How should Wisconsin manage its wolf population?
Background/History of Controversy
Wolves and humans have always been in conflict with each other. When Europeans first settled in America, there were “bounties'' on wolves (MissionWolf). As American expanded westward it killed many wolf populations in the process. Largely wiped from much of the American landscape, it is one of the only animals to be deliberately driven to the brink of extinction. In the eyes of many settlers and even American icons like Theodore Roosevelt, the wolf was “a beast” often associated with “a threat to the very peace and prosperity of the American people'' (Mission Wolf)
Killing wolves was incentivized by the federal government until 1965, by then only a few scattered populations remained throughout the whole country holding out in some of the most remote wildernesses. It was around this time that the grey wolf caught the attention of environmentalists, and in 1974 they were included under the Endangered Species Act where they stayed until 2009. Surviving populations in Minnesota and the U.P. migrated down into Northern Wisconsin in the 1970’s and re-established the grey wolf population.
By 2010 there were wolves as far south as The Necedah National Wildlife Refuge. In 2012 Wisconsin held its first ever regulated wolf hunt/trapping season. After two years the wolf was placed back on the Endangered Species List (ESL) by U.S. “District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell”, who claimed Wisconsin and its neighboring states allowed too many wolves to be harvested, and was improperly managing the species (MPR). The wolf stayed on the ESL until 2020, where it was again taken off the list as populations grew both state and nationwide.
Current Controversy
The wolf population in Wisconsin in 2020 was estimated to be upwards of1,100 individuals. Many Wisconsinites, especially in northern Wisconsin, noticing the increasing populations, began pushing for the wolf to be taken off the ESL. In January of 2021, the wolf was taken off in the last days of the Trump Administration, giving states the right to host a hunting season.
The Wisconsin DNR held a meeting discussing a wolf hunt in November, but an out of state hunter group sued the WDNR demanding they host an immediate hunt. Per Wisconsin law (2011 Act 169) a wolf hunt “must be held when there are no federal protections placed on them”(WDNR). This forced the DNR to host a rushed February hunt, hastily thrown together and without the usual precautionary work. This angered wolf advocates who wanted the wolves to either stay on the ESL, or not host a wolf hunt until a later date. Many hunters, besides a few select groups, were not aware that the hunt would take place so soon. When the wolf hunt took place it came as a shock to the public as they did not expect a hunt to take place so soon.
The DNR set the season to go from February 22 - 28, and set a quota of 119, not including tribal tags of which there were 81. After the first two days many hunting zones already exceeded their quotas.(NYT)
The DNR began closing zones and by the third day announced that the season would be ending the following day. A combination of allowing hunters to use dogs, fresh snow, the inability to close the season, and a higher than estimated wolf population lead to 216 wolves being harvested. Almost 80% over the quota if you only include non tribal tags. (Wisconsin Outdoor News) The news of the large harvest and exceeding quota reached national news, and angered many people because of the apparent rushed nature of the hunt and the lack of consultation.
Key Players
Power Dynamic Analysis
Right now the WI DNR has the most power over the situation. They are able to make rules to manage the wolf population in Wisconsin, managing seasons, the number of tags, quotas, and what is allowed in the hunt and what isn’t. They are largely influenced by conservationists, hunters, tribal representatives, and ranchers. The people that have the least power would be the general public, who have little to no direct agency in the situation.
Wisconsin's tribal representatives also have power over wolf hunting. Since this was their land before people started colonizing here, they are granted power over wildlife protection. These tribes have gained rights to fishing, hunting, and gathering in the ceded territories without DNR supervision. The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) is an agency that represents many of the tribes affected by wolf hunting. GLFWC also spends their time and effort educating people about their treaty reserved rights.
The tribes voices are important in circumstances such as when the federal government was debating whether or not to take the wolves off of the endangered species list. If the government's protection was no longer extended to the wolves, the solution of some tribes involved was to create buffer zones.
Ethical Issues
Ethical issues include the possibility of poaching or unregistered wolves during hunts. Some argue if it is even ethical to hold a wolf hunt considering their population size and how recently wolves were taken off the ESL. It’s hard to find a solution that benefits everyone because there are so many opinions regarding this topic. Some people are directly impacted by wolves such as farmers/ranchers, others are indirectly impacted such as deer hunters, and others just want the wolf protected due to the history of extermination.
With a wolf hunt, younger wolves and smaller packs would be left without a strong alpha and struggle for survival. One has to also consider that through wolf hunting we can limit overpopulation. If populations are not regulated it can degrade the ecosystem, too many wolves can lead to fewer prey animals and possibly more wolf-human conflict. The debate on whether non-lethal or lethal control is more efficient or cost effective for wolf management continues. Some people want wolves eliminated since they blame them for the decrease of the deer population. However, in reality wolves can have the potential to regulate it (Wolf.org).
Solutions
Unfortunately there is no way to please everyone on this issue, like many issues today both sides are polarized. You have people on one side that want wolves gone from the state, and then on the other side are people that want a complete ban on wolf hunts and lethal management. The only way is to come to a compromise. It will not be a perfect fit for everyone but it will hopefully benefit all interested parties in at least some way.
We would argue that there does need to be a wolf hunt to manage populations, along with various non-lethal measures such as relocation. Right now hunting is the number one way to manage wolf manage populations with quick results. Wolf hunts raise revenue for the state agencies related to wolf management, in 2021 alone the wolf hunt raised a total of $351,806 according to Wisconsin Outdoor News. Whereas non-lethal forms don’t generate much at all, and actually cost the state money. These hunts however need to be managed properly, with adequate time for planning and gathering data such as population estimates, tag quotas, and other rules such as restrictions on dogs, magazine capacity, and other season regulations most of which were lacking in the 2021 hunt.
There needs to be more discussion and input from different groups like the GLIFWC, conservationists, wolf advocates and hunters/trappers to make sure the wolf hunt is managed properly. These steps were not taken during the 2021 wolf hunt and due to this we may never know the full extent of its impacts on the wolf population according both Wolf Biologist Adrian Wydeven, and GLIFWC Wildlife Biologist Peter David. Some people may argue that non-lethal forms would be better for wolf management, and in regards to the wolf population alone, they would be right. But this solution doesn’t take into effect the needs of other groups, like the ranchers, and hunters who require a more managed wolf population to continue to do what they do.
So to sum it all up, Wisconsin should manage its wolf population through hunting and non-lethal forms in order to minimize human-wolf conflict, keep wolf populations stable, and satisfy at least to some degree the needs of all interested parties.
Source List:
Wisconsin Outdoor News 3/19/21
Ap, Todd Richmond. “Hunters Kill 20% of Wisconsin’s Wolf Population in Just 3 Days of Hunting Season.” Time, 26 Feb. 2021, time.com/5942494/wisconsin-wolf-hunt.
ASSOCIATED PRESS - file. “Lessons from Wisconsin’s Controversial Wolf Hunt.” Star Tribune, 5 Mar. 2021, www.startribune.com/lessons-from-wisconsin-s-controversial-wolf-hunt/600031216.
Cramer, Maria. “Wisconsin Hunters Kill Over 200 Wolves in Less Than 3 Days.” The New York Times, 3 Mar. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/03/03/us/wisconsin-wolves-killings.html.
“‘Extreme Disappointment’: Ojibwe Treaty Rights Group Decries Wolf Hunt Process.” PBS Wisconsin, 19 Mar. 2021, pbswisconsin.org/news-item/extreme-disappointment-ojibwe-treaty-rights-group-decries-wolf-hunt-process.
“History of Wild Wolves.” Mission: Wolf, 12 May 2018, missionwolf.org/wild-wolves.
“Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.” Wolf Conflicts in Wisconsin Higher so Far in 2020 [Milwaukee, WI], 29 Aug. 2020, eu.jsonline.com/story/sports/outdoors/2020/08/29/more-confirmed-wolf.
“Wildlife Advocacy Groups Petition to Protect Wolves.” The Lakeland Times, 28 Feb. 2021, www.lakelandtimes.com/articles/wildlife-advocacy-groups-petition-to-protect-wolves.
“Wisconsin Wolf Hunt Overshoots Quota, Worrying Conservationists.” MPR News, 5 Mar. 2021, www.mprnews.org/story/2021/03/05/science-friday-wisconsin-wolf-hunt-overshoots-quota-worrying-conservationists.
“Tribal officials, conservationists want say in what to do about growing wolf population”https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2020/09/01/wisconsin-wolves-tribes-conservationists-want-say-management/3444086001/
Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC)
https://www.glifwc.org/Recognition_Affirmation/
The ecological relationship of gray wolves AND White-tailed deer in MINNESOTA: International WOLF Center. (2019, October 16). Retrieved March 24, 2021, from
https://wolf.org/the-ecological-relationship-of-gray-wolves-and-white-tailed-deer-in-minnesota/
Wolves and humans have always been in conflict with each other. When Europeans first settled in America, there were “bounties'' on wolves (MissionWolf). As American expanded westward it killed many wolf populations in the process. Largely wiped from much of the American landscape, it is one of the only animals to be deliberately driven to the brink of extinction. In the eyes of many settlers and even American icons like Theodore Roosevelt, the wolf was “a beast” often associated with “a threat to the very peace and prosperity of the American people'' (Mission Wolf)
Killing wolves was incentivized by the federal government until 1965, by then only a few scattered populations remained throughout the whole country holding out in some of the most remote wildernesses. It was around this time that the grey wolf caught the attention of environmentalists, and in 1974 they were included under the Endangered Species Act where they stayed until 2009. Surviving populations in Minnesota and the U.P. migrated down into Northern Wisconsin in the 1970’s and re-established the grey wolf population.
By 2010 there were wolves as far south as The Necedah National Wildlife Refuge. In 2012 Wisconsin held its first ever regulated wolf hunt/trapping season. After two years the wolf was placed back on the Endangered Species List (ESL) by U.S. “District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell”, who claimed Wisconsin and its neighboring states allowed too many wolves to be harvested, and was improperly managing the species (MPR). The wolf stayed on the ESL until 2020, where it was again taken off the list as populations grew both state and nationwide.
Current Controversy
The wolf population in Wisconsin in 2020 was estimated to be upwards of1,100 individuals. Many Wisconsinites, especially in northern Wisconsin, noticing the increasing populations, began pushing for the wolf to be taken off the ESL. In January of 2021, the wolf was taken off in the last days of the Trump Administration, giving states the right to host a hunting season.
The Wisconsin DNR held a meeting discussing a wolf hunt in November, but an out of state hunter group sued the WDNR demanding they host an immediate hunt. Per Wisconsin law (2011 Act 169) a wolf hunt “must be held when there are no federal protections placed on them”(WDNR). This forced the DNR to host a rushed February hunt, hastily thrown together and without the usual precautionary work. This angered wolf advocates who wanted the wolves to either stay on the ESL, or not host a wolf hunt until a later date. Many hunters, besides a few select groups, were not aware that the hunt would take place so soon. When the wolf hunt took place it came as a shock to the public as they did not expect a hunt to take place so soon.
The DNR set the season to go from February 22 - 28, and set a quota of 119, not including tribal tags of which there were 81. After the first two days many hunting zones already exceeded their quotas.(NYT)
The DNR began closing zones and by the third day announced that the season would be ending the following day. A combination of allowing hunters to use dogs, fresh snow, the inability to close the season, and a higher than estimated wolf population lead to 216 wolves being harvested. Almost 80% over the quota if you only include non tribal tags. (Wisconsin Outdoor News) The news of the large harvest and exceeding quota reached national news, and angered many people because of the apparent rushed nature of the hunt and the lack of consultation.
Key Players
- Hunters: most hunters realize that wolves are a necessary part of the Wisconsin ecosystem, however that doesn’t mean that hunters particularly like wolves. Wolves can displace deer herds and disrupt deer patterns making them harder to hunt. Wolves also eat many game animals that hunters also prey on, making competition tight and thinning out the herd in regions where wolves are common.
- Business related to hunters: many businesses especially up north rely on deer hunters for late season revenue. Hotels, bars, restaurants, sporting goods stores and mom & pop shops all rely on hunters coming up and hunting in their town, county, etc. If wolf predation has moved the herd or thinned them out so much that hunters no long hunt that area, those businesses close.
- Farmers/Ranchers: Wolves, occasionally prey on livestock, like cattle and sheep. This makes life for farmers and ranchers difficult as they need new forms of security to protect their livestock. Currently the WDNR does offer compensation to ranchers who have lost livestock due to wolf predation. While only 1% of livestock is killed by predators, it is noted that some farmers are more affected than others
- Wolf Advocates: people who want the wolf population to continue to grow and remain stable. They want protections on the species and are against lethal forms of wolf control like hunting/trapping, some going so far as to want a federal ban on wolf hunting. They believe that wolves are an essential part of the Wisconsin ecosystems. They are especially concerned about wolf poaching and any form of wolf removal from an area.
Power Dynamic Analysis
Right now the WI DNR has the most power over the situation. They are able to make rules to manage the wolf population in Wisconsin, managing seasons, the number of tags, quotas, and what is allowed in the hunt and what isn’t. They are largely influenced by conservationists, hunters, tribal representatives, and ranchers. The people that have the least power would be the general public, who have little to no direct agency in the situation.
Wisconsin's tribal representatives also have power over wolf hunting. Since this was their land before people started colonizing here, they are granted power over wildlife protection. These tribes have gained rights to fishing, hunting, and gathering in the ceded territories without DNR supervision. The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) is an agency that represents many of the tribes affected by wolf hunting. GLFWC also spends their time and effort educating people about their treaty reserved rights.
The tribes voices are important in circumstances such as when the federal government was debating whether or not to take the wolves off of the endangered species list. If the government's protection was no longer extended to the wolves, the solution of some tribes involved was to create buffer zones.
Ethical Issues
Ethical issues include the possibility of poaching or unregistered wolves during hunts. Some argue if it is even ethical to hold a wolf hunt considering their population size and how recently wolves were taken off the ESL. It’s hard to find a solution that benefits everyone because there are so many opinions regarding this topic. Some people are directly impacted by wolves such as farmers/ranchers, others are indirectly impacted such as deer hunters, and others just want the wolf protected due to the history of extermination.
With a wolf hunt, younger wolves and smaller packs would be left without a strong alpha and struggle for survival. One has to also consider that through wolf hunting we can limit overpopulation. If populations are not regulated it can degrade the ecosystem, too many wolves can lead to fewer prey animals and possibly more wolf-human conflict. The debate on whether non-lethal or lethal control is more efficient or cost effective for wolf management continues. Some people want wolves eliminated since they blame them for the decrease of the deer population. However, in reality wolves can have the potential to regulate it (Wolf.org).
Solutions
Unfortunately there is no way to please everyone on this issue, like many issues today both sides are polarized. You have people on one side that want wolves gone from the state, and then on the other side are people that want a complete ban on wolf hunts and lethal management. The only way is to come to a compromise. It will not be a perfect fit for everyone but it will hopefully benefit all interested parties in at least some way.
We would argue that there does need to be a wolf hunt to manage populations, along with various non-lethal measures such as relocation. Right now hunting is the number one way to manage wolf manage populations with quick results. Wolf hunts raise revenue for the state agencies related to wolf management, in 2021 alone the wolf hunt raised a total of $351,806 according to Wisconsin Outdoor News. Whereas non-lethal forms don’t generate much at all, and actually cost the state money. These hunts however need to be managed properly, with adequate time for planning and gathering data such as population estimates, tag quotas, and other rules such as restrictions on dogs, magazine capacity, and other season regulations most of which were lacking in the 2021 hunt.
There needs to be more discussion and input from different groups like the GLIFWC, conservationists, wolf advocates and hunters/trappers to make sure the wolf hunt is managed properly. These steps were not taken during the 2021 wolf hunt and due to this we may never know the full extent of its impacts on the wolf population according both Wolf Biologist Adrian Wydeven, and GLIFWC Wildlife Biologist Peter David. Some people may argue that non-lethal forms would be better for wolf management, and in regards to the wolf population alone, they would be right. But this solution doesn’t take into effect the needs of other groups, like the ranchers, and hunters who require a more managed wolf population to continue to do what they do.
So to sum it all up, Wisconsin should manage its wolf population through hunting and non-lethal forms in order to minimize human-wolf conflict, keep wolf populations stable, and satisfy at least to some degree the needs of all interested parties.
Source List:
Wisconsin Outdoor News 3/19/21
Ap, Todd Richmond. “Hunters Kill 20% of Wisconsin’s Wolf Population in Just 3 Days of Hunting Season.” Time, 26 Feb. 2021, time.com/5942494/wisconsin-wolf-hunt.
ASSOCIATED PRESS - file. “Lessons from Wisconsin’s Controversial Wolf Hunt.” Star Tribune, 5 Mar. 2021, www.startribune.com/lessons-from-wisconsin-s-controversial-wolf-hunt/600031216.
Cramer, Maria. “Wisconsin Hunters Kill Over 200 Wolves in Less Than 3 Days.” The New York Times, 3 Mar. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/03/03/us/wisconsin-wolves-killings.html.
“‘Extreme Disappointment’: Ojibwe Treaty Rights Group Decries Wolf Hunt Process.” PBS Wisconsin, 19 Mar. 2021, pbswisconsin.org/news-item/extreme-disappointment-ojibwe-treaty-rights-group-decries-wolf-hunt-process.
“History of Wild Wolves.” Mission: Wolf, 12 May 2018, missionwolf.org/wild-wolves.
“Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.” Wolf Conflicts in Wisconsin Higher so Far in 2020 [Milwaukee, WI], 29 Aug. 2020, eu.jsonline.com/story/sports/outdoors/2020/08/29/more-confirmed-wolf.
“Wildlife Advocacy Groups Petition to Protect Wolves.” The Lakeland Times, 28 Feb. 2021, www.lakelandtimes.com/articles/wildlife-advocacy-groups-petition-to-protect-wolves.
“Wisconsin Wolf Hunt Overshoots Quota, Worrying Conservationists.” MPR News, 5 Mar. 2021, www.mprnews.org/story/2021/03/05/science-friday-wisconsin-wolf-hunt-overshoots-quota-worrying-conservationists.
“Tribal officials, conservationists want say in what to do about growing wolf population”https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2020/09/01/wisconsin-wolves-tribes-conservationists-want-say-management/3444086001/
Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC)
https://www.glifwc.org/Recognition_Affirmation/
The ecological relationship of gray wolves AND White-tailed deer in MINNESOTA: International WOLF Center. (2019, October 16). Retrieved March 24, 2021, from
https://wolf.org/the-ecological-relationship-of-gray-wolves-and-white-tailed-deer-in-minnesota/