V. WOLF MANAGEMENT STRATEGIESA. Wolf Management ZonesZone management is frequently recommended as part of wolf recovery plans and management plans (Mech 1995). 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 wolf management 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 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: 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 management is possible. The WDNR will utilize 3 zones to manage wolves in the state (Figure 7). 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 3 zones under this management system are listed below.
Zone 3 (Low Wolf Tolerance Area): 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 mi2. 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 should be allowed to control nuisance wolf-like animals in this zone. Following state delisting, landowners could be granted permission to control wolves or wolf-like animals on their land. Zone management alternatives considered: The wolf management team considered alternatives involving: no zones, or two 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. 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 1982, 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. Usually 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 accurate counts of wolves, the technique does allow assessment of relative numbers and helps to 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 3-17 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 15-20% 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. 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. Live-trapping 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. During summers howling surveys are conducted in pack territories across the state to determine pup productivity. These surveys take about 100 hours to complete. As the wolf population continues to increase the intensity of monitoring will decline. Federal funds for monitoring will be eliminated 5 years after federal delisting. The WDNR will use less costly methods for monitoring wolves in the future, and seek other sources for funding wolf monitoring. Existing and potential surveys that could help assess wolf abundance include: 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 organization such as the Timber Wolf Alliance (TWA). General recommendations for wolf population monitoring under threatened status and as a delisted population are described below. Threatened Status Population Monitoring Live-trapping of wolves and radio-tracking will continue. As the wolf population increases from 100 to 300 or more, the percentage of wolves captured and radio-collared each year will decline to probably less than 10%, with less than 40% of the packs having radio-collared wolves. Emphasis would be on collaring packs in new 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. Delisted Status Population Monitoring Once the wolf population is delisted, most intense live-trapping and radio-tracking surveys would decline, except on specific research projects where funding is available. Two steps of population monitoring would be followed after delisting occurs: 2. Population Management Only wolves causing depredations on pets or livestock would be euthanized while wolves are classified as threatened and such control would only occur in Zones 1b, 2 and 3. All depredation control activity would be conducted by WDNR or APHIS-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. 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 APHIS-WS personnel. Within Zone 3 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. Under delisted status landowners in Zones 2 and 3 can be issued permits to kill nuisance wolves on their land. Landowners would be allowed to kill a limited number of wolves, and all wolf carcasses would be turned over to the WDNR. Once the number of wolves reaches a level at which social tolerance demands a limit to the population the Department of Natural Resources will request a change in the status of the wolf to an game animal which will allow use of a managed public take to maintain the population at or near established goals. This Administrative Code revision removing the wolf from nongame status to furbearer/game animal will require public hearing and comment. Such a change is consistent with the management of other recovered populations. It would not mandate an immediate open season. Take methods and rules as well as the number of wolves to be taken would first have to be defined. By definition population management necessitates the identification of a desirable population of a species. Preliminary analyses show a population of 300 Wisconsin wolves is necessary to establish and maintain a sustainable population. GIS habitat and prey-based modeling shows that the probable carrying capacity in the state would be about 500 wolves. We do not know the level at which social conflict may require a limit to wolf numbers. That number must yet be established. Currently the Wolf Advisory Committee recommends managing wolves at a range of 300 to 500 until more information on social tolerance is obtained. The DNR will review wolf population goals every 5 years at a minimum to determine if changes in goals are necessary. Any change in population goals would need thorough public review. Clearly, no take of wolves would be allowed until wolf numbers exceed the 300 level considered necessary to maintain a self-sustaining state population. Public take will be considered if needed to maintain the population at or near carrying capacity. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources supports the hunting or trapping of species as a population management tool. Public harvest must depend, however, on other mortality and population goals. C. Wolf Health Monitoring 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. 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. . Following state delisting, WDNR live-trapping will decline and eventually be discontinued. Periodic scat analyses will be performed by WDNR to test for diseases and parasite loads in wolves. WDNR will continue to necropsy dead wolves as necessary to monitor health trends. Special research studies may occasionally be conducted 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. D. Habitat Management 1. Potential and Favorable Wolf Habitat: Based on computer models Wisconsin contains large tracts of potential wolf habitat (Mladenoff 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, road density 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 is currently 5,812 mi2 (15,052 km2) of favorable wolf habitat in Wisconsin (Figure 6). Favorable habitat is defined as areas that has a greater than 50% probability of being occupied by wolf packs. Most of this favorable wolf habitat is located on public land, especially county forests, followed by national forests, and private industrial forests (Mladenoff 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 mi2 (5,700 km2), most of which is also within the areas identified as favorable through computer models (Figure 6).
The Wolf Advisory Committee recommends cooperative habitat management efforts with land agencies and industrial forest and private land owners, especially in the 5812 mi2 of the most favorable habitat (Mladenoff 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. 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/km2). Mladenoff et al. (1995) showed that road densities within pack territories were lower, averaging 0.37 mi/mi2 (0.23 km/km2). The expanding wolf population in the Lake States, however, has shown increased tolerance for slightly higher road densities in recent years (WDNR unpubl. data; per comm. Bill Berg, MN DNR). 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 areas to minimize encounters between humans and wolves that may result in accidental or intentional wolf deaths. 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, gating or berming logging roads, and road obliteration. Emphasis in access management should be on maintaining existing road densities in areas of suitable habitat (Zone 1). Access management may help reduce maintenance costs, provide remote recreational experiences, and may benefit certain wildlife including bear, marten, lynx, 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, attitudes 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), and off-road motorized vehicle trails (including all-terrain vehicles and dirt bike areas) and open areas, are two access situations that were 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 trails and low standard roads are difficult to measure, but probably have similar effects on wildlife species such as wolves. The Wolf Advisory Committee recommends that excessive development of low quality roads or trails for motorized vehicles should be avoided and recreational trails should be placed with care when in suitable wolf habitat. 3. Vegetation Management: 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 cutting 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 (Mladenoff 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). We recommend a balanced approach to forest management on public and private lands to provide younger forest for prey species used by wolves, while also maintaining some areas of older forest for other 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 low access forest provide seclusion for wolves. Forest management on large blocks of public forest lands should strive to maintain a balance of forest age distributions to provide habitats for wolves and other wildlife species. 4. Habitat Linkages and Corridors: Wisconsin is more fragmented with roads, towns, and open agricultural land compared to 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. We recommend the maintenance of forested blocks of land that connect wolf habitats across Wisconsin. The WDNR will encourage private landowners and public land agencies to cooperatively manage corridor habitats as part of the state's Managed Forest program. Protection of corridor habitat should be a factor in considering acquisition of public land for other conservation purposes. 5. Management of Den and Rendezvous Sites: 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 September 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. The Wolf Advisory Committee recommends the continued protection of den sites and rendezvous sites in Zone 1 areas of suitable wolf habitat. Areas within 330 feet (100m) would be recommended for 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 continue in Zone 1 areas both during threatened listing and eventual delisting. Normally only one or two den sites would be affected within a 50-square mile area. To facilitate such protections state wildlife biologists responsible for designating such sites and state, county and consulting foresters will cooperate to best manage logging operations to protect the wolves while facilitating forestry projects. 6. The Role of Wilderness and other Forest Reserves: Federal wilderness (69 mi2, 5 areas), state wilderness (50 mi2) 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 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. 7. 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.
E. Wolf Depredation Management BACKGROUND 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 $38,340.90 in wolf damage compensation claims for 23 calves, 12 sheep, 140 turkeys, and 16 dogs during 1976-97. (See Appendix A.) Depredation on dogs represented 78% of reimbursement payments provided by WDNR. Only 0.3% of the farms in the current wolf range have experienced wolf depredation problems. Three wolves have been translocated as a result of depredations. Reclassifying wolves from federally and state endangered to threatened status will provide the option to euthanize depredating wolves. Public comments in autumn 1996 revealed concerns about killing wolves, particularly through public harvests. 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. Depredation Management Goal The goal of the wolf depredation program is to minimize depredations and compensate people for their losses. Strategies and Procedures The goal of the wolf depredation program is to minimize depredations and compensate people for their losses. 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. The first two categories, "Confirmed" and "Probable" are the only ones that will warrant further action. If the investigating APHIS-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, APHIS-WS will provide the appropriate assistance. Control Response Options Four control response options are available to resolve confirmed or probable depredations. The depredation management program will use a combination of these options as appropriate depending upon the individual situation. These include: Under cases of "Confirmed Depredation" or "Probable Depredation", the local WDNR Wildlife Biologist, the WDNR Regional Wildlife Expert, and APHIS-WS will jointly determine appropriate management activities using the following criteria:
Table 2 shows the depredation control management options within each wolf management zone. The same management options will apply to wolves under state threatened and delisted classifications. Although translocation and euthanization are listed as depredation management options everywhere except on public lands in Zone 1, these practices will be used only as a last resort. Depredation management will focus on prevention and mitigation rather than wolf removal. This could include cleaning up ""carcass dumps" frequent checks on livestock, birthing near farm buildings or in corrals, and avoiding placing young livestock in wooded pastures. It may also be necessary to include neighboring farms in some cases. Poor husbandry practices on one farm could result in depredation problems on nearby farms. Wolf removal without adequate prevention and mitigation will likely result in large annual expenditures of time and money. This could cause farmers with recurring problems to doubt the adequacy or competency of the agencies involved. 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, 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. 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 for necessary reclassified and delisted wolf populations are listed below: 1. Threatened Status Regulations 2. Delisting Regulations H. Inter-Agency Cooperation/Coordination Our effort to achieve a population of 300-500 wolves with our ultimate goal to delist the gray wolf in Wisconsin requires the continued involvement and cooperation among many agencies, private individuals and organizations. The Wolf Advisory Committee recommends that the WDNR continue to mesh its objectives with those in the USFWS Recovery Plan (1992), Minnesota DNR, Michigan DNR, Wisconsin counties, industrial forests, tribes 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, APHIS - 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 (Mlandenoff 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 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 continue to meet at least once per year 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 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 chairperson of the wolf advisory committee will be the coordinator for wolf management activity in the state. Composition of the Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee should consist of the following: Other members should include: The committee can also include other cooperators from private and public agencies as are needed. The Wolf Advisory Committee should meet at least once per year to assess the state wolf population, assess wolf management zones, review depredation control activities, assess impact of educational activities, assess needs for additional control activity, review problems and determine needs for new policies or management procedures. 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 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 of snow covered roads each on their survey block each winter. This program is being evaluated for its effectiveness in counting wolves. Volunteers may eventually be responsible for conducting much of the wolf tracking in Wisconsin, perhaps through organizations like TWIN or TWA.. The DNR will continue to encourage volunteer programs working with wolves. 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. The alternative to using volunteers would be to continue intense involvement by WDNR and other agencies in all aspects of wolf recovery and conservation. As the wolf population increases and funding declines, 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. 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: 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 macho 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 country run as high as 400,000 (Hope 1994). The "predatory behaviors" of wild predators like the grey wolf have been lost in domestic dogs. However, in hybrids these instincts are present to varying degrees yet the animals commonly lack a fear of humans. Attacks, maulings, dismemberments 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. At this time they are all totally full. 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 eleven cases of free-roaming wolf/dog hybrids in Wisconsin between 1989 and 1996 (see Appendix G). In addition to being inhumane, the release of hybrids and the problems they cause gives wild wolves a bad reputation. Wildlife biologists also worry about escaped or released wolf/dog hybrids interbreeding with wild wolves--diluting their 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. Proposed Regulations 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. 29.415 WI Stats.). The Wolf Advisory Committee recommends that the possession of wolves should continue to be highly regulated following delisting. The WDNR should 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 should 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 may 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 to determine cause of death and health status. While wolves are listed as endangered, the DNR policy has been to have all wolf carcasses necropsied by the National Wildlife Health Lab in Madison, Wisconsin. Eventually all become specimens at research institutions, with most wolf specimens deposited at the University of Wisconsin - Zoology Museum in Madison. When wolves are reclassified, and eventually delisted, the management of wolf specimens should be modified. The Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee developed guidelines for managing wolf specimens under threatened and delisted classification. 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 ATV 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 impacts on wolves in Wisconsin. Excessive howling sessions could cause abandonment of preferred rendezvous sites, and perhaps displace wolves to less suitable areas where they may be exposed to more mortality or cause depredation problems. Howling sessions may cause energy drains on adult wolves constantly returning to rendezvous site to protected pups, while abandoning their hunts. 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. Frequent disturbance of wolves at kills may become energy costly for wolves. Frequent disturbance at rendezvous site may also display wolves. 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 would 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. |
