2023 draft wolf management plan released, goes to NRB Oct. 25

After receiving about 3,500 public comments on the first draft released in November, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on Tuesday released a revised draft of the 2023 Wolf Management Plan, which it plans to advance to the Natural Resources Board for approval on Oct. 25.

Among the key revisions made since November are a table to provide clearer expectations and address public uncertainty about what future population management objectives and population sizes may look like with a numeric population goal, an improved executive summary, the addition of a goal statement and the addition of more specific metrics for all objectives to help gauge success.

One of the top criticisms of the first draft in November was the lack of a specific number for a statewide population goal. There is no such number in this revised draft either.

Instead the new “transparency and expectations” table is in place to provide general guidance in anticipated future population sizes and likely statewide management outcomes for the Wisconsin wolf population. The table states a statewide off-reservation wolf population estimate of less than 650 wolves would likely result in a population growth management objective as would an estimate of 650-799 wolves. Estimates of 800-999 wolves would likely result in objectives to grow or keep the population stable. An estimate of 1,000-1,199 wolves would likely result in objectives to keep the population stable or reduce it. Estimates over 1,200 wolves would likely result in decline objectives being followed.

“With a statewide goal, ultimately, you’re trying to determine the quote-unquote right number of wolves in the state,” said Randy Johnson, the DNR’s large carnivore specialist during a statewide media briefing Tuesday. “What I mean by that is you’re trying to find the balance basically between the biological carrying capacity as well as the social carrying capacity. Where is that right level where we can find that balance?

“Some of the issues with a specific numeric goal is that number can change through time based on biology, based on public preferences,” Johnson said. “It also fails to address the geographical distribution of wolves. There are maybe some areas of the state that can support higher numbers, others not so much. The approach we’ve laid out is adaptive, it’s specifically and explicitly addressing that spacial component by using the management zones and I think it’s more robust to the future.”

A Republican-authored bill was introduced in March calling for the requirement of a specific numeric goal in the plan but it has yet to come before committee.

The DNR began developing this updated draft plan in early 2021 to align its wolf management strategies with the current state of the wolf population and the desires of a diverse public. The DNR views wolves as biologically recovered n Wisconsin, and this plan turns its attention from wolf recovery to long-term stewardship and sustainable management of wolves in the state.

Wolves, however, are still viewed federally as an endangered species in Wisconsin, prohibiting harvest and lethal controls of wolves. The 2021-22 winter wolf survey estimated the state’s population to be 972 animals in 243352 packs with a most likely value of 288 packs. There has not been a wolf harvest season in Wisconsin since February of 2021.

The new stated goal of the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan is to “ensure a healthy and sustainable wolf population that fulfills the numerous ecological, cultural, and recreational benefits of wolves, while being responsive in addressing and preventing wolf-related conflicts and recognizing the diverse values and perspectives of all residents in Wisconsin.”

“The goal statement helps reiterate as well that the plan is much broader than just a wolf harvest plan,” Johnson said. “The plan certainly includes wolf harvest, but it also has a lot of other attention on many other management priorities.”

Prior to releasing the first draft plan in November 2022, the DNR created and collaborated with a Wolf Management Plan Committee consisting of 29 stakeholder, tribal and external agency representatives. The DNR also consulted with Wisconsin’s Tribal Nations and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC), reviewed scientific literature and studied current public attitudes toward wolves in Wisconsin. Then, the DNR held a 3.5-month public review and comment period where over 3,500 comments were collected. All comments were reviewed and considered in revising the draft 2023 Wolf Management Plan.

“The public’s interest and passion towards wolves and wolf management showed in the comments the DNR received,” said DNR Secretary Adam N. Payne. “This plan comes from years of dedicated effort and careful consideration, is flexible, actionable, and, most importantly, outlines a path toward responsible and sustainable wolf management. I am thankful to everyone who contributed, reviewed the plan or submitted a comment.”

The full 200-plus page plan is available to view on the DNR’s website, dnr.wisconsin.gov. Simply search wolf management plan.”

Some highlights

The draft plan recommends a management framework based upon the principles of adaptive wildlife management. Six specific objectives were developed to focus efforts toward achieving its goals. Within each objective, the plan outlines a series of strategies and products to line the objectives to on-the-ground implementation.

The six objectives are: A) ensure a healthy and sustainable wolf population to fulfill its ecological role, B) address and reduce wolf-related conflict, C) provide multiple benefits associated with the wolf population, D) increase public understanding of wolves in Wisconsin, E) conduct scientific research to inform wolf stewardship, and F) provide leadership in collaborative and science-based wolf management in Wisconsin.

During Tuesday’s media briefing, Johnson, the plan’s lead author, said he believes the plan is written to address the wolf population whether it remains in endangered status for a lengthy amount of time or is eventually de-listed once again.

“This plan is written to be flexible to be applicable to a delisted population as well as a listed population,” he said. “The difference there is really some of these options on the table such as harvest, lethal control for conflict issues, things like that. In a future scenario with a wolf harvest season, there’s quite a bit of discussion in the plan about what that process looks like.”

Unchanged from the original draft plan are new proposals for wolf harvest seasons if they return with a de-listing. The new proposals include reducing the mandatory harvest registration time frame from 24 to eight hours and issuing zone specific licenses to hunters who successfully obtain tags. A change in management zones has been created, affecting areas just east of Taylor County, keeping land in Lincoln County that was going to be shifted to Zone 3 in the first draft in Zone 2. Taylor County would remain covered by three different zones. The majority is in Zone 3. This includes land north of Hwy 64 and west of Hwys C and 102. Land east and north of 64 and east of C and 102 is in Zone 2. All land south of Hwy 64 is in Zone 4.

Two types of subzones have also been proposed in the draft plan. Subzones 1A and 4A, the Lake Superior Coastal Plain east of Superior and portions of Adams, Wood, Portage and Clark counties have historically experienced concentrations of chronic wolf/livestock conflict. The plan recommends delineating these subzones to give managers the ability to affect harvest pressure in these areas to reduce local wolf densities in support of site-specific abatement measures intended to prevent wolf depredations.

These subzones surrounding tribal lands would be open to public hunting and trapping of wolves on both public and private lands by individuals with a valid wolf harvesting license, consistent with the surrounding wolf management zone and quota. For example, individuals with a valid zone 2 wolf license could pursue wolves anywhere in zone 2, including those areas within subzone 2B. However, the areas within these subzones would be subject to early closure, before the full zone is closed, if a certain level of harvest was met anywhere within the subzone at a time when the broader zone quota has not yet been met.

The revised draft plan recommends that in years when there is a harvest season, training dogs to hunt wolves would be allowed beginning when the state allows the use for dogs for hunting, which is currently the Monday following the closure of the nine-day gun deer hunting season), and ending when the zone closure occurs.

“The draft version of the plan is committed to a healthy and sustainable wolf population in the state,” Johnson said. “Part of that is moving away from the population goal approach. Instead of using a specific number of wolves as the primary management objective, we moved toward this six management objective approach. We outlined six management objectives that are more keyed in specifically on the priorities and things that people care about such as maintaining a healthy population, but also addressing and reducing conflict, providing opportunities for recreational harvest as well as other opportunities to interact with the wolf population.”