WOLF ISSUES REPORT

by the Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee
July, 1997

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) began work in 1996 to develop a new wolf management plan for the state. Recent achievement of the state recovery goal of 80-plus wolves dictates that a new wolf management plan needs to be developed.

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. 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 those in attendance. In addition 98 written and email comments were received during later weeks. Notifications of the forums 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.

While a period for comment by mail was offered from early October to Nov. 30, 1996 all comments received after that date also were included in the analysis.

The comments received during the forums were categorized as questions, statements, recommendations and comments. They included 44 questions, 34 concerns, 37 statements, and 77 recommendations. The nearly 100 e-mail, telephone and written comments that were received after the forums contained a similar range of questions, concerns, statements and recommendations. The main issues and concerns expressed are listed below along with the Wolf Advisory Team responses.

Please send any comments about this report to: Wolf Plan. P.O. Box 4001, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Eau Claire, WI., 54702-4001.

WOLF ISSUES ANALYSIS: TEAM DISCUSSION

Question: Why is reclassification of the wolf from endangered to threatened being considered?

Team Response: Currently the wolf is both endangered under State and Federal law. The timber wolf, once vanished from Wisconsin, now resides here in well-established packs with territories that are monitored carefully by biologists. The long-term effort of agency biologists and volunteers to protect the wolf throughout Wisconsin has been successful and in Wisconsin the wolf is no longer is endangered. This does not mean we can neglect about wolf management and protection. Wolves in Wisconsin will face challenges in the future and planning is necessary to make sure wolves and people coexist into the next century.


Question: Is there a "safety net" for the wolf if it is reclassified?

Team Response: Many people are very concerned about the criteria used and the speed of reclassification. In addition, some suggest if the wolf is reclassified in Wisconsin there should be an automatic reclassification of the wolf as endangered should its numbers decline below a threshold level. Criterion for relisting wolves as threatened or endangered would be part of a Wisconsin Management Plan. Wolf numbers in Wisconsin will be monitored to determine changes in the population and wolves could be reclassified if it becomes necessary to do so in the future. At the same time the US Fish & Wildlife Service is considering downlisting the wolf based on federal standards for a region-wide population. Federal downlisting may occur by 1999 if populations remain healthy.


Question: What are the size of wolf populations in Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota?

Team Response: The 1996-97 overwinter population in Michigan was estimated at 1 12 wolves based on track surveys and reports of agency field personnel. The 1996-97 overwinter population census in Wisconsin was 150 wolves. The Minnesota wolf population was estimated at between 2,000 and 2,400 in 1996, although no statewide surveys have been conducted since 1989. The Minnesota population estimate is based on previous observed rates of population increase, wolf depredation reports, reported road kills and reports of field personnel.


Question: What is the significance of Threatened versus Endangered?

Team Response: 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) whereas a threatened species is "likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range," Federal Code 16 USC SS 1532(20). The state designation of endangered 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 Statutes 29.415(2), 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 Section 29.415(2). Wolves are listed as endangered in Wisconsin both by Federal and State designation. "Endangered" status implies a more serious threat of extirpation from the state, than does "Threatened" from a management perspective. The practical difference between the two designations is that with an improved status of "Threatened", greater flexibility can be provided if dealing with depredating animals. In general, as a threatened species, wolves will continue to be highly protected.


Question: What do we lose by delisting?

Team Response: Once wolves are federally delisted as neither endangered or threatened, wolves will lose federal protection. The 1992 Federal Recovery Program for the Eastern Timber Wolf indicates that population monitoring shall occur for at least five years after delisting; therefore, federal funds would be available for monitoring the state wolf population for another five years after wolves are delisted. In recent years federal monies have paid for most of cost of wolf population monitoring in Wisconsin. If wolves are also delisted in Wisconsin under state law, they would become classified in one of three categories: as a game species (similar to black bear), furbearer species (similar to fisher), or a protected nongame species (similar to badger or flying squirrel). The wolf would not become an unprotected species which can be harvested at any time of the year. Payments for damage caused by endangered and threatened species on livestock, pets or property come from Wisconsin's Endangered Species check-off. These funds would no longer be available to pay for wolf depredations if wolves are delisted. If depredation payments are to continue, new funding sources would need to be obtained. As wolf populations increase, the necessity for intense monitoring would also decline as would federal funding for monitoring. Eventually federal funding for monitoring would disappear.


Question: Does the Minnesota Management Plan affect the Wisconsin Management Plan?

Team Response: At present there is no Minnesota Wolf Management Plan. The Minnesota DNR intends to develop a wolf management plan within the next few years. Biologists, wardens and administrators met in March 1997 to start work on a Minnesota Management Plan. Wisconsin DNR biologists are working closely with Minnesota biologists. The procedure in Minnesota will follow a course similar to the management planning currently occurring in Wisconsin. The Federal 1992 revised Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan has provisions about how wolves are to be managed in Minnesota. The guidelines for wolf management in Minnesota may be modified once wolves are delisted and the state develops its own management plan. Federal delisting will be contingent on assurance that a healthy wolf population will be maintained in Minnesota. Wolf populations in the Great Lakes Region are no longer considered members of the eastern subspecies of the timber wolf. The current Federal Recovery Team for Gray Wolf Population in eastern United States is addressing concerns on reclassification and delisting to make sure long term conservation of gray wolves is assured in the region. The federal recovery team contains members of the Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan DNR as well as representatives from universities and federal agencies.


Question: How do you define wolves as being too abundant?

Team Response: Wolf numbers will probably never be overly abundant in wildland areas with healthy prey populations, few or no livestock present, and low human density. In these areas wolf populations will fluctuate naturally with prey populations and other environmental variables. Where wolves occur in areas of mixed woodland, agricultural and residential areas, wolf human conflicts are more likely to occur. The perception of wolves being too abundant will be based more on human tolerances than biological carrying capacity in landscapes highly modified by humans.


Question: Why consider a status change before the population has recovered?

Team Response: The proposed reclassification of wolves in Wisconsin is based on evidence recovery is occurring. Population surveys indicate there are about 150 wolves in Wisconsin at this time. Criteria for reclassification contained in the original Wisconsin Wolf Recovery Plan call for reclassification after the state has attained a level of 80 wolves for three consecutive years. That level was exceeded, for the past three years. Total state delisting will not be considered until there is assurance a healthy, self sustaining wolf population can be maintained in Wisconsin well into the future.


Question: Are original State and Federal Criteria still valid?

Team Response: Many of the public comments received questioned whether existing criteria for wolf reclassification were appropriate. Some people felt that a population of 80 wolves was not enough to justify reclassification. The 80-wolf criteria represents a step in the recovery process and Wisconsin's wolf population is now nearly double that level. Federal criteria states that delisting of wolves as neither threatened nor endangered could occur if more than 100 animals are maintained between Wisconsin and Michigan for five consecutive years. Some persons also commented that this criteria was not sufficient. Criteria for delisting wolves as neither endangered nor threatened in Wisconsin have not been developed. The Wolf Management Team is working on developing such criteria. State delisting criteria, to be developed as part of the Wolf Management Plan, will be based on wolf population goals, wolf distribution, health and productivity of the wolf population and development of a conservation plan that outlines long-term management of wolves.


Question: What is self sustaining?

Team Response: The term self sustaining is used in the 1989 Wisconsin Wolf Recovery Plan, It refers to a population that can persist for at least 100 years without loss of genetic diversity, or can persist subject to major declines due to demographic or environmental factors.


Question: Will Wisconsin's wolf packs be a viable population?

Team Response: Some people were concerned that the Wisconsin population was isolated and not genetically viable. Monitoring work done in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, however, indicates the populations in all three states are interconnected. Many comments were received which indicated concern as to whether the Wisconsin wolf population is large enough to withstand catastrophic events such as a disease outbreak, or poor reproductive years. Because events such as these normally occur infrequently healthy populations usually rebound fairly quickly. Three factors limit the distribution and size of Wisconsin local wolf populations: 1 ) availability of food, 2) intensity of hostile attitudes by local human populations and 3) genetic isolation.

Recent radio telemetry studies in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Upper Michigan confirm that the three state's wolf population, while somewhat geographically fragmented, are interconnected. Wolves radio-collared in Wisconsin have been documented in the other two states plus Canada. In addition wolves radio-collared in Wisconsin's northern areas have been found in Wisconsin's Central Forest. Similarly, wolves collared in Minnesota have been found in Wisconsin, Michigan and Canada. These occurrences show that the Upper Great Lakes Wolf population is genetically and physically interconnected. Steps need to be taken to make sure the wolves can continue to move around among these population areas.

Because Wisconsin's wolf population is part of an interconnected regional population of an estimated 2,200 in Minnesota, 150 in Wisconsin and 112 plus in Michigan, the relative size of Wisconsin's wolf population numbers may not be as critical as if it were truly isolated.

A population viability analysis (Vortex 7.0) performed by the Wolf Management Team indicates that a population of 100 Wisconsin wolves supplemented through immigration will survive to at least 100 years (the programming limit) even when three catastrophic episodes of varying magnitude are factored into every decade. If current trends continue, Wisconsin's wolf population will continue to increase into the foreseeable future. As more wolf population information is gathered viability analysis will be performed as part of an ongoing adaptive management approach.


Question: How many wolves should Wisconsin have?

Team Response: Statements received from the public comments ranged widely. Some said 80 wolves are not enough to be a self sustaining population. Others said that 100 wolves is too few for viability. For some people 80 wolves is enough in Wisconsin while for others 100 wolves should be the state limit. The team received recommendations for populations of 150-200 wolves to be criteria for delisting and also for 200 wolves to be criteria for reclassification. In addition statements that 300-400 can be supported and that 300-400 can help control the deer herd were received. We also were told by respondents that 500 wolves can be supported in Wisconsin.

These numbers run the range from the minimum level that the 1989 Recovery Plan felt was necessary for reclassification to threatened status to a maximum number that might be supported based on scientific Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis. The goals for state delisting and population management will probably fall somewhere between these extremes. Goals for wolf numbers will be based primarily on the amount of potential wolf habitat and public tolerance for wolves in various portions of the state. We will strive, as a team, to strike a balance between the number of wolves Wisconsin's habitat can support and the number of wolves the public will accept when establishing population goals. The eventual Wisconsin wolf population has not been established but could range between 325 to 450.


Question: How important is wolf population monitoring?

Team Response: Wolf monitoring must continue to ensure that the wolf population does not return to level which would qualify it for the endangered species category. Monitoring is also needed to provide reliable information for the wolf management program. Continued population monitoring will be important as wolf management decisions are made. Monitoring should be cost efficient and it must also be accurate. The wolf monitoring program is necessary to assess the impact of diseases in wolf populations. Many diseases in wild populations normally run their course and require little if any outside human intervention, however diseases such as canine parvovirus and mange can be major contributors to wolf population declines. Reduced public tolerance could result in increased numbers of wolves shot illegally.


Question: Is it necessary to "Recover" the gray wolf in Wisconsin?

Team Response: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is directed by State Statute 39.415 (7a) to implement programs "directed at conserving, protecting, restoring and propagating selected state endangered and threatened species to the maximum extent practicable." The Wolf Recovery Plan and now the Wolf Management Plan are essential for compliance with that law. Monitoring of the wolf population is expensive, but absolutely necessary, to meet state and federal recovery objectives. Funding of monitoring is from contributions to the Bureau of Endangered Resources tax check-off and license plate sales programs, as well as federal endangered species funds, federal Wildlife Restoration Funds (part of the federal Pittman-Robertson program), Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Timber Wolf Alliance, Wisconsin's Natural Forests, and donations by private citizens.


Question: Should there be wolf management "Zones" in Wisconsin?

Team Response: Public concern generally favored providing maximum opportunity for wolves to colonize new areas. Some favored management areas or zones while others opposed the concept fearing it may limit wolf expansion. Other concerns included the loss of habitat due to development, human-wolf conflicts and control of wolves in non-suitable habitat. Zones would be used to enhance future conservation of wolves. Zones would not cause major land use restrictions or cause large areas to be designated as wilderness areas. Nor would zones be used to eradicate wolves outside wolf management areas. Establishment of such areas would help biologists focus conservation, preserve wolf habitat, and provide guidance on control of depredating wolves. Management zones could identify transition areas from higher-density wolf areas to those of minimal habitat as well as areas likely to have high rates of depredation.


Question: Should there be Wolf Population Management in Wisconsin?

Team Response: Public responses varied from support of population management to strict opposition. Generally, the public wants the Department of Natural Resources to vigorously manage the wolf population providing high levels of protection well into the future. Population management deals with controlling the numbers of animals in a defined area. Wide-scale population management is not expected to be an issue for Wisconsin wolf populations.


Questions: What happens if wolves cause livestock or other damage?

Team Response: Public comments showed concerns about the killing of wolves, particularly as part of hunting or trapping seasons. Those who recognized the need to remove problem animals felt this should only be done by government professionals. Many comments urged preventative efforts by livestock producers to prevent depredation, as well as educational programs as a component to prevent or abate damage. There was strong support for continued damage compensation payments. Currently Wisconsin utilizes an integrated approach to depredation management, which includes compensation payments and live-trapping and translocation of problem animals. Relocation sites may become limited as wolf populations expand. Reclassification of the wolf from endangered to threatened status, provides an option to euthanize animals causing depredation problems. In Wisconsin only two animals have been translocated and none have been euthanized. Since 1990 Wisconsin wolf depredations have involved calves, sheep, turkeys and hunting dogs. The Wolf Management Plan will determine specific criteria to be used when handling depredation complaints, including whether depredating animals will be trapped, relocated or euthanized. It has been the policy of the Department of Natural Resources to use USDA-APHIS Animal Damage Control (ADC) personnel to assist with depredation management. Since 1990 ADC has investigated 60 depredation complaints and confirmed 10 as wolf depredations. Members of the recovery team will continue to monitor ADC to ensure the program is in the best interest of the public.


Question: Should wolves be controlled to maintain a healthy deer herd?

Team Response: Some comments showed concern that wolves will reduce the state's deer herd, especially during severe northern winters. During the last decade, Wisconsin's deer population has grown substantially. In the north, deer numbers far exceed winter carrying capacity. The impact of the expanding deer population was seen in 1996 and 1997 when severe winters caused starvation. Research in Minnesota shows that when deer populations drop below 10 deer per square mile and wolf populations exceeded 1 or more per 10 square miles the wolves could affect local deer populations. However, in the last 20 years the deer population in Minnesota has continued to grow despite an increase in wolves in the state. In Wisconsin the deer population is distributed throughout the state but wolf habitat is fragmented and located mostly in the northern portion of the state. The number of deer that died in the severe winter of 1995-96 were as great in the northeast portion of the state where there are few or no wolves as in the northwest portion of the state where there are many wolves. At this time, throughout the state, the wolf population probably takes fewer than 3,000 deer annually.


Question: Should the wolf be listed as a game species?

Team Response: Any hunting would have to be accepted by a majority of the public. Based on comments received to date public acceptance of wolf hunting is not likely in the near future.


Question: Will the Wolf Management Plan be changed?

Team Response: Some members of the public were concerned that the management plan will need to be changed and updated as conditions concerning the wolves change. That is necessary, especially as human population increases and available habitat is fragmented, stressing a species that requires large tracts lightly occupied by humans. As was stated above currently there is enough habitat, based on computer models using Geo-based Information Systems (GIS) to provide suitable habitat for 325-450 wolves in Wisconsin. This may change in 10 or 20 years. Future changes could also redefine the status of the wolf in Wisconsin. The proposed Wolf Management Plan would cover a period of 10-15 years. The plan would incorporate aspects of adaptive management so that adjustments can be made as changes occur.


Question: How much public land is wolf range?

Team Response: Recent work by Mladenoff et al. (1995) utilizing GIS systems and wolf telemetry data has provided a tremendous amount of insight regarding the location, quantity and quality of suitable wolf habitat in Wisconsin. There are numerous factors necessary for a wolf pack to become established in an area. Factors include: a sizable wild land base, suitable forest habitat composition, and adequate prey base. However, given the right combination of these factors, the variable that has shown to be the best indicator of favorable wolf habitat is low road density. Currently there are about 5,700 square miles of favorable wolf habitat in northern Wisconsin and 300-400 square miles in Central Wisconsin. Of this amount about 60 percent, or 3,400 square miles in northern Wisconsin, and most of the central range, is in public ownership managed by federal, state, county or tribal agencies. While industrial forests often provide habitat, such lands could be converted to other uses with a resulting loss of wolf habitat.


Question: Should wolf habitat be preserved?

Team Response: People commenting on the Wolf Management Plan expressed concern over the loss of wolf habitat caused by an expanding human population and human intrusion into new areas. There were strong recommendations for maintaining both the quantity and quality of wolf habitat that now exists in the state. Ecosystem management and restoration of pre-settlement biodiversity were management strategies which were suggested. There was also concern over the impact of roads.

Currently wolves exist in an environment that has been highly influenced and altered by human activities since European settlement. Wolf habitat and wolf populations will continue to be impacted as human populations increase and development continues. Recreational activities such as hunting, trapping and snowmobiling are not inherently injurious to wolves if practiced in a lawful and conscientious manner. Obviously, if people intentionally or heedlessly pursue wolves or interrupt behavior during critical times of the year such as when denning occurs, the wolves will suffer. Expansion or construction of roads can also fragment wolf habitat, cause direct mortality from car-animal collisions, and increase human use in an area to the exclusion of wolves.

A cooperative research project between the DNR, Department of Transportation and University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point is evaluating the effects of highway expansion on wolves in northern Wisconsin.

Many public properties have developed access management plans that limit motorized vehicle traffic to specific areas and roads, thus preventing habitat degradation and reducing human-wildlife encounters.

Wolves are compatible with many wildland management practices including logging, as well as recreational uses of the forests. Wisconsin laws governing state forests emphasize the importance of managing for a variety of wildlife and plant species and timber production simultaneously . Wisconsin Act 257, enacted April 22, 1996, specified that the Department "shall manage the state forests to benefit the present and future generations of residents of this state, recognizing that the state forests contribute to local and statewide economies and to a healthy natural environment. The department shall assure the practice of sustainable forestry and use it to assure that state forests can provide a full range of benefits for present and future generations....consistent with the ecological capability of the state forest land and with the long-term maintenance of sustainable forest communities and ecosystems." County forests also consider a variety of wildlife and plants as wall as timber production as they prepare 10-year forest plans. Specific wolf activity areas, such as den and rendezvous sites, are protected from disturbance.


Question: Are coyotes displaced by wolves?

Team Response: Evidence from research and field observations in other states and provinces indicates that although coyotes do not disappear their densities, habitat use and behaviors change as timber wolves become re-established. Coyotes may decrease on a very localized basis, but the population on a statewide basis would not likely be affected. Coyotes presently occur in every county in Wisconsin.


Question: Would coyote season be reopened during the gun deer season following delisting or reclassification?

Team Response: The closed coyote season could be re-evaluated. Caution will be exercised to ensure: that any action taken would not damage the wolf population that would require its relisting to endangered species.


Question: Should the DNR control coyote populations if the hunting season is closed during deer season?

Team Response: Actual harvest of coyotes during the deer gun season is unknown. The closure only restricts harvest during firearms season for deer. From late October through mid February trapping is permitted and hunting is allowed for coyotes nearly year-round providing a tremendous harvest opportunity. No DNR coyote control is considered necessary.


Question: What can I do to help?

Team Response: There are several opportunities for volunteers in Wisconsin and more may exist in the future. Organizations such as the Timber Wolf Alliance at the Sigurd Olson Institute, Ashland, WI. (http://bobb.northland.edu/soie/WOLF.HTML) and Timber Wolf Information Network (http://www.timberwolfinformation.org) provide opportunities for volunteers to learn and teach about wolves. The Timber Wolf Alliance includes a speaker bureau that provides training for volunteers to go out and conduct wolf talks for the public. In the winters of 1995-96 and 1996-97 the Wisconsin DNR conducted a volunteer program in which volunteers surveyed tracts for wolves and other carnivores. The Department designed 123 survey blocks across forested portions of northern and central Wisconsin and assigned blocks to individuals or teams of volunteers who conducted surveys throughout the winter. Each survey block covers 150-200 square miles and are surveyed three or more times each winter. More than 200 volunteers conducted surveys during the last two winters.


Question: How about educational programs?

Team Response: One of the strongest messages from the public was that educational efforts about wolves are effective, appreciated, and should continue. Education was considered by many as very important in disseminating factual information about wolves and wolf ecology. Respondents said educational efforts lead to better understanding about wolves that counter negative attitudes towards wolves. Current education programs, run by groups such as the Timber Wolf Information Network and Timber Wolf Alliance should continue. In addition, programs should be developed to explain how the next phase of wolf management will function. Educational programs also will be needed to help livestock producers become aware of depredation abatement techniques and how to seek aid should depredations occur.


Question: What about wolf dog hybrids?

Team Response: Many respondents said wolf dog hybrids are a serious concern. Wolf dog hybrids can dilute the gene purity of wild wolves if breeding occurs. Wolf dog hybrids also can spread diseases harming wild wolf populations. In addition, because many wolf dog hybrids lack the fear of humans that is characteristic of wild wolves. It is possible for some of them to harm people, pets, and livestock causing a negative image for wolves. Control and regulations on wolf dog hybrids will probably be incorporated into the proposed Wolf Management Plan.
BACK