Steve Meurett, Wisconsinoutdoorfun.com contributor
“The Midwest Wolf Stewards Conference”– intriguing title. “Steward”- noun, a person who manages another’s property or financial affairs; one who administers anything as the agent of another or others. As such, the title of the conference makes sense. As set forth in The Public Trust Doctrine, is the principle that wildlife resources are owned by no one. The government (and their stewards within) are to hold in trust for future generations these comprehensive conservation foundations and apply scientific applications to its management. Per definition, in our day of age, the titlesteward,-especially wolf steward, is a difficult role to fill.
Scientists, researchers, conservationists, biologists, educators-anyone, public or professional, had an opportunity, like myself, to learn more about the current state in the Midwest of maybe our most controversial species to be a manager/agent/caretaker/advocate of.
The 2015 Midwest Wolf Stewards Annual Meeting was held recently at Northland College in Ashland Wisconsin, home of the Timber Wolf Alliance. I took the occasion to broaden my knowledge of current research and legislation, public policy and the human dimension as it relates to wolf management. The conference touts sharing from “the most knowledgeable people” in their fields, and it was a virtual who’s who of wolf research in North America. Long time Minnesota wolf expert David Mech, keynote speaker by Isle Royale scientist Rolf Peterson, Dr. Tim Van Deelen from the University of Wisconsin, current large carnivore specialist for the DNR Dave MacFarland, along with retired wolf professionals Adrian Weydeven and Dick Thiel. Other wildlife managers from Michigan, Minnesota and the Province of Ontario provided presentations to attendees as well.
The conference gave a comprehensive view of the current status of the wolf in these surrounding states and provinces.
Historically, bounties in all midwest territories in the early 20th century either wiped out the native populations or drove them to very low levels. Ontario finally ended these bounties on the Timber wolf in 1972 and a slow recovery began. In 2003, the province implemented a science based strategy for wolf management. At present, there are 9000 grey (Timber) wolves in Ontario, with about 10% harvest each year. The Eastern wolf, living near Algonquin Provincial Park, continues to be at risk and is threatened.
Minnesota, which never lost their native population during the 1900’s, continues to thrive with about 2400 animals in 470 packs in a slightly growing wolf range. Previous hunting and trapping seasons harvested around 10% of the state’s population. Pack size averages 4.9, compared to Wisconsin, which stands at 3-4 animals per pack.
Kevin Swanson, from the Michigan DNR, also echoed the effect of government sponsored bounties-wolves in Michigan were all but eliminated by the 1940s. In 1974, an attempt to re-introduce wolves failed, with all four wolves killed within 8 months. The species returned on their own via Minnesota and Wisconsin with three animals present in 1989. Current populations in the UP are around 636 in 125 packs. The state implemented a wolf plan in 2008 and are in the process of revising it this year.
Wisconsin has followed a similar wolf recovery trajectory, with animals making their way back into the state on their own in the late ’70s. Dave MacFarland, DNR large carnivore specialist, reported the 2014 over winter population to be 660-689 in 197 packs, a drop in population of 18% from the previous year.
Mortality from hunting and trapping is at 23.8%. The current wolf management plan was written in 1999 with a revision slated to take place this year. A major question to be considered is population goals with four possible outcomes- 1) keep the current population at 650 +/- 10%, 2) use the 1999 number of 350, 3) have a range of 300-600 animals or 4) an outcome based objective, with a minimum of 350 and be able to maintain a viable population while allowing hunting and minimizing conflicts.
MacFarland also presented a session on “Public Attitudes of Wolves in Wisconsin” highlighting some of the findings from a recent public survey conducted in the state. It was one of the largest and most extensive peer reviewed surveys on wolves ever conducted with an unprecedented 59% response from citizens in and outside of wolf range. Overall, the public’s response was a desire to keep at least the current population (660) of wolves in the state (even by a small margin inside wolf range). Also interestingly, a greater number of respondents said they’d like to see “more” than answered “less” wolves in the state. The survey also showed support for lethal control of problem animals.
The conference is two days long, but I was only able to attend the first day, which featured several other compelling presentations. The Michigan predator/prey study (“Wolf-Deer Relationships in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula”) shed some light on factors influencing deer mortality. The study is being conducted in three phases — a low snow area (southern UP), a moderate snow area in mid UP and in the future, a high snow area in the northern UP — focusing on the number of deer and predators, winter weather severity, and types of habitat help researchers uncover the causes of deer mortality in the project. Adult doe survival in 2013 was a bleak 54% (after a severe winter) but better in 2014 with a 38% rate. Much like a similar study in Wisconsin, coyotes were a top predator of adult deer (after human mortalities) at 27%. Other natural causes followed at 20%, wolves 18%, with bear and bobcats rounding out the deer kill. In a fawn study, coyotes accounted for 300 kills compared to 12 known wolf kills. Analyzing these various factors in deer recruitment is vital to the MI DNR deer management strategies.
In Wisconsin, a related study was conducted on mortality of whitetail deer and presented by Dr. Tim Van Deelen. Deer were trapped and collared in two areas of the state-the northern forest (Near Winter WI), where typically there is a larger suite of natural predators, and in the central farmland (Shiocton), with smaller woodlots and agriculture. During 2011-2013, over 1000 volunteers took part in the project. Of interest from the fawn study results were that the highest mortality occurs in June, with starvation, suprisingly, the leading source of death in the farm zone. Coyotes, road kill and bear followed as causes of mortality. Wolves had 0% impact in this study area. Previous to the June/July transition period in the north (when fawns become more mobile), bear prey heavily on fawns and were the leading determinant in their survival.
In both study areas, humans were the largest cause of adult deer mortality. In the north, hunting accounted for 43% (+ 8% poaching) of all deer deaths-or double all remaining factors. Starvation accounted for 9%, coyotes 8%, wolves 7% and road kill at 6%. The farmland zone, 53% of deer kills were attributed to hunting, followed by deer/car collisions at 17%, starvation 4%, coyote 2%.
Both the Michigan and Wisconsin study offer a better understanding of just how many factors influence deer populations and what role predators, mother nature and humans have on those populations.
Brett Patterson, (Ontario Ministry of Natural Recourses and Forestry, Wildlife research and Development) presented a fascinating look at perhaps the next great predator/prey laboratory- Michipicoten Island, off the coast of SE Ontario in Lake Superior. Much like the larger Isle Royale, the isolated island could provide an opportunity for scientists to delve deeper into the dance of the wolf and a large ungulate -namely caribou, who were first spotted on Michipicoten in 1981. There have been almost no humans present after 1900, making the island pristine for wildlife. The caribou now have a dense population of 250 animals for a land mass of this size. Unexpectedly, last October, three wolves were discovered on the island. It’s thought that they made their way across a 10 mile wide span from mainland Ontario, perhaps by ice bridge the previous winter. In February of 2015, all three were GPS collared for study. Some preliminary findings since the discovery of these carnivores show while they do indeed kill caribou, they also change up their diet and take a fair number of the abundant native beaver, much like mainland wolves are known to do. Interesting questions will arise-will the wolves wipe out the caribou? How will beaver work into the equation? Will less common formations of ice bridges limit genetic diversity within not only the wolves, but caribou as well.
A presentation on wolf monitoring techniques and possible alternatives was presented by Shawn Crimmins of the University of Wisconsin. Currently, the state uses a combination of an extensive volunteer tracking program, telemetry and howl surveys to guide population estimates. Although Wisconsin’s tracking program is the most comprehensive in North America, there are drawbacks, mainly it’s very labor intensive. Participation has dropped some by the public since the wolf hunt was enacted in 2012 and there could be a hidden bias (both directions) in observations. Benefits include a massive coverage of wolf range and public participation to the tune of 15,000 miles covered. Telemetry, which can give researchers insight into habitat use and demographics of the species, is sometimes weather dependent and also labor intensive. Howl surveys, which can identify uncollared packs don’t offer the same coverage as some of the other methods, but are still useful.
Alternates being considered are hunter surveys, occupancy models, GPS collaring and remote cameras. Some of these are being proceeded with, while others are not. Hunter surveys, used in some states do have drawbacks-Wisconsin has much lower visibility than other states and there are issues with accuracy of identification. Of the alternatives being pursued are GPS collars, which, although more expensive initially, require fewer flights and perhaps more detailed data but lack visual confirmation of the animal or their status. Occupancy modeling and DNA sampling will also move forward. “Snapshot Wisconsin” is a program which will blanket the state in every township with remote cameras is also moving forward.
Perhaps the highlight for most attendees was the keynote speaker Dr. Rolf Peterson from Michigan Tech University. He has been conducting studies of wolves and moose in Isle Royale for decades following in the steps of Durward Allen, who initiated the project. His topic-”Letting Nature Take it’s Course” addressed mostly the decline in wolves on tIsle Royale in recent years. Wolves arrived sometime in the early 1940’s to an island with a large population of moose. Thus would begin a complex web of feast and famine for both species. Peterson addressed the myth that wolves restored a balance of nature there, pointing to many factors effecting a stable population. The numbers of both species varied dramatically during the 50+ year study, but more so during the past decade. Wolf numbers plummeted from a high of nearly 30 in 2008 to just three now. Moose numbers rose from less than 500 to 1200 during that same time period-putting pressure on native tree species.
Peterson shared his changing feelings about this decline and what, if anything could be done about it. At one point, he believed that nothing should be done-let nature take it’s course. That changed to trying a genetic rescue (bringing new wolves into the island) largely because, although IR is a wilderness, man has had a deep impact of the wolf decline there. “The human imprint is written all over the dynamics of this wolf population in recent decades.” Now he believes it’s too late. With just three wolves, all with genetic anomalies from inbreeding, he feels they’ll disappear and at some point new wolves can be brought back. It’s all in the hands of the National Park Service now, and as with most bureaucracies, the solution will move slowly. The window for genetic rescue has already passed according to Peterson.
The conference wrapped up the following day with updates on wolf depredations, the Red Cliff Reservation wolf plan and a look at wolves in states like Iowa, Illinois and Missouri. The final presentation was a panel discussion on wolf hunting and trapping and if the North American Model of Wildlife Management was appropriate in that regard. Dr. Tim VanDeelen (UW), Peter David (GLIF&WC) and Wildlife-Forestry consultant Jim Hammill were the panelists.
As a first time attendee, I was most struck by the professionalism in every aspect of the conference and the sessions presented-these scientists and researchers are thorough and presented results with vigor. At times my head spun with statistics and data and the analysis of it all. This is the researchers world I found. Everything was carefully documented and credited and peer reviewed following the scientific method.
At a time when science is under attack-especially in Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources by our own state politicians, I wondered why we would not trust it? When did this rejection of science start? While easy to discount scientists and research from a barstool or computer keyboard, it’s much harder to reject it when faced with evidence-maybe too difficult or a resistance for many. The presenters and attendees at the wolf stewards conference represented the opposite, a willingness to accept scientific scrutiny, the studies and research for the betterment of this species.