Saturday, August 14, 2004

WOCA elects officers At the annual meeting of the Wisconsin Outdoor Communicators Association (WOCA), held today at 3:00 p.m. at Trees for Tomorrow, Tim Eisele was elected president and Roger Sabota vice president. Outgoing president Rick Wulterkens appointed Tom Muench treasurer. Two board members were elected: Larry Van Veghel was reelected to another term and Lisa Gaumnitz was elected to her first term. WOCA founding member Steve Henry was named Honorary Life Member by action of the board of directors. WOCA members will participate in the OWAA conference in Madison in June of 2005. WOCA may host a breakfast at the conference, and members may serve as contacts for OWAA members looking for information on fishing spots and other area sites and activities. WOCA members were also asked to volunteer to serve on committees to help plan and put on the Madison conference. WOCA will contribute $50 to four organizations: Wisconsin Conservation Hall of Fame, Trees for Tomorrow, Kids Fishing Clinics of Southeastern Wisconsin, Wisconsin Conservation Alliance. Meeting adjourned! 4:07:38 PM    comment [] Muddying the waters After lunch, Mike Staggs, Director of DNR Bureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection (When DNR went thru reorg, fisheries management was merged with the regulatory part of DNR) spoke to us on the impact of the Jobs Creation Act People come to Wisconsin to see our natural beauty, hunt, fish, canoe, watch wildlife and live on lakes, where many say they just want to enjoy the view, he told us. However, there is a lot going on that is not beautiful: channelization, shoreline development, contaminated water, dam construction, and new water recreation, like aquapods. On top of that, most waterfront land suitable for development has already been sold. Wisconsin lakes and streams are held in trust for all citizens to use forever free. Lake beds are owned by the public. River and flowage beds are owned by the riparian landowner out to the middle of the channel. The water itself is owned by the public. Several statutes govern water regulations that govern activities on navigable waters. Thousands of changes happen every year; these are permanent and their consequences accumulate, but some impacts can be avoided. Some people claim "this dock or other thing I am doing is a small thing." This may be true, Staggs said, but all these little projects add up. "We are not into denying permits," he said. "We try to work with applicants to allow them to do what they want to do, but avoid or minimize their environmental impacts." A noble goal. However, the Jobs Creation Act, 2003 Wisconsin Act 118, has made some basic fundamental changes in the way the regulatory process works. The JCA brings revisions to chapter 30 of State Statutes regulating activities in navigable waterways. Now some activities that formerly required permits are exempt. Other activities require "General Permits." Individual permits still exist, but there have been changes here, too. BEFORE: - few exemptions (except for piers that don't impact public rights) - short form (individual permit for smaller, less-impact activities) & regular permit process - 30-day public notice for higher impact activities AFTER: - Exemptions in unlisted waters - possible permit in lieu of exemption - etc. "We have 5000 people asking to do things to waters every year, and we have 40 staff people responsible for administering the rules," Staggs told us. He outlined the goals of rulemaking under the new program: 1. We are aiming for speed & consistency in this process (historically, it took too long for permits to be granted). 2. We have tried to make the rules easy to understand (because we know that people must be able to understand what they are supposed to do) 3. These rules should not change the impact on public waters protection. What these rules do: 1. Determine eligibility for exemptions. - list waters designated as exempt What rules don't do: 1. Determine a project can't be permitted. 2. Add a new regulation. (In fact, statute removes DNR designation over certain activities, such as ditching and grading in certain situations.) Take-home message No. 1: The rules have streamlined the permit process: - 40% qualify for general permits, get an answer in 30 days - 10% are exempt, do it yourself or get answer in 15 days - 48% require individual permits It is way too early to know whether this is working or not Take-home message No. 2: There is a lot at stake: - Fishing in Wisconsin: - 1.4 million anglers - 22 million fishing days - $23. billion industry - supports 26,000 jobs - produces $95 million in GPR taxes. - Wisconsin ranks second to FL in non-resident fishing days Lake characteristics influencing muskie reproduction: - Lakes with good reproduction have only 20% shoreline development - Lakes with poor repro have 40% shoreline development Development impacts on bluegill growth - The more development on a lake's shoreline, the lower the growth rate. Growth tails off significantly with modest levels of development. In both these instances, it is not the development per se, but how it occurs: - People cut trees and remove downed trees, which removes woody fish cover, reduces aquatic plants and bank cover. Riprap is better than seawall, but not by much. - Smallmouth numbers increase dramatically when dams are removed. Studies have shown that riparian habitat and aquatic plants are critical for abundant, healthy fish populations. We believe that you can both "use" the waters and have good fishing, but you can't continue to remove wood, cut back on plant growth and expect to still have good fish populations. As you can see, if you tried to wade through this, it gets a little deep and quite muddy. After his talk, Roger Sabota asked Staggs if he was saying that the regulations had been watered down more than a little bit. "Yes I am," he answered. Will JCA be "the worst thing that ever happened, as some organizations have suggested?" Dean Bortz asked. "There's a right way and wrong way to deal with riparian issues," Staggs said. "People need to understand the importance of protecting riparian habitat. We are trying to cram years of evolution of water law and case law into a matter of months, and get it done right. We've had to deal with this in a hurry and it's a difficult process..." Too bad he had to couch his message in all that political doubletalk. It was clear he was a fish biologist forced into a bureaucratic mode against his wishes, as he made clear. We're on your side, Mike. Staggs aslo reminded us that Madison is hosting the annual meeting of the American Fisheries Society, with some 10,000 members worldwide. The meeting is August 22-26 at Monona Terrace. Website: www.afs2004madison.org. He invited WOCA members to attend any sessions as guests or media. 2:28:55 PM    comment [] Scaring the Stuffing Out of Hunters The Wisconsin Response to CWD Dr. Tom Heberlein, retired UW rural sociology professor, a long-time researcher on hunting traditions. First off, Tom gave a plug for Wisconsin Leopold Weekends (expanded from "Lodi Reads Leopold" events held in past years) the first three Saturdays in March. First will consist of readings form Leopold's work. Second Saturday will consist of visits to the Shack and hands-on work. Third Saturday will be meeting with officials to come up with solutions to local problems. Tom also gave a plug for a new journal "When I teach, I try to set up a situation where I learn as much or more than I give out." He is working on a paper on CWD and is looking for some input from us. "Fire in the Sistine Chapel: Wisconsin's Early Reponse to Chronic Wasting Disease." was an early paper he did onthe subject. CWD background: discovered in 3 Wisconsin whitetails on Feb. 28, 2002 after a haphazard testing program for TB in Wisconsin deer. Similar diseases (prion caused) found in sheep (scrapie), mink, cattle (mad cow disease) and people (Kreutzfeld-Jacob Disease). He recounted Wisconsin's whitetail history. In 1920s-30s, deer were only in northern Wisconsin. now of course, statewide. Over 600,000 hunters in Wisconsin, tied into tight social network. During 9-day gun deer season, schools close, unemployment goes up almost 3 times over previous week, hunter dinners, hunter's balls, special church services, etc. Hunter response to CWD: - 8 months after CWD discovery, license sales down by 90,000 (2 standard deviation units - a big drop) - loss of revenues to DNR $3 million MJS poll just before season - 58% of those who planned not to hunt said it was due to CWD 35% of hunters are concerned about illness from CWD (although there are no documented cases. 8 months after discovery a risk with no incidents, no deaths, had a greater incidence of fear among hunters than greater risks of death or injury. Why? Six surveys were conducted: 1. St. Norbert's College (2 months after discovery) 96% of respondents have heard of CWD; 36% of hunters said they would consider not hunting 2. DNR at public meetings: (3 months after discovery) 3000 people attended, 93% considered CWD a serious threat to deer and deer hunting, 89% said CWD should be managed aggressively; 33% said they were less likely to go hunting. But actual license sales declined 10-30%. 3. UW statewide 4. MJS Compared with West Nile Disease (which in 2002 killed 3 people in Wisconsin), why was there so much concern over CWD? So Tom did a risk analysis of the Wisconsin response: Risk Theory Basics: 1. reponse to risk is not rational 2. Low probablility risks are hard to understand or communicate (we zedro it out or exaggerate it) 3. dread (you get it, you die) vs recoverable risk 4. Risks you have experienced are more tolerable 5. Risks with no control are less tolerable CWD risk has high potential to be exaggerated: New, low probabililty, morbid (get it and you die), not experiential (it is new, we have no experience with it), no control, high uncertainty Hunters not concerned about shooting self because they have (or so they think) control. (11%) Hunters concerned about being shot by someone outside their hunting party. (50%) But most gunshot wounds are self-inflicted! How did hunters develop their attitudes and beliefs about CWD? How the DNR framed the issue and how the media communicated the risk to the public were crucial. Agency responsible for protecting deer is suddenly trying to kill 500 deer within two weeks of discovering disease. Spring deer hunting had not been legal in 150 years in Wis. Then in 50 days (June 19) plan was announced to kill all the deer in 411 square mile area. This in a state where deer policy changes occur at glacial speed. And deer carcasses were treated like garbage and thrown in landfills even before test results were in. DNR was saying: "We can't kill it and don't know how to stop its transmission." (Sarah Shapiro-Hurley) Bazzell: "We cannot guarantee hunters it is safe to eat the deer they kill this year." People had to assess this risk they had not seen or heard of before: - If deer not a health risk, why try to wipe out CWD - Why DNR stewards of deer herd try to wipe out deer herd? - Gov't and science told us there was no risk in Europe (but there was) - Sec. of DNR not guaranteeing venison - Why should the WHO reassure Wisconsin folks? During this time, Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease killed 18 deer in the CWD eradication zone, but there was no effort made to control it. How EHD differs from CWD: - vector is known (midges) - self-limiting (swon't devastate the deer herd, seen actually as normal population control) - scientists willing to say "people cannot become infected with it." (this is clearly state in websites, scinetists agree, there were no unknowns) How did Wisconsin scare hunters? - WI hunters overestamated risk of CWD compared to other known risks - risk perception accounts for at least half of 2002 hunte drop-put Tom speculates: - risk perception was inflated by killing 500+ deer in first 6 weeks - response to CWD was rapid; DNR implied CWD could be controlled or eradicated (Swedish language has no word for 'manage' - instead Swedes use same word as 'nurse.' The Swedish approach is much softer. - language used by authorities when communicating risk was inflammatory. - CWD was framed as a human health risk What might have been done: 1. establish a plan BEFORE beginning testing 2. If found routinize the response (we expected to find it and here's what we're going to do.) Colorado researcher Beth Williams said in Nov. 2002 in MN newspaper: (Was there panic in Colorado?) She said "Enjoy your hunt. If you see a skinny deer, report it to the authorities." Q/A: 1. Little was known, and in such cases, less action is a better response. 2. This was seen as a human health risk, not as an oddball wildlife disease. 3. When it's something hunters have personal experience of do they trust DNR? No! When they have no experience, they trust DNR. 4. Bottom line: Wisconsin scared people over a very low risk. The way the DNR and scientific community reacted intwo months got people really scared. 5. License sales are back to 1982 levels. Hunting camps are fragile institutions. Bob McCabe's camp in Iowa County doesn't exist anymore. It dissolved after CWD. Has that happened to others? 6. We were told "This is not a food safety test." Craven shot a nice buck, froze the deer, and test came back "failed to test negative." He tossed the meat. If you think deer hunting has returned to what it was, not so! There was no cost/benefit analysis done. 7. What would criticism have been if DNR had not done anything and someone got sick? If DNR had said this is an important topic, we will start a 3-year research project, would that not have been doing something? Instead, the state scared hunters and changed the social definition of venison and have permanently altered the nature of deer hunting in Wisconsin. Another scintillating discussion! later... 12:00:22 PM    comment [] Live from Eagle River. Well, almost... I say almost because the folks here at Trees for Tomorrow have a firewall in their internet hookup system and we can't figure out how to connect my Powerbook to the system. So... I will blog the conference and post it when I get home. You're all fishing this weekend or watching the PGA anyway, right? We're all mercenaries in this business, it seems. Bill Pivar introduced himself this morning as a "prostitute with pen." Bill is one of the of the most prolific among us, having written books on a variety of subject from economics and real estate to a book for kids on Old Abe, the eagle from Wisconsin of Civil War fame. Bill recently finished a book for the late walleye guide Norb Wallock, who passed away last year. Bill asked me if I knew of a publisher who might be interested. I'm sure there would be interest among walleye anglers in a book by Norb, a respected tournament pro and long-time guide in the heart of Wisconsin's walleye country. Know any publisher who might want to take a look at the book? Contact me and I'll pass the name on to Bill, or contact him directly: pivarfish@webtv.net. First session: Wolves in Badgerland. Speakers: Adrian Wydeven, DNR wolf expert and Eric Koens, director Wisconsin Cattlemen's Association. First speaker: Wydeven, mammalian ecologist with DNR. Wisconsin's wolf program. He clarified at the outset that wolves have reestablished themselves naturally by coming here from Minnesota back inthe 1970s. His Powerpoint presentation featured photos of wolves taken from the air. Four DNR pilots are monitoring the wolves. Currently 36 wolves "on the air." In addition, biologists and volunteers drive road transects and conduct winter track surveys of wolves and other mammalian predators. DNR average about 4000 miles per winter, volunteers almost double that. Wolves contacted each year: 300 by DNR, nearly 200 by volunteers. Early in the program, many volunteers mis-identified coyotes and dogs as wolves. A wolf print is about the size of a man's hand in width. The claws typically point inward. Wolves often walk in each other's tracks, so you must follow tracks for awhile to accurately count the wolves. Wolves are showing up farther south every year. He showed a photo of a wolf taken with a trail camera in the Buboltz Nature Preserve near Appleton. In 1990-91, there were about a dozen packs across N. Wisconsin. Currently, there are 108 wolf packs scattered all across the North and now in central Wisconsin in Jackson, Wood, Juneau and Adams counties. They are apparently following the Black or Chippewa rivers or crossing open farm country from The Chippewa Falls area. In 1980 Wis. had 25 wolves and 5 packs to 373-410 woves and 108 packs, give or take. In the mid-1980s, the population declined slightly due to a new parvovirus that had an impact worldwide on canids. Wolves apparently developed a resistance to it. In the early 1990s scarcoptic mange was first found in Wisconsin wolves. Wolves are counted in late winter, prior to the birth of new pups each year. Average survival rate of pups is about 30 percent. Counting pups in 100 dens would be impossible, so a spring count would be purely hypothetical. Goals were set in the early 1990s: Below 100: endangered. 100-250: threatened. Above 250: delisting level. Management goal: 350. Top habitat capacity is aobut 500 wolves in about 6000 suqre miles of wild land. Dog kills reached a high of 17 in 2001 (most were hunting dogs in training for coyotes, cats and bear). Most dogs are killed in July, August or September, when hunters are training hounds and woves bring their pups to rendezvous sites (summer home sites, used from late June through September). WOlves are very defensive of pus at such sites and are thus aggressive to dogs. Another peak in December, when hunters are opursuing bobcats. Livestock depredation: as many as 39 cattle killed in one year (2001) on as many as 17 farms. One farm has had severe losses. Three wolf packs overlap on this farm near the junction of Highways 35 and 77. Through 2002, WIldlife Services trapped 36 wolves 38 times. Those were all translocated and released in the wild a long distance from the trap site. In 2002 18 were moved (most in any year). news releases informed people of releases. Most were released in public forests, some on Indian reservations. Since 2003, all trapped wolves have been euthanized. Since 2003, DNR has authority to euthanize wolves. Since then, 17 have been euthanized. Most depredation trapping has been done in Burnett, Bayfield, Rusk and Taylor counties. On occasion, removing wolves has encouraged new wolves to move into an area. Survey methods: Trapping is done in spring and summer with modified leg-hold traps in May, June and limited trappping in July and August. Winter is avoided because toes freeze. Fall is avoided to avoid catching hunting dogs. Trapped wolves are drugged, then weighed, checked for disease, measurements are taken, then radio collars are put on them. Radio collars have a mortality signal that beeps rapidly iif wolf has not moved for 5 hours. Processing takes 45 minutes to an hour. Reversal drug lets it get up and on its way in about 20 minutes. Most flight surveys simply let them put a pin in a map. In winter, about a third of collared wolves are seen and photgraphed. He showed one photo of a female wolf near a den with a fisher in a nearby tree. Was the fisher getting out of the wolf's way, or was it waiting for the wolf to move off so it could try to eat one of the pups? Pups caught are ear-tagged, rarely trapped. "We don't know much about ppups," Wydeven said. There were declines inpup survival inthe mid 80s and early 90s, correponding with parvo and mange outbreaks. A few wolves are still being shot by hunters. One shot by a coyote hunter in southern Door County last winter had been trapped several years ago in Price County. "We suspect some are coming across the ice from Michigan's U.P." Mortality of radio-tagged wolves has varied. 1979-90 most deaths were by shooting. 91-present illegal killing, vehicles, other human, other wolves and disease were roughly equal. State delisting process began in 2002 when off-reservation numbers reached 200. With state delisting, lethal controls can be used with one depradation on domestic animals on private land. Carcasses more broadly available for specimens. With federal delisting, private land lethal control will be allowed, and other rules will be liberalized. Wolves will be managed in 4 zones: Zone 1 - far north. Zone 2 central forest. Zone 3 transition area. Zone 4 unsuitable for wolves, aggressive control. Zone 4 is basically lower third of state. This is coonsidered unsuitable habitat because of interspersion of grasslands, forest land and pasture land with likely high depredation problems. Eric Koens: Raises registered polled Herefords in Town of Bruce in Rusk County "Cattlemen are segment of society most affected by wolves." Wolf management plan is up for revision this year. There is a comment period now in effect for plan revisions. "I believe management plan should be revised based more on science than public opinion because most people are not familiar enough with wolf biology." Wolf recovery plan developed in 1989 proposed a goal of 80 wolves. This is more appropriate for Wisconsin than 350. Dr. David Mech, respected wolf biologist, describes wolf habitat as "Primarily wild land with no lifestock and adequate deer land to support wolves." In Wisconsin there are livestock operations across Zone 1. WDNR did not consider there are 240,000 beef animals and 90000 dairy cattle in ZOne 1. "We don't see wisdom of Wisconsin DNR plan for 35 wolves. Federal delisting criteria call for 100 wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan. We are at about 8 times that level at present." Wildlife Services are only 50-60% effective catching depredating wolves on farms and less effective on farms with chronic problems. Allowing livestock owners to kill wolves in act of killing livestock is not practical. Most killing happens at night. Key to reducing livestock predation is keeping wolf population down. Cattlemen's plan would liberalize Wildlife Services ability to trap iin all four zones. Eric showed graphic photos of cattle and hounds killed by wolves. Calves, for instance, are sometimes completely removed by wolves. Remains are hard to find. One farm in Burnett Co. lost 20-25% of calf crop. In most iinstances, losses are not reimbursed without verified kills. Wolf predation causes agitation and stress. Cattle run wild in pasture, break through fences. Cow with calf will do what she can to protect it, will sometimes run over farmer coming to check on pasture. Cattle chased by wolves have also suffered weight loss, infertility, diarrhea, pneumonia and other stress-related problems. Other problems: farmers have to move cattle from trapping areas, repair fences, feed them winter hay instead of pasture. Wolf complaints with Wildlife Services as of Aug. 8, 2004: 19 verified calves lost to wolves, possible losses of 100 calves. One farms lost 6 but only found one. He read reports of wolf predation on cows and dogs in Douglas, Sawyer, Oconto (by pair of radio-collared relocated wolves released on Menominee Reservation). Julie Anshock, widowed farmer in Rusk County, wrote Scott Hassett about wolf invasion. We put flashing lights and sirens, but that doesn't help. Something needs to be done for us farmers. As an individual there's nothing I can do. I need help!" N. Wisconsin is a tough place to make a living. We have wolves coming into our area. Many of us have a number of enterprises to make a living. We dont' miind feeding the deer, but we have a real problem feeding our livestock to wolves. He predicts wolf pop. will continue to expand into unsuitable areas, with higher levles of predation on comestic animals. I think the current level of wlf pop. is lovest we're going to see> Q/A 1. Would buy-out be suitable solution? EK: don't think so. Number of farms surrounding her. 2. Wolves present in every county of MN according to Mech. AW: There are incidences of wolves in every county, not packs in every county in MN. Evidence that pop is starting to stabilize or decline. Wolves are spreadiing into less-suitable areas and not surviving. 3. No. packs in Wisconsin have not beenID? AW: we feel confident we're getting vast majority of packs in state. Less than 10% are involved in livestock depredation. We want to aggressively control packs as they move into agricultural areas. 4. Translocations effective? Of 33 animals moved, I'm aware of only 3 that caused depredation. 5. Payments? $20K-$70K per year, depending on dog, deer farm, cattle kills. We have paid for some missing livestock when wolves were likely involved. Money comes from Endangered Species checkoff and license plates. 6. Comparison of wolf depredation with bear/coyote depredation? AW: Coyote and wolf depredation is about equal in Wis. Nationally, coyotes are no. 1 cause of cattle depredation, dogs are no. 2. EK: We've always dealt with the occasional loss of calves to coyotes, but it's not the same as the constant assault of wolves. 7. Tim Eisele: It seems either we have to compensate farmers 100% for losses, stress included; or we have to say to farmers, you have to take your chances. EK: We don't want the money. We want to raise livestock on our private land, as we have for generations. These predators are taking our cattle on private land. We are not opposed to wolves in Chequamegon National Forest, but they are spilling over onto private land. I don't think it matters what DNR goals are, wolves are already beyond DNR ability to control population. Mech told him personally that "the cat is out of the bag. You've already got more wolves in WI, MN and MI than DNR can manage." 8. What about high fences? EK: JJust maintaining fences is a nightmare. Wolves can get through a pretty small hole. It's not practical. 9. What about wolves losing fear of humans? E.g. eating deer in garage, approaching people? AW: We have seen more instances of bold fearless wolves. Have put out news releases telling people to say away from them. We've had reports of loggers throwing out their sandwiches to wolves. Wolves have probably learned chainsaws mean food: deer first, then lunch leavings. Some people have probably tossed food to wolves they've seen feeding on deer carcasses. We have discouraged this. 10. What has wolf reestablishment cost state since 1980? Annual budget is ballpark $200K now, 15 years ago was $70-80K. 11. Hunting season? if public suppports it ande legislature approves it, I have no problem with it. My concern would be that the number of people issued permits would be able to harvest wolves. Wouldn't want to have to issue 1000 permits to remove 100 wolves. Would need training of hunters to make sure they have a good chance of harvesting a wolf. 12. Does Wildlife Services do a good job? EK: Yes. 13. Depredation losses biggest stumbling block to gettiing wolf program acceppted? AW: Yes. We can deal with livestock losses. Harder to deal with losses of hunting dogs in wild areas. No easy answer other than paying people for lost dogs. 14. How many wolves are too many? AW: 500 wolves would be fine if they were limited to the far north. 100 would be too many if half of them were in southern Wisconsin. 15. Verified vs. unverified losses? EK: Wolf depredation is hard to detect. Studies out West suggest that only one of 6.7 missing calves could be verified. An enlightening presentation and lively discussion on a problem that is only going to get worse as wolf numbers increase. Stay tuned for the next session... 10:10:01 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2004 Dan Small. Last update: 9/3/04; 9:35:05 PM.