Dear Governor Thompson:
The Green Onion Resource Center, a new non-profit conservation group based in northwestern Wisconsin, requests that you oppose the DNR's latest proposed wolf management plan. And that you ask the Natural Resource Board at its upcoming meeting to reject this plan.
We are vigorously opposed to the DNR's latest proposal. We are disappointed with this fourth version because it reflects excessive political pandering to, and management deference for, the concerns of livestock/farming interests. While these interests have the right to express these concerns, they must be balanced with those of the primarily pro-wolf general public, the need for sound science, and the importance of ensuring a perpetually healthy wolf population. Instead, however, the DNR has allowed a decidedly livestock/farming interests driven, biased process to progressively weaken this series of draft plans.
This progression has taken DNR's proposed wolf management from mediocre to weak, and now from weak to downright unscientific and dangerous. This is a sad commentary in a state where pictures of wolves on personalized license plates are used to raise money for 'protecting' endangered species.
For example, the DNR's changes in the third and upcoming fourth drafts include removing core management areas where the wolf is fully protected, placing a cap on wolf numbers, and rapidly moving toward allowing the hunting of wolves in Wisconsin. In addition, more recent public involvement is being undercut. The DNR has only posted the second draft on their web site, and the reply E-mail address it provides for comments is closed.
A healthy wolf population in Wisconsin is important to restore natural predator-prey relationships. Indeed, there are mounting complaints about high deer and beaver populations. While these high population levels are mostly caused by land management practices and land use changes, wolves are effective predators of deer and beaver.
It is also ironic that even the most anti-wolf state-level management proposals in Minnesota recommend a much higher minimum statewide wolf population than is being recommended in Wisconsin. There are indeed habitat differences between our two states. But the science behind determining a minimum viable population for purposes of federal Endangered Species Act de-listing and a resumption of state hunting should be the same. As such, the Wisconsin DNR's current proposal appears much more regressive than even those subject to great public controversy and scientific ridicule in Minnesota.
Please urge the Natural Resource Board to reject the current DNR wolf management plan and to direct the DNR to go "back to the drawing board." Specifically, the DNR should address the following four points:
(1) In all four drafts of the plan, wolves are managed differently in four separate zones. In the second draft, Zone 1, which includes the largest and best wolf habitats, had core areas where "Wolves would be controlled only to protect human health and safety." The third and fourth drafts eliminate these core areas, allowing live trapping, translocation, and lethal control. The DNR should restore these core areas.
(2) In the second draft, hunting wolves was to be considered five years after the plan's approval, and only if the population was over 350. In the third draft, the plan recommends the DNR "begin the process of obtaining legislative authority for a controlled public harvest" two years prior to the population reaching 350. Now it appears they will "have a trigger at 350 for control" of the wolves. A review of DNR literature has shown that they are already working on a proposal to open up a hunting season on wolves, including allowing the use of dog pack hunting. The DNR should stop and remove from the plan its premature efforts to establish a public wolf hunt.
(3) The second draft reduced numbers needed for state de-listing from 300 to 250 but set a goal of at least 350 wolves. The third draft stated that 350 wolves would not mandate a wolf hunt. Now the DNR is moving toward making a population of 350 the cap on wolves in the state. There should be no such cap.
(4) Scientists are still debating the minimum number needed for a viable and sustainable wolf population. The DNR is leaning toward the lowest figures available. This appears to be more about appeasing livestock/agricultural interests than about sound science. Any decision to down-list the wolf from endangered to threatened, or de-list the wolf entirely must be made with caution, using high population estimates that guarantee a continuously viable population.
Sadly, anti-wolf attitudes remain prevalent among powerful livestock/agricultural interests. However, these attitudes are not shared by most Wisconsin residents who understand the ecological importance of wolves, that livestock losses to wolves are generally minimal, and that compensation can be paid for confirmed losses to wolves. Most residents will also not stand for a premature wolf hunting season nor efforts to depress wolf numbers within our public lands.
Please help get the DNR's wolf management plan back on a positive, scientific 'track.'
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Governor Tommy Thompson
Room 115 East State Capitol
P.O. Box 7863
Madison, WI 53707
Your address