Wisconsin's Wolf Season

[johnboat]

I've heard Wisconsin had a Wolf Season this year and the the season was shut down by the DNR after 60 hours as 216 were taken which was over the quota that was set at 119.

Did anyone here partake in the Season or know of anyone that did? Was it open to non residents?

What can you tell me about it.

[Common Man]

216 harvested versus the 119 quota. That was over a 3 day period.

86% of the wolves were taken by hunters with dogs.

Also interesting is the number of wolves taken in the southern half (zone 6) of the state.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


https://www.startribune.com/lessons-...unt/600031216/

Wisconsin's image took a hit recently when 216 wolves were killed during a three-day Badger State hunt — a toll that was 82% over the hunt's quota.

Time was in this country when that result would have been celebrated, if not rewarded. The first North American bounty on wolves, after all, was established in the 1600s, soon after the Mayflower landed. A whole lot of wolf killing followed, and by the 1970s, Minnesota was pretty much the Lower 48's last haven for the gray wolf, or canis lupus.

Yet in the last half-century the wolf has recovered, not only in numbers — as its ranks have been reintroduced in multiple U.S. locations where its populations had been extirpated — but in its public image.

Many Americans today, particularly those living in cities, consider the wolf to be nearly sacrosanct. Contributing to this rebranding have been the wolf's widely admired role as a consummate apex predator and a newfound appreciation of the wolf's place in various ecosystems.

Given this increase in popularity, controversy was guaranteed when a highly unusual combination of events, including a lawsuit by an out-of-state hunting group, forced the Wisconsin DNR to hold a February wolf hunt it had not anticipated.

The fact that in Wisconsin hounds and other running dogs can be used to hunt wolves — the only state that allows this practice —has amplified the post-hunt outcry that still resonates nationwide.



To better understand the hunt, let's take a look at a few of its salient details:

• First, true as it is that some people's image of these animals has changed, wolves are still wolves. Just as in the past, in order to live, they kill. In the Midwest, deer most often are their victims, but wolves also kill livestock and occasionally dogs and other pets. Also, wolves are territorial, and left unchecked they will continually disperse to establish new packs in new territories. For these reasons and others, many people who live among wolves consider them unwelcome neighbors.

• As the accompanying map shows, the Wisconsin DNR set a quota of 17 harvested wolves in Zone 6, which essentially covers the southern half of the state. Hunters instead killed 40 wolves in this zone. Where exactly wolves were killed in Zone 6 hasn't been reported by the DNR. But the fact that so many wolves could be killed there, and also in Zone 5, where 31 wolves were taken by hunters, speaks to a key variation between Wisconsin and Minnesota, namely that, due to different wolf-protection classifications governing the two states before the federal government returned wolf management to the states in January, Minnesota had federal wolf-control officers charged, essentially, with keeping wolves out of the southern and western parts of the state. Wisconsin didn't have a similar cadre of officers, thus, in part, its more expansive southern range of wolves.

• Critical facets of the hunt were outside the Wisconsin DNR's control. Its biologists, for example, recommended the hunting-permit pool be limited to 10 times the hunt's proposed non-tribal quota of 119 animals (81 licenses were reserved for the state's tribes), or 1,190 hunters. Instead, the state's Natural Resources Board, which sets policy for the DNR, required the DNR to issue 20 times the number of available non-tribal permits, or 2,380 (of which the DNR ultimately sold about 65%.)

• Using dogs to hunt bears and other game in Wisconsin is a long-standing tradition, and groups such as the Wisconsin Bear Hunters' Association wield considerable political power in the Wisconsin Legislature.

• Wisconsin's three previous (recent) regulated wolf hunts, in 2012, 2013 and 2014, were held in fall and ended in late December — periods during which good tracking snow wasn't guaranteed. By contrast, fresh snow fell on the recent hunt's first and second days, providing critical advantages to houndsmen whose hunting methods include driving back roads until they "cut" fresh wolf tracks crossing into the woods. Then they free up to six dogs (the legal limit) to run (theoretically) the wolf toward waiting hunters.

• Timing of the recent hunt played to the houndsmen's advantage (86% of harvested wolves were killed by hunters with dogs) in other ways, also. One was that Wisconsin's coyote season was still open, and many coyote-hunting houndsmen had their dogs legged up and in prime condition. Another was that by Wisconsin state law, 24-hour notice must be given by the DNR to shut down a season. Consequently, even when it became apparent to the DNR that its quotas were likely to be met — or exceeded — triggering a season shutdown, the hunt could continue for another 24 hours.

• Adding to this, if social media can be believed, houndsmen were encouraging one another not to report their kills right away — they're not required to until 24 hours after a hunt ends — thereby ensuring the longest possible hunt.

• Finally, for better or worse, depending on one's viewpoint, while the number of dogs sent in pursuit of a wolf (or bear or coyote) in Wisconsin is limited to six, there are no limits to the number of hunters or backup teams of dogs that can be used to aid a licensed hunter. So if one group of six dogs gets tired running a wolf, they can be replaced by another team (at least theoretically; not every houndsman owns or has access to multiple teams of dogs). Additionally, instead of one or two hunters hoping to get a shot at a wolf that, for example, is pushed into an open field, six, eight or even 10 or more rifle-toting friends can help the licensed houndsman.

[johnboat]

Thank you for your informative response. I appreciate it. That's what I was looking for. Not an opinion as to why they deserve any
more special protection than any other unendangered species. I had read several articles about the shortened season but was looking for a more local or personal experience, non agenda driven response, as yours was.

I considered throwing my name into the hat to draw a tag but thought the chances of going into unknown to me land, setting up, and calling some in, although enjoyable and challenging, would be slim to none. I was surprised to find after talking to the Wisconsin DNR that non residents had the same chance of drawing as residents, points being equal of course.

Your last paragraph puzzles me. Why would a non tag holder be allowed to fire the shot to harvest the wolf. Is that the way the DNR set it up or is that just the way it was happening?

[C&K]

Originally Posted by johnboat

Thank you for your informative response. I appreciate it. That's what I was looking for. Not an opinion as to why they deserve any
more special protection than any other unendangered species.

Wolves are not an endangered species here and never were, except in the minds of some city slickers that have never seen a live wolf in their entire life. They've moved south because the North Woods got overran with them and they don't get along with, or share territory with the big cats. A cat will kill any wolf that is stupid enough to mess around in its territory, and any it don't kill will get driven off. So when the wolves get over-populated they end up moving south or the cats will kill off every one of their pups. We've seen a cat chasing down adult wolves before and killing them, them cats can go 50 mph and a wolf don't stand a snowball's chance in **** against a pissed off 220 lb cat if it finds a wolf pack eating one of its deer.

So the big wolf hunt was basically a drop in the bucket. The locals don't care what status they have on the city slicker endangered list, as they are considered to be vermin and they breed like rabbits.

[tewwbulltom]

I have hunted in the BWCA area for fifty years., crane lake area, the heart of the wolf kingdom. Our group never shot a doe, walked miles to get to our stands, pre 4 wheeler times and lived w the beast. In that period I saw a few and have many stories to tell. Harvesting was not our prime consideration. We hunted and a good week in the woods has its own reward. Pulling the trigger not so much. They are the ultimate predators. Shooting one was very hard, and no one had a good opportunity. Then they started to migrate to Wisconsin and meat hunters didn’t like that, locals in Minnesota had a problem with their dogs being being killed. Etc.etc.
Wolfs have been around forever and should not be exterminated. They are a big part of the environment and there is nothing more chilling than a howl coming close to you.
Now Wisconsin has always had a tradition in group drives and shooting there limits in a day. They still allow baiting, dogs etc. hunting...no harvesting.. why now just let us net fish. It’s effective and it’s easy. That’s not hunting. Native people have a tradition of netting and is judged to be very bad cause “they’re “ netting my fish and I want to catch 100 a day like LOW. I fish Leech and it not that often that you catch your limit. I fish rainbows where a good day on a river is a fish or two caught an three or four break off. A good day on the water for muskies is seeing 3-4.
What I’m trying to say, is why do you hunt and fish.? If you want to fill your freezer or work hard and use your experience to outwit the beast, but all I hear in Wisconsin is “ wolfs” are eating my deer. They’re missing the boat.

[C&K]

Originally Posted by tewwbulltom

What I’m trying to say, is why do you hunt and fish.? If you want to fill your freezer or work hard and use your experience to outwit the beast, but all I hear in Wisconsin is “ wolfs” are eating my deer. They’re missing the boat.

Missing what boat? Wisconsin wolves don't eat much deer except in the winter when they can catch one, or in the spring when fawns are born. They live primarily on beef calves and small game, not deer.

The wolves are not the apex predator here. The big cats are. My wife got a cell phone photo of a cat carrying a dead wolf in its jaws right out our back door. The cats don't eat the wolves, it carries it to what it considers to be the edge of its territory, drops it and scratches some sticks and leaves over it, then takes a piss on it.

The cats don't cause any problem at all. Wolves are a big problem since they'll kill anything that's easy, mostly cattle or fawns, or your pets because they're not afraid of people up here. The cats get along with people just fine. Unless you live here and spend a lot of time outdoors you'll never see one. Wolves, not so much and they'll come right up and sniff around our back yard just to see if there's anything easy to eat. And they won't leave unless we get the 12ga with double awt buck and teach 'em to leave.

We got about as much respect for the wolves as the cats do. They are vermin. Not even coyotes are as stupid and desperate as wolves. The cats will kill coyotes too, but they normally don't because the coyotes are smart enough to keep out of the cat's territory.

[johnboat]

I agree. Just to be clear, I said "any other Unendangered species"

[johnboat]

For those truly interested, Google this:

2020 Wolf Monitoring Report - PDF - Wisconsin DNR.

It's an 18 page report of The Wisconsin Grey Wolf Monitoring Report. 14 April, 2019 - 15 April, 2020.

It's very detailed. I enjoyed the entire read.

[C&K]

Originally Posted by johnboat

It's very detailed. I enjoyed the entire read.

That's a very interesting read. But the DNR's ideas with their "scientific" analysis complete with complicated formulas vs reality are two different things. I mean, we spent better than 30 years telling the DNR about the cats here, and they flat denied it. They said there has not been no cats in Wisconsin for 100 years. So we had to show 'em a picture of one and then they said, well there might be one just moving on thru.

Right.

So now that the DNR knows we got cats here, some wildlife biologists show up from Madison with dogs. They're gonna capture the cat and put a radio collar on it. That resulted in a three day chase that concluded with a bunch of dead dogs. This is not Wyoming and the cats here don't tree very easy. The jungle and swamps in the North Woods that a cat can slip thru without even being noticed is not that friendly to a bunch of dogs and humans. Let your dogs off the leash, they'll end up dead chasing a cat. Your telemetry might indicate the cat treed, but a half day later when you get there you're gonna find dead dogs shredded beyond recognition when the cat gets tired of playing with 'em.

Wolves are pretty much the same with the DNR. They have this "perfect" picture. But if they think even for one instant that cattlemen report wolf kills on their beef calves, they are living in a dream world. Those wolves die from lead poisoning, usually 338 Win Mag or 50 BMG variety. If the wolf has a collar on it, which means it was a dumb wolf and got caught, put a round thru that too to make sure the wolf doesn't phone home to the Mother Ship.

So I don't really "get" the big adventure with wolf hunting. Can shoot one out our back door any day of the week with a .22 mag pistol. Running 'em with dogs is just a good excuse to drive around in the pickup and drink Mountain Dew to have good stories at the bar.

If you want to shoot one just to say you got a wolf, come on up. We have no shortage of 'em.

[johnboat]

Originally Posted by tewwbulltom

I have hunted in the BWCA area for fifty years., crane lake area, the heart of the wolf kingdom. Our group never shot a doe, walked miles to get to our stands, pre 4 wheeler times and lived w the beast. In that period I saw a few and have many stories to tell. Harvesting was not our prime consideration. We hunted and a good week in the woods has its own reward. Pulling the trigger not so much. They are the ultimate predators. Shooting one was very hard, and no one had a good opportunity. Then they started to migrate to Wisconsin and meat hunters didn’t like that, locals in Minnesota had a problem with their dogs being being killed. Etc.etc.
Wolfs have been around forever and should not be exterminated. They are a big part of the environment and there is nothing more chilling than a howl coming close to you.
Now Wisconsin has always had a tradition in group drives and shooting there limits in a day. They still allow baiting, dogs etc. hunting...no harvesting.. why now just let us net fish. It’s effective and it’s easy. That’s not hunting. Native people have a tradition of netting and is judged to be very bad cause “they’re “ netting my fish and I want to catch 100 a day like LOW. I fish Leech and it not that often that you catch your limit. I fish rainbows where a good day on a river is a fish or two caught an three or four break off. A good day on the water for muskies is seeing 3-4.
What I’m trying to say, is why do you hunt and fish.? If you want to fill your freezer or work hard and use your experience to outwit the beast, but all I hear in Wisconsin is “ wolfs” are eating my deer. They’re missing the boat.

Thank you for your post.

To answer your question, I hunt for the challenge.

I've taken 2 Wolves on hunts in Canada. Both were taken with a rifle, me only. No dogs. My next Wolf Hunt will be attempted with my bow. (Border opening assumed)