Scientists urged Wisconsin to limit its wolf kill. It didn’t go well

It may just be saying that wolf culls can only occur during parts of the year when they’re allowed to be culled under federal law, rather then that they have to be culled, although the latter interpretation would be ok too, right?

I’m no expert but wouldn’t unchecked wolf numbers rapidly become a significant risk to humans and live stock?

chipotle_coyote• 5 years ago

If they could grow in a truly unchecked manner, sure, but this generally isn't a concern with apex predators -- their population is kept in check by availability of resources. We see this in action with the wolves in Yellowstone, which remain federally protected -- the wolf population stabilized at around 100 animals.

https://nywolf.org/2019/01/wolves-naturally-limit-their-own-...

So it's probably vanishingly rare that wolf packs would need to be culled. Most of the concern over wolves, from what I've seen over the years, has historically come from

- game hunters, because when you remove wolves from an ecosystem, game animal population does grow in a relatively unchecked manner;

- ranchers who see wolves as an existential threat to their livestock and therefore livelihood.

The latter tends to be rather overemphasized by ranchers, from all the evidence I can find; they happen, but statistically, livestock is far more likely to be killed by coyotes. (It's not impossible that if the ranchers let the wolves alone they might suffer less carnivore predation: coyotes and wolves don't like to share territory.)

rtpg2• 5 years ago

https://news.wisc.edu/tolerance-of-wolves-in-wisconsin-conti...

this article seems to have more. Reading it sideways, what seems to come out is:

“There was a notion held widely in the scientific literature and said at public meetings that a public hunting season would increase acceptance of wolves,” says Adrian Treves, professor in the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies and co-author of the study.
Treves isn’t certain whether most hunters in Wisconsin will ever embrace wolves because the predators feed on the white-tailed deer that hunters value.
“It’s easier to talk about and tally the costs of dead calves than it is to talk about improved populations of endangered plant species or the other ecosystem benefits that come with wolves.”

Sounds like it's basically that hunters dislike wolves (I imagine rural populations aren't fans either...) and that's kind of the default position. And Wisconsin seems to have adopted this hunt as a way to keep the population under control and "release pressure" from, for example, trying to get them completely wiped out.

Pretty nasty, though my impression is that wolves are not really accepted much anywhere in the US? I don't know if this is more cruel than other mid-western states or not.

labster• 5 years ago

Based on an environmental policy class I took in university, it seems like wolves are lupae non grata wherever they appear. There seem to be two root causes: ranchers don’t like wolves eating their livestock, and people are just frightened of them. Some of the fright is instinctual, but it’s certainly played up by the ranchers. Essentially anywhere and everywhere wolves are reintroduced, people start freaking out. Some wolves end up shot even when it is illegal, but more are shot when it is not.

This is one of those intractable problems because the benefits of predators to wildland is very high, but innate fear and economic concerns keep a solution out of reach. It’s not reasonable to ask ranchers not to carry firearms because wolves and bears are in fact dangerous, and they have economic incentives not to comply with wolf protections.

trynumber92• 5 years ago

I imagine rural populations aren't fans either...

Not me, anyway. When they were reintroduced it was argued for based on population projections and expected range. These projections, on which all estimates of negative wolf interactions were based on, were overly optimistic. The real population far exceeded expectations.

That was why the law was passed. They've already had their way introducing the wolf to areas here where many people do not want them. So why can't they "compromise" by limiting the wolf population? Even after this cull it is still higher than originally projected.

jazzyjackson2• 5 years ago

Not sure the article is accurate, the law reads a lot more like 'allow' than 'require', maybe you can say they're required to decide how many licenses to issue. But why would the state have to require a wolf hunt? People want to hunt wolves, they're just waiting for the state to allow them.

If the wolf is not listed on the federal endangered list and is not listed on the state endangered list, the department shall allow the hunting and trapping of wolves and shall regulate such hunting and trapping as provided in this section and shall implement a wolf management plan.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/acts/169.pdf

(a 2011 law, enacted in 2012)

IncRnd• 5 years ago

Don't forget that it says, "shall allow" not "allow". What is unsaid here is that the state was sued to enforce this law, because it hadn't yet created a wolf hunt.

That law also says, "(5) Seasons; zones. (a) The department shall establish a single annual open season for both hunting and trapping wolves that begins on October 15th of each year and ends on the last day of February of the following year."

donavanm• 5 years ago

the department shall allow the hunting and trapping

“Shall allow” is the operative phrase here. This is legal direction from the legislature on what actions the executive will undertake.

jazzyjackson2• 5 years ago

The natural resources board, made up of political appointees, ignored those pleas. And it brushed aside a lower quota recommended by a state Wolf Harvest Advisory Committee, made up of biologists, hunters, wolf advocates, and tribal members.

Must there be a board AND an advisory committee?

sn41• 5 years ago

From a lyrical Wisconsin sage of yesteryears:

"We all strive for safety, prosperity, comfort, long life, and dullness. The deer strives with his supple legs, the cowman with trap and poison, the statesman with pen, the most of us with machines, votes, and dollars, but it all comes to the same thing: peace in our time. A measure of success in this is all well enough, and perhaps is a requisite to objective thinking, but too much safety seems to yield only danger in the long run. Perhaps this is behind Thoreau's dictum: In wildness is the salvation of the world. Perhaps this is the hidden meaning in the howl of the wolf, long known among mountains, but seldom perceived among men."

- Aldo Leopold, "Thinking like a mountain"

afc• 5 years ago

Thanks for sharing the quote. Funny that this was written by a professor of the University of Wisconsin and dealt pretty directly with the killing of wolves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking_like_a_mountain is an interesting read.

"Since then I have lived to see state after state extirpate its wolves. I have watched the face of many a newly wolfless mountain [...]. The cowman who cleans his range of wolves does not realize that he is taking over the wolf’s job of trimming the herd to fit the change. He has not learned to think like a mountain. Hence we have dustbowls, and rivers washing the future into the sea."

This was written in 1949. So many decades have passed and yet here we are, struggling with what should be such a straightforward problem.

decker• 5 years ago

The deer lobby must be strong in Wisconsin.

bombcar• 5 years ago

85% of voters in Wisconsin are deer. The other 15% are hunters.

defterGoose• 5 years ago

Wow, and here Fox news had me thinking at least 50% were sheep.

aww_dang3• 5 years ago

Why not reintroduce black bears to Manhattan?

Interestingly enough, wild animals are not destroying the property of wildlife activists or lobbyists. This isn't to say that wild animals were never a problem in NYC or NW DC. Those animals were killed a long time ago, thereby allowing the public to conduct business more safely. With their corgis safe within their condos and no real skin in the game, there's something hypocritical about the whole ordeal.

zuminator• 5 years ago

The people recommending the lower quota aren't far off elite lobbyists in NY and DC, but Wisconsin's own Wolf Harvest Advisory Committee, which includes hunters in its cohort.

aww_dang3• 5 years ago

The point stands that wolf reintroduction has been lobbied for by groups like the WWF.

1250 24th St NW, Washington, DC 20037

https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/wwf-s-green-headquarters

https://defenders.org/wildlife/gray-wolf

https://defenders.org/newsroom/defenders-of-wildlife-speaks-...

"Defenders of Wildlife Speaks Out Against Wisconsin’s Proposed Excessive Wolf Quota"

Defenders of Wildlife, 1130 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20036

How many farmers are included on the committee?

How are farmers compensated for wolf predation?

How are farmers compensated for reduced grazing productivity?

Who pays this compensation, if any?

renewiltord• 5 years ago

I am sympathetic. Let Manhattan give herself back to the beavers or pay Wisconsin to not kill wolves. This is right.

Otherwise we incentivize rapid current action to destabilize so that you aren’t the one later asked to hold back.

It’s like CO2. You know a time will come when we should cut back. Logically now is the time to overpollute so that later you can ask other countries to “preserve their forests”, protecting yourself with this unspoken statute of limitations.

trynumber92• 5 years ago

Crying wolf?

They've done this before and the population recovered to even greater heights:

https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/sites/default/files/topic/images/2...

https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/documents/WolfReport.pdf

Hence the increased quota.

Scientists urged Wisconsin to limit its wolf kill. It didn’t go well

Related Stories