school movies, etc.) we pay taxes to use national forests . You's have severely restricted that use by gates, berms, wilderness areas, wolf habitat areas, denning areas, etc.; Pittman Robertson money was used for many different areas of the wolf recovery. This money was meant to benefit wildlife, not hinder it by supporting a wolf program. when snow is deep and deer are arded up it is no problem for them to kill deer. if they only killed what they ate it would not be so bad but they are wanton killers and do it just for the sake of killing .. . it is just as bad they kill coyotes .. .there are many coyote hunters in WI and wolves are drastically reducing coyote populations. Also wolves are killing hounds .. .we have more than enough wolves with 180 much less 300 to 500. 30-Jul-98 Lloyd 54732 Lind P.O. Box 296 Cornell WI I don't believe wolves should have been reintroduced into Wisconsin. I would urge that plans be made now to control them with hunting, trapping or whatever .. . any wolf caught killing domestic livestock, dogs, etc., should be considered legal game for killing ... a close tab should be kept on the number of deer, elk, etc., killed ... if you want deer hunters and the money they spend for licenses, gas, lodging, etc., I suggest you take a good look at the whole program 30-Jul-98 Andrew 53546 Tuszynski 846 Sussex Dr. Janesville WI I like the idea of the zone management. .. I would also like to see Zone 2 protected areas for the wolves ... we need less roads and more habitat for the animals ... I would like to see more volunteer opportunities ... in health monitoring ... educational programs ... people need to learn more about the wolf.... I would like to see heavier penalties for killing wolves. we need more forests. we need less roads, buildings, etc., I give so much credit to Wisconsin for finally doing something worthwhile in the conservation department 30-Jul-98 Ed · 53959 Ward S-3341 Loganville Rd . Reedsburg WI My opinion of your wolf plan is that it is a total waste of money .. .we have no need for wolfs in Wisconsin .. .they will wipe out other useful game species as well as dogs, cats and other farm livestock ... someday they will kill a child ... ! have hunted deer in Bayfield Co since 1951, last year, 1997, was the poorest year in 47 years. We saw very few deer or tracks . All we saw were wolf tracks. Thu~day,June24 , 1999 Page 20 of 61 Mail First Last Organlzatlo Address 30-Jul-98 Jeanne 53711 City Statu Codo Commont Klemme 2465 Tawhee Dr. Madison, WI I can only hope people like myself who want to see the timber wolf survive as a beautiful, intelligent animal native to our State, will read your letter in the Wisocnsin State Journal and respond as I am doing. Problem wolves can be relocated just as other animals in parks are and when towns and cities expand into the animal's natural habitat the animals can be chased, trained, or relocated into safe areas ... now it's possible Wisconsin will make a decision that will cost uss the timber wolf.. . keep up the good work and try not to be discouraged by what appears to be a lack of interest on the part of the people of Wisconsin. . .. Weve learned to control our animal populations in many areas, and the timber wolf is certainly worth making the same effort for its survival here. My four adult children and their families agree with me and also send their maoral support, even the three who live in California now. 30-Jul-98 James 53508 Cooley Route 2, Box 33 Belleville WI Your draft wolf management plan is an enlightened approach to reintroduction of wolves to Wisconsin ... I think the number of wolves necessary to sustain a healthy functioning gene pool has yet to be absolutely determined .. I see the provision (about hunting) as caving in to the sport killing lobby. Please rethink this idea. It is contrary to the fundamental intent of your plan .. . 31-Jul-98 Lorraine & Ken 54870 Roedger L.L. W. 3315 Morningside Park Sarona WI Rd. Recently my wife and I attended at Hunt Hill nature Center & Audubon Sanctuary, Sarona, Wi., a meeting explaining the proposed Wolf Management Plan conducted by mr. Ken Jonas, DNR Spooner. We feel the 500 wolf management as proposed by the DNR should be enacted into law to protect the wolf population for future generations. 31-Jul-98 Loren 53925 Soter, Jr. W12366 Hwy 16 & 60 Columbus WI As far as I am concerned timber wolves should never been reintroduced to Wisconsin . Our grandfathers and Great Grandfathers got rid of them for many reasons . They were not all ignorant! 31-J ul-98 Jon 54888 Peterson W5610 River St. Trego WI I have enclosed articles and highlighted what I believe WI sportsmen truly believe about the DNR Wolf Recovery Plan (NOTE; articles from WI Outdoor News by Dean Bortz, "The DNR must also admit that wolves are showing a tendency to seek out and kill hunting dogs" , WI Outdoor News, by Terrell Boettcher ... "most speakers at a recent DNR hearing said the goal of 300 to 500 wolves is too high .. . several WI Conservation Congress delegates from northwestern counties spoke against the goal of 300 to 500 wolves .. . another clip, untitled state and federal wildlife officials have confirmed that the deaths of two hunting dogs in northern Taylor county earlier this month were caused by wolves .. . ) letter author continues: "I don't believe the DNR Wolf Recovery Staff are being totally truthful ... it is obvious wolves are adapting to civilization ... North America has a stable population in remote areas .. . explain the ecological benefits of having higher wolf numbers ... the revovery plan that was excepted (sic) by WI citizens 80-100 wolves would be the goal. .. Now I understand that the management plan calls for 300-500 ... please consider the hunters who use the wilderness 'the most equally when the final plan is approved ... hunters lose again after committing $$ for wildlife/habitat management Page 21 of 61 Thursday, June 24, 1999 Mail First Last 31 -Jul-98 Clifford 54452 Organlzatlo Addrsss City Statu Coda Commont Mosser VV3206 Co. C Merrill WI It took a long time to convince the DNR that the elk could survive in northern VVisconsin ... maybe there'll be profits from hunting licenses .. . that's more than can be expected from the costly wolf program .. . besides all the side effects by running the coyotes out of northern VVI and letting the mice population grow as carriers of Iyme disease ... killing deer herds and letting it waste ... killing of sheep, cattle and hunting dogs are getting quite common ... if the wolf herd is allowed to increase from the present 180 to 300 or 500 we can expect man more problems ... better take heed before it is too late and have to go through a costly extinction program again ... another cost for bounties and no return ... give this great north country back to the people who live up here ... I am now 76 and can remember those days when the wolves had to be reduced ... I applied for a permit to use a 4-wheeler ATV but due to the fact the wolves were protected the trails were closed and I was refused a permit .. . real nice for our older generation that would like to hunt yet .. .to me there is no justification for increasing the wolf population ... I deer hunted for over 60 years now that is pretty well gone because of all these restrictions ... 01-Aug-98 Douglas 54548 Olson Box 360 Minocqua WI Enough is enough with all these wolves. There is no need or place for wolves in Wisconsin . There are no tracts of land large enough for wolves to inhabit without coming into conflict with humans ... the wolves have completely wiped out the coyotes in my area ... the DNR decides to deny access to many areas solely because they are occupied by wolves ... this is another lie the DNR tells, many more dogs have been killed than they admit too ... the DNR is definitely lying about how many wolves there are. I hunt in Oneida, Iron and Bayfield counties and from what I have seen (riding a 50-mile snowmobile route everyday during coyote season) and from talking to other hunters there are many more wolves than the 150 the dNR claims .. .wolves should be given unprotected status to be killed when the opportunity arises. 01-Aug-98 Rose 54646 Karbowski VV54 79 CTH G Necedah WI I can't believe wolves are still an issue ... we need wolves and it's beside the point if a public opinion says 'no we don't like them; we don't want them around' .... maybe these panels (judges) need to .. . say ... we need wolves . we shall protect them. I'm sorry you don't agree with this decision but that's the way it should be; then work out the details . .. .to even question if they should be allowed to exist here or there is folly and it angers me. I am in favor and support any help the wolves (or other creature) may need . 01-Aug-98 LaVern Schultz Tigerton VVI We now have wolves as far south as Sauk Co., and also in Big Falls, Waupaca Co ... our forefathers got rid of this problem for a lotof good reasons but I guess the DNR wasn't smart enough to learn ... .. .... . 02-Aug-98 Norm 54487 Poultan 3287 N. County Rd. L Tomahawk VVI Although I agree with the plan there are several strategies I disagree with. Target number of 80 set in 1989 is much too low. Wisconsin can support 400-500 wolves. Very much against allowing permits to individuals for killing 'nuisance' wolves; Hunting after population hits 500 should be avoided .. . didn't we learn anything from our past mistakes ... I would like to personally thank the people involved in the wolf recovery program for their efforts ... particularly in the field of public awareness ... Thursday, June 24, 1999 Mail First Last 03-Aug-98 D. W. Page 22 of 61 Organlzatlo Address City Statu Codu Commant Detroit (none) Wausau WI Include wolf control measures and less stringent management of our natural resources solely for the benefit of wolves. Management of the northern third of Wisconsin solely for wolves must stop ... protection of wolf den sites and rendezvous sites will limit areas available for hunters, hikers, snowmobilers and other outdoor activities .... restricting outdoor activities can cause undue financial hardship for this area .. . inlcude guidelines to control the population .. . ! would limited hunting and trapping in all wolf management zones. Mail First Last 03-Aug-98 Jim 54701 Organlzatlo Addross Olson 550 Graham St. City Statu Codu Commant Sierra Club Eau Claire WI Putting the wolf back into its natural role in the state is an important step in the state's recognition of the values of biodiversity and protection of all species with a broadly based eco-system management plan based on a sound understanding of the historic ecological record. I urge that to the fullest extent possible the management of the wolf and other species withing the state be done in as natural a manner as possible with the least possible intervention by man with an attempt to restore some of the historic values lost by the many ecological disruptions to the natural dynamics of the eco-systems caused by man. This is obviously a long range goal and one that cannot be achieved fully. The plan might move more in this direction by integration of the Wolf management plan with other DNR habitat management and species control activities both for game and non-game species. This should be done on a landscape level in cooperation with federal and county land management agencies. Wolf habitat areas should be managed for the consideration of the eco-system as a whole with all of its parts functioning naturally, and not with the major focus on the game species involved. To achieve this requires a major effort to protect and expand the Zone 1 habitat areas with public ownership and control of larger tracts .... The DNR will probably continue to manage the two populations to keep both populations beyond the level sustained by natural habitat succession and the natural predator-prey relationships. This could as the plan hints increase the wolf population to the point where the grey wolf comes under consideration as a game species, and instead of having a natural balance in that area we would have both populations depending on hunting as the major control agent. Concentrating on deer will continue to discourage and inhibit the return to the state of the other ungulate prey species that a more natural and complete restoration of the wolf would involve. Hunting as we have seen is actually counter-productive to maintaining a desirable ecologically balanced deer population for as soon as natural climatic forces limit the herd hunter group pressure for expanding it again grows and hunters refuse to support hunting regulations designed to lower the herd level to a point where more natural means would control it. In the long run this pressure will subside as in spite of DNR efforts to sustain it as the public based deer hunting tradition in the state will fade out as long range projections indicate it will. It may be replaced based on current trends with privately managed 'quality hunt' herds functioning in relation to the wolves as other "livestock" operations now do. . . . If the wolf cannot occupy its natural niche in at lea sst some areas within the larger Zone 1 habitats shown in the plan, then the plan it is not restoring biodiversity to the state, but only acting as a place-holder for the Gray Wolf in case it should become endangered within its larger North American r~nge . ... having this 'place-holder' population in an area with an abnormally high deer density and no population of other ungulates that have historically occupied the region may also be of dubious value in terms of the wolf genetics involved .. .the goal of an independent viable population presumes the failure of the larger goal of recognizing the landscape management goals that cut across state and national political boundaries .. . it is an admirable goal to have a viable independent Wisconsin population but may not be a particularly practical or sustainable one .. . perhaps the Wisconsin role at this time might be to serve as a place-holder and an educational 'species showcase' ... some of the educational pictoriall material in the recent past has stressed poses of the animal in a noble and romantic setting and failed to recognize the equally important but less public acceptable role of the Gray Wolf as a predator, feeding on beaver and deer .. . it seems at present there are only two views -- the twisted and distorted folk lore view of the villain rapacious beast and the Wolf Poster view of the noble endangered beaset. .. fuller integration of habitat and species management would allow the prey populations large and small the benefit of the wolf as a predator ... I would much rather see a smaller Gray Wolf population classified as state endangered occupying its prime habitat, functioning as naturally as possible, than to have a larger, hunting managed, wider ranging, conflict prone population. Having wolf packs established or even disperseers temporarily enter into trouble in areas where they would prey on livestock (however limited) would not be good for the wolves or the communities they moved into ... l recommend 1) reduce wolf/human conflicts (larger roadless tracts in Zone 1 for example) ; 2) integrate the wolf plan with other habitat/species management efforts as naturally as possible at this time; 3) educate the public not just about the wolf and its nature, but about the values of biodiversity generally and the role a wolf plays and has played historically in that larger picture; 4) protect the current population (continuation of endangered status within the Zone 1 areas) ; 5) discourage wolf migration into the most fragmented habitats; 6) expand and integrate the prime habitat to like to see make it as little fragmented as possible. Thursday, June 24, 1999 Mail First Page 24 of 61 Last 03-Aug-98 Wally Organizatlo Addross City Statu Codo Comment Martin Pittsville WI Take your wolves somewhere else. Put ;them in your area and hunt with dogs see what happens. our wolves are dangerous. 03-Aug-98 John 54486 Clark N4281 Johnson Rd . Tigerton WI I hunted beagles in northern Wisconsin for 50 years on snowshoe hare. In 1995 I had a 5 year old top beagle killed by wolfs .... the loss of the dog still hurts today ...who benefits from this wolf plan? ... you sure don't need them to keep the deer herd in check you can deer hunt in Forest Co. for a week and may never see a deer ... at first they wanted 80 wolves, now there are 180 and the goal is to have 500 ... now they want to take them off the endangered list so they don't have to pay for all the dead animals they are going to kill ... northern WI is settled. This is not Yellowstone ... this wolf plan sure spoiled my retirement plans to run beagles on hare ... the last few years I have left. Having 1 dog killed is more than enough. 03-Aug-98 Ross 54508 Gilbert 437 W. Main St. Belleville WI I think it's a good idea to bring wolves back to Wisconsin. I think you should have more than 500 wolves. I also think it's horrible idea to get 500 wolves and then kill some. 03-Aug-98 David 54650 Jensen W8039 N.Shore Dr. Onalaska WI Big Bluff Beagle Club: 13 signatures: members are much opposed to the wolf being in the State of Wisconsin but we are concerned with a larger population than is present at this time .. From newspaper accounts I read last year at least three beagles were attacked and killed by wolves ... From the accounts I read these beagles were in the woods with their handlers hunting shows hoe hare at the time of the attacks. It soes not sound as if the wolves were protecting their range or den site ... .. .the wolves learned how to get an easy meal. I feel any person who runs hounds that bark on track is sure to lose some dogs to wolves coming to the barking dogs looking for an easy dog meal ... lots of money is spent in northern and central Wisconsin by hare and bear hunters. I , as most hound people I have talked to, will stop hunting regions inhabited by wolves. This will result in considerable loss of revenue to the business people of these regions. Thursday, June 24, 1999 Mall First Last Page 25 of 61 Organizatlo Address 03-Aug-98 Mark 53703 City Statu Codo Commont Martin P.O. Box 7921 ER/4 Madison WI Includes comments from martin, Randy Hoffman, Thomas Meyer, Eric Epstein : We would like to see in the final plan that there would be no encouragement for additional young forests to maintain habitat for prey species since the prey base does not appear to be a limiting factor to maintain and increase Wisconsin's timber wolf population; where is the data to back up the need for habitat management for a low density species like the wolf when prey densities are so high; we believe there is an imbalance now, where there is a huge bias in faror ofyounger forest which currently impacts virtually every acre of forest in northern Wisconsin; mention of this (that deer densities and wolf densities are lowest in large wilderness-roadless areas) can only hurt attempts to address vast under repreesentation of older forests and larger patches of forests; committee may want to refer to section on Northern Froest Communities in Wisconsin's Biodiversity; Department is moving ahead with ecosystem management and away from single species management - this plan advocates just the opposite; public land is probably our only opportunity - and then in a very few places - to preserve large stands of old growth since the majority of the private land is in commercial use or small ownerships; we find it hard to believe given the fragmentation of Wisconsin's northern forest and other conditions that deer numbers will decline significantly in Wisconsin resulting in greatly lower wolf numbers; large wilderness areas are important and can provide wolf habitat. We do not agree that they 'lack deer habitat' Even if wilderness areas provide for 'low wolf densities' there are no plans that we are aware of that wold establlish large blocks of wildernesss that would significantly reduce current or future wolf numbers. 03-Aug-98 John 53598 Stuchlik 4476 Windsor Rd. Windsor WI It seems to me the wolf is going to be a biggerr problem that anticipated ... there will be many acres of public land off limits to a person who hunts with a dog whether it is a bear hunter or bird hunter ... DNR is putting the wolf recovery plan ahead of the taxpayer and hunting license buyer .. . the wolf problem is eventually going to negatively impact private property rights, pets, your use of your .. . property, livestock etc. I believe 200 wolves is plenty .. .You cannot, arbitrarily, put a price on a hunting dog that is a family pet! 03-Aug-98 Mrs. Elizabeth 54601 Wish 4002 Starlite Dr. LaCrosse WI We are dead-set against delisting from endangered to threatened. The recent sad plight of this animal - virtually decimated only a few decades ago - should alert us to the importance of keeping this creature alive ... when men are allowed to shoot wolves we fear a repeat performance from the past. 03-Aug-98 Sally 54875 Rt. 1, Box 1636 Southern Springbrook WI The voice of a handful of opponents should not be considered the majority view particularly when some of them are puppets for an organization (eg bear hunters and their wantabes ... anyone who farms, gardens, reforests or landscapes in Wisconsin is forced to tolerate deer damage ... pet owners may have to change their ways and cease allowing their pets to range free ... we support road closings on some federal, state and county lands if deemed necessary .. .we are also aware that too many sound wildlife management decisions are tempered to satisfy a public that 'always knows more' than the professionals. We hope that in this cae the views of the often silent majority will be heard and we will move forward to a goal of about 500 wolves in Wisconsin ... Thursday, June 24, 1999 Mall First Last 03-Aug-98 Reginald 54204 Page 26 of 61 Organizatlo Address City State Coda Communt Robillard 2760 Bay Road Brussels WI About 8 years ago I managed to become a delegate to the Conservation Congress ... eventually chairman from Door Co .. .. what a waste of time .. . DNr listened to the Congress only if the Congress was agreeing with them .. . Deer management 2000 is just another example, what a joke ... wolf situation was no different. .. DNR supervisor (about 1990) said there'll qnly be 70 or 80 wolves ... talk about a snow job ... now ... dnr says controllmight come when the number raises to 500 ... you ... dnr ... said 80 wolves ... now let's get at it and bring the number down to what you said you wanted. 04-Aug-98 Robert 53703 Rolley P.O. Box 7921 Madison WI we may be moving too quickly toward delisting .. .some have suggested we can manage for a low number of wolves (100) because WI wolves are not isolated from wolves in MN and Ml .. . no formal interstate agreements have been developed ... 380-462 wolves could exist in just the primary habitat. .. if secondary is included carrying capacity could be higher .. .est. of habitat based on GIS anallysis & may underestimate biological carrying capacity .. . may be a biological capacity to support a wolf population higher than the 500 indicated ....since public attitude is the most important limiting factor we should plan to regularly, (5-10 yrs) conduct surveys to assess changes in tolerance ... no. 1 research need is for reliable, economical census techniques to monitor wolf abundance ... we will be managing a very small population .. . volunteers may be important... we do not know how many wolves will be removed by agency control efforts ... additional modeling would help in evaluating the effect of different levels of removals .. .full advisory committee did not have input on assumptions in the analysis or benefit of the results of the analysis while preparing the draft PVA should have been an intergral part of the dev. of the plan ... not an afterthought. 04-Aug-98 Todd 53118 Scheel 546 W35817 Meadows Dr. Dousman WI I support endangered species and want to see stable population of all wildlife but I am concerned about the projected 200-500 wolves in Wisconsin ... deer numbers could be threatened by additional wolves ... l think 47 packs and approximately 200 wolves is plenty ... their numbers should not be allowed to increase. Thursday, June 24, 1999 Mail First Last Page 27 of 61 Organizatio Addross 05-Aug-98 Penny 54548 City Stato Codo Commont Pribis P.O. Box 386 WI Minocqua I urge you to follow the federal recovery plan for wolves as proposed by the USFWS .. in 1992 ... with the proposed increase in wolf populations the draft predicts an increase in wolf predation .. . my contention is that sources to reimburse livestock and pet owners for depredation have not been secured ... ! am not in favor of using any license fees for compensation, especially with a population of 500 wolves ... some areas will not be managed for multiple use as DNR is required ... examples include limiting or controlling public access of public lands by gating and locking areas ... closing rec. trails for ATVs, snowmobiles or other rec. activities such as walking, biking or camping ... there is no in-depth research on the effects of increased wolf populations .. . on coyotes, deer herds, esp. in relationship to deer yards and severe winters .. . ! own land ... (and) have cut timber, improved wildlife habitat by planting seedlings for cover and developed wildlife openings and erected nest boxes .. . I have extended this effort to improve habitat for game species I shose to hunt. .. I will mind competing with many wolves .. . it is bothersome to me as a private landowners when the DNR attempts (and probably will succeed) to shove this plan down my throat and expects me and other landowners to support high wolf populations while wolves set up shop, eat game and compete directly with me for game on land that I have bought, paid taxes on and improved wildife habitat with my sweat and finances ... Many sports people and landowners have supportd the initial wolf recovery program of between 80-100 wolves. I hope my compromise of 200 wolves shows my support for the wolf program. I am, however, in strong opposition to having a population of 300-500 wolves. 05-Aug-98 Ben 53705 Scherb 6326 Landfall Dr., Madison WI The (wolf) plan is thorough and well produced. I would like to see the wolf population managed for the maximum sustainable harvest; DNR employees should be the only people allowed to shoot or trap wolves; maintain a low density of roads in good wolf habitat. 05-Aug-98 Sonja L. 54531 Margitan 5230 Cedar Falls Rd . Hazelhurst WI (Language identical to Prebis letter) urges following fed. recovery plan, favors 200 wolves but not 500, resents competition of wolves for game on land improved for hunting by the owner 05-Aug-98 Art 54751 Conservation Gong . Kunstmann 29271 117th New Auburn WI In N. Chippewa & S. Rusk Counties we are seeing and hearing more about wolf sightings every week ... I've been hunting Unit 4 for 20+ years and have seen wolves & wolf sign most of those years, but in the past 5 years there's been an explosion of wolf activity and a marked decrease in deer populations. I think wolves are neat but you guys had better get them under control now! Make them a trophy animal on a limited ... hunters & trappers will support the program if wolves are made harvestable but if you drag your feet you'll be stonewalled for sure. Page 28 of 61 Thursday, June 24, 1999 Mail First Last Organlzatlo Address 05-Aug-98 Wade 54568 City Statu Codo Commont Gauger 8651 Denise Drive Woodruff WI I am writing to encourage the wolf management committee to lower its population goals for wolves in Northern Wisconsin. The wolves that we have in th area now are causing more than enough probiems. They have !