Commentary: Why no DNR wolf estimate in latest monitoring report from Wisconsin?

The latest Wisconsin DNR Wolf Monitoring Report, furnished to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, contains no wolf population estimate. Why is the previous winter’s wolf estimate different from any other year, when Wisconsin DNR developed either a minimum wolf count, or a population estimate?

I consulted with four wolf experts around the country. All have decades of experience with wolf management and research.

The two from the Upper Midwest reminded me that not every state provides wolf counts or estimates every year. This is a fact. However, Minnesota and Michigan have been doing more frequent wolf estimates, in spite of the fact that they don’t have to and they both have substantial wolf numbers.

The only state that has more wolves than Wisconsin in the Lower 48 is Minnesota. Michigan is catching up to Wisconsin and saw a large increase in wolf numbers since two years ago when their last estimate was issued.

The two other experts have tons of field experience and also are academics. They wondered why Wisconsin would not issue an estimate in spite of the fact that tracking conditions were not ideal in the winter of 2023-24. They both said it would have been possible to issue a wolf estimate with larger confidence intervals. I agree.

MORE COVERAGE FROM WISCONSIN OUTDOOR NEWS:

Woman receives 30 days, $1K fine in big southeast deer poaching case

Bill Smith back on Wisconsin Natural Resources Board, and Jeff Hastings appointed

Old time fish trains brought businessmen eager to fish northern Wisconsin waters

An estimate with confidence intervals has been issued since the 2020 wolf monitoring report – page 20 of the 2024 monitoring report has a graph. Large confidence intervals are included in each of the four years where an estimate was provided since the occupancy model has been used in Wisconsin. This model has been extensively researched in the U.S. and Canada, and is used by some states and provinces.

Along with the occupancy model, which uses detections to determine presence of wolves, and average pack sizes to figure out possible numbers of pack-associated wolves, the DNR also uses Snapshot Wisconsin photos of wolves, and a very few public reports that are made in the mid-winter time frame and verified by staff. Other states are using various types of detection and monitoring that would be cheaper than doing ground tracking, a substantial portion by paid staff, of the entire recognized wolf occupied territory.

The tracking effort has been the best ever for the past two tracking seasons. It is the most complete since at least 2010. See page 17 of the 2024 monitoring report. Each year, I did an analysis of all tracking effort since 2010 until the data became unavailable when the DNR switched exclusively to occupancy modeling.

For years, I found deficiencies on tracking effort averaging around 30%, plus or minus, for all tracking units. Now, having asked the DNR for the tracking data under an open records request for several years, the DNR no longer gives me the counts for each tracking unit. Instead, I am referred to the map on the monitoring report. But as a volunteer wolf tracker for more than a decade in three units, I can see that the effort is outstanding for these two last years.

However, the pack sizes are largely determined by collared wolf data. The DNR attempts to provide a pack size estimate for each management unit. This is important for any reliable estimate because the presence of a pack times the average pack size in that unit forms the basis of the estimates. DNR staffers informed me that because of malfunctioning wolf collars, a situation that has persisted for a number of years, for this past winter they felt an estimate was not possible.

So, the DNR is finally trying new collars – a different kind. I compare the number of wolves collared with past decades, and also with other states. The placement of wolf collars has dropped substantially, and with the chronic malfunctioning of those collars, that effort is just not working.

I hope the new collars will function, and that the placement of collars will be adequate in the future to estimate wolf numbers. There is really no excuse for this because it used to be that DNR airplanes flew the old-style collars, and that was much more expensive than the satellite collars in use now.

Compare Wisconsin’s wolf numbers – second highest in the Lower 48 – to situations in other states. Wisconsin counts at the lowest point in the wolf population cycle.

Other states use a variety of techniques, some counting in summer, others year-round, some in the fall and early winter. Wisconsin does not include an estimate for lone wolves and dispersing wolves, as most other states do. According to the DNR, Wisconsin’s wolf population has remained fairly stable since 2017, while Michigan’s went up from 631 (in 2022) to 762 (in 2024) in the last count. Did Wisconsin’s also rise during that time? We are not told.

In Washington, the count went up 20% each year between 2008 and 2024. In the latest estimate, pack numbers went up, but the wolf estimate went down. The wolf population in eastern Washington has been delisted since 2011; the western portion is still classified as federally endangered.

I question the large differences in how other states count wolves to include loner and dispersing wolves (Washington uses 12.5% of the population estimate, Minnesota uses 15%), while Wisconsin does not include these animals in our count.

This entire discussion is much more important this year, as we possibly approach being able to manage these wolves. Wolf harvest quotas are decided by management zone, and as the designated wolf habitat “appropriateness” of the zone increases (1, 2, and 5), the harvest permits decrease. This has a big impact on how we can control wolf numbers and hopefully decrease conflicts, which were more than 100 on the listing for this past year, and are already looking like another record for conflicts.

There has been little public input into the wolf monitoring program or any facet of wolf management since the permanent DNR Wolf Advisory Committee was abolished by Gov. Scott Walker. A newly announced recruitment for a permanent wolf advisory committee went out recently.

I encourage our organizations to look at who might represent your group, and choose an experienced person with lots of wolf knowledge and face-to-face experience. Please see the DNR website and provide applicants who are up to representing those impacted most heavily by wolves.

Laurie Groskopf has worked on sensible wolf management since the 1990s and continues to advocate for responsible wolf management that promotes safety for the wolves as well as less conflicts for the people directly impacted by those wolves.