- Our next speaker's ngonna launch us
into wolf and other predator nprograms in Wisconsin.
And his name is Brad Koele
and I'll just bring him right on.
Thank you, Brad. - Thank you, Otto.
Good morning. Thanks for being here.
I mean, such a beautiful Saturday
and you guys are spending it with us,
and thanks for allowing me to come
and talk the department's or the state's--
basically our wolf and bear management programs.
Dave McFarland was originally on the agenda to talk
about state management of wolves and bears.
Dave couldn't make it so I'll be providing his--
his talk or his overview of management actions
the state's taking, but then I'll also dive into
our compensation and damage programs
for those species as well.
I've been with the DNR since 2001.
I started out within our big game program,
focusing primarily on deer and bear.
And then in 2007 I transitioned to our Wildlife Damage Program
where I administer all aspects of the state's
nuisance and urban and agricultural damage programs
with wildlife, so...
been doing that, like I said, since 2007,
so for the past ten years, wildlife damage
has been my primary focus.
So today, I'll get into the bear and wolf management programs.
The bear population and management.
This is a statewide map nshowing the primary range
nin bear distribution.
No surprise there-- the northern nthird of the state,
abundant and common, nbear sightings there.
nAs you go kind of southwest,
bear sightings are becoming nmore frequent down there.
NBears are expanding ntheir range southward.
Southeast, not as many sightings there and particularly,
down in the lower southeast corner of the state,
very few, if any, bear sightings there,
but, you know, the take home message there
is the bear population's doing very well
and they are expanding their range southward.
There's primarily three different things that we do
to monitor the bear population.
One is the annual bear harvest.
NWe do collect teeth nfrom every bear,
Nor attempt to collect teeth nfrom every bear.
And that gives us age data, ntells us how old the bears are
that are being harvested and nobviously if there's a shift
in that age, it's an indicator nof whether or not
that population, nwhether or not it's aging
or people are harvesting nyounger bear.
So it gives us, you know, an nindex to look at as far as how
nthe bear population's doing.
nThe other thing we do is
the annual bear nbait station survey,
nso there are 25 mile transects
where we'll place a meat bait-- nwe hang meat
approximately 7 feet nin trees, every half mile.
And then we come back nafter a week,
and check those baits to see nif they've been hit by a bear.
Those baits sit out there nfor a week,
and again, that gives us nanother index
or a trend line on how that nbear population is doing.
The other one is na tetracycline recapture
nor mark-recapture study.
Basically, for that study, nthe first year we did it
nwas in 2006.
Lot of cooperation from that nstudy with UW
Nand then also the Wisconsin nBear Hunters Association.
They help out immensely with that,
'cause it's such a labor-intensive
monitoring method.
But basically, tetracycline baits are placed
out on a landscape.
For those of you that are aware of tetracycline,
what it does is it creates a marker in the bone structure,
so basically it creates a ring
in the bone structure of the bear,
and then as bears are harvested, we require hunters
we require hunters to submit a rib sample to us
so we can look for that marker,
and then it's used to-- you know, the proportion of marked
versus unmarked bear used to do reconstruction model
and, you know, give us an estimate.
So 2006, that was done. 2011, that was done.
This year, it was supposed to be done again, here in 2016,
but there's some new FDA restrictions
on broad-scale use of antibiotics.
Obviously there's some concerns with creating immunities
to the antibiotics so tetracycline
can no longer be used so we're exploring other options.
My understanding is Rhodamine B is potentially an alternative
that we'll be looking for continuing
this type of estimation method.
And it does basically the same thing-- from my understanding,
is it creates a marker in the bone structure of the animal
that we can use to see whether or not it ingested,
you know, the bait.
So this is an example of the bear bait transect.
So 18 transects across the nnorthern part of the state
nin zones A, B, and D.
We currently have seven ntransects
nin zone C that we run.
And again these are n25 mile transects
where baits are placed nevery half mile.
This is a picture of kind of nwhat it looks like.
nThis is from Michigan DNR.
They have a little nbit different process,
but this a bear that, nyou know, obviously,
has, um-- you know, is ingesting that bait.
Some of the things we look for nto make sure it was a bear
nis, you know, markings.
These baits are all placed in nsoft-- soft trees,
nsoft-barked trees so you can--
you know, more likelihood nof getting
some type of markings nfrom the animal.
Bear, this one's nnot too hard to tell.
You know, you can see na pretty good muddy paw print
nof a bear there on the tree.
Other indications nwould be scratch marks.
We do have a gauge that we use nthat looks at the spacing
of those claw marks to verify nif it was a bear or not.
Nonetheless, nall these techniques,
this bear bait transect is used every year
to create that index and tell us how well
that bear population's doing each year.
This is--
This is a snapshot of Vilas and Oneida County there
nof our tetracycline study.
So the idea there is that nwe place small wooden boxes
with a bait inside nwith a tetracycline,
you know, every three miles nwithin the township there.
So again, nyou dot the landscape.
And it's a pretty nincredible effort.
nThis is what it looks like
across the northern part nof the state there,
so there-- each one nof those boxes or squares there
is where tetracycline bait was nplaced out there.
The red color there was the nbaits that were hit by bear
or that we know nwere hit by bear.
So a pretty huge effort going nout across the northern
npart of the state there.
You know, to show us exactly where bear are.
And so it's the same concept.
We have a little wood box with some bait
and a bear-- a tetracycline tablet in that box
and the bear obviously finds that bait,
breaks it open and consumes--
consumes that tetracycline and then, you know,
then the hunter-harvested bear, we collect rib tissues
from those bear and then we use it to reconstruct a population.
So this is a trend line of the statewide bear population.
As you can see, we have na very healthy population
across the state-- nit is increasing.
Right now, our current estimate nof bear-- the bear population
is 28,650, so, you know, npretty good population.
Like I said, that population nseems to be expanding
their range southward nand certainly occupying
a lot more of particularly the southwest part of the state.
So of course, with--
nYou know, with--
With a growing population, nyou also need
nto manage that population.
We primarily manage a nlot of our wildlife species
through hunting nor trapping.
Bear, it's hunting, nin the state here.
nWe do allow the use of bait
and the use of hunting nwith hound dogs
in the northern part nof the state.
nSo, you know, we've tried to--
Or we use hunting as a method nto control the bear population.
You can see there, our harvest nalong with the population
has also increased as nthe population's increased.
One thing to note there, nyou see the absence
nof any information for 1985.
1985, the state actually nclosed bear hunting.
At that point the population nwas right around 4,500 animals,
and at that point nthe state felt, you know,
"We need to close nthe hunting season,
implement more of na structured harvest."
Prior to that, nbear could be harvested
during the deer hunting season nwith I think a small game
and even a gun ndeer hunting license,
so license restrictions were npretty loose,
so 1985 is when we had kind of nthe current season structure
or permit system that was nimplemented there,
and as you can see, with those protections,
with limited quotas, you know, the bear population
has really done well since that point.
Ah, the state is broken into four zones there,
as you can see: A, B, C, and D.
nA and D, at one point in time,
nwere a contiguous unit.
And even D was actually a nsubzone of zone A at one point,
but nonetheless nit is now its own zone.
We're here in Washburn County nof course,
and that's Bear Management nZone D.
But these are the zones that we nuse for setting our bear quotas
and season nstructures every year--
our harvest structures nevery year.
The permit levels, nyou know, have gone up,
you know, as the bear npopulation's increased.
We've recognized the need to nharvest additional bear,
so our permit levels and quotas nhave also increased.
2016, this will be another nrecord year
nwith permit levels out there.
You know, we're expected to nissue approximately
n11,520 bear permits this year,
So, you know, certainly a lot of pressure
on that bear population to, you know, keep numbers
as, you know, best we can-- that's both socially
and biologically acceptable to the public.
Applicants-- you know, Wisconsin is, um--
You know, we're kind of na destination state
nfor bear hunting.
Our success rates here in nWisconsin for hunting
are unmatched nby any other state,
even in zone C where nour success rate
is, you know, probably down nin the upper 20%.
That's higher than na lot of states have.
You know, when you get ninto the northern part
of the bear range, where you're nlooking at zones A, B, and D,
you know, our success rates nare 60% or higher,
which are just incredible nfor bear hunting.
So Wisconsin's got na lot of interest,
nyou know, from non-residents
and even within the state nfor hunting.
Our application levels have nincreased pretty steadily.
You know, right now around n110,000 applicants
nis what we receive each year.
So a huge interest in, nyou know,
nhunting bear in Wisconsin.
I guess before I get to that, nyou know, that interest
in bear hunting has led to long nwait times for permits.
You know, our wait times for permits range anywhere
from one year all the way up to nine years,
so you know, in zone C right now,
the southern part of the state,
maybe every year, but for sure every other year
you can likely expect a permit in zone C.
You get up to zone B in the northeast part of the state,
those wait times are as long as nine or ten years for a permit.
So that interest is certainly nice,
but it's definitely led to some long wait times.
And historically, in the state, hunters have preferred
kind of a high-quality, high-success hunt
over a lot of opportunity, so we haven't made any changes
to our kind of season structure to change that,
because, you know, hunters have preferably or historically
preferred that higher-success type hunt.
Of course with that high population,
you know, we do have a lot of conflicts with bear,
so our bear program is broken ndown into
basically two different ncomponents.
nOne is the agricultural damage,
and the other side nis nuisance management.
And it's basically exactly nwhat it entails.
Agricultural damage nis your apiaries,
your typical row crops, nyour livestock,
where nuisance management is nmore the home issues,
nbird feeders, stuff like that.
In Wisconsin, nwe're really fortunate
as far as, you know, nwildlife damage programs
are concerned across nthe nation.
We have excellent partners. nWe have USD Wildlife Services,
UW-Extension that are great ncooperators for us.
You know, we also have na state legislature
and state leadership that are ncommitted to assisting farmers
that are having problems nor anyone having problems
nwith wildlife issues.
In this state, we have the nWildlife Damage Abatement
and Claims Program, which noriginally started in 1931.
The current structure nof our program
was actually created nin 1983, though.
So we've had that program in nplace for quite a while now
and it's funded through nhunting license sales.
It's a $2.00 surcharge on each hunting license
and a $4.00 surcharge on each patron's license.
And then our program also receives revenue
from the sale of antlerless deer carcass tags.
Those are the tags that are $12 for residents,
$20 for non-residents.
That revenue, outside the chronic wasting disease areas,
goes into our program.
Within the chronic wasting disease areas,
we get $7.00 from each of those tags
that goes to our program.
By state statute, it's a state program,
but it has to administered through the participating--
or through counties. Basically, each county--
All counties participate nexcept for Kenosha
nand Menominee Counties.
nAll the other counties do.
The counties in blue color nthere,
those are counties that nchoose to contract
nwith USD Wildlife Services,
so USD Wildlife Services nimplements the program
nin those counties.
And then the white counties, ngreen, red, and purple,
those are counties nthat either have
an independent damage ntechnician
implement the program nor they have a county employee
nadminister the program there,
so we can see nWildlife Services does--
Right now, they administer nthe program in 52 counties,
and then independent counties nwe call them
nare 18 independent counties.
So under the program, the species that are eligible
are deer, bear, turkey, elk, geese,
nand a couple of years ago,
cougar were added nto that program.
We have not had any verified ncougar depredations
in the state but the nlegislature a few years ago
nwanted to be proactive.
As you're all aware there's, nyou know, sightings of cougars
and they periodically come nthrough the state,
and the legislatures, you know, nwanted to have some type
of compensation nprogram available
if depredations nbecame an issue.
So cougars are included under the program,
but we have not had any conflicts with them.
Incidentally, sandhill cranes are also in state statute
as being covered under the program,
but not until there's a hunting season for sandhill cranes.
The type of crops that are covered
is also in state statute, and, you know,
nit's your standard row crops,
your corn, soybeans, alfalfa, nthat stuff.
Truck crops-- you know, so nthe gardens that are out there
that, you know, may sell nproduce at farmers' markets,
or along the roadside, nthose are eligible.
nStored crops, silage bags.
You know, we do have a fair nnumber of silage bag issues
neach year from bear.
Stored feed, nso that's eligible.
Orchards, Christmas trees, nnursery stock, apiaries--
Lot of issues with bear and napiaries around the state,
nand then of course livestock
is also included under the program.
So to enroll in a program,
basically the county has to participate.
Most of them do, like I said.
Damage must be from one nof those eligible species.
And then, you know, ntypically with livestock,
this doesn't apply, nbut for the typical row crops,
it says that the damage nspecialist has to be notified
within 14 days of damage noccurring,
and obviously that's so we ncan get abatement out there
and try to prevent or reduce
the amount of damage that's occurring.
So that 14-day requirement is in place.
And then, also, because this program is funded
through hunting license sales,
the enrollee must control hunting access on that property.
One of the requirements of enrolling in this property
is that public hunting access is required on the property.
You know, like I said,
it's funded through hunting license sales,
so the state legislature, when they created the program
thought hunters should have access to assist, you know--
assist with the species that's causing damage
on those properties, so if you're enrolled for bear damage,
you have to allow public hunting access for bear.
You don't have to allow it for deer or any other species.
If you're enrolled in the program for deer damage,
you would have to allow public hunting access for deer.
There are a couple exceptions
where that doesn't apply to deer,
but most cases, hunting is required on those properties.
And there's no fee for enrolling in the program.
It's a voluntary enrollment.
There's no fee for enrolling in the program.
But there is that public hunting access requirement.
So bear enrollment, as you can see,
it's, in general, on the increase.
You know, last year, n290 individual farmers
nenrolled for bear damage.
You know, and that can be nstandard row crops.
A lot of our bear damage issues nare, you know,
corn in the milk stage when nthe bears are hitting them,
but we do have a fairly nsignificant number
of apiary owners that also nenroll in our program
nto receive some assistance.
nSo basically, damage occurs.
You contact the county ndamage specialist.
nYou enroll in a program.
nThe next step would be
determining what nabatement is best.
For bear, whether it's nagricultural damage
or nuisance situations, nour primary abatement method
is trapping and nrelocating the bear.
Bear are relocated na minimum of 25 miles
and on to contiguous nlarge tracts of land
nunder public ownership.
So whether it's county, nstate or national forest,
that's where the bears nare relocated.
They're not relocated to nany private properties.
Last year, in 2015, for agricultural conflicts,
you can see 365 bear were relocated.
So a number of bear are being moved around the state
and the reason, you know, it's not probably the most
cost-effective option, but hunters in our state,
you know, have preferred that these bear be relocated
rather than shooting permits
or some other type of lethal control
because they want the hunting opportunity for the bear.
You know, if you're waiting anywhere from, you know,
one to nine years
for a hunting permit, a bear hunting permit,
you know, you want the opportunity
to harvest those animals rather than, you know,
someone harvesting them with no preference
or very little interest in bear hunting.
So, you know, trapping and relocation has been primarily
the most accepted abatement that we've implemented.
We do, as a last resort, get the bear shooting permits.
You can see, last year we had n30 bear shooting permits,
65 bear harvested non shooting permits.
One note I will make nis that in the situations
nwith livestock depredations--
Our response with livestock ndepredations
nis a lethal response.
Either we trap-- attempt to trap nand euthanize that bear,
or we issue-- and/or nissue-- permit the landowner
nto shoot and remove that bear.
History, you know-- nLivestock depredation
is kind of a learned behavior, nand what we've found is
typically once a bear depredates,
it's likely to depredate again.
so our response, you know, for depredating bears
is, in most cases is a lethal--
A lethal control for that.
Like I mentioned, we do have a lot of apiary issues,
nand some silage bag issues.
So temporary fencing is nprobably our--
probably the second most nabatement that we use,
nand it's just, you know,
putting up electric fencing naround
those structures nto protect them.
It works extremely well. nI wish I had an accurate count
of how many apiaries-- nI bet you we probably have
you know, 200, 250 apiaries naround the state fenced,
you know, with temporary nfencing like this
to protect from bears, nso it's another
abatement method that we use npretty commonly.
So claims-- obviously, na part of this program
is to provide that nabatement assistance
but then also compensation nfor those damages.
For the standard row crops, nlivestock,
those prices nare set by the county.
Typically the county ndamage specialist
will talk with seed dealers, nfeed stores,
UW-Extension, and they'll come nup with a price each year
nfor those crops.
The enrollees must comply nwith any abatement measures.
You know, if we issue na deer shooting permit,
those individuals have to shoot na certain number of deer
on those permits to nbe eligible for compensation.
nYou have to be in compliance
with normal agricultural npractices,
so that means, you know, nfor crops left over winter,
nthat's typically not--
you know, not a standard nagricultural practice,
so compensation would not be nprovided in those situations.
So those factors are ntaken into consideration,
nand then also, you know,
if they do meet nall those requirements,
the county submits a claim nto the DNR by March 31st,
and then the department nhas until June 1
nto pay those claims, so...
I just-- couple weeks ago I just nfinished paying, I think,
270 claims from nthe 2015 season,
so we just kind of completed nthat process.
The payment amounts nare in state statute.
Like I said, the county nset the price,
the price for per bushel or nthe price for that commodity.
But then there are also nfurther restrictions
nplaced in state statute.
So for each claim, there's a $500 deductible.
And then beyond that we nreimburse 100% up to $5,000--
nor $5,500
nwith that deductible in there,
And then beyond that, n80% we would compensate for
nup to a maximum of $10,000.
- What's your definition nof crop?
- Um, "crop" would be-- nit's anything--
nany standard agricultural
row crop, livestock, Christmas trees, nursery stock.
One of those slides I had before had that whole definition
of what is covered under the program.
So all that stuff is, you know, eligible for the program.
And the county damage technician,
when they go out to enroll people,
you know, they verify that it's an eligible crop type
before they enroll.
So things like food plots, you know,
obviously that wouldn't be eligible.
Someone's personal garden,
you know, if they have a garden out there
and the crops are used for personal consumption
or family consumption, that would not be eligible
under this program.
- But livestock would be. - Livestock is, yep, correct.
And again, that's just for bear or cougar damage
under the aspects of this program.
This was changed, 2009.
The state legislature changed these in 2009.
We were projecting a shortfall within the program,
so in 2009 the state legislature made some changes.
Prior to that, it was a $250 deductible
and a $15,000 maximum claim,
so, you know, those were decreased a little bit
to make up for that projected shortfall.
Just want to mention nuisance bear management.
You know, we contract with USD Wildlife Services
or the DNR contracts with nUSD Wildlife Services
to handle all their nuisance nbear conflicts.
And you know, there's na number of them out there.
You know, Wildlife Services nresponds, you know, anywhere
from 800, I think, nto as many as 1,500 complaints
neach year about bear.
You know, obviously, you know, nthe nuisance stuff is separate
nfrom the agricultural damage,
but I just want to make people naware that,
nyou know, even if, you know,
you're not having problems nwith livestock,
you know, if you are having nproblems with, you know,
naggressive bear, or,
you know, other issues nthat are non-agricultural,
there is assistance available nthrough USD Wildlife Services.
nInterestingly enough, you know,
probably 70% of those nuisance ncalls
we get every year can be solved with technical assistance.
which is in many cases, removing the attractant,
whether it's a bird feeder, a garbage can,
or, you know, a grill, something like that.
You know, so a lot of times there's some attractant
that's involved, but nonetheless, you know,
there is assistance available for just a general homeowner
or someone else that's dealing with nuisance bear issues.
Now, kind of jumping to wolf management here.
So, you know, nwolves were in the state,
you know, as early as 1950 nand earlier.
There was a bounty in place non wolves
that went through 1957, nwhich, you know,
through extensive removal nand pressure on them led to
the population decline nand eventually
nthe elimination of the wolves.
By 1960, there was no known nwolves in Wisconsin.
There was a remaining npopulation
in northern Minnesota nand Ontario,
and it was through nthat population there
and through the protections nput in place
by the Endangered Species Act nduring the 1970s
that allowed that population nto naturally expand
and to move southward ninto the state again.
You know, wolves, nthere's a lot of misconceptions
that, you know, state DNR nbrought wolves back in.
That's not the case. nWolves, you know, expanded
and recolonized Wisconsin nthrough those remaining packs
that were in northern Minnesota nand Ontario.
So obviously they've nexpanded in the state
nand have done quite well.
nThis is our winter pack count
and map from the winter nof 1979, 1980.
'90 to '91, you can see nthe range and the packs
nare continuing to grow.
n2001 to 2002 winter.
nHere we are, 2009, 2010.
And here's last year's nwolf map,
so you can see the population nthrough those protections,
you know, has done pretty well nin Wisconsin.
They've colonized the majority of the prime wolf habitat
in the northern part of the state and also in the center--
central forest, which is that yellow area
that you see in the middle part of the state.
So how do we track the wolf population?
We have carnivore ntracking blocks.
So these are approximately n200 square mile areas
that we do a variety of survey nmethods in those areas.
Primarily it's winter track ncounts is what we use.
nWe have volunteer trackers
that are trained nthroughout the state
to, in the wintertime, ndrive certain transects
and look for wolf tracks nand then you follow them,
and you try to figure out how nmany wolves are present there.
You know, last year, n2011, 2015 winter,
um, you know, nover 16,730 miles were tracked
either through DNR trackers nor volunteer trackers,
so that's primarily nthe method that we use.
You know, utilize pack counts, nand then numbers--
nwolf numbers as well.
nWe also use aerial survey.
There's approximately n45 wolves that are collared
naround the state right now.
That number will increase nhere in the next month or two
as we trap and collar nadditional wolves.
So we have DNR pilots nthat will
occasionally fly these packs, nlocate them.
If they can find them, nyou know,
they'll count the number of nwolves in them,
but then we also have nthe trackers,
and volunteers going and kind of ground truth
and look for tracks with those same packs.
So those are primarily the two type of methods
that we use for estimating the population.
We also do solicit or encourage people to report wolf sightings
and, you know, presence of wolves to us
on our DNR's website.
There's a spot there where individuals
can report sightings to us and oftentimes,
if you have pictures, provide pictures to us
so we can verify and, you know, we'll have a local DNR biologist
try to verify that stuff.
So it's a really heavily citizen monitoring-type, based program.
You know, both through the voluntary track studies
or surveys and then also through volunteer reporting to us
where they're seeing wolves.
As far as management,
you know, the state's broken into six zones there.
Zones one and two and five are nprimarily dominated
by, you know, lower-density nagricultural, lower land use,
nmore forest cover.
Zones three and four have nhigher-density agricultural
with mixed forest, nand then zone six is,
you know, as you can imagine, nmore heavily dominated
nby your cultural and human use.
And, of course, nour population objectives
and, you know, nwhen we do have the ability
to have hunting seasons, quota nlevels and stuff like that,
you know, play into these zones nand the limited land use
nor land cover there.
So the overwinter nminimum count--
nthis is from last winter,
so it's from 2014, 2015 nwinter--
was that there were 746 nto 770 wolves in the state
nwith a minimum of 208 packs.
Now, one thing nI do want to stress here
nis that this is a minimum.
This is the overwinter count, nso as pups or when pups
nare born in spring,
this number, you know, nis a lot higher.
And then that number will ndecrease throughout the year
as mortality events occur, nwhether it's disease
or collisions with cars, nstuff like that.
nBut this the low number.
We do not have last year's figures available yet.
My understanding is that they will be available in June.
And, you know, so those will be coming out in June
and available to the public next month.
So this is kind of the changes in the wolf population.
You know, as I showed you in nthose pack maps,
the numbers have substantially nincreased, you know.
Like I said, we're up to n746-plus animals right now.
You know, you can see nthe little decline there
when we did the ability to nharvest wolves
nin 2012, '13, '14.
You know, we were putting npressure on those animals
and intentionally trying nto reduce those numbers.
The state-- the current state nwolf management plan
has a goal in there nof 350 wolves.
nYou know, I think it's pretty--
it's been acceptable nto the public
or at least, through administration
that, you know, we need to knock wolf numbers down a little bit,
and we're gonna gradually do that,
but obviously there are some legal issues
that came into play for that, but nonetheless,
you know, the growing wolf population
and, you know, we're anywhere from that 750
up to 800 range, and that nis a minimum count, again.
So the state management actions nduring 2012 and '14.
This graph's a little confusing nbecause this is by wolf year,
nwhich is April through April.
But you can see there was-- nas I said,
there was deliberate pressure nput on wolves to reduce
the population and that noccurred through the harvest,
nthe harvest seasons.
You can see there 528 animals nwere harvested
through the state's hunting nand trapping season.
Agency control, nwhich would be control
through USD Wildlife Services nor DNR control
at depredation sites, nand then landowner control.
When wolves are delisted, nthe state has the authority
to issue shooting permits nto landowners
nthat have had conflicts.
And you can see 38 wolves nwere removed
nthrough landowner controls.
So, you know, nonetheless, nwhen we did have the authority
nto manage wolves,
we were putting pressure on nthat population
nto try to control numbers
and reduce numbers.
Most of you are aware of kind of the seesaw or back and forth
that has occurred with the listing of wolves.
This is the state kind of history.
1957, when it was first designated
nas a protected animal.
Listed as "endangered" in '75, n1999 as "threatened."
And then as recently as 2012 nis when it was actually
designated as na state game species,
and that was when the federal ndelisting occurred,
nand then, you know,
the DNR also had received nmanagement authority
to implement a hunting and ntrapping season,
and also depredation controls, so...
Currently it is still a state game species.
You know, on the flip side of things, though,
we also have to comply with the federal regulations,
and as of December 19, 2014, you know, wolves are placed back
on the endangered species list nfederally.
One thing I do want nto note is, you know,
Wisconsin, Michigan, nand Minnesota,
it's considered one Great Lakes npopulation of wolves.
Unfortunately, in my opinion nfor Wisconsin and Michigan,
they're endangered species nin Wisconsin and Michigan
and they're a threatened nspecies in Minnesota.
And what the-- nfor damage management,
what the difference is there is that
Minnesota can still implement lethal control
at depredation sites, because it's a threatened species there,
whereas Wisconsin says it's an endangered species.
We have no lethal control authority right now.
The only lethal control authority we have
within the state right now
is if there's a human health and safety situation.
In those cases, we will consult
with the Fish and Wildlife Service
and, you know, we may implement lethal control.
We did that last year at one farm in Price County,
and removed one wolf there.
But otherwise, you know, the unfortunate part is
we don't have integrated damage management program right now.
It solely relies on non-lethal control.
So the federal listing status.
This is just kind of na graph showing you
those different time periods of nwhen wolves
nwere listed and not listed.
Obviously the purple-ish nthere is when wolves were
na listed species.
The white line there is where nwolves first met the criteria
for being delisted from nthe Endangered Species Act.
nAnd basically that says that--
Delisted criteria was basically nthat 100 or more wolves
would be present for at nleast five consecutive years
outside of Minnesota, nso basically
Wisconsin and Michigan nhad to have a population
of 100 or more wolves, nyou know,
nfor five consecutive years.
You know, nlooking at those numbers there,
we've certainly met nthat for quite a while.
But nonetheless, they are still federally listed,
which does, you know,
impact our ability to implement control options
or even a hunting and trapping season for them.
So, you know, there's been a lot of talk,
last year and this year already about potential ways
to get wolves delisted and back into state management.
There's basically three options available for that.
One is whether or not nthe Fish and Wildlife Service
would initiate na new delisting rule.
There has been nno talk of that occurring,
so I don't know how nfeasible that would be.
The one that has got the most ncoverage and discussed the most
is legislation, you know, nwithin Congress,
Congress passing some type of nlegislation to delist wolves.
That was attempted last year nand a couple of different bills
were introduced, but none of nthem were passed last year.
There's talk of another ndelisting bill
being included in nthe Fish and Wildlife Services'
nappropriation bill this year.
There's talk about-- I don't nknow if that's going to happen,
but that's another potential navenue for delisting
to occur, nand then the third option
is to appeal the court's decision from 2014.
That has occurred, or
the Fish and Wildlife Service is appealing that.
Wisconsin has signed on as a party to that--
to that appeal, so that's kind of playing out in the courts.
And I don't know the timeline on exactly when briefs
need to be filed and when action could take place on that.
But those are the three options available
for hopefully getting wolves delisted
and back into state management.
So we do have a wolf depredation
and compensation program.
That program started in 1984.
It passed through the budget nbill in 1984.
And at that point in time nit wasn't specific to wolves.
It was specific to all nendangered resources.
nSo any animal that was listed
under endangered resources nprogram
or state listed as nan endangered species,
we would provide ncompensation for that.
Wolves are of course none of those.
Another species that we had npaid compensation for
was osprey, at aquaculture nfacilities.
So at that point in time nit wasn't specific to wolves.
It had just said "endangered" nor "threatened species."
And the 1999, 2001 state budget nbill, though,
legislation was added there nthat said
even if wolves are delisted, nthe state will still provide
compensation for wolf ndepredations.
nSo it wasn't till 2001
where wolves were actually nlisted separately
as having their own ncompensation program.
So that program, you know, was navailable till up until 2004
nwith-- pretty wide open.
There wasn't any nstandard rules in place
on who, what, when, where, nhow compensation was provided.
2005, you know, depredations nwere starting to increase.
We're having na lot more conflicts.
2005, actually, administrative nrules were actually created
that put sideboards non the program as far as
what we compensate for, nhow much we compensate,
nwhen, all that good stuff.
And we're currently, you know, operating
under those administrative rules right now.
2011, Act 169, that was the bill
where wolves were listed as a state game species
and then that allowed us to have that hunting and trapping season
which, as I just discussed, we currently don't have
the option for right now because of federal protections.
Program funding: so when wolves are not-- not--
an endangered or listed species,
funding for the wolf depredation program
comes from the sale of wolf hunting applications
and license sales.
Now that wolves are relisted, funding goes back
to our endangered resources program that funds
those depredation payments.
We've also been really fortunate the last three years,
to apply to the Fish and Wildlife Service
and get livestock demonstration grant funding.
Last three years, we've received about $250,000
in compensation or grant funding
that we've used directly towards compensation.
And then we also received a $17,000 grant to help
with some non-lethal abatement techniques or projects.
So this is all in administrative rule, like I said.
Now, so compensation, under the damage program,
or under the wolf program, we provide compensation for
death or injury to livestock, npets and hunting dogs--
obviously hunting dogs that nare not actively engaged
in the pursuit of wolves, you nknow, when we do have a season.
Rules require that individuals nmust contact DNR or,
in most cases it's nUSD Wildlife Services--
we partner with them to handle nconflict investigation,
but they must contact nWildlife Services
within 24 hours of that ndepredation occurring.
Wildlife Services nwill go out there,
and they need to find nsufficient evidence
to classify that as a confirmed nor probable wolf depredation
to be eligible nfor compensation.
Then once that depredation nis verified,
the claimant has 14 days to nfile a claim
with the department for compensation.
The only other real requirement there
is that...
claimants have to be compliant with state statute
carcass disposal requirements.
We had kind of talked about those requirements
a little bit before and basically my understanding
is that from December to March,
basically that carcass has to be removed or buried
within 48 hours.
Any point outside that time frame
that carcass has to be buried or disposed of
within 24 hours.
So to be eligible for compensation,
producers have to be eligible-- or in compliance
with that requirement as well.
As I said, we contract with USD Wildlife Services
to handle our depredation investigations,
so, you know, if you suspect na depredation occurs,
call USD Wildlife Services nas soon as possible
so we can get them out there nand take a look at the evidence
and verify or confirm nthat depredation.
USD Wildlife Services nlast year responded to
n163 reported complaints,
with 91 of those being verified nas being caused by wolves.
One of the things nI do want to touch on
nis the compensation limits.
Administrative rule has nlanguage in there
nfor compensation limits,
so for livestock ncompensation limits,
particularly nfor dairy and beef cattle
are set by a panel of three nexperts each year,
none person from UW-Extension,
one person nfrom the Farm Bureau,
and one person nfrom Department of Ag.
They meet every year,
and they set the compensation limits for livestock.
There is no-- unlike the damage program,
there is no deductible,
there is no maximum compensation limits, any of that.
There's a compensation limit per animal,
and then also that requirement that it's verified.
So a producer could get compensated for, you know,
30 animals as long as each of
those depredations were verified.
Hunting dogs and pets, there's a $2,500 limit
on the compensation that we'll provide
for each individual hunting dog or pet.
And again, that's an administrative rule as well.
We also, unlike a lot of other states
that compensate for wolf depredations,
we also have a missing calf compensation rule,
where we will compensate nfor missing calves,
nexactly what it says.
So if a farmer has na verified depredation,
they're basically neligible to claim
you know, nany missing livestock,
and there's a fair amount of nliterature out there
that shows that, you know, you ncan detect some depredations,
but especially for calves or nsmaller livestock,
you're not gonna detect nall of them and that wolf,
you know, may drag nthat carcass away
so that's why, you know, nwe have this rule in place.
And it's-- I don't know nthe total number
of missing calves that we've nprovided compensation for
I could look that up, nbut, you know, I know it's over
$600,000 in missing nlivestock compensation
nthat we've provided since 1984.
So we do have that policy in place.
We do, you know-- we do apply a 2.3% natural mortality factor
to those missing calf claims.
You know, literature shows that roughly 2.3% of that herd's
gonna be lost from natural causes,
and may not be attributed to depredation,
so we do apply that.
The other thing I do want to mention is that
we did-- in 2013 was the first year it was implemented--
but we did implement a five-for-one rule,
which says that-- which limited the amount of claims
our calves an individual could claim.
And what that said is that we would compensate for up to
five missing calves for each verified depredation.
So that just put a limit on the number of calves
that an individual could claim,
and the primary-- we worked with the Cattlemen's Association
to implement that, and the primary reason for that
was to make sure producers were actively contacting
the Department of Wildlife Services
so we could one, document the mortality out there,
but two, you know, get abatement assistance
to that individual to reduce those losses.
So this is kind of the recent history
of depredation compensation.
nThis is by calendar year.
You can see last year, na little over $200,000
is what the department paid in nwolf depredation compensation.
You compare that to nsome of the other species
that we provide ncompensation for,
and you can see that it kind of nfits right in there
with bear and geese nand those species.
You know, by far, nwe have a lot more--
we're compensating a nlot more for deer damage
out there than we are nthose other species.
So the take-home message, nI guess,
when you come out of here-- nthe take-home message here
is if you're having na conflict with bear,
if you're having a conflict nwith wolves,
contact USD Wildlife Services.
They're gonna be the initial step as far as
receiving abatement assistance
and also being eligible for compensation.
So, you know, if you are having any problems,
you know, make sure you have their number,
or look on our DNR's website so you can get their number.
The other one thing I just want to mention
is coyotes-- there's a number of coyote depredations
that occur every year around nthe state from livestock.
There's no compensation program nfor coyote depredations.
The one fortunate side nof the rules and regulations
for state management nof coyotes is that
landowners, you know, ncan remove coyotes year-round
without any license nrequirements.
So there's a lot more control authority
if individual producers are having problems with coyotes.
But there's no compensation available for coyotes.
With that, I'll take any questions you might have.
[applause]