AGENDA



Minutes: Wisconsin Wolf Stakeholders Committee Meeting

9:00 am-4:00 pm, Saturday, April 21, 2012

Days Inn and Suites - Wausau

4700 Rib Mountain Dr., Wausau, WI 54401

Facilitators:

Rebecca Schroeder, WI DNR Bureau of Endangered Resources

Frank Trcka, WI DNR Bureau of Wildlife Management

Rebecca Schroeder – WDNR: Meeting logistics and instructions. Explained that only one member of each organization should be at the stable representing their organization.

Introductions by Stakeholder Committee members present:

• Donna Onstott (was not at table for introductions but joined table later) - WI Volunteer Wolf Trackers

• Ray Leonard – Timber Wolf Information Network

• Peter David – GLIFWC

• Randall Wollenhaup – Stockbridge-Munsee Nation

• Ralph Fritsch – WI Wildlife Federation

• Laura Menfee – Sierra Club

• Jayne Belsky – Central WI Wolf Dog Rescue, Inc. & WI Dog Rescue

• Corky Meyer – WI Association of Sporting Dog Clubs

• Doug Moericke – Timber Wolf Alliance

• Nancy Warren – National Wolf Watcher Coalition

• Norm Poultan – North Woods Alliance

• Maynard Breunig – WI Trappers Association

• Al Brown – WI Conservation Congress

• Laurie Groskopf – WI Bear Hunters Association

• Howard Goldman – HSUS

• Gloriann Klein – Wolf Info Now

• Randy Jurewicz – WI Chapter of the Wildlife Society

• Adrian Wydeven – WDNR

• Brad Koele – WDNR

• Davin Lopez - WDNR

Introductions by Science Committee members present

• Dave MacFarland – WDNR

• Dave Halfmann – WDNR

• Sara Kehrli – WDNR

• Otto Wiegand – UW Extension

• Dave Oginski – WDNR

Overview of Federal Delisting: Adrian Wydeven

• Adrian Wydeven: Delisted for 3rd time in WI., Jan 27, 2012 along with MN, MI, parts of: IL, IA, Dakotas, OH, IN

o Required 5 year post delisting monitoring by FWS. FWS can relist wolves more easily if population concerns arise. Will continue to do intense monitoring similar as past for next 4-5 years. Surveys will continue, including radio collaring and tracking. Intensity may decline, funding may be an issue.

• Peter David: Where does the agreement with WS stand?

o Adrian Wydeven: Are continuing to work with WS, they will continue to do same work they have been. One difference is funding as the Federal Earmark funds have been eliminated form budget so WDNR is now covering that.

• Randy Jurewicz: Question for fellow panel members: Are you satisfied with this package or are you going to sue them again.

o Howard Goldman: We’re still looking to see what the specific plans are.

o Adrian Wydeven: Nothing has happened nationally unlike previous delistings.

• Peter David: Where are the funds for USDA-WS work coming from?

o Rebecca Schroeder - WNDR: Not sure of specifics, WM found funds appropriate to use.

o Adrian Wydeven: Can’t be PR funds

o Rebecca Schroeder: This is because the former Earmark for WS work is gone so WDNR has to pay. We can’t operate without WS. We have always supplemented those payments for othe WS work like monitoring. Funds are not coming out of ER any more.

• Peter David: Please send out specifics after meeting (JoAnne Farnsworth contacted about this)

Summary and Updates on Wolf Depredations: Davin Lopez

• Davin Lopez: Went through payment table: (See attached file)

• Davin Lopez: Highlighted large payments for missing calves and that we may revise this process.

• Davin Lopez: Highlighted large payments for deer and explained that we will likely be instituting a payment cap structure developed in a similar fashion to how we establish cattle caps. Highlighted issues we have had with deer values.

• Corky Meyer: I would again be remiss in my duties if I did not complain about the classification of all hunting dogs as hounds. No bird dogs, other dogs, but they are killed. Bird dogs that have been killed are high value. By putting out this summary every year you shine an inaccurate light claiming all hunting dogs are hounds. I’ve been asking this for years, please stop this. I am also asking that fair market value for hounds and hunting dogs. All dogs can be paid up to $2500 regardless, not fair market value. Please stop misinforming, or change the name, call them hunting dogs.

• Davin Lopez: I acknowledge that the classification of hounds is not quite accurate, and that calling them hunting dogs would be more so. That said, the vast majority of the claims are for hounds, mostly bear hounds. Establishing a market value for dogs that is often based on training and not just pedigree is extremely hard.

• Rebecca Schroeder: Our rule is not perfect.

• Corky Meyer: I ask that you establish a panel to set prices in a similar way as you do for livestock.

• Rebecca Schroeder: I would like to get information on how we could do that. As we transition these are things we could look at.

• Davin Lopez: Now will be an ideal time to look at how we track claim payments since the whole payment structure is changing with prorating, etc., and figures may not be comparable historically any longer.

• Laurie Groskopf: Even term bear hounds is inaccurate, there are hounds that are killed hunting other animals.

• Davin Lopez: Acknowledged that they are in fact not all bear hounds.

• Laurie Groskopf: Are they going to cap farms in the next payments.

• Rebecca Schroeder: We have not discussed

• Laurie Groskopf: Will the farms be required to open up to hunting

• Brad Koele: One part of the legislation is that caps will be established. But we have not discussed the specifics.

• Nancy Warren?: Historically all compensation payments were supposed to end when they were delisted.

• Rebecca Schroeder: That rule referred to ER funding but did not mean we would never pay for depredations after delisting.

• Randy Jurewicz: I don’t know how Davin is classifying things in the last few years, but historically all hunting dogs that were not hounds were not classified as hounds.

• Laurie Groskopf, Corky Meyer: Disagreed with that, stated that was not true, cited examples.

• Adrian Wydeven: Disagreed with Laurie and Corky. Issue dropped without reaching agreement.

• Howard Goldman: How many farms total were involved

o Adrian Wydeven: 46-2010, 40-2011.

• Questions from group on missing calves

• Davin Lopez: Explained missing calf rules

• Davin Lopez: Explained that payments on table reflect what calendar year the payments were made, not when the losses occurred. So for the large 2012 value under missing calves, those were calves that went missing in 2011 and claims that were received in late 2011 but not processed and paid until 2012.

• Rebecca Schroeder: Explained that in the future there will be caps on individual animals but also that payments will be prorated.

Lethal Control Permit Eligibility and Results: Adrian Wydeven - WDNR

• Wydeven: Any wolf in the act of attacking livestock, dogs, and other domestic animals can be killed. This should then be reported to DNR within 24 hours. DNR will then collect the carcass to investigate.

o Lethal control Permits from DNR: Any landowner who had depredation within last 2 years is eligible. Eighty issued to date, 2 killed to date. Any landowner within a mile of a depredation can get a permit as well. Also any farm that has harassment of livestock or human safety concerns. DNR is not currently designating proactive control areas, but we could in areas that have historical depredation issues. Only 2 wolves shot on those permits so far this year. In past when permits issued only one wolf shot. All permits are issued by local wildlife biologist. None shot in the act this time, but in past we have had 5 killed in the act of depredating or harassing.

• Frank Trcka: Recently decided that all permits will be extended from original 90 days to full calendar year.

• Peter David: What constitutes harassment?

o Adrian Wydeven: Cattle being chased in pasture, along fence. Must be verified by USDA-WS looking for wolf sign, stress and agitation on animals, etc.

• Peter David: What are the criteria for potential Proactive Control Areas (PACs)?

o Adrian Wydeven: They are on hold, outlined rules and criteria.

• Frank Trcka: PACs need to be discussed with Voigt Task Force prior to any talk of implementation.

• Randy Jurewicz: How do you determine what in the act is, Dave Oginski, you investigated one of the first cases, what was your experience?

o Dave Oginski: As a good example, there was a border collie case one time. The dog patrolled 80-100 acres, would chase out other animals. Was chasing some deer out. Wolf came out of woods, dog ran, wolf chased, dog zig-zagged, landowner watched from porch, landowner got gun, shot wolf 50 feet from porch. No physical damage to dog but all evidence was wolf was “in the act”. The dog would have been killed if the owner had not shot it. Dog was terrified when Oginski arrived.

Population Estimate Report: Adrian Wydeven

• Results of Friday’s population meeting (See attached minutes and results from Wolf Population Monitoring Meeting)

• Explained process of estimating and stated that this is a minimum count. Since 1979 combo track surveys, radio tracking, pup reports. Radio tracking is best. Purple sticky notes on map shows collared wolf in pack. As many as 80 wolves on air at some point in 2011 but about half are no longer on air (dead, collars failed, etc.). 21 of those collared wolves that are no longer on the air died, 9 of those were illegal kills. 80 dead wolves were found in 2011, 25 of those were illegal kills. Half of radio collared wolves off air were illegal kills. Wolves collared as part of routine, and incidentally when caught in coyote traps. Pilots flying routes on weekly basis. Poor snow this winter led to fewer visual IDs. Snow track surveys, 9-10 agency trackers and 140-150 volunteer trackers. We did get some trackers that did not turn in final results due to wolf legislation. We did get some information from them but not final surveys, so we know there are packs in an area, but not number of animals necessarily. Any numbers we use are based on actual observations from various sources. Poor snow also led to shortened track season. Due to some missing data we had to estimate pack size on a few packs using 4 as the average number of individuals in a pack. Will finalize numbers in the coming weeks. 762-832 wolves across state, included 744-812 wolves in 204 packs and 18-20 loners statewide including reservations. 30+ on reservations. 639-688 Northern WI, 172 packs. Central Forest 133-144 wolves. We know thee are a relatively low number of loners. Our count represents a minimum count, but that is not to say that we could not overestimate in certain situations. Some risk of over count but we are pretty confident this is a good minimum estimate. Last year 203 packs and 782-824 individuals.

• By now pop has doubled due to pups being born. Lose about 70% pups in first year, 25% of adults annually. Slight increases in mortality levels can drive population declines.

• Corky Meyer: Question on Ozaukee, Sheboygan, Washington Counties. How many wolves down there.

o Adrian Wydeven - Not hearing recently. Likely dispersers. If we get reports we count it. Lone wolves. Have had some killed in Crawford, Jefferson Counties. Count is more accurate in forested areas in North and Central Wisconsin

• Corky Meyer: What is the answer to this question? Is there an active pack in Washington or Jefferson Co.

o Wydeven: No

• Ralph Fritsch: Isn’t population estimate this year almost the same. Is poor snow and fewer trackers a factor in this?

o Adrian Wydeven: Possible, but we tried to be more flexible in reports this year to account for this. Variability between years.

• Fritsch: Is the 80 wolves killed a contributing factor to stable numbers? Wydeven, sure, could be. Most found are vehicle collisions.

• Laurie Groskopf: WI count is track /head count not estimates like other states. David Mech, et al. identify it is difficult to count lone wolves and other states just use an across the board 15% estimate for these loners. Will WI use an estimate as well as counts?

o Rebecca Schroeder: We have not determined if we are going to change and what those changes, if any, would be.

o Adrian Wydeven: Montana and Idaho use minimum counts

o Laurie Groskopf: I spoke to them and they use an estimate including the 15% lone wolves.

o Adrian Wydeven: But they also use minimum counts.

o Laurie Groskopf: They are actually using a lot of hunter survey data that are incorporated into a model that accounts for incomplete data.

• Laurie Groskopf: In 2009-2010 10% of tracking units were not tracked by anybody, 2010-2011 over 16% weren’t tracked by anybody and then there is the 2/3 of the state that is not tracked. In your book, it says that about 10% of the population is likely found in that part of the state. So my question is there are some big holes in these data and I would encourage you to look into estimation techniques.

• Adrian Wydeven: We will continue to look at it. But this was the accepted method for delisting. MI uses similar methods. In north woods, can rely on radio instead of tracking, reports from tribal areas Other areas are low priority areas with minimal reports of wolves. This system will not work in heavily forested areas but we will have liberal controls in zones 3 and we are not trying to maintaining pops there.

• Laurie Groskopf: I would like to add 2/3 state not tracked. I also want to add that trackers are supposed to get 60-100 miles of survey with 3 competed reports turned in and in both of the last two years while some trackers are putting in a lot if miles there are those that are aren’t meeting required minimums. That is inadequate.

• Rebecca Schroeder: This is getting a lot of attention at the Department now. There is value in continuing historical methods, but we need to adapt. I’d predict we will be using some historical methods and will also incorporate new methods. There is a lot of talk about this a the Department.

• Howard Goldman: On illegal kills. Had 80 wolves on air at some point in 2011. 9 illegal kills of collared wolves. 80 total wolves killed, 25 of those were illegal. Does that suggest illegal kills are increasing? Is it significant?

• Adrian Wydeven: Illegal kills possibly increasing and that could be a factor in the population leveling off.

• Rebecca Schroeder: We don’t know if it is significant until we do some statistical analysis.

• Al Brown: Are loners counted in final numbers?

o Adrian Wydeven: Yes, if we can detect them. 18-20 loners in 2011.

• Al Brown: Do observations from deer season from hunters go into the estimates?

o Adrian Wydeven: We do incorporate observations too, but not from fall, although we do add that to our database. Many observed in fall might be dead by mid winter.

o Al Brown: I think there are more loners than what we indicate.

o Adrian Wydeven: sure there might be 2-3 times more may be out there..

• Norm Poultan: Can loners be counted 2X

o Adrian Wydeven: Yes

• Norm Poultan: 30% of packs have no pups?

o Adrian Wydeven: Yes. About 30% of packs that could have pups don’t for whatever reason. Happens more in marginal habitat . Forested areas have larger packs.

• Nancy Warren: Are wolf populations stabilizing as habitats are occupied/saturated?

o Adrian Wydeven: Some evidence of that, yes, especially in prime, forested habitats. NE area has seen growth in recent years.

o Nancy Warren: Is that area saturated now?

o Adrian Wydeven: Looks like it is thinner on the map but there are lower deer densities in that area so that may not support the higher wolf densities like in NW Wisconsin.

• Peter David: Snow track data are most important. There were fewer trackers and thus more relying on radio data. But there is uneven collared-pack distribution.

o Adrian Wydeven: Yes, we can visually identify where we need more coverage (mapping collared packs as part of the population estimate meeting). That way we can try to get more collars in certain areas

• Ralph Fritsch: Could you repeat counts please.

o Adrian Wydeven: Repeated counts.

o Rebecca Schroeder: We will come out with a refined final number and release to news in a few weeks. Check the work for accuracy.

o Adrian Wydeven: Process includes variety of methods including adjusting animals if we identify animals that might have been missed by comparing previous year’s data with current data.

• Ray Leonard: Is their research on population modeling western states.

• Adrian Wydeven: Yes, ID and MT, and from Ontario in Canada. We may collect these data from WI as we go forward.

• Otto Wiegand: Are you able to generate statistical error on the count?

• Adrian Wydeven: No, this is a minimum count, so no range or statistical error. Did a MN estimate a few years back, results did not appear accurate, but we might look at that again as well as other methods.

• Corky Meyer: We have years of population monitoring data. Have you tracked a given zone over time?

• Adrian Wydeven: Yes, we have those data. Hard to pull those out in that manner due to pack overlapping multiple survey blocks. Packs are listed by zone, county, survey block. All data are online.

• Maynard Breunig: Some reluctance in trackers this year. What % down this year and what % areas were not adequately tracked.

• Adrian Wydeven: Don’t know maybe 10%. Not sure.

• Rebecca Schroeder: We’ll get those.

• Laurie Groskpf: When available? Not until fall?

• Adrian Wydeven: Yes, September and August.

Current USDA-WS Activities: Adrian Wydeven, Davin Lopez

• Read report (See attached report from USDA-WS)

• Peter David: Am I correct in assuming that only about 1% of the farms in wolf territory are depredated?

o Wydeven: Hard to get at because farms are listed by county. There are around 7000 farms in wolf territory, and 40 depredations, so 0.57%.

o Otto Wiegand?: We have those census data for farms

o Nancy Warren?: Also federal rules on registering for national ID trace back. Would tell you how many farms there are.

o Davin Lopez: What is the definition of a farm

o Otto Wiegand: Different definitons, but usually only need one livestock animal.

Information on Administrative Rules Timelines: Frank Trcka

• Frank Trcka: Law signed on April 2.

• Described Scoping Statement: Contains information describing rule and objectives, state authority, established rules, new rules needed, lists stakeholders, economic impact statement. (See attached Scope Statement)

• Read Timeline (See attached timeline)

• Rebecca Schroeder: This is an extremely compressed timeline. Under Act 21, the expected time to complete the rules process is 30 months, so this is very compressed. These are emergency rules.

• Peter David: And the emergency is?

o Rebecca Schroeder: The law has been put in place, that’s the emergency.

• Corky Meyer: What is the application deadline?

o Frank Trcka: Don’t know yet.

o Corky Meyer: Is there a plan at this point to start the application process.

o Frank Trcka: We are putting those details together

o Corky Meyer: Is there a plan to start application process prior to the completion of the rule.

o Frank Trcka: I don’t think we can do that.

• Howard Goldman: Is there any requirement for additional hearing or comments period.

o Trcka: Yes, that will be in early to mid June.

• Laurie Groskopf: In the Scope Statement in several places it refers to the annual population estimate. What will be the annual population used estimate since we have a min count? I recommend expanding an estimate to the uncounted areas and adding the 15% for lone wolves

o Frank Trcka: Good point

• Otto Wiegand: Do we go to 350 wolves, and if so, when?

o Dave MacFarland: Not identified in scoping statement. Not sure.

o Laurie Groskopf: On the first page it states the goal identified at 350

o Dave MacFarland: Not sure if we will be changing goal or not as part of plan rule. Regardless, likely won’t be trying to reach goal in year which is consistent with other species management.

• Donna Onstott: What is lone wolf 15% figure?

o Laurie Groskopf: Other states use an automatic 15% lone wolf addition to their population estimates.

o Donna Onstott: Do you use the entire state population or just a part of the state. I have seen lone wolves in my area and they walk down the street and are not a threat.

o Laurie Groskopf: It is not for a person to say if a wolf is a threat oe not.

o Donna Onstott: I just meant that they did not cause any problems for me and they likely won’t hang around like wolves up north because my area is not good wolf habitat.

o Gloriann Klein: If we go with request of 15% additional, what do other states do for mort rates and how would that work?

o Adrian Wydeven: Just add 15% to population estimate minus identified, known lone wolves.

• Ralph Fritsch: Is there going to be a higher number of goal from 350?

o Dave MacFarland: No

• Ralph Fristch: How long plan is good for?

o Dave MacFarland: Indefinitely until there is a new one.

• Corky Meyer: 2nd page of scoping statement, 3rd paragraph, question about trapper education. What does this mean?

o Frank Trcka: It is not saying that.

o Maynard Breunig: WTA recommends advanced mandatory trapper education.

o Frank Trcka: That could be part of it, but that is not what it is saying.

o Corky Meyer: Can all this be done prior to Oct. 1

o Adrian Wydeven: If you use the permit to trap you must be able to fulfill basic trapper education requirements, or grandfathered in.

o Corky Meyer: Change tools that are used? There will be a Best Management Practices (BMP) study, all by October?

o Dave MacFarland: No, BMP is a nationwide study by AFWA, none for wolves yet, others species are done. The studies have begun, will not be by done October 1.

o Corky Meyer: Many concerns over timeline and what can be done by October. You are and trappers are in a serious time crunch.

• Howard Goldman: to Peter David: You said scope statement is not consistent with current Wisconsin wolf plan.

o Peter David: The legislation is inconsistent with (Wisconsin wolf management) plan. For example, other methods of population control were not tried. Furthermore, the number 350 being misrepresented, and so on.

o Howard Goldman: How is Department going to address these inconsistencies?

o Rebecca Schroeder: It remains to be seen, we don’t know.

o Howard Goldman: These are critical issues for this group to address and for the public.

o Rebecca Schroeder: We’re here to listen to those comments but we don’t have those answers today.

• Randy Jurewicz: NRB meeting in July? In Stevens Point

• Franck Trcka: Yes, not sure where it is though.

• Nancy Warren: We have been talking about revising management plan for the past few years. 350 was a trigger not a cap. Why are we not looking at revising goal number? Is the plan revision dead?

o Rebecca Schroeder: Delisting based on that plan. Unsure of revision plans?

• Norm Poulton: Public wants biological carrying capacity, 350 is not a good number.

• Nancy Warren: 350 was not meant to be a cap. Now DNR is saying it is a cap. DNR going back on their word.

o Laurie Groskopf: Lot of indicators that general public agrees with 350 and may want less than that. WI Wildlife Federation, Farm Bureau, county resolutions, etc. Must consider social carrying capacity.

o Laura Menefee: If delisting is based on management plan in place at time of delisting. How can law and rules that contradict that plan be legal?

o Rebecca Schroeder: I can’t answer that.

o Howard Goldman: There might be litigation out there until those questions can be answered.

• Corky Meyer: In scope statement, dogs not in scope.

o Frank Trcka, Rebecca Schroeder: It is in law, not necessary in scope

• Peter David: Has the Scope Statement been signed by the Governor?

o Rebecca Schroeder: Yes.

• Peter David: What if NRB does not approve it.

o Rebecca Schroeder: Then the Scope Statement will need to be redone and sent back to governor.

• Peter David: There is no tribal consultation identified? There is a whole process needs to be outlined.

o Frank Trcka: It will be done.

o Rebecca Schroeder: Cathy will be meeting with Voigt Task Force in first week in May

• Ray Leonard: to Peter David: Will tribal consult change timetable?

o Pater David: It’s possible

• Corky Meyer: isn’t that locked though, the timetable? The end result is there is going to be a season?

• Peter David: This timeline is set up to meet state goals, not tribes. Not necessarily saying that the timetable will change, remains to be seen.

• Ray Leonard: I have heard rumors that the Voigt decision may not apply to wolves? (Nobody had heard this) Is this a legal question? (Many responded in the affirmative).

• Al Brown: How was bill written? Conservation Congress, NRB, DNR biologists, etc. were not consulted. Who wrote this law? Somebody other than our legislators wrote it. Legislative process should have been more open regardless of the side you’re on. Upset over the process.

• Laurie Groskopf: DNR was not ready for the delisting. Should have been planned for years. Feds would have been fine. Blame is all on DNR.

• Al Brown: I blame cold feet, everyone is afraid of getting sued.

• Corky Meyer: People said that last year, but now the legislation is putting all this on fast train. But now it is here so we have to deal with it.

Listening Session on Wolf Harvest Legislation: Open

• Rebecca Schroeder, Davin Lopez – WDNR: Logistics of listening session, etc. Clarified that these minutes will be going to DNR Administration for their consideration, and will be sent to all Stakeholder Committee members, Science Committee Members, and other interested parties. Questions, for the most part, will not be answered here due to time constraints, but will be submitted for consideration. Mostly this is a period to comment on whatever wolf-management related issue you see fit. Every Stakeholder representative will get 3 minutes to speak, in order of numbers drawn from hat. If anyone then has additional comments we will do a second round of numbers and comments, etc. Stakeholder representative will need to state name, the group they represent, and whether their comments are representative of their group or only themselves.

• Donna Onstott - Coalition of Wisconsin Wolf Trackers : Have position statement (See attached statement from The Coalition of Wisconsin Wolf Trackers). The legislation was pushed through too fast in Legislature. Because of that a lot of people not represented. Concerns over many provisions. Night hunting, hunting with dogs, length of season. I do think there should be a season. All in our written statement, please refer to that.

• Randy Jurewicz – WCTWS: Agree with concerns about legislation but nothing can be done about that until next legislative session. But things on table are what the rules will be. Two things need to be set up. One, 1st year’s harvest significant but not damaging to overall population, not a token harvest but a conservative harvest. Take into account people’s attitude towards wolves. Keep them from becoming endangered. One hundred animals seems prudent for first year. Secondly, wolf harvest zones, makes sense to use existing DMUs or at least clusters of established DMUs. Already on the books in administrative code and people are familiar with them. Third, concerns the established max payment for dog’s that are killed. Should change cap to $500. Will allow money be distributed better between dog owners and livestock producers.

• Doug Moericke - Timber Wolf Alliance: Has position statement that he will is reading. Refer to that (see attached statement from TWA).

• Corky Meyer - Wisconsin Association of Sporting Dog Clubs: Numerous comments on short time period. Been working for years on wolf management plan and harvest plan. Bill created by Legislature and people of Wisconsin and now time is short. If we had not had all the lawsuits interrupting delisting we would have been done with this, but now we are on the fast track. Related to comments that the 350 number should be higher, there is no consensus, a lot of us think that 350 is too many. Somebody, Randy, mentioned wolf harvest of 100 animals. Public won’t like that. Need a lot more tags than 100 to get 100 wolves. Lots of reasons to participate. Price of dogs need to change has to be increased to fair market value. Taking money from dog hunters and putting it someplace else is not right. Why should a hunting-dog owner be punished for a wolf depredation. Paying $500 for a $10,000 champion bird dog is wrong. Legislation does not allow for payment for dogs hunting wolves. Legislation has various provisions for hunting with dogs. It has provisions for hunting at night. What difference does it make if it is day or night. Wolves have been hunted with dogs for centuries. This is not a new thing. Legislators decided to put it on the books in Wisconsin. I’ve been saying for years it would happen. I was told it would never happen in Wisconsin. Harvest should be in core of wolf areas. This will create sink instead of maintaining a source.

• Scott McAuley - WI Trappers Association: Simpler if it had gone route of delisting then have a season after reworked management plan in several years. There are details missing in law. Wolf season does not coincide with coyote season. Could cause accidental illegal activities. Future years applications should be done in Spring so people have time to plan. Trapper education…..how in 2012 get mandatory trapper ed. in time. First year will be a scramble to take trappers ed. Do not need new tools (new traps). Having the word cable restraint in law, lawmakers who wrote this don’t know what that is. Are we going to use snares, what are we going to use? Bo time to test them, no time to look at them. Unclear what to use on this. No time to test the. How in 3 months can science be involved. Too short of a time period. In terms of illegal wolf kills, illegal kills went down with delisting. Something to think about, public perception is important.

• Nancy Warren - Wolf Watcher Coalition: (See attached statement for more information) Wanted first to address Laurie Groskopf’s question: based on Adrian Treves et al., 33.6% favored 540 wolves or more, just wanted to address that. We were opposed to the legislation because of the content and process that was followed. We have some serious questions. When did DNR find out about this? Legislature said it worked with DNR. If true, DNR should have been consulting with at least with Stakeholders. Since it is happening, we favor closing large tracts of the National Forest to hunting and trapping, we support working on revising the plan, conservative numbers of tags, support mandating that landowners receiving compensation open land to hunting and trapping. We hope that trapped lands would be posted. Concern over how tags are issued. Questions about predator calling. Will that include howling? Can’t use meat as bait but how will road-killed deer use be regulated. What will the requirements for trap distance from trails and campgrounds be? Will recreational users have to wear blaze. Support maximum number of public hearing. How is a roadway defined and would that include ATV trails.

• Laurie Groskopf – WBHA: Some of my comments may not reflect the WBHA Board of Directors positions. Most people are okay with some wolves. The number 350 came about by identifying remote areas, came out of University of Wisconsin. Nothing has changed since then. Position of the WCC voted for 350 less, WI Farm Bureau voted 350, WWF, 18 county board resolutions, all voted for 350. Something that impressed me at how angry people were. Amazing to see what people say about wolves. In terms of Treves work, 66% want 350 or less. Consider what farmers, hound hunters, people with kids, etc. go through due to wolves. What happens when people have to take things into their own hands? This is because of the management we have had in place. Just want to tell it like it is. In her own area, wolves are threats to farms and human safety in 18% of the farms. Wolves can cause farmers to suffer from something akin something akin to PTSD. One lost 2 calves, carries a gun at all times and he is not even a hunter. One of these depredations was not even part of what APHIS states. What Aphis lists is only tip of the iceberg. Equally concerned for wolves safety and other wildlife.

• Ray Leonard – TWIN: Dick Thiel testified at hearings. Covered technical flaws in legislation. Some were addressed in final bill. Will read statement about process (see attached statement from TWIN).

• Randall Wollenhaup – Stockbridge-Munsee Nation: (Have written comments but they have not been submitted to date). Beyond those comments I want to point out that there was a lack of consult with tribes or tribal biologists, not one of them was consulted. When we were notified we only got 48 hour notice. Legislation will have severe impact on tribes’ ability to manage and maintain a wolf population on reservations. As far as the Harvest Zones, tribes want to be consulted and want buffer areas around reservations. This will be a huge burden for tribal game wardens with dogs running to ensure no trespassing.

• Howard Goldman – HSUS: We oppose the delisting. We opposed the delistings in 2007 and 2009 and successfully challenged the FWS. Wolves only currently in 5% of their historic range. Oppose hunting and trapping of wolves. I Attended hearings in WI and MN and what I hear repeatedly was that the main issue was conflicts with wolves and humans primary issue. As of January 27, farmers can legally shoot wolves on their property for various reasons. WS can take wolves for conflict issues. Best Management Practices (BMPs), we know full well that there are effective BMPs available, for example see Living With Wolves in Wolf Country pamphlet created by DNR and WS. There are only 40 farms out of 7500 that experience depredations, that is .005% (some figure here needs to be adjusted, 40/7500 is not .005% but is 0.5%). That is very few farms. It doesn’t justify a harvest. The population appears to be stable, at least in the last few years. Wolves are a public trust, we want wolves protected.

• Laura Menfee – John Muir Chapter Sierra Club: Advocates for science based management with minimal human interventions. The Sierra Club supports concerted education efforts for predator conservation in order to prevent attitudes and actions that led to original extirpations. We would ask the DNR and NRB to consider the value of the information obtained using the scientific howling surveys and what impact of allowing hunters to use of howling might affect that information. Continued compensatory payments for hunting dogs is unsustainable, off leash should be responsibility of the owner.

• Gloriann Klein – Wolf Info Now: Will submit written comments (see attached statement). Echo thoughts already voiced. No sound science used. Expert wolf biologists not consulted. Lack of participation and input has been dictated to them. It is not about hunting or delisting but about the process. Opposed to night hunting, hunting during breeding season, the taking of pups. Lack of details with some of the legislation like trapping, how close to roadside, closing of lands, how compensation to farmers is going to operate, there are questions about funding. Opposed to hound hunting. What will the impact on state economy and ecotourism. Not just hunt and trap but all forms of use contribute.

• Ralph Fritsch – WWF: Supports delisting, resolution vote in 2011 that if faced with a lawsuit that we would support Federal legislation to remove wolves from Endangered Species List. We support 350 cap, support bill ACT 169. Only two people at hearings were opposed to bill. Lots in favor. Few against. We will continue to support dog payments because that was the original plan discussed by DNR in exchange for people leaving wolves alone.

• Jayne Belsky – Central WI Wolf Dog Rescue, Inc. & WI Dog Rescue: (See written statements from both groups and individual members)

• Norm Poulton – North Woods Alliance: Everything has already been said. Totally opposed to how everything was done. This Legislature pushed this through backed by anti-wolf groups with no public input or input from the biologists. Should have waited to see if population stabilized and talked to experts, not politicians.

• Peter David – GLIFWC: This not an official GLIFWC statement. I want to make clear that this process does not replace state-tribe meetings. I am here in part to hear what other partners have to say. To DNR - concerned with certain echelon of DNR. Wolves are a species that the Ojibwe see their future intertwined with. There is not time to talk about issues with bill (today). Saw report from Bureau of Wildlife Management about partnerships then watched process with wolves and the disregard for all partners. The DNR Administration opted to intentionally disregard staff, Science Committee, Stakeholders group, Natural resources Board, and the Conservation Congress. Three days before bill still no notice from DNR on website. Particularly unconscionable that among all these groups that the Tribes were not contacted or consulted. Tribes can take ½ of the harvest in ceded territory. Tribes need to be fully engaged. Tribes and GLIFWC on and off reservation. I strongly suggest that this group (Stakeholders) function as it was designed to. If at the June meeting DNR comes with issues decided then that will be another nail in coffin of partnerships with the Tribes.

• Al Brown – Wisconsin CC: In 2008 became the chair of the WCC wolf study committee. Attended first meeting of the Midwest Wolf Stewards in 2009. A question that came out of Oneida County that I revamped at our wolf study committee meeting that asks do you favor the WCC, DNR, develop a season framework to maintain wolf population within management objectives. 500-600 people passed. I’m an ethical hunter, believe we should have season. I teach hunter education. I believe we are doing a terrible injustice to wolves. Nothing I hate more that illegal hunting of wolves because people don’t like them. Lots of people doing this. Hunting season is best management tool. Asks HSUS to work with WCC to work this out. Bill has weaknesses but we need hunting season. Kroll and Alt said WI doing fantastic job managing wolves, that’s a credit to the State of Wisconsin and the DNR.

Comments from audience:

• Bill Yingst – on WCC wolf committee, representing self: WCC wolf committee members have had their toes have been stepped on in this process. Lot of people want wolves hunted and delisted. Want to see it done legally and done right. We need this. When wolves delisted before illegal activities went down. Not all happy about how it came about but let it take its course and we can correct it in future. I belong to three sportsmen’s groups and they want more that 50-100 wolf harvest.

• Arnold Popp – on WCC wolf committee, representing self: People are going broke. I had five cabins for deer hunting. Nobody using anymore because of lack of deer. It’s hurting the economy. It is not all due to wolves but some. We need a legal hunt.

Second round comments:

• Corky Meyer – Wisconsin Association of Sporting Dog Clubs: Responding to wolf dog group – just for your information, captive bear and captive coyotes, there is not a bear left in the state used for training dogs. When it does happen the bear is not free roaming, they are double caged so dog can’t touch them. For coyotes, yes there are some for training. There are none for wolves, would need rule changes. Wolf is wolf, dog is dog. Off leash a wolf-dog can be shot on site.

• Ralph Fritsch – WWF, but representing self in this statement: Wished long time ago it could have been delisted. It would have been a better process. FWS gave state authority back, not the whole issue. Need to be Federally (congressionally) delisted to give states time and so that everyone does not fee l they are running into a revolving door. Not all in agreement, sportsmen in state that care, and I mean sportsmen not people who just go out and shoot animals, we were biggest influence that wolf population grew because we made an agreement with the DNR that we would not harass wolves despite the fact that the population is three times over what was agreed upon. Illegal shootings not done by sportsmen, done by slob hunters. Hunters support wolves.

• Scott McAuley – WTA: ACT 169 does not have the needed details. Maybe should send it back, it is not workable.

• N Warren – National Wolf Watcher Coalition: 20% wolf packs responsible for depredations. Need to ensure that anything DNR does not increase depredations. If you take away parents that could create cattle killers without leadership for pups. There are also other destabilizing factors. Number of tags issued, 80 landowner tags issues valid until end of year into this hunting season. I would hope that these 80 permits is offset from total number of tags issued.

• Donna Onstott - WI Volunteer Wolf Trackers: How many bear tags issued each year? How many people hunt with dogs?

o Dave McFarland: In 2012 issuing just over 9000 tags for bears. Don’t know how many people hunt with dogs because we don’t issue method-specific tags.

o Laurie Groskopf: We do know that 25-30% bears are taken with dogs, depending on who goes first. We also know that for bobcats that there is a higher success rate using hounds than traps, for what that is worth.

• Donna Onstott - Sportsmen and environmentalists sometimes don’t cooperate, but we have a common enemy in habitat loss. We are allies in that way.

• Norm Poulton – North Woods Alliance: As far as this hunting season, we should have waited to see if the population has stabilized. Wanted to clarify that the carrying capacity is not 350, that might be an acceptable level, but it is not the carrying capacity.

• Ray Leonard – TWIN: Reinforce Ralph Fritsch comments about timeline process about delisting, and that it would have been great to have it done back in 2008, but now we are faced with what we have. Danger of top down legislative wildlife management. Should not use lawmakers to manage wildlife. Now the issue is further polarized. Outcome could be more lawsuits. Encourage professional and bottom up wildlife management.

• Laurie Groskopf – WBHA: The WBHS association was not involved with drafting legislation. What organization helped draft law? Lobbyist for hound groups? Unknown.

• Al Brown – WCC: Stabilization of wolf pack. Stabilized at 500-600. Is it stable now? Hard to tell if it is stable. Could be more or less next year. Some of you were at wolf stewards conference last year where biologist, Brett Patterson commented that WI is ready for wolf harvest.

• Nancy Warren – National Wolf Watchers Coalition: Whatever number of tags issued. Does DNR anticipate a season until quota is met.

o Rebecca Schroeder - Will be part of rule making.

o Dave MacFarland: To clarify we are only authorized single season only, not tool specific, but to could preclude dogs if quota is met before end of deer season.

• Corky Meyer- WI Association of Sporting Dog Clubs: Adrian, your minimum count numbers this year show stable over last two years. We historically have seen a continuous climb in wolf numbers, but now that there is going to be a harvest season the population miraculously is stable? People are going to be skeptical. When I go out to talk to groups I’m going to be the one trying to explain and the only plausible explanation I have heard is that this has happened before. Will be hard to explain to public.

• Christine Browne-Nunez – UW: Should we address some of the gaps in knowledge at June meeting? Wisconsin has and abundance of research and data. Maybe hearing from researchers would help? Wisconsin can serve as a model for other states. Hunters are concerned with decline of hunting across nation. General support of wolf harvest, less support for certain methods. More information to Stakeholders group could help.

• Peter David – GLIFWC: Personal statement - I grew up in Wisconsin. Wisconsin could be model but it is not on right path. There are so many people that are not opposed to a harvest but are opposed to the bill. People need to express their dissatisfaction to the Legislature.

• Donna Onstott - WI Volunteer Wolf Trackers: Why no farm groups present today?

o Corky Meyer: They are frustrated with the situation.

o Rebecca Schroeder: We used to have cattlemen’s groups

o Davin Lopez: They are invited, they knew about it, they just didn’t come.

• Gloriann Klein - Wolf Info Now: What we have all heard today is that people are frustrated with circumventing the scientific process. The experts not consulted. Reiterate that use of calls, baiting, etc., we are unclear how this will work. Cable restraints are an issue. So many unanswered questions. We know that predator/prey relationships are intertwined but not considered as part of the legislation. Need reason to back up actions. Others states will follow our example. Need to base it on sound science.

• Ralph Fritsch – WWF: To Peter David – We could work together but fear of relisting. If we were assured of the delisting we would have a greater sense of being able to work this out if this specter was not over our heads.

• Peter David – GLIFWC: Most people don’t want relisting. However, 350 wolves is inherently bad at only 1/3 of biological carrying capacity. 350 was pulled out of hat originally and is based on outdated data. If biological carrying capacity is 900 then 350 is not a responsible number.

• Ralph Fritsch – WWF: We won’t ever get to 350 in reality.

• Howard Goldman – HSUS: If you listen to the hearing of course the Legislature wanted it down to 350. One procedural question. Where do we go from here? You’ll share the comments

o Rebecca Schroeder: We’ve achieved the objective today of giving people the opportunity to voice their opinions. This was just a listening session not a hearing.

• Randy Jurewicz - WCTWS: A real misunderstanding of a wolf harvest is going to result directly and immediately in a reduction of wolf depredations. WS work and wolf permits will be effective. Harvest may not. You can kill a lot of wolves and never kill a depredator. Scope statement saying a harvest will reduce depredation is highly questionable. Hunters are likely to pick adult alpha animals to target, this will destabilize packs which could increase depredations. Nobody has addressed this.

• Corky Meyer – WI Association of Sporting Dog Clubs: I have heard a lot of negative comments about hunting with dogs. If you want target specific controls…you can set 1000 traps and you will catch wolves, 1000 guns will shoot wolves, but dogs can target a single wolf, precise. Think people still hunt wolves across world with hounds. We don’t need to import new breeds. No new dogs needed. Wolves will learn to fear dogs with hunters. Don’t get caught up in neg attitudes about hunting with dogs. Was there enough notice? Irrelevant. Were here and done. Now we need to deal with it. Legislature is getting pressured. People are tired of waiting.

o Peter David – GLIFWC: To Corky Meyer - Clarification: dogs could be effective to apply towards depredating animals?

o Corky Meyer: Yes

o Peter David: But earlier today you said that harvest should focus on public land with good wolf habitat and production.

o Corky Meyer: I didn’t say what harvest, I’m saying that only harvesting outside edges does not create a place for wolves to implode, if we want to control the wolves and keep them in place we want a sink area.

• Scott McAuley – WTA: The one thing I don’t have a problem with in the bill is the 350. DNR will be conservative in first years. IWhat will the success rate be? Nobody knows. How many tags are going to be issued, I think they are going to cautious.

• Gloriann Klein – Wolf Info Now: I just wanted to reiterate that we want to deal with problem wolves that are depredators. Wolves smart, they will learn. But what will they learn? And how will they respond to dogs? Harvesting in core areas might cause dispersal into marginal areas. Fears they will learn to go after dogs. Maybe hunting in agricultural areas will keep wolves from those areas.

• Maynard Breunig – WTA: A month or so ago there was a wolf trapped outside Pine River. Call went out on the radio because the warden released the wolf and people were very upset. My brother told me not to tell anyone which trapper agreed to release the wolf because all the farmers in the area are ready to kill him. This is how they are being socially accepted in rural areas. If a wolf comes on their land wouldn’t guarantee that wolf will come off the land, regardless of their status.

• Theresa Simpson – Graduate Student University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse: Conflict between dogs hunting wolves and how that fits in to rules against dog fighting. Why is one acceptable and one not? Just a question.

Adjourn

Note: Statements in italics are minute notes from Davin Lopez and do not represent statements made at the meeting.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download