Wolf management goal alternatives considered: the original draft wolf management plan for Wisconsin called for a long range population level from 300 to 500 wolves. This number was derived after study of the available habitat within the State of Wisconsin.
People comments on Draft 1 of the plan often addressed an upper limit on wolf numbers in Wisconsin. Some said 500 wolves would be too many to be socially acceptable. Others saw no reason for limiting the number of wolves in the state. After examining the public comments and biological data the Wolf Advisory Committee decided, in Draft 2, to recommend delisting wolves as numbers reach 250 and establishing a management goal of 350, the minimum level at which a full range of control activities could occur. After public review of Draft 2 the Wolf Committee agreed that the population threshold of 350 be used as the minimum level for proactive control and possible public harvest.
Discussion of alternatives and impacts of population: A population of 350 wolves would impact forest ecosystems in northern and central Wisconsin. Slight declines in deer populations might occur in interiors of wolf territories, but would have only a minor impact on deer harvest. Wolves could also impact populations of beaver, coyotes, and perhaps medium-sized predators such as raccoons and fisher. The higher wolf population would also increase probability of wolf depredation on pets and livestock. Delisting could provide increased flexibility in controlling problem wolves to minimize concerns about depredation. Such increased flexibility in controlling problem wolves when delisted, should help minimize concerns.
Several alternatives were considered for Wisconsin's wolf population goal. A goal of 100 wolves in Wisconsin, similar to federal delisting guidelines, was considered. Although the federal guidelines would provide minimum levels for a viable population if Wisconsin's population of 100 wolves remain connected to other wolf populations (Fritts and Carbyn 1995; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992); such a population may not be considered viable if it becomes isolated. Also, at a lower population goal, wolves might not be able to fully occupy areas of favorable habitat that exists in Wisconsin (Mladenoff et al. 1995, Mladenoff et al. 1997, Appendix C).
Another alternative considered was to classify wolves in Wisconsin as threatened throughout the next 10 years, and review the population performance after that time to determine criteria for delisting. This alternative was rejected because it may not allow adequate flexibility in controlling problem wolves in the future. Under threatened classification, controls on nuisance wolves would continue to be restricted. Once delisting occurs more flexible control will be used on problem wolves. The WDNR is obligated to remove species from the threatened and endangered list when such a classification is no longer warranted.
Zone management alternatives considered: The wolf management team considered alternatives involving: no zones, two zones, or three zones. The "no zone" alternative was rejected because it provided no special protection to wolves in areas of suitable habitat. All nuisance wolves would need to be controlled on case-by-case basis.
The two zone alternatives did not seem to provide as high levels of wolf protection in areas of suitable habitat, while allowing flexible control in areas of conflict with nuisance wolves. The two zone alternatives did not tie as closely into habitat considerations as would a more complex system.
The wolf management team also considered a three zone concept that incorporated all the land within the Northern Forest Deer Management Units and Central Forest Deer Management units as Zone 1 (Figure I1). This Zone 1 was further divided for management purposes into management on public lands and management on private lands. Zone 1a included public lands and was proposed to be titled Wolf Conservation Area. That area was to have included 7,600 square miles of public and industrial forests in the Northern Forest and Central Forest. Estimates were that the area could support 210-350 wolves. Zone 1b was to include approximately 15,400 square miles of private lands within the Zone 1 area. Wolves in that area were to have been controlled on a case by case basis. Most private lands would not be highly suitable habitat and could support 80-150 wolves. Flexible management was proposed for this (Zone 1b) areas. Habitual depredators on livestock and pets could be euthanized and controlled on private land to one-half mile from the depredation site. Wolf packs that do not cause depredation were to be protected and habitat protection done on a case by case basis. Under State Delisting proactive trapping by government agents could be done in areas where chronic wolve problems exist to reduce or eliminate wolves from these areas.
In Draft 2 of the Management Plan the original Zone 1 alternative was modified by the Wolf Advisory Committee in lieu of a plan included six highly protected core areas for wolves in Zone 1 (Figure I2), but which provided more liberal depredation controls within non-core areas of that zone. The Draft 2 proposal listed the Central Forest as a unique zone, Zone 2, that provides more flexible control in that area. In addition, the option continued the coyote hunting closed period during the deer gun season within the Northern Forest management area but not within the Central Forest .
The six wolf core areas in Draft 2, were designated in Northern Wisconsin to provide additional protection for wolves. (Fig. I2). The intent of these areas was that wolves be completely protected except under extremely unusual circumstances such as a wolf with a highly contagious disease such as rabies, a captive raised wolf that has escaped into the wild, or a wolf that poses a threat to human health or safety.
In draft 1 of the Wolf Management Plan listed all public lands in northern and central Wisconsin as wolf sanctuaries (7,600 mi2). The need for such an area was questioned repeatedly at public forums and in individual public comments. The Wolf Advisory Committee believed creation of the Core Areas was a way to provide protected areas (3,227 mi2) and concentrate protection on the most appropriate locations, reducing the overall acreage earlier proposed as highly protected.
Protected wolf core areas or sanctuary areas have been recommended for small populations of wolves or wolves near agricultural and developed landscapes (Haight et al. 1998, Mech, 1995). Such protective cores help assure the long term viability of a small population. (Haight et al. 1998).
Wolf Core Areas were proposed across northern Wisconsin in areas of favorable wolf habitat (Mladenoff et al. 1995). and large blocks of public land. Areas were selected based on suitability of wolf habitat and the lack of most livestock activity or concentrated human developments. Local wildlife managers were consulted as to reasonable areas and boundaries for Wolf Core Areas.
Although many people accepted the concept of Wolf Core Areas, others were very concerned that creation of these distinct zones would mean major restrictions on land use activities within the Cores. It was not the intent of the Wolf Advisory Committee to cause land use restrictions but only to zone where lethal control on wolves was prohibited. Because the Core Area concept was widely misunderstood, the committee decided that lethal control within prime wolf habitat should be handled on a case-by-case basis. Lethal control would not generally be needed or utilized on or adjacent to large blocks of public land in areas of suitable wolf habitat. The Wolf Core maps created for the Draft 2 Wolf Management Plan could be utilized by WDNR wildlife managers and USDA-WS trappers seeking guidance about lethal control activities on wolves. By carefully considered lethal controls in Zone 1 on a case-by-case basis, a flexible system can exist for controlling wolves in problem areas, while still protecting most wolves in areas of suitable habitat.
Alternate Habitat Management Considered: Other habitat management alternatives were considered by the Wolf Advisory Committee. The committee considered less emphasis on vegetative and access management once wolves are delisted. Because public land agencies manage for a variety of wildlife species, biodiversity protection, and sustainable resource use (forestry, wildlife, fisheries, etc.), it is assumed that such management should also provide habitat for wolves as long as wolves are protected. The committee felt that special considerations for wolves should continue into the future as wildland areas decline. Lack of aggressive access management may expose wolves to higher levels of mortality, and disturbance of den sites may displace wolves to less suitable areas where pups are vulnerable to higher risks of mortality.
We also considered more intense management of habitat for wolves. Such recommendations might include increasing wilderness and other roadless areas to provide additional wolf habitat. But large wilderness and roadless areas without natural disturbance or timber harvest may lack deer habitat, and would support only very low wolf densities. Creation of large wilderness areas may cause local economic distress and could create resentment toward wolves. Wolf monitoring in Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota have demonstrated that wolves can survive well in more intensely managed forest, and do not need to have large blocks of wilderness set aside for them.
Therefore the Wolf Advisory Committee recommended against creation of wilderness areas or extensive road closures on wildlife areas specifically for wolves.
Use of volunteers considered: The alternative to using volunteers would be to continue intense involvement by WDNR and other agencies in all aspects of wolf recovery and conservation. If funding declines as the wolf population increases it will not be possible to maintain existing levels of wolf conservation efforts. Involvement of volunteers will be essential for the long-term success of wolf conservation in Wisconsin.
Literature Cited:
