For the first time since 2013 hunters will have a chance to hunt gray wolves in most of Wyoming this fall.

On Monday the Wyoming Game and Fish Department came to Jackson to discuss its proposals for wolf hunting quotas and regulations.

Since wolves were reintroduced to Wyoming in 1995 the wolf population has nearly reached its sustainable carrying capacity, despite losing protections for two years and then being relisted on the endangered species list in September 2014.

The spike in population, wildlife managers say, resulted in a sharp increase in livestock depredation and human-caused mortality as wolf packs traveled outside of the Trophy Game Management Area around Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park in search of areas with fewer wolves to compete with to the south and east.

The management area will have set seasons and quotas. In the rest of the state people can kill wolves by most any means in most any situation without a license.

“Without hunting and with a stable population that was producing a lot of pups the population went up,” said Ken Mills, wolf management specialist for Game and Fish. “The distribution of wolves expanding into areas that are not suitable habitat went up, as did the number of conflicts.”

Mills reported a “record number” of cattle depredations last year — almost 150 — and sheep depredations, and 113 wolves were killed in control actions by or at the direction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

On April 25 a court mandate returned management of gray wolves to the state of Wyoming. Starting this year it will once again allow the hunting of wolves in the Trophy Game Management Area.

With Wyoming regaining control of the management of its wolves, “we’ll look to reverse this trend,” Mills said. “We can manage livestock depredations while still having a resilient wolf population.”

The ideal population

To avoid having its management powers revoked again Game and Fish must maintain at least 100 wolves and 10 breeding partners at the end of each calendar year outside of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park.

It must have 150 wolves, including 15 breeding partners, in the state, including the national parks and the Trophy Game Management Area.

“There’s no other jurisdiction that has to manage wolves the way we do,” Mills said. “We have a much smaller population [compared with Idaho or Montana] and a smaller area of suitable habitat. But on the plus side Idaho and Montana can’t manage their populations; they can’t overharvest their population. We can. Essentially we’re managing a population in a brand-new way.”

Accounting for the number of pups born each spring Game and Fish estimated the ideal population to meet standards is 160 wolves. According to its data and prevalent population studies, 40 deaths a year would stabilize the population at 210 wolves. An additional 50 mortalities would reduce the population to 160 wolves and 14 breeding partners, providing room for margin of error.

With roughly 48 wolves estimated to die each year from nonhunting human causes, the hunting quota for 2017 is recommended to be 42 wolves.

“We do believe these are conservative,” Mills said, “but we have to be sure we manage for that 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves.”

Carlton Loewer, who works as an outfitter, believes the numbers are too conservative and quotas should be higher to reduce further livestock depredation.

“Their numbers are constantly changing,” he said, “but I don’t think we’re ever going to run out of wolves.”

Asking for buffer zones

Lisa Robertson, representing the nonprofit Wyoming Untrapped, which seek reform of trapping laws, called for stricter regulations, including a protected buffer zone around the national parks, in part to promote the wildlife-viewing tourism industry.

“More people are coming here to see live animals than to kill them,” she said. “I think a buffer zone is a pretty reasonable request.”

Wolves were first delisted in Wyoming and then quickly relisted following a Montana U.S. District Court decision on July 18, 2008, that made the U.S. Forest Service re-examine Wyoming’s management plan.

In 2012 gray wolves were once again delisted in Wyoming, but following a lawsuit by Earthjustice they were again relisted by a court order that deemed the state’s management plan inadequate. That decision was appealed, and wolves were delisted again April 25.

Earthjustice said it will not appeal the latest decision due to a congressional bill being debated to remove federal protections for wolves nationwide.

Wyoming Game and Fish is traveling the state presenting its case to cities around the state and collecting public comment.

Once the public engagement period is complete June 19 Mills will present the data to the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, which will make any changes it sees fit to make and issue a final decision on the new regulations.

If approved as is gray wolf season will open Oct. 1 and close Dec. 31, except in hunting area 12, which opens Oct. 15.

This article has been edited to correct the attribution of the call for stricter wolf-hunting regulations. It was Lisa Robertson of Wyoming Untrapped, a nonprofit that seeks to reform trapping rules in Wyoming. — Eds.

Contact John Spina at 732-5911, town@jhnewsandguide.com or @JHNGtown.

Cody Cottier covers town and state government. He grew up with a view of the Olympic Mountains, and after graduating Washington State University he traded it for a view of the Tetons. Odds are the mountains are where you’ll find him when not on deadline.

(42) comments

thomas north

Trophy hunters are just cowards who get a thrill out of killing something that cant defend itself. if you want to go after a wolf with a knife then I might respect you. Most are chickenshits who never served. As for ranchers, thanks, I stopped eating beef years ago and im in perfect health. The very arrogance of grazing off govt land then whining about wolf depredations is laughable. Get a real job

Glenn Graham

Chad - Your assertion that it is only "an animal" is astonishing. "I don't trap, and seeing an animal caught that way bothers me, but it is an animal and I would never stop other human beings from trapping as they and their ancestors have for millennia".

Do you not think that animals only want to live? That they have families? That they feel pain? Do you really think that animals are here for your amusement? That they can suffer the torture of trapping because people like Bob think it's funny? Where does your "right" to treat animals like vermin come from? Your callous and inhuman view of the animals that we share the planet with is shocking.

You say: "My opinions do not infringe on your or other like minded pro wolf people's rights, your opinions DO infringe on the rights of hunters and trappers throughout this nation".

Your opinions along with "the rights" of hunters and trappers result in the torture and killing of those that do nothing to deserve it and don't get to have an opinion. Speaking up for them, and against such brutal and uncaring inhumanity is highly important to the majority that rejects this archaic view of wildlife.

Chad guenter

The wolves and bears are NOT human beings Mr. Graham. See my comment below. YOU sir are part of the current movement/religion that places ALL living things on the same level. WE ARE NOT!
If I had been raised in a family that traps animals for a livelihood I would not have any "feelings" towards an animal caught in a trap, but my EMOTIONS are sensitive because I was not. I will never condemn trappers simply because I wasn't raised in their culture.

Mr. Graham......... Animals are NOT Human Beings!

quoted for a response below............
A couple things wrong in your comment, Mr. Westemeier.
No matter how many times you or others say it, no predator species in the GYE is being "eliminated". 160 wolves, 16 breeding pairs. MANAGED is the word you should be using. You and others don't want predator populations MANAGED. Bears and wolves will always inhabit the GYE and that wildlife "diversity is just fine with most hunters, BUT they must still be managed.

Your other problem is the use of the word "genocide" when talking about animals. Your word usage is completely incorrect.

Genocide: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

People=Human Beings

It is almost universal in the eco religion to equate animals with human beings. They are not equal and no argument could ever be made that they are.

Jay Westemeier

Your consistent human vs. animal opinions are nothing more than weak excuses for a superiority complex. The constant desire to kill something, even an animal, for entertainment is an anti-social condition that inflicts only humans. You believe that human management of wild species is absolutely required any time humans happen to settle among them. It's also a constant argument among humans on the amount of wildlife management required. Many humans disagree and believe in a more natural method. Thus, humans have always proven that they are incapable of agreeing on a consistent way to coexist with wild creatures. The most important wildlife management tools available today are hunting seasons and quotas. If they didn't exist, humans would hunt the majority of wild species into extinction. What other perverted killing pastime would you migrate to if the elk were gone? Hunters are NOT wildlife managers. They're only problematic tools used in an archaic method. Traditions aside, there is no logical reason for humans to hunt wild game to survive in the 21st century USA. And please stop quoting definitions that you think can't be used for any literary intent other than the dictionary itself.

Chad guenter

"""""What other perverted killing pastime would you migrate to if the elk were gone?"""""

THIS is why you are incapable of having a civil discussion with those you disagree with. You consistently demonize and insult other commenters.

You don't even know me yet always throw out comments similar to this. It's really quite sad.

Jay Westemeier

Take a hypocritical look into a mirror sir.

Chad guenter

Let's see................

I say you WRONGLY equate animals and humans.

You insinuate the I'm a perverted killer.

Noah Osnos

It certainly would be nice if the polarization and name calling were to stop (personally, I'd love to see proofread posts with correct spelling). It does seem that the livestock predation situation is quite overblown, but that perhaps hunting would be OK if there was actually a larger, more viable population of wolves. In a time where we are discussing mass extinctions around the globe, I'd rather we keep one of our iconic species going/growing, rather than looking at extirpation.

Chad guenter

Noah: You bring up extinctions of species. Moose in the GYE are on the verge of extinction, due to wolves. Would you be bothered if moose were no longer found in GTNP the way they have disappeared in Yellowstone?

With the proposed hunting numbers/quotas, wolves will NOT disappear.

Again, what is a "compromise" number pro wolf people are willing to accept when managing the wolf population???????

The 160 number is 60 percent larger than the originally agreed to 100 when the wolves were relocated from northern Canada.

Jay Westemeier

Ahh, the old YNP Moose/Wolf argument. Here is an article directly from the YNP site.
Moose appear to have been scarce in Yellowstone until the latter half of the 1800s and in Jackson Hole until early in the 1900s. Predator control programs, forest fire suppression, and restrictions on moose hunting, contributed to their subsequent range expansion and increased numbers.
Forest fire suppression was probably the most important factor in their population increase because moose in Greater Yellowstone depend on mature spruce/fir forests for winter survival, unlike other North American moose populations that prefer shrub land that has been disturbed by events like fires.
Although some Rocky Mountain moose populations have continued to grow and spread into new habitat, those in Yellowstone have declined. Estimated at roughly 1,000 in the 1970s, by 1996 (the most recent data) the Yellowstone moose population declined to less than 200, with the northern range population down by at least 75% since the 1980s.
The moose population declined steeply following the fires of 1988 that burned mature fir forests. Many old moose died during the winter of 1988–89, probably as a combined result of the loss of good moose forage and a harsh winter. Unlike moose habitat elsewhere, northern Yellowstone does not have woody browse species that will come in quickly after a fire and extend above the snowpack to provide winter food.
Recent studies south of the park also suggest that fires on the summer ranges of migratory moose is partially responsible for the population decline. The population of moose that uses burned areas is declining more rapidly than the portion of the population that forages in unburned areas.
Predation of moose calves by bear and wolf populations may be continuing to limit population growth, but the low pregnancy rates of Greater Yellowstone moose suggest limits set by food availability. Long-term studies suggest that North American moose populations tend to erupt, crash, and then stabilize for a time at a density that depends on current ecological conditions and hunting pressure.
The State of Montana has noted a state-wide decline in moose populations.

Mr. Guenter's claim that the GYE Moose are on the verge of extinction due to wolves is greatly exaggerated. There are much larger factors than wolves that have impacted Yellowstone's moose. If his other claims that the introduction of an "invasive" species of wolves had anything to do with it, why were moose scarce in Yellowstone and Jackson Hole up to the early 1900's without his so-called invasive species? Just more simple minded drivel.

Bob Roland

Considering there were still wolves in Yellowstone until the late 1920's would explain why moose were scarce in Yellowstone. Which would make your whole argument drivel from a simple mind.[tongue]

Jay Westemeier

Bob, my point is that wolf haters have been stating forever that everything was fine when the region had its population of "native" wolves and have claimed that the reintroduced wolves are invasive larger killing machines from Canada that will wipe out all of the ungulates. If that was true, how do they explain why moose were scarce in the region back in the day? Your last post absolutely dispels the ridiculous "invasive species" claim used by Mr. Guenter and many other wolf haters and validates my point. The YNP site's article suggests that Yellowstone is not ideal moose habitat and many factors, other than wolves, have historically affected moose populations there. Get it now?

Chad guenter

"""Predator hunting, prairie dog hunting, and trapping are sadistic pastimes, and are considered unethical practices by many hunting organizations. """

That is simply your opinion, Mr. Westemeier.

There are many people who say that eating meat is a sadistic pastime. Do you agree with that as well? And you still have firearms but only for what some would say is unnecessary recreation, and killing other human beings. How "sadistic" is that????

I don't trap, and seeing an animal caught that way bothers me, but it is an animal and I would never stop other human beings from trapping as they and their ancestors have for millennia.

Predator hunting is WILDLIFE management, predators are no different than any other wild animal that "managed" by man.

My point is that YOU and others opinions regarding hunting and trapping can not be forced on all of us who differ, the same way vegans and anti-gunners cant force their opinions on YOU.

Jay Westemeier

I agree Mr.Guenter, that these are purely our own opinions. I guess you and I should just refrain from voicing them. You and others keep claiming that predator hunting is nothing other than wildlife management. Until the outright slaughters displayed by coyote tournaments, and other likewise get-togethers in states with unmanaged open seasons on any animal stop, I'll challenge that opinion over and over again.

Chad guenter

I will agree with you that unmanaged open seasons on any animal should be stopped if that animal is endangered with extinction.

That is simply not the case with coyotes in any state. GYE Wolves have been given an inflexible population number by the State of Wyoming that will not be lowered.

My opinions do not infringe on your or other like minded pro wolf people's rights, your opinions DO infringe on the rights of hunters and trappers throughout this nation.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does NOT cross over to animals. They are responsibly MANaged as humans see fit.

Bob Roland

You believe the livestock losses are over blown. Livestock losses are a function of the wolf population as the wolf population increases so do the losses. In 85% of Wyoming no wolf pack has lived without killing livestock. Wolf density inside Yellowstone is very close to wolf densities in many parts of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming and we have a much higher human density than Yellowstone.
Anyone who thinks managed hunting of gray wolves is going to lead to expiration needs to do a lot more research about hunting of wolves and what is causing mass extinction. First hint it isn't regulated hunting and trapping of those species.

Jay Westemeier

Try paper Bob. It's the target of choice for the ethical shooter.

Chad guenter

Sorry to break this to you Mr. Westemeier.....

Firearms weren't invented to shoot paper. "Ethics" have nothing to do with practice.

"Paper" is practice for the INTENDED target of choice.

Do you even own a firearm? If so, why?????

Bob Roland

Paper is for shooters and those sighting in their guns. Wolves are the target of choice for serious predator hunters and trappers like myself.

Jay Westemeier

Yes Mr. Guenter, I own multiple modern firearms. Ten handguns and seven long guns. Gave up hunting 20 years ago when I had many less. Today, interest in firearms does not automatically equate to an interest in hunting. Competitive shooting and self defense are the fastest growing and largest segments of firearms sales. Predator hunting, prairie dog hunting, and trapping are sadistic pastimes, and are considered unethical practices by many hunting organizations. If you guys want to be involved in those types of things, you should be prepared to deal with the negative stereotypes that come along with them in most parts of the country.

Bob Roland

Why is people like you hate diversity of the human race. You believe in stereotypes and that we must all conform to some limited behavior you define as proper.
Opinions voices by the "_____ist" of the world.

Jay Westemeier

Commenting on wildlife does not mean I hate human diversity Bob. Eliminating predators is nothing more than wildlife genocide and is an example of people not wanting or accepting natural wildlife diversity within a given ecosystem. You should ask yourself why you hate WILDLIFE diversity so much.

Chad guenter

A couple things wrong in your comment, Mr. Westemeier.
No matter how many times you or others say it, no predator species in the GYE is being "eliminated". 160 wolves, 16 breeding pairs. MANAGED is the word you should be using. You and others don't want predator populations MANAGED. Bears and wolves will always inhabit the GYE and that wildlife "diversity is just fine with most hunters, BUT they must still be managed.

Your other problem is the use of the word "genocide" when talking about animals. Your word usage is completely incorrect.

Genocide: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

People=Human Beings

It is almost universal in the eco religion to equate animals with human beings. They are not equal and no argument could ever be made that they are.

Jay Westemeier

For the sake of preserving our dwindling wild places, the most important and overlooked form of management is in the amount of human migration and development into some of these places. 160 wolves and 16 breeding pairs segregated into a small portion of a vast area with a miniscule human population, is an absolute joke pulled out of backwoods politicians' a**es. Segregating a species and cutting off its chances for biological diversity is poor management and a death sentence for that species within that area.

Chad guenter

160 with 14 pairs is more than 100 and 10 breeding pairs that was originally agreed to with the release of the wolves in the 90s. The pro-wolf side should be happy with this compromise. As an elk hunter, it is good enough for me.

Sam Lobo

Chad, Wyoming had it right from the get go. All the wasted tax dollars spent on this wolf non-sense needs to be exposed. Welfare lawyers the prey on the bigotry of those like Louise Kane need to be held accountable. Please help expose these frauds. The Minnesota example of wolf management says it all... The numbers are inexcusable. The Minnesota example of wolf management proves exactly that her igotry and hate towards hunting of wolves is a failure.... a failure to man..... a failure to the taxpayer ...... a failure to other wildlife....a failure to livestock and pet owners..... and most of all a FAILURE to wolves. Keep in mind that the situation in Minnesota has nothing to do with “sport” hunters and trappers. You know Minnesota right... The shining star state that most in the wolf 'donate now" crowd hold up as the example of how to treat wolves.....Where the wolf faithful tell us the Democratic Governor loves wolves as opposed to Republican Walker "who hates wolves" in Wisconsin. The state where they have more wolves than any other in the lower 48, the state where there is true love for wolves…..Minnesota!
The dirty little secret louise don't want you to know. Minnesota was killing OVER 200 wolves every year to keep them out of trouble. Yup, they almost hit 300 the year before the first wolf hunt. They were killing OVER 200 PER YEAR for more than half a decade BEFORE THAT 1st Hunt ALL on the taxpayers DIME almost all done by TRAPPING. YES louise TRAPPING! .... Not quite the animal that lives in harmony with people. KEEP in mind that the population of wolves in MN the year before last was only estimated at 2211 wolves and they were killing close to 300 (PER YEAR) for getting into trouble (Habituation and depredation)....once again that 300 is only the documented number.... Many were so disgusted because of re-accruing issues they shot wolves on site without approval of the DNR! The first year after the hunt they only had to kill 150 for getting into trouble. It is estimated that had the state stuck with the 1600 to 1700 wolves in the states science based wolf management plan only 50 wolves would have been needed to be killed for habituation and depredation. Because, the poorly worded Federal Endangered Species Act which allows ignorant and agenda driven judges to interpret “into the majority of their former range” to mean the majority of the state of Minnesota (which is certainly not good or even marginal habitat for wolves) the state of Minnesota.. (and louise) are once again setting up these wolves for failure! ADDING an additional 500+- wolves (2211 s/b 1700) to the landscape in poorer habitat has resulted in an additional 250 +- (300 s/b 50) dead wolves.! LET ME REPEAT THAT: ADDING an additional 500+- wolves (2211 s/b 1700) to the landscape in poorer habitat has resulted in an additional 250 +- (300 s/b 50) dead wolves.! THESE dead wolves are the result of people like louise....who loves to wear wolves on her sleeve! We can thank the "donate now" crowd for all this trapping and killing. Thank you sportsman for your effort at keeping wolves at reasonable and responsible numbers....SHAME on those that wear "wolf killing" on their sleeve in order to get "donate now" buttons pressed by the gullible and abuse the Endangered Species Act for easy picking of EAJA dollars setting up the wolf for more controversy and eventual failure. Support Congressman Gallagher (R), Senator Franken(D) , and Senator Baldwin (D) in their bipartisan effort at reforming the Endangered Species Act which is LONG overdue……. Those that know full well of this inevitability yet prey on the gullible with their “wolf killing” and “save the wolf” talk to create controversy in order to get the gullible to press “donate now” buttons need to be held accountable. The Minnesota example of wolf management where groups like HSUS and people like louise have more wolf blood on its hands then sportsman! THOSE that have bigotry in their heart and allow RICH welfare environmental lawyers to abuse our EAJA laws and weaken the Endangered Species Act should be held accountable .... responsible environmentalist would do so.

Louise Kane

People please start commenting. The bizarre euphemistic proclamation that the state is eternizing new "management" territory is used to make it sound like they are doing something novel and justified. Really they are gearing up for a slaughtering season. The fish and wildlife department is acting as a hunters club and for the livestock industry. To try and suppress a population of animals to their lowest viable numbers takes a certain twisted biased view that not many people subscribe to. Wyoming is one of the largest states, if it can accommodate millions of cattle trampling and compacting the earth it can accommodate a few hundred wolves trying to eek out a living. Wolves live in packs, disrupting heir families by randomly slaughtering them would have the same effect as it does on humans , render the remaining wolves less likely to survive, create havoc, and cause misery and grief. What a terrible thing trophy hunting is.

Sam Lobo

Louise, how can it be that "not many people" subscribe to? Almost every area where wolves are foist upon the public have revolted. In WI 30 boards have passed resolutions against the wolf and your bigoted view of wildlife. In the UP of Michigan 2/3's of the voters turned it back on the wolf huggers most of whom were ignorant of the issues in the Detroit and Lancing market. The Governor of Montana told his ranchers to "START SHOOTIN WOLVES" and that any state employee that assisted a Federal Agent no longer had a job. The inevitability of having to kill wolves is something you will NEVER exscape.....NEVER! Your bigoted view of wolves maximizes the depredation of livestock, it maximizes the dollars spent cleaning up YOUR mess, It maximizes the loss of precious pets, It also maximizes the suffering of game herds MOST of which have fallen well bellow what in most cases are considered "healthy".

Your perverted version of "balance" and "healthy ecosystems" no longer cut it.... we are fighting back!

Glenn Graham

Normal Americans are sick and tired of the war on wolves waged by the welfare ranchers and their supporters, which takes place regardless of the science. The states can't be trusted to manage their predators - they want to kill them as quickly as they can. Meanwhile millions of tourists come every year to see them. Slaughtering the wolves is shameful, and morally and ethically wrong.

Bob Roland

Normal Americans have better things to worry about than wolves. People like you are a minority.

Jay Westemeier

Normal Americans SHOULD have better things to worry about than wolves. The big question is WHY do so many worry about them then? It's because of fringe groups of livestock producers who ignorantly practice their businesses in areas that are not conducive for success. It's like the Midwest corn producers that have cleared and overplanted flood prone river bottoms, rock strewn and sandy steep hillsides to grow their crops on. Mountain state cattle ranchers who rely on open drought and severe winter ridden grasslands to feed and raise their stock on. These fringe groups are the real minority that the country has subsidized forever to make up for their individual bad business decisions.

Bob Roland

Nice line of blather. In almost every state most confirmed wolf depredations occur of private lands. Ranchers have been successfully doing business in the Mountain states for over 100 years which is better success than other businesses.
The answer to why do people worry about wolves, is the lies and myths being told to them that some how we need wolves on human managed landscape, but where is the research showing wolves provide large ecological benefits outside the parks?

Jay Westemeier

If this subject really bothers you Mr. Rowland, you need to read the multitude of scientific research and conclusions that exists on the ecological benefits of predators in ALL ecosystems. Most of the research has been conducted by unbiased experts. Just because you don't want to believe their conclusions, doesn't make them myths and lies. You might also want to research the economic viability of open range livestock ranching. You'll find that it is now considered to be a dying business model at the private scale. In other words, financial institutions won't lend you much, if any money to start or operate a small to medium sized open range ranching operation. It's just not a consistent money making proposition anymore. Why do you think Colorado is now the only mountain state left in the top ten states in beef production?

Bob Roland

The ecological benefits of predators is profoundly different than the ecological benefits of a specific predator. Also none of that research shows a need or benefits for wolves on a landscape where humans are predators.
I also ranch and I can approach any financial business and get all the money I want and need and I've never made as much money as I have the last 10 years.
The reason ranching is leaving is because rich people see land as a safe investment.

Jay Westemeier

Congratulations on your successful hobby ranching operation Mr. Rowland. Tiny operations like yours are surviving only because of their remote locations, tiny local populations, and lack of local business diversity. As long as there are remote areas with ample annual rainfall, a reliance on local meat shops and processors, a small operation like yours might be able to survive. By the way, your area of Montana is beautiful. Don't take your wildlife for granted, even the occasional wolf. They're part of what makes your area special.

Bob Roland

Again you make a several unsuccessful assumptions.
The ranch is my only source of income. I sell to national feed lots. There are many types of business here none of which make a living solely on wildlife viewing even though wildlife abounds.

Jay Westemeier

So, in other words Bob, you believe wildlife to be unimportant unless it provides dollars to the locals. Just like your cattle.

Jay Westemeier

Take Sam Loco's rants with a grain of salt. He depicts Minnesota and Wisconsin as states with a "wolf disaster". What he fails to mention is the very positive impact wolves have on both states' economies and tourism industries. The positive impact of wolves to the states' northern region ecosystems is indisputable. In Wisconsin, where Sam lives, current wolf occupied habitat is broken into 3 zones in the northern 1/3 of the state. That region of the state is heavily forested, making it unsuitable for crop farming or livestock and dairy producers. Zone 1 contains 86% of the state's total wolf population. Farms that directly border that zone account for 72% of the state's total livestock depredation due to wolves. That hardly sounds like a state experiencing a widespread "wolf disaster". Wisconsin also has what can be construed as a widespread overpopulation of whitetail deer, which is the wolf's most important food in the state. Wolf zone 1 has a deer density goal of 19 per square mile. That zone regularly reports deer population densities between 22 and 30 deer per square mile. Wolf zone 2 has a deer density goal of 27 per square mile. It averages 29 to 35. That proves that wolves have had minimal to no negative impact on the state's deer population. Wisconsin also has a major problem with CWD. The southern 1/2 of the state contains the highest prevalence of the disease while having no reported wolf population......I wonder why? Obviously, Sam has a connection to one of the very few factions that have experienced some negative economic impact due to wolves. That is the one and ONLY reason why we continue to see the perverted demonization of wolves in this country.

Bob Roland

Tourism dollars derived from wolves in cages.

Jay Westemeier

Not sure what you're talking about Bob. Wisconsin has as many wild wolves as Montana & Wyoming combined with about 1/4 of the land area. Minnesota has about 3 times as many wild wolves as Montana & Wyoming combined with 1/3 of the land area. That's a lot of cages.

Ed Loosli

article: Carlton Loewer, who works as an outfitter, believes the numbers of wolves to be killed are too conservative and quotas should be higher to reduce further livestock depredation. “Their numbers are constantly changing,” he said, “but I don’t think we’re ever going to run out of wolves.”
Looking back at wolf eradication history in Wyoming, what an ignorant thing to say. Wolves have only made a small come-back because humans stopped killing them for a brief moment in time.

Remember, there are over one million head of cattle and thousands of sheep in Wyoming compared to a few hundred wolves --- hardly a numbers ratio that calls for any killing of wolves. Further, scientific studies show that wolves in larger packs prey on native wildlife, where as lone wolves must go after the softer targets of domestic livestock. In fact, the more wolves in a pack, the less livestock depredation there is.

Bob Roland

I'd like to read your Further scientific studies.
If you study annual wolf reports for states having wolves you'll quickly learn packs having more than 6 members are usually the ones caught killing livestock. Almost never do you see livestock losses blamed on a single wolf. Which is contrary to what you have claimed.
Read Washington's and Oregon's annual wolf reports.

Welcome to the discussion.

Please note: Online comments may also run in our print publications.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Please turn off your CAPS LOCK.
No personal attacks. Discuss issues & opinions rather than denigrating someone with an opposing view.
No political attacks. Refrain from using negative slang when identifying political parties.
Be truthful. Don’t knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the “Report” link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with us. We’d love to hear eyewitness accounts or history behind an article.
Use your real name: Anonymous commenting is not allowed.