Wolves in the Wilderness

I'm back from a brief foray into the Northwoods -- it was my return to deer hunting after several years off.

There is a topic that is very important to many Wisconsinites that has come up in recent years: wolves. I don't know all the details of wolf preservation/restoration in Wisconsin, but I'll try to offer my take.

As I understand it, wolves used to roam in plenty over most of what is now Wisconsin (as did other beasts such as black bears, buffalo, elk, and whitetail deer). Over the years, residents and farmers have seen wolves as a pest -- they have been known to prey on livestock when given the opportunity and there is concern they may attack humans. As a result, wolves were hunted and killed and eventually were near-vanquished from the state. The gray wolf is currently protected by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The complaint I have heard is that deer are harder to find and livestock are needlessly killed due to the WI DNR's plan to protect and allow wolves to repopulate* Wisconsin. [*Note: I say 'allow wolves to repopulate' because it's not clear whether wolves have been actively reintroduced/relocated into Wisconsin. I have been told the DNR has denied planting any new wolves in the state and has allowed them to naturally relocate.]

The DNR goes so far as to provide compensation for pets and livestock that is verifiably killed by wolves.

My take is that wolves are a former natural inhabitant of Wisconsin and many other states. While nature is in some respects counter to the interests of humans, I generally prefer that nature be allowed to flourish as it may. As such, I support reasonable measures to preserve a wolf population.

There is a risk that wolves may 'take over', killing deer, livestock, pets and whatsoever they may decide. If the population takes off, I would be in support of a wolf management program that would involve public or DNR hunting to maintain a scientifically-determined population.

I am against providing compensation for livestock and pet deaths caused by wolves. Statistics reported on Wikipedia show wolf predation is much lower in the US than in other continents where there are wolves. It's certainly an unfortunate consequence of allowing wolves in the wild and I sympathize with farmers who have lost animals to wolves, but I don't believe taxpayers should be held responsible for predatory acts of nature. Interestingly, if your livestock were killed by a bear or a mountain lion, I don't believe you would be granted any compensation.

As for the difficulty in finding deer, I sympathize with hunters. It's not fun to go hunting and not see any deer. The deer population, as measured and reported by the DNR, has long been way over a sustainable, healthy level. Deer have been wildly successful in procreating and this weakens the herd and leaves them more susceptible to disease and starvation -- not to mention increased crop damage, invasion of urban areas, and increased car-deer accidents. The DNR has tried 'Earn-a-Buck' hunting in certain areas to bring down the deer population -- hunters hate it and complain about it, but it seems to help. Perhaps a larger wolf population will help to reduce the deer herd.

I don't want to say this is right or wrong. This is not a clear-cut issue. I'm concerned it is contested very emotionally and with little respect for the few facts that are available. I say I support nature and wolves, but it could equally be argued that whatever actions and consequences of humanity are natural.

For full disclosure, I am not a farmer and do not live in the north where wolves are most prevalent. I would not be opposed to seeing wolves in the rural areas around where I live. I am more leery of mountain lions and bears, though I think they also deserve a spot in our habitats -- I consider that they naturally have always had a smaller population than wolves.