More Deer Killed By Wolves Than By Hunters in 2019

By: Daniel E. Schmidt Editor-in-Chief | December 19, 2019

Gray wolves are now responsible for killing more white-tailed deer in four counties of one Great Lakes state than annual the number of deer killed by gun-hunters, according to data released this week by a state group.

The unmanaged proliferation of wolves is directly linked to the efforts of two anti-hunting organizations that have routinely used Federal judges to stop the scientific-based management of the animals. The Wisconsin population is now 5 times greater than the original population goal set by state biologists — and agreed to by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — more than 20 years ago.


A gray wolf cruises a spruce swamp in search of food. This image was captured during a deer hunt in northern Minnesota in 2018.

In the 2019 Wisconsin example, gray wolves (also known as timber wolves) were responsible for 31% of all deer killed by either human hunters or timber wolves in Wisconsin’s entire North Woods, which encompasses several million acres across 17 counties. In 2019 alone, an estimated 48,851 deer were killed — 33,571 by gun-hunters and 15,280 by wolf predation in the following counties: Iron, Ashland, Douglas, Forest, Vilas, Sawyer, Price, Bayfield, Lincoln, Florence, Oneida, Langlade, Burnett, Rusk, Taylor, Washburn, Marinette and Oconto. The data was released this week by the group called Wisconsin Wolf Facts.

Wolves killed more deer than did hunters in Iron, Jackson, Douglas and Forest counties. The heaviest predation occurred in Douglas County, where wolves killed an estimated 2,260 whitetails. Gun-hunters in that county only took home 1,790 deer this year.

Wolves were responsible for another 12% of deer killed (2,780 whitetails) in the central counties of Jackson, Wood, Juneau, Clark, Eau Claire, Adams and Monroe.

HISTORY OF WOLVES IN WISCONSIN:

1800: Wisconsin’s pre-settlement landscape is home to an estimated 4,500 eastern timber wolves.

1848: Wisconsin becomes the 30th state.

1865: State declares a bounty on wolves.

1957: Bounty program ends.

1960: Wolves considered extirpated from Wisconsin.

1967: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designates the eastern timber wolf as a federally endangered species.

1975: Several wild wolves disperse from Minnesota and move into northern Wisconsin.

1980: Wisconsin wolf population is estimated at 25 animals in five packs.

1999: Wisconsin DNR unveils management plan that calls for a population goal of 250 wolves. Plan includes a provision for delisting wolves once this number is reached.

2003: Federal government reclassifies wolves from endangered to threatened in Wisconsin.

2004: Wisconsin’s wolf population reaches 373 animals. Wolves are removed from the state’s list of threatened species.

2004: Two anti-hunting organizations file a federal lawsuit that challenges Wisconsin’s delisting of wolves.

2005: Federal judge sides with anti-hunting organizations and reclassifies Wisconsin’s wolves as threatened.

2011: More than 200 packs of wolves roam Wisconsin, with an estimated population of 825 animals.

2012: Wolves delisted in Wisconsin. Wisconsin DNR drafts framework for a hunting and trapping season aimed to reduce the population by 14% (about 200). Tribal members are awarded 42% of the overall tags. The state issues 1,160 wolf hunting/trapping licenses to the general public, as biologists estimate a 10% success rate among the general public.

2012-2013: Hunters and trappers harvest 243 animals during Wisconsin’s first wolf season. The total harvest is comprised of 59% males and 41% females. Trappers account for 52% of the total harvest.

2013: The state sells applications to 16,672 hunters/trappers and awards 2,510 permits. The statewide quota is 275 wolves, with 251 of these tags available to state license holders.

2013: Wisconsin hunters and trappers harvest 257 wolves in the state’s second wolf season. Of the animals taken, 134 were males, 123 females. Trappers account for 70% of the harvest (180 animals).

2014: Anti-hunters file anohter federal lawsuit, calling for Wisconsin wolves to be placed back on the endangered list. Federal judge sides with anti-hunters and grants the protection. David Mech, a wolf expert for the U.S. Geological Survey, told the Star Tribune he was perplexed by the court ruling because it runs against ample scientific evidence that wolves are not endangered in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. “It sure is going to surprise a lot of people, especially wolf biologists,’’ said Mech, who has studied wolves for 56 years and provided testimony the last time wolves in the region were removed from Endangered Species Act protections.

2014: Wisconsin’s wolf population is estimated at 747 animals.

2017: Wisconsin’s wolf population is estimated at 925 animals.

2018: Wisconsin’s wolf population is estimated at 978 animals.

2019: Wolves kill more deer than do gun-deer hunters in four Wisconsin counties. Wolves are also responsible for more than 31% of the white-tailed deer (15,280) killed in the 17 counties that comprise Wisconsin’s “North Woods.”



Courtesy of Wisconsin Wolf Facts, 2019.



Wisconsin deer hunter Steve Robillard captured this trail cam image of 7 gray wolves on his hunting property in 2019. The photo was taken in Oconto County. Earlier in 2019, the Wisconsin DNR estimated the number of wolves residing in Oconto County at 8 animals — bringing up obvious questions about the state’s population estimate. (photo courtesy of Steve Robillard)

GRAY WOLF FACTS:

•There are more than 60,000 gray wolves in Canada.

•The U.S. is home to about 20,000 gray wolves.

•Nearly one-third of all the gray wolves in the U.S. lives in three states: Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan.

•On average, one gray wolf will eat 20 white-tailed deer per year.

•Wolf population control has been a political football ever since the states agreed to reintroduce the animals to the North woods decades ago Wisconsin’s first wolf hunting and trapping season took place in 2013, but was quickly halted by Federal judges when lawsuits were filed by the Humane Society of the United States and The Fund for Animals — two anti-hunting organizations.

READ MORE:

DON’T BELIEVE THE LIES: WOLVES ARE NOT ENDANGERED

WOLF PREDATION ON LIVESTOCK ON DRAMATIC RISE

WOLVES WIPE OUT FAMILY’S SHEEP FARM IN ONE NIGHT

STATE RESIDENTS CALL FOR AN END TO WOLF ENDANGERED STATUS

https://www.deeranddeerhunting....XfujAUN2uDU.twitter

Look out Idaho, its out of control, the experts forgot one word in all their brilliance and that is "litter"...Elk and deer have one or two offspring at the most, wolves have 6 to 8 or more...

I have spent a lot of time running cats yotes and bears in Douglas county.

After any fresh snow one can find wolf tracks.

There is no shortage of wolves in northern wis.

I saw 10 to 15 last year and have pictures of more.

The DNT population estimates are there to appease the anti's.

Interesting facts, Ann. We have a problem, all across the wolf's range, and there is no easy solution.
Thanks

Zeke

we could use the same solution they used in the 1800's.
even then it took 90 years with a bonus on them to get their numbers under control.

think about it like this.
those deer numbers in those 4 counties are unsustainable.
the wolves are gonna get hungry and do what hungry wolves do.

I live in east TN, we border VA and NC. Just the tail end of last year VA announced they were re-enterducing the Red Wolf. NC many years ago brought in more Mountain Lions, which are native to the area to begin with, to control the deer population. I got them running forest surrounding my land, including a family of all black ones. Many of us have seen them so there is no denying they are here. We're getting over run by coyotes too and Lamar can verify that I shot on in my damn yard last summer. Lamar even stated that it had exceptionally long legs for a coyote and it must be inter-breeding with a wolf or German Shepherd. Of course all you heard about the coyotes in the states have been inter-breeding with Canadian wolves and these hybrid is even more menacing then the coyote.

Yup it's all the environmental wackos and anti-hunters that have caused the problem in my opinion. You just can't bring back something that has gone extinct or near extinction. Now scientist are trying to breed back a pure Wooly Mammoth!!!!

There is solution, and that's the use of cynade guns that have been legalized recently, and some poisons..better yet use that stuff on the antis!!!

Ray, cyanide guns are a VERY bad idea... especially if you run bird dogs. I remember the problems that 1080 caused years ago and it was finally outlawed.

I have friends that own properties in the U.P. of Michigan and been deer hunting on it for over 50 years. In recent years they've given up on deer hunting as they are no longer around in huntable numbers. Trail cams around their blinds show wolves 10x more than deer.

Having a couple wolves around is one thing, ever increasing packs that aren't being controlled is downright dumb.

I quit hunting cats and hares in the UP and N WI 15+ years ago because of the damn wolves killing dogs.

I used Cynade guns for years on our ranch growing up, its the only way to control coyotes in sheep country, along with traps and snares, that's what it takes..Kept my cow dogs in town during the winter when trapping, in the summer we hunted them with calls at night with spotlight, a couple of my dogs knew what a cynide gun was....Don't hunt your dogs on a ranch that has cynide guns, or keep your bird dogs away from the cynide guns, the ranch knows where they are set...They only recently have been made legal again, and there was a reason for that.the deer, antelope and elk are suffering as well as birds, that's the big picture..I had bird hunters back then at $100 per day and they brought their dogs, never lost one..management and control help..Its a trade off, but common since tells the story..

Ray-

The M44 with sodium cyanide is one of the WORST things to be used for coyotes as it kills far too many non-target species, which is proven over and over again by research -- and substantiated by actual field data from state trappers and biologists.

It may be legal in some areas again, but it is likely THE worst choice out there for coyote control due to collateral damage. Its usage needs to be permanently banned.

I researched it thoroughly myself for a college project back in the early 80s and spent time with a few state trappers. Bobcats, coons, foxes, skunks, opossums, dogs and even a young calf were among the victims I personally saw. Coyotes comprised less than 20 percent of the kills. Sacrificing 4+ animals for every coyote is not the way to go.

That system does not discriminate. Whatever trips it is likely going to die. Also, I found that the trappers did not always include all of the non-target kills in their final reports -- because they wanted to be hired again by the individual counties for the following year. So as bad as the percentages are, they may be even worse due to bias and inaccuracy in the reporting.

In Idaho, an M-44 temporarily blinded a child and killed three family dogs in two incidents in 2017. I'm sure you should know about those incidents as that happened in your own back yard, so to speak.

SSS is part of the answer.

Here in Idaho our legendary Fish and Game department has a plan. They intend to mismanage the deer, elk and moose right out of existence. Let the wolves starve.

This ought to do wonders for the"used to be hunters dollars" in the areas wolves take over.

Bobby,
Your post is somewhat correct but misleading in that a steel trap, a snare, or 1080 do not discriminate?????? Yes my sets killed a few skunks, foxes, a Javalina or two, lots of coyotes and two Lions over the years, I call that a pretty good trade off..and up until around 19?? Brewster County and Presidio were coyote free sheep and goat ranches..That part changed as cattle came back with a good market and no need for coyote control, and they prospered, and the "buffer ranches' no longer assisted the inner ranch country..Something you left out of your thesis perhaps.

You speak of personal injurey of the M-44, how about the personal injury of firearms, not a good bucket of worms to open up IMO..The number of people injured or killed in automobile accidents..Perhaps your post is a little unfair to the American rancher of texas trying to feed a family and run a successful operation..

Now 1080 is a whole nuther ball game as is striknine as those poisons kills and rekill as animals feed on multi carcases and stricknyne even contaminates the ground for ions or forever killing as its passed from one animal or bird..It will never be allowed again...I leased a ranch one time out of Hillsboro that had high fence 10x10 and a gov. sign stating do not enter striknyne plot..

Just an opposite view open for conversation, no battle..

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
Ray-

The M44 with sodium cyanide is one of the WORST things to be used for coyotes as it kills far too many non-target species, which is proven over and over again by research -- and substantiated by actual field data from state trappers and biologists.

It may be legal in some areas again, but it is likely THE worst choice out there for coyote control due to collateral damage. Its usage needs to be permanently banned.

I researched it thoroughly myself for a college project back in the early 80s and spent time with a few state trappers. Bobcats, coons, foxes, skunks, opossums, dogs and even a young calf were among the victims I personally saw. Coyotes comprised less than 20 percent of the kills. Sacrificing 4+ animals for every coyote is not the way to go.

That system does not discriminate. Whatever trips it is likely going to die. Also, I found that the trappers did not always include all of the non-target kills in their final reports -- because they wanted to be hired again by the individual counties for the following year. So as bad as the percentages are, they may be even worse due to bias and inaccuracy in the reporting.

In Idaho, an M-44 temporarily blinded a child and killed three family dogs in two incidents in 2017. I'm sure you should know about those incidents as that happened in your own back yard, so to speak.

We use the M 44 in the northwest corner of South Dakota and do not have that high of a percentage of nontarget kills whatsoever.

It is very rural and nobody is going to be walking their dogs in the area and if by chance there is the bait sides are required to have signage around the area to give a warning. There also has to be signage to the closest road access to the bait site.

If the person using them knows how to make a good canine set it won't get the interest of other critters. I am not saying that it doesn't gets things besides coyotes but they work pretty darn good and safe for us.

Has anybody ever tried Hops as a poison for coyotes or wolves?
AFAIK, the pollen gives canids fatal hyperthermia but I don’t know if it has any effect on other animals.

If the wolf problem is to become under control, the only way is the way texas handled it many years ago...The cattle ranches surrounding the sheep ranches had to join in and become buffer zones to kill the critters before they got to the sheep areas..they did exactly that, all but exterminated the coyote in that area..They all used M-44s, snares, steel traps and poison religiously, and it took a number of years..The deer and antelope also came back and the fly boxes got rid of the screw worm, another killer of everything..I learned to rope doctoring screw worms 10 hours a day 7 days a week for the most part, my spare time was running traps. It worked then and will work today..The real killer is US fish and game, Texas was ALL private land ranches,

The problem in the Pacific NW is government, liberals, and idiots that will never come together on a plan and the elk and deer will soon be gone, the wild horses and wolves will win at the rate were going, but the grass will be overgrazed and gone the wolves will starve the horses died..

The moral of the story is "Don't mess with Mother Nature" and where did the pheasant of Idaho go, A hawk or eagle on every telephone post in the state..F&G spent millions for a study, instead of a tank of gas between Twin Falls and Sun Valley..

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
If the wolf problem is to become under control, the only way is the way texas handled it many years ago...The cattle ranches surrounding the sheep ranches had to join in and become buffer zones to kill the critters before they got to the sheep areas..they did exactly that, all but exterminated the coyote in that area..They all used M-44s, snares, steel traps and poison religiously, and it took a number of years..The deer and antelope also came back and the fly boxes got rid of the screw worm, another killer of everything..I learned to rope doctoring screw worms 10 hours a day 7 days a week for the most part, my spare time was running traps. It worked then and will work today..The real killer is US fish and game, Texas was ALL private land ranches,

The problem in the Pacific NW is government, liberals, and idiots that will never come together on a plan and the elk and deer will soon be gone, the wild horses and wolves will win at the rate were going, but the grass will be overgrazed and gone the wolves will starve the horses died..

The moral of the story is "Don't mess with Mother Nature" and where die the pheasant of Idaho go, A hawk or eagle on every telephone post in the state..

I have to agree with Ray. It sure seems silly to protect predators the way they are now under the Fed rules. Very few really suffer 'endangered' status anymore. Controlled hunting is not a bad thing when it comes to evening the score out.

Wolves were planted to STOP HUNTING simple as that!!!

Funny ,none of the Wolf lovers post when facts are presented??

quote:

Originally posted by Slider:
Wolves were planted to STOP HUNTING simple as that!!!

That is sadly very true.

Anti's of all colors do not deal in facts they deal in lies

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
Ray-

The M44 with sodium cyanide is one of the WORST things to be used for coyotes as it kills far too many non-target species, which is proven over and over again by research -- and substantiated by actual field data from state trappers and biologists.

It may be legal in some areas again, but it is likely THE worst choice out there for coyote control due to collateral damage. Its usage needs to be permanently banned.

I researched it thoroughly myself for a college project back in the early 80s and spent time with a few state trappers. Bobcats, coons, foxes, skunks, opossums, dogs and even a young calf were among the victims I personally saw. Coyotes comprised less than 20 percent of the kills. Sacrificing 4+ animals for every coyote is not the way to go.

That system does not discriminate. Whatever trips it is likely going to die. Also, I found that the trappers did not always include all of the non-target kills in their final reports -- because they wanted to be hired again by the individual counties for the following year. So as bad as the percentages are, they may be even worse due to bias and inaccuracy in the reporting.

In Idaho, an M-44 temporarily blinded a child and killed three family dogs in two incidents in 2017. I'm sure you should know about those incidents as that happened in your own back yard, so to speak.

Possible alternative ?

https://www.preventivevet.com/...r-dangerous-for-dogs


Heard about this at a predator control work shop, regarding coyotes.

Grizz

quote:

Originally posted by Slider:
Wolves were planted to STOP HUNTING simple as that!!!

There is now talk of re-establishing grizzly bear populations in some areas where they were formerly found. California used to have LOTS of grizzlies... maybe they can start there?

They want to Plant 500 Grizzles in Washington State. ALL FEMALES? Why Females? BECAUSE THEY ARE PREGNANT!!! So NOT 500 like they Claim. It would be 1500!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Slider:
They want to Plant 500 Grizzles in Washington State. ALL FEMALES? Why Females? BECAUSE THEY ARE PREGNANT!!! So NOT 500 like they Claim. It would be 1500!!!

And where are they going to get 500 pregnant grizzles to plant there.

Montana and Canada

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

Originally posted by Slider:
They want to Plant 500 Grizzles in Washington State. ALL FEMALES? Why Females? BECAUSE THEY ARE PREGNANT!!! So NOT 500 like they Claim. It would be 1500!!!

And where are they going to get 500 pregnant grizzles to plant there.

Who gets to do the preg check ?

Grizz

quote:

Originally posted by Slider:
Montana and Canada

Good luck getting a single bear out of here. A lot of our border bears wander back and forth into Montana and Washington as is.

Grizz

quote:

Originally posted by Slider:
They want to Plant 500 Grizzles in Washington State. ALL FEMALES? Why Females? BECAUSE THEY ARE PREGNANT!!! So NOT 500 like they Claim. It would be 1500!!!

Who is "they"? Do you have any documentation for your claim?

NPS Northern Cascades DRAFT Grizzly restoration plan shows various options, none of which indicate a number anywhere near 500, nor all females, but among the DRAFT plan it states in one of the options: "Grizzly bears that would be considered appropriate candidates for capture and release would be typically independent subadults between 2 and 5 years of age that had not yet reproduced and had exhibited no history of human conflict. The target sex ratio for initial releases would be approximately 60% to 80% female and 20% to 40% male."

Regardless, I imagine it would take many, many years to coordinate trapping, transporting and PAYING for such an effort, if it ever gains traction.

quote:

Originally posted by erict:
NPS Northern Cascades DRAFT Grizzly restoration plan shows various options, none of which indicate a number anywhere near 500, nor all females, but among the DRAFT plan it states in one of the options: "Grizzly bears that would be considered appropriate candidates for capture and release would be typically independent subadults between 2 and 5 years of age that had not yet reproduced and had exhibited no history of human conflict. The target sex ratio for initial releases would be approximately 60% to 80% female and 20% to 40% male."

Regardless, I imagine it would take many, many years to coordinate trapping, transporting and PAYING for such an effort, if it ever gains traction.

If this happens will monies paid by taxes upon hunters be used to fund this (P-R Act)? Only to keep a 'recovered species' forever off limits to hunting quotas?