When the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources “Wolf Advisory Committee” met last month it was a foregone conclusion that they would push for an expanded wolf slaughter for this fall. The DNR has stacked this committee with anti-wolf groups and representatives of various anti-wolf government agencies. The only pro-wolf entity on this sham committee is a representative from the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. The Timber Wolf Alliance pretends to be pro-wolf but in reality are pro-wolf hunt and they have never put up any objections to the reckless “management” the DNR keeps pushing. These are the members of this sham “committee” that set the yearly wolf slaughter numbers:
Bill Vander Zouwen, DNR WM Chair
David MacFarland, DNR WM CO
Adrian Wydeven – DNR WM CO
Brad Koele – DNR WM CO
Steve Hoffman – DNR WM NOD
David Halfmann – DNR WM NED
Sara Kehrli – DNR WM SOD
Kris Johansen – DNR WM WCD
Dan Michels – DNR LE
Barry Gilcheck – DNR CSL
Jenny Pelej – DNR CE
Brian Dhuey – DNR SS
Lee Fahrney – Conservation Congress
Eric Koens – Wisconsin Cattlemans Association
Mike Gappa – Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association
Joe Koback – Safari Club International
Randy Jurewicz – Timber Wolf Alliance
Mike Brust – Wisconsin Bowhunters Association
Peter Fasbender – USFWS
Jake Walcisak – Wisconsin County Forest Association
Dan Eklund – USFS
Jason Suckow – USDA WS
Maynard Breunig – Wisconsin Trappers Association
Ralph Fritsch – Wisconsin Wildlife Federation
Peter David – GLIFWC
Notice a pattern? Not one pro-wolf group. In fact the Humane Society of the United States, the Sierra Club, and the National Wolfwatcher Coalition were all excluded by the DNR. This is the reasoning that DNR talking head, Bill Vander Zouwen, head of the sham committee, gave for their exclusion from this article:
The DNR’s Bill Vander Zouwen says two wolf committees were combined and some slots were reduced.
“There’s a limited number of people or groups on the committee to make them workable, but everybody still has an opportunity for input.”
Zouwen also promises later public round tables that will bring in a wide variety of comments.
About those “public roundtables?” Are they supposed to discuss this reckless 275 quota? If so they better get on the ball because the Natural Resources Board finalizes it next week. The NRB ignored the 3,000 letters sent in opposition to the use of dogs against wolves so are they expected to be the conduit for citizen input? I highly doubt it. Just like the sham committee, the DNR keeps blowing smoke and doing nothing to consider the input of anyone other than their killing cartel masters.
If you are not furious then you are not paying attention. Maybe this will help. These are excerpts from the “Wolf Advisory Committee Meeting Notes” from the May 23, 2013 meeting in Wausau. Sit down when you read these.
Changes in wolf policy led to a higher than average turnover in the volunteer tracking pool. Shock!
Then there is this list of BS from Eric Koens of the Cattleman’s Association:
1. I have been raising cattle for over 50 years. As per USDA stats, cattlemen are the sector of society most adversely effected by wolves.
2. There was no livestock representation or consideration drafting the 1999 Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan.
3. Wolves are portrayed as elusive animals. They are living on our farms, entering our buildings, and eating dog food off of the porch.
4. Wolves are counter-productive when raising livestock. Depredation is only the tip of the iceberg regarding damage.
5. Wolves result in stress on both the producers and livestock. Sleepless nights hearing cattle being chased by wolves in the pasture. Hearing bawling cattle and fence wire stretching as cattle stampede through fences.
6. Cattle become very agitated and aggressive, a danger to anybody entering the pastures after depredations.
7. Stampeding cattle trample calves, killing them and injuring others. Some cattle cannot be found, and some are shot or hit by vehicles on roads.
8. Cattle huddle near buildings and will not graze in pastures where wolves are present.
9. Neosporious is a disease that causes cattle to abort their calves. Canines spread the disease in feces. Wolves and coyotes are definitive hosts for the disease.
So now wolves are “eating dog food right of the porch?” Sure. I wonder why this only happens with people that hate wolves? What a bunch of crap this guy is spreading. Oh, the poor, poor, ranchers that get subsidized by taxpayers for their businesses, get government wildlife assassins to kill any animals that they perceive to be “threats,” and then get compensated for alleged “missing” cattle based on their word. I want this guy to provide impartial evidence of the ridiculous accusations that he is spreading. Any bets he can’t?
Then we have Professor Adrian Treves presenting his findings about why these people hate wolves so much and the findings come as little surprise:
Most money for depredation compensation comes from the southeast part of the state, but surveys were done in wolf range. A majority of respondents want compensation for wolf depredation on livestock to continue, but want it to be contingent upon verification of wolf involvement and use of best management practices by livestock producers.
This is actually good, because people recognize that it is the responsibility of the ranchers to protect their livestock rather than expecting a sterile, predator free environment. And if most of the depredation money comes from the southeastern part of the state, why doesn’t the rest of the state have a say in wolf “management?”
The highest rate of support for lethal control of wolves was among bear hunters, then cattle producers, then random residents.
Gee, what a shock!
Decrease in tolerance of wolves among residents of wolf range was most highly related to competitiveness for deer. The inclination to poach wolves was correlated with competitiveness over deer, not with fear of wolves or depredation. There was also a decline in appreciation for ecological values of wolves.
So there we have it. The hatred for this animal all comes down to them being “competition” for deer. What a joke. Wisconsin has 1.4 MILLION deer on average after the hunting seasons, and it still isn’t enough for these people. I guess having an ecological disaster is worth it so some slob can get that “trophy buck.”
The one voice of reason came from tribal representative, Peter David:
Peter David (Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission) suggested that things are being done out of order. The existing management plan doesn’t address harvest. The 350 population goal can be interpreted in different ways. It is an old goal written when the population was ~200, and was based on social tolerance. Should that be the primary consideration in wolf management? We don’t have the ability to fully evaluate the effect of the first harvest season. We don’t yet know the age structure of harvested wolves. The tribes suggest being conservative until the plan is revised and impacts of the first harvest are better known. The emphasis of this group is harvest, which is being viewed as synonymous with management. Three hundred fifty is not a stable number to manage at. The tribes’ objective is to see all suitable habitat occupied. Minnesota is not intending to reduce the population with quotas. Michigan is only attempting to reduce depredation problems with their harvest.
But of course the voice of reason was ignored by the killing cartels responsible for setting the kill quota for this fall.
Bill Vander Zouwen provided a list of the types of opinions on quotas that were heard from Committee members at the last meeting. They ranged from wanting to get to a goal of 350 as soon as possible to being very conservative in light of uncertainty or tribal views of wolves.
Gee, I wonder which one they chose?
After it became clear that not everyone could rally around a particular quota, Committee members were polled about what they felt the quota should be. Answers ranged from a quota that produced a 5% increase in the population to a quota of 416.
Sure, let’s just kill off over half of the population. I wonder which groups supported that?
One member stated the population is being managed for social tolerance. Discussion followed with the conclusion that social tolerance would have to be measured statewide if we were going to manage for it.
Really? The DNR has been saying for the past year that they are killing wolves for “social tolerance.” So if it is being measure statewide then why are the voices in the rest of the state being ignored? More lip service from the corrupt DNR and their puppets.
Committee members were repeatedly asked if there was anyone who could not live with this recommendation, even though it may not have been their preferred quota. All, except the tribal representative, were ok with the quota.
This includes the Timber Wolf Alliance that are okay with this mass slaughter. If anyone donates to that group, now might be a good time to reconsider that position.
The factors to be considered in setting license numbers were read from administrative code adopted in the emergency rule. Basically, they involve reaching the quota, not exceeding the quota, providing opportunity for as many hunters and trappers as possible, and not so many that zones close before many people get a chance to hunt or trap when and where they want to.
So it is all about providing sport killing opportunities for the wolf killing sadists in this state. How does this equate to “management?” It doesn’t.
So there you have it. This is what passes for “public input” in the state of Wisconsin. Representatives from interconnected killing cartels and their associated lobbyists get to decide how to “manage” an animal that they are on record showing contempt for. We also see that the Timber Wolf Alliance is no friend of the wolf and blindly goes along with whatever slaughter plans that the DNR come up with. This plan is reckless and again only promotes “hunter and trapper opportunity” with a side of revenge.
The only opportunity for “public input” is at the Natural Resources Board meeting on June 26th and they have shown little to no inclination to consider the views of the citizens in this state. That being said we still must bombard them with speakers and letters to show them that we do not approve of this reckless plan or how this sham committee came up with this ridiculous kill quota.
Here again is the information for submitting comments to the NRB for their June 26
rubber stamping meeting:
Written comment guidelines
If you are commenting on a current Board agenda item, please include the following information in your comment:
- Agenda item number.
- Whether or not you support the item.
If your comments are lengthy, please begin with a one-paragraph summary.
Deadline and procedures to testify or submit written comments
The deadline to register to testify or to submit comments is 11 a.m. on the Friday prior to each meeting unless otherwise noted.
When scheduling an appearance or submitting a written comment, please provide the following information:
- Your name.
- Name of organization(s) you represent (if none, state that you are “representing self”).
- Topic or agenda item number and whether you support or oppose it.
- City of residence.
- Phone number.
- Email or mailing address, so the Board Liaison can confirm your appearance or reply to your written comment.
Email or call the Board Liaison to schedule citizen participation and public appearances before the Board. Email or mail written comments to the Board Liaison.
Laurie J. Ross, Board Liaison
Office of the Secretary
PO Box 7921
Madison WI 53707-7921
Please, please, please keep the pressure on these people. They refuse to listen to the majority and this reckless plan will only serve to bring our wolf population closer and closer to the brink.
Read more here:
For more information including location of NRB meeting please go here: