This article was published in collaboration with UpNorthNews and In These Times The Wisconsin Idea, an investigative reporting initiative focused on ruralWisconsin.

Wolf biologists and tribal nations voiced their objections going into Wisconsins court-ordered gray wolf hunt last February, and they were even more dismayed with how the hunt was planned and executedearly reports showed hunters killed almost double the allotted number ofwolves.

But that startling figure only represents officially documented kills. Now that researchers have had time to assess the full extent of the hunts damage, theyve found the outcome was far worse than initially reported: According to areport published by the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin, legal and illegal killings wiped out as much as athird of the states gray wolfpopulation.

After the Trump administration announced on Oct. 29, 2020 that it would remove gray wolves from the endangered species list, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) started planning awolf hunt for fall 2021. But on Feb. 11, in response to alawsuit from the Wisconsin Institute for Law &Liberty (WILL) and aKansas hunting organization, Jefferson County Judge Bennett Brantmeier ordered the DNR to organize ahunt by the end of themonth.

The hunt began less than two weeks later, on Feb. 22, and the DNR shut it down in just 39hours given the high initial kill totals. Hunters had 24hours after closing to finish reporting their kills, and when the final numbers came in, the death toll stood at 216 wolves, almost double the DNRs quota of119.

There could have been even more wolf deaths; Wisconsins tribal nations declined to exercise their right to kill 81 wolves in theirterritories.

This month, the team of wolf researchers, headed by Adrian Treves with the Carnivore Coexistence Lab at UW-Madison, published areport that estimated that the wolf population had decreased by 27%-33% from an estimated population of 1,034in April 2020 leaving an estimated population range of 695751 wolves as of April 15,2021.

Treves estimates an additional 98 to 105 wolves have been killed since their delisting was announced, but he cautioned the number of unreported killings could be muchhigher.

We only made bulletproof assumptions that were more cautious, based on peer reviewed science, Treves said in aninterview.

He continued, What it means is that our estimates of the population are, really, plausible maximum population status. It could be quitelower.

Its a novelty hunting experience...and for some people its truly a vengeance hunt."

Francisco Santiago-vila, aco-author on the study, said the additional killed wolves were likely the victims of illegal poaching, based on other research co-authored by Treves that found deslisting or downgrading wolves from their protections under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) leads to an increase inpoaching.

When youre reducing protections for wolves in any way, be it through downgrading or delisting from the ESA youre sending asignal to would-be poachers on the landscape that either there are too many wolves on the landscape or that they are not valued as much anymore, Santiago-vila said. That essentially may incentivize the culling and concealing of wolves that are neverreported.

Santiago-vila said other potential reasons for losing track of the wolvessuch as tracking collar malfunctions or migrationdo not adequately explain the high number of wolves that go missing when their ESA statuschanges.

The policy itself wouldnt affect those two mechanisms, Santiago-vila said. The policy affects humanbehavior.

Even before the report was published, Peter David, abiologist with the Great Lakes Indian Fish &Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC)which regulates hunting, fishing, and gathering on tribal lands in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesotasaid he had already suspected the hunt was going to have an outsized impact on the wolfpopulation.

According to David, the quota set by the DNR was higher than what scientific models recommended for the DNR to reach its stated goal of having no impact on the wolf population. The timing of the wolf hunt was particularly problematic: February is the point when the wolf population is the lowest and the beginning of the wolf breeding season; hunts are typically held in late fall or earlywinter.

[The February hunt] is really unlike any other wolf harvest anywhere, that it was completely concentrated within that window, David said. All the factors make me think that the impact of this harvest was verysubstantial.

Holding the hunt during the breeding season affects wolves ability to breed and return the population to pre-hunt levels. Charlie Rasmussen, also with GLIFWC, said GLIFWC biologists who examined some of the donated carcasses from the hunt found that one was an impregnated female with nine developing wolffetuses.

It was adifficult examination for GLIFWC biologists to do, Rasmussensaid.

It's important to recognize that wolves are very good at regulating their own numbers.

Treves study recommended against holding awolf hunt this November, which David and Rasmussen said is also the opinion of GLIFWC and the tribes they represent. There is precedent for this kind of policy shift: DNR announced this month that it will cancel the sharp-tailed grouse hunt for the third year in arow to protect that population. If this falls wolf hunt is cancelled, Treves study estimated it would take the wolf population one to two years to rebound to its April 2020level.

More broadly, all of the researchers interviewed for this story agreed that there is no need to manage the wolf population atall.

Its important to recognize that wolves are very good at regulating their own numbers, David said. Because of their territorial behavior and other aspects, their numbers never get very high. And if you look at neighboring Minnesota or the upper peninsula of Michigan, both of those wolf populations have essentially plateaued without any hunting to drive their numbersdown.

Pro-hunt advocates argue the hunt is away to mitigate the risk of wolves preying on livestock, other wild game, such as deer, or their risk to humans and pets. David said those arguments dont stand up to scientificscrutiny.

While livestock predation is alegitimate concern, David said, awolf hunt is not an effective way to address the issue. Instead, he said its more effective to continue using the system in which farmers contact federal officials who investigate the attacks and can take anumber of steps to address the situation, such as killing or relocating thewolf.

That kind of aresponse is very timely and its very targeted to the location and to the wolves that might be involved, Davidsaid.

By contrast, David pointed out that nine of the ten of the wolves killed during the last hunt were more than eight miles from any confirmed sites where wolves had killedlivestock.

Theres very little reason to think that any appreciable number of those wolves were actually involved in depredations, Davidsaid.

As for the arguments about human safety, David pointed out that its incredibly rare for awolf to attack ahuman, and in those cases, addressing that individual wolf is more effective than astatewide hunt.

In response to hunters concerns about wolves killing deer, Treves argued that there are benefits to wolves preying on deer. For example, one study found that counties with wolves have lower rates of vehicles colliding with deer on theroad.

Furthermore, Treves said, In astate with over amillion deer that are acknowledged to do hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage to crops and ornamentals and vehicles, we actually need more apex predators in this state to control the overwhelming deer population thats acknowledged by scientists and public officials to be causing us alot ofproblems.

David also pointed to evidence that wolves help control the spread of chronic wasting disease, which is asubstantial threat to the deer population and people or predators who consume infected deer. Overall, the researchers said, scientific studies have found that the benefits of having ahealthy wolf population outweigh the smallrisks.

David doubts that ecological concerns are the true motivation for pro-hunt advocates, especially given the evidence that wolves benefit the natural environment. Instead, he believes the pro-hunt movement is motivated by novelty andrevenge.

Its anovelty hunting experience, and its an opportunity to harvest something that people havent harvested before, David said. And for some people its truly avengeance hunt on occasion, [people] will lose dogs to wolves, when theyre training their dogs especially, and wolves have pups that they will defend. And this was achance for, Ithink, the community to get revenge on the wolfpopulation.

Meanwhile, David argued, the cultural significance of the wolf to the Ojibwe doesnt get taken very seriously. The tribes have told the DNR they do not support holding awolf hunt thisfall.

David and other biologists are the first to admit theres alot that researchers still dont know about wolves and their ecological role. But David thinks that, given what humans do know, the DNR should seriously consider leaving wolf management to MotherNature.

I think oftentimes we are abit arrogant and at what we think we understand, David said. Wolves are anatural part of this landscape for an incredibly long time, and ecologically, its reasonable to think that they have avaluable role here. And in all likelihood, we have barely scratched the understanding of that, so we need to be alittle bit humble and give nature the benefit of thedoubt.

Read the original:
In Wisconsin, an Overzealous Hunt Decimated the Local Wolf Population - In These Times