wolf hunt

just wondering how most guys are gonna try to harvest a wolf if they draw a tag ? think guys will start guiding for them ?

Been following this thread for a while without comment, couldn't help but jump in... Northwoods- I agree that hunters kill more deer than all other sources combined i.e. Wolfs, Winter kill, bears, etc... That said, there has been exceedingly few antlerless tags issued for the Northern zones. Given the low doe harvest by hunters, why has the deer herd not rebounded? Harsh winters? No doubt that comes into play, but so does the number of wolves. All factors combined, we have less deer. I'm not out to demonize the Wolf, but I have been hunting Vilas County since I was a boy, and the current deer herd is as small as I've ever seen it. I truly see more Wolf sign in the woods than Deer sign - that certainly says something about the current population of both. Just looking for a little bit of balance and an honest evaluation of both the deer herd, and the Wolf herd. We are being told that the Wolf population is low, and the deer population is fine. For me, my time in the woods tells me different. Sure there are still deer to be had, you do have to put your time in though. My point is, in Vilas County I'm fairly confident that I could fill a Wolf tag quicker than a deer tag. Lastly, I'm not complaining, just offering my perspective based on what I have seen in the woods...

musky nut: i wouldn't say i love wolves, but i'd say i love native species in native places. and hey hearing wolves at night when i'm camping in the northwoods is pretty neat. it's not like i'm against wolf hunting, far from it. what i am against is the anti-wolf rhetoric and the constant demonizing of wolves killing all the deer by hunters. honestly the comments of some of you anti-wolf folks are making are the same comments and tatics peta uses on hunters who kill deer

ummm...not sure where you got that i was from minn. i'm from north central wisconsin. sharptail grouse is a wisconsin problem. i guess a lot of folks on here don't care much for conservation. pretty sad we don't care about wildlife in other states. i guess all some care about is the almight whitetail....folks must watch too much boner collector as far as wolves killing all the deer, please read the deer mortality study. wolves definitely killed deer but there were many other things that killed deer at much higher rates, like hunters. wolves are hardly the only cause of the low deer populations (if you can even call them low). i'll say it again, the days of wisconsin being a deer game farm with an unsustainable deer herd are over, better get used to it

The last part of the 3 S's is 'shut up' so non-hunters should not know of any poaching. LOL Sorry, couldn't resist.

What I find almost comical is a person from far NW Minnesota comes on LL and tells everybody what's best for WI and how the WI northwoods has been effected. Then tells us not to worry about WI whitetail numbers and says we should be more worried about Moose and Sharptail in his home state. WOW!

Northwoodslabs must work for the DNR! Never known a person to love wolves like he does. Yea it must be politics now,blah blah blah!!! "The wolves armt the problem" really???? Wow your way out there man. My hunting group of five people in Glidden WI haven't shot a single deer in 7 years so don't give me that crap!!! Wolves tracks all over the place!! If you loved deer hunting soooo much you would feel the same as the rest of us on here!!

jc a few things: 1. the north american model of wildlife conservation states that wildlife is held in the public trust and there is a democratic rule of law. thus, all people in this country "own" the wildlife. one group does not "own" wildlife more than any other. 2. the survey was sent to substantially more people in the northern part of the state (wolf territory) than the south. say what you want but the survey was unbiased. 3. contrary to popular belief the dnr has no hidden agenda on wolves. all the head folks at the dnr are political appointees. prior to being appointed dnr secretary by walker cathy stepp had never bought a deer hunting license. 4. basically at the end of your statement you are condoning, even encouraging poaching. keep in mind the majority of the public does not hunt, but approve of hunting. if we start poaching a bunch of wolves we will see the pendelum swing to most being against hunting. i love hunting deer and wish there were more around, but this constant uproar by hunters about wolves is getting old. wolves aren't the problem. the problem is us, the habitat, and 2 hard winters. at some point we as deer hunters need to grow up and get over the anti wolf rhetoric. i get a kick out of hunters constantly whining about whitetail deer when there are species that are in REAL trouble that you never hear anything about such as sharptail grouse and moose in the boundary waters

There are already wolves in the southern half of the state, but the DNR fails to admit that. I have some on the land I hunt in northwest Marquette county. My uncle's friend got a huge wolf north of Portage. There are not as many as up north, but they're here.

I now see all over the wolf lover's facebook pages on how corrupt the DNR is by allowing 29 wolves shot in Zone 2 when the quota was only 15. The facebook pages, of course, blame Scott Walker. They claim Scott Walker has turned the DNR into a "chamber of commerce", and hence why the poor wolves were murdered over the stated quota.

Kinda funny how a concrete jungle southerner would have a "northwoods" handle.. There's so much more food for the wolves to stay alive in the southern part of the state. I think all wolves in the north should be killed before they all starve to death. I hate to see an animal suffer, especially starvation. Question, why would wolves be a problem in the south around people? We are all told they wouldn't harm us. Then all the city folk can see that beautiful creature in their back yard munching on Fifi. I cherish the thought of all wolves living down south among people who love them. Just think how happy they would be, strolling around in the sub division, no fear of being shot, all the food they can eat...Ahh...don't get any better..

You mean most people, the ones that don't hunt and live south of HWY 29? Yeah, they want more than 350, but so what. They don't live around them and don't see the negative impact they have. I could vote for more rattlesnakes in Texas, but I am sure the locals don't want that. You don't think there are 2,000 wolves in the state? You obviously don't spend much time in the woods up nort' I have friend with 13 different pictures of wolves last year on his food plot. Multiple pups and adults in single pics. 13! This is in NE Wisconsin, and with just what he has on his single camera would have almost filled this year's quota for the entire NE portion of Wisconsin. That is on 60 acres! You also are forgetting that the 800+ wolves the DNR says is here, is an "at least" number. If the goal is 350, why on earth is the quota LOWER than last year? I know. It is the same thinking as to why the DNR INCREASED antlerless tags after the brutal winter of 2012 in much of NW Wisconsin. Complete ineptitude. Now we are left with buck only areas in much of the state, even though the hunting public advised against any bonus antlerless tags. Unless you have seen the multiple deer carcasses I have seen, or the insane amount of hounds killed this year by wolves, keep voting for more wolves. The public will take care of them since the regulators have proven they can't.

they didn't just wing it. although large areas were not tracked. the major problem is the lack of volunteers as most of the previous volunteers were wolf lovers who quit tracking when the wolf season started. if there were ample amount of volunteers more areas could be tracked and estimates would be better. like i said lots of people willing to whine, not too many willing to work the wolf management plan is being re-written and in all likelihood the management goal will be more than 350. the people who represented hunters on the committee made us look uneducated and foolish. like the guy from the the trappers association who said wolves serve no ecological purpose at all or the guy from the bear hunters association who kept wanting to argue about bear management when they were supposed to be talking about wolves also, a recent poll states most people want more than 350 wolves as well.

the DNR is having a lot of trouble trying to play both sides of the fence. "playing it safe" by fudging the numbers a little on the low side is great but then the anti's take those numbers and run with them, claiming they are going to be wiped off the landscape, when that is clearly not the case either. they are just trying to keep everyone happy but failing miserably.

Northwoods - Are you talking the estimates where they do track counting but due to the high snowfall last year, much of that was not done? So they basically winged it? I read about it in WON and saw it on the news. They are supposed to be managing toward a goal of 350 wolves statewide. What is really happening is that they are bowing to pressure from anti's and don't want to tick them off. Pretty obvious. They even had said so when the first season started, that they would have to be very very limited so as to not create a big outcry from them. Here's a conspiracy theory: What they are doing now is not so much a way to lower the numbers, its just a way to fund the damage done by them. Follow the money, now people applying for tags flip the bill. They created a way to make hunters pay for it while keeping the anti's at bay with the low quota.

firstly jc-wisconsin i don't think you understand what the dnr is trying to do. they want to focus harvest on areas where depredation and human conflicts with wolves are greatest. there are hardly any farms or large towns in northeast wisconsin. thus that's an area where wovles should be highest. as far as your arguement about grouse, i guess i don't understand. grouse really don't have a negative value towards humans on the landscape. i know that deer harvest is focused on in areas where agriculture is greatest and they are eating crops. thus, my arguement makes perfect sense and it is the way things are being done right now to say there are over 2000 wolves in northern wisconsin alone is false. you keep criticizing the dnr's population estimates but i'm willing to bet you know nothing of what goes into these estimates. population dynamics are hard to understand and measure, especially with limited budgets and time. if you are so worried about these estimates then why don't you volunteer as a wolf tracker and try to help? it seems as though all hunters want to do is whine on the internet and in bars