- Our next speaker
is

David Ruid

from, uh, USDA-APHIS.

And he's gonna talk about

integrated predator
management concepts.

Thank you, David.

- Thanks, Otto.

Thanks for having--
having me here today.

Thanks for coming here today.

Probably the bluegills
are moving up

into the shallows right now,
and...

[audience groans]
[laughing]

[indistinct chatter]

It'd be a good day
to be out there.

I want to recognize my colleague
Eric Fromm.

Eric Fromm does

the lion's share
of wolf and bear work

in northwest Wisconsin,
including Washburn County.

So, Eric, raise your hand.
Thank you.

Yeah, so we'll get going,
uh, lickety-split.

So when we're talking
about livestock predators

in the state of Wisconsin,
pr

imarily we're dealing

with wolves, black bears,
an

d coyotes.

Very rarely
we

'll have bobcats maybe kill

a lamb or domestic fowl,
bu

t typically speaking--

this is Cow-Calf Workshop,

when we're talking about
co

w-calf wildlife predation,

we're dealing with wolves,
bl

ack bears, and coyotes

in the state of Wisconsin.

And I'm primarily gonna talk
ab

out gray wolves today

and-- and our program

in dealing with--
wi

th gray wolf conflicts

in Wisconsin.

This is a-- this-- this map
of

the U.S. represents--

those green areas represent
wh

at most people feel

is suitable wolf habit
in

the 48 states.

The black polygons represent
th

ose suitable habitat areas

that currently
ar

e occupied by wolves.

And most recently,
wh

at we have seen is,

there is now
a

breeding pack of wolves

that have moved
in

to California.

Eastern Washington, Oregon

have recently
been colonized by wolves.

So we're getting upwards
of ten states

that have wolves in them,
and there is

some unoccupied
suitable habitat

that still exists
up in the Northeast.

But as you can see,

our population of wolves
is contiguous

with the three states.

And keep in mind,
from a biological perspective,

our gray wolf population
is classified

as a federally endangered
specie.

Remember, this is a contiguous
population of wolves

that extends
to the Arctic Circle.

That population
is 70,000 to 80,000,

maybe 90,000 animals

that exists
from central Wisconsin

up into the northern latitudes
of Canada and Alaska.

So we-- we'll talk about
nonlethal abatement techniques

to try to resolve predator--
predator problems,

and one of--
you go back in time,

this isn't a relatively
recent phenomenon.

You go back to 1717;

in the Cape Cod region
of

Massachusetts,

there was
a

proposed wolf fence

to protect livestock
fr

om predators,

and that would have been
be

ars, wolves, and coyotes,

but in 1717,
pe

ople were thinking about,

"How do I exclude my livestock
fr

om predators?"

And interestingly enough,

this proposal
th

at was put forth,

it failed from complaints

from the unprotected neighbors
ou

tside the fence

who didn't want the wolves
sh

ut out on them,

and the proposal was
a

six-foot-high board fence.

Another technique that was used
wa

s vegetation management.

Woods burning was used

to reduce vegetative cover
ne

ar livestock.

There's an example of that
in

the literature from 1928,

uh, in Arkansas.

And I would imagine
a

lot of these techniques--

they were used in conjunction
with lethal control,

but nevertheless, these were
some nonlethal efforts

to separate livestock
from predators.

Some of the most early
scientific literature

pertaining to this topic was

from the USDA Forest Service
in 1908

when they developed
a

predator-proof fence

in Oregon
on

a 2,500-acre pasture,

and their results found that

they could successfully
fe

nce livestock

from pre-- from coyotes,
bu

t it was unsuccessful

in dealing with grizzly bears
an

d black bears,

and I would suspect
th

at this

was probably in an era

when wolves had likely
be

en extirpated

from this particular region.

And how about this
fo

r a farm labor rate?

Um, three bucks a day
pe

r eight hours.

[indistinct chatter]

And what we've seen, folks,

when wolves began to colonize
the state of Wisconsin,

they colonized some of
the best suitable wolf habitat

in the state,
and these were big blocks

of contiguous public land

that had very, very little
agriculture in it,

and there was
very little conflict

between wolves and livestock

in this earlier era
of wolf recovery--

recolonization in Wisconsin,
you know,

which was occurring
from 1980 to, oh, the mid 1990s.

But what we started to see is,
this wolf population expanded.

They started to set--

establish territories
in

areas

that were becoming
mo

re fragmented.

It wasn't the big blocks
of

contiguous forestland.

As you can see--
th

is black polygon represents

a wolf pack territory,

and those open areas,
th

at's agriculture.

The north end of the wolf pack
wa

s forested public land,

and the southern fringe
of

that particular pack,

um, started to--
[s

tammers]

It was fragmented
an

d had livestock production,

so around the mid to late '90s,
we

were starting to see

wolf packs establishing
in

these areas,

and we really started to see
a

consistent trend

in wolves
ki

lling livestock annually.

And then,
as

late as 2010, 2013,

this is an actual example

of a wolf pack territory
in

Marathon County,

and you can see,
pr

edominately,

that pack's territory
is

agricultural land,

a lot of it being row crop,

but there is livestock
pr

oduction included in that.

So as this-- as this

really suitable habitat
ha

s been saturated,

we're starting to see
wo

lves spilling out

of the northern forest,
ce

ntral forest,

and establishing territories
in

this--

what we would call
un

suitable habitat,

because generally speaking,

when we do see wolves
colonize areas like this,

there's going to be conflicts
with livestock.

When we're investigating
wolf complaints,

we have to put these complaints
into four categories.

And this comes from the--

the Wisconsin
Wolf Management Plan,

and state law drives
compensation in the state,

and so we have to package
wolf complaints

that we received from you
into these four categories,

and they're confirmed,
probable,

confirmed non-wolf--
th

at would--

a confirmed non-wolf complaint
wo

uld be, for instance,

a farmer calls us out
ab

out wolves killing a calf,

and the evidence suggests
it

was coyotes

that caused the depredation.

Or unconfirmed.

It doesn't mean we don't know
th

e reason the calf died.

It just means we know
wo

lves didn't kill the calf.

The interesting thing
ab

out this photograph,

if you notice,
th

ere's a magpie in it.

Eric took this picture
wi

th a trail camera,

and it has a magpie
in

Douglas County.

- [chuckles]
Th

at is rare.

[indistinct chatter]

- So when we're
in

vestigating complaints,

if you call us out to
in

vestigate a wolf complaint,

the policy says:
Ca

ll you back in 24 hours,

and if there is
a

livestock animal

in reasonable condition
to

examine,

we have to investigate it
within 48 hours.

Generally speaking,

by the time
we receive a complaint

and we have boots on the ground

looking at whatever it is
that was called in

is within the day--
oftentimes,

less than three to four hours.

In the summer months,
especially now

when things
are starting to heat up,

it's very, very important
for us to get there

as quickly as possible
so we can assess that evidence

before decomposition
is occurring.

Scavenging-- you know,
eagles and ravens and crows,

they consume an awful lot of
a depredated livestock animal,

and every time they consume
that carcass,

we're losing evidence
to classify it

into one of those
four categories.

So every complaint
has a very detailed report

that accompanies it.

And while we're out there,
we have to make sure

we're actually
looking at predation.

You know,
was the calf stillborn

and simply scavenged
by predators,

or was it born alive
and killed?

So things we're looking for
is manure on the hoof,

maybe its ear tag,

it has a emasculating band,

so we know that
th

e animal was born alive

and we're actually dealing
wi

th predation

and not just scavenging.

'Cause producers aren't paid

for wolves
sc

avenging on livestock,

only if they depredate
li

vestock.

While we're there
in

vestigating complaint,

the evidence we're looking for,

you know, are-- are wolf--
or

predator tracks.

Wolf tracks,
ge

nerally speaking,

they're 4 inches long
by

3 1/2 inches wide.

Coyote tracks are much smaller.

Uh, wolf scats--
th

ere's a big difference

between wolf scat biomass
and coyote scat,

and generally speaking,
when we're dealing with bears,

there's a lot of vegetation
in bear scat

and not so much
in predator scat.

You know, we're looking at
where the animal was attacked.

The calf on the right,

bitten dorsally
ov

er the vertebrae,

that's very classic of wolves
ki

lling young livestock,

calves that are, you know,
le

ss than three months of age.

Coyotes typically
won't do that.

The calf on the lower left
with that ventral neck bite,

that's pretty signature
of where coyotes

might attack
a livestock animal.

And the calf
on the upper left,

that was-- that was
a newborn beef calf--

Red Angus calf
that was attacked by coyotes

in the flank region,

and they-- they simply
ki

lled the animal

by stress, blood loss,
sh

ock, and trauma.

So the--
I mean, when we're out there

and we're looking
at dead livestock,

these are the things
that we're--

that we're looking for
and looking at

to make sure
we classify it correctly.

We also look at
the canine puncture space

in the hide
of a depredated animal.

The lower right, you can see
the spacing of that

is about a inch and 1/2,
in

ch and 3/4.

That's very signature
of

a wolf bite.

Fairly large diameter
pu

ncture holes--

3/8 of an inch
ge

nerally speaking.

Inch and 1/2 or greater is--

is very signature
of a wolf bite,

and you can see
all the hemorrhaging

and shock and trauma
and blood loss.

That's evidence that
obviously this animal was alive

when it was bit.

And that just represents
the canine tooth spacing

of a wolf right there
in

that image.

It's about an inch and 5/8.

Another technique that
we

've used--

sometimes successfully,
so

metimes unsuccessfully--

we can collect saliva or tissue

around those
canine puncture holes,

and submit it to our National
Wildlife Research Center.

And they can actually
try to get genetic material

from the saliva
and classify by specie

what saliva that has came--
what sal--

what specie
that saliva came from.

It's been used successfully.
It's not 100%.

I would say right now,
it's about 50/50.

Carcass location,
consumption, drag trail,

how much of the animal
wa

s consumed.

If we know
wh

en it was killed,

we know when you found it,
ho

w much of it was consumed?

Is it improbable for a coyote

to have consumed that much,
or

a bear?

Or how big--
ho

w large of an animal is it?

And was it dragged?

I mean, coyotes don't have
the ability

to drag carcasses
as well as wolves or bears,

and maybe it was cached.

It's not uncommon
for bears to cover prey items.

Maybe it was a fawn
or a livestock carcass...

[stammers]
Or, uh, a roadkill.

They'll drag a roadkill deer
off the edge of the highway

and then cache it
with vegetation.

Wolves occasionally
will do that

but fairly infrequently.

So when wolf recovery...
[clears throat]

Was occurring from the '80s
into the-- into the '90s

and the early 2000s

is when we started to see

the number of wolf complaints
increasing.

Those blue bars represent

wolf complaints
we

've received

in the state of Wisconsin

where we actually went out
an

d investigated.

Those red bars represent
th

ose complaints

that we classified
as

confirmed or probable.

And obviously,
th

e black line

is the trend
of

the gray wolf population.

So there is a very strong
st

atistical relationship

that says,
as

wolves recovered

and their population increased,

so did complaints
an

d verified complaints.

Some people have argued
th

at necessarily more wolves

does not mean
mo

re complaints.

In the state of Wisconsin,

there's a strong correlation
that it does mean that.

But-- this is important.

These are the confirmed
and probable

wolf complaints
we

've received since 2003.

So 2003, we have 35 verif--

confirmed or probable
wo

lf complaints.

In 2003, the wolf population,

the minimum count
wa

s about 350 animals.

And today, in--
la

st year, in 2015,

we had 91 confirmed or probable
wo

lf complaints,

but if you look at roughly
a

ten-year average,

that trend is beginning
to

stabilize somewhat,

but there's nuances to this
be

cause there's been

on again/off again
ma

nagement scenarios

based on the federal status
of

wolves,

and also the new--
the state had the authority

in '12, '13, and '14

to have a recreational
wolf harvest season,

and we had an integrated program
where we were--

had the authority
to lethally remove wolves

that were causing depredations
on farms.

So in 2015, while investigating
wolf complaints,

we confirmed 46 of those
an

d another 10% as probable.

So over 50%
of

the investigations

that we conducted

were classified
as

confirmed or probable,

and 17% of those
we

re confirmed as non-wolf.

And generally speaking,
wh

en it's a non-wolf complaint,

it's usually, coyotes
ha

ve killed a beef calf.

These beef calves are fairly
vu

lnerable to coyote predation

that first day or two
of their life.

And resource categories--

while we're investigating
complaints, beef cattle

makes up the majority of it
by

over 50%.

50% of the conflicts
th

at we're looking at

relates
to

cow-calf producers.

Dairy cattle is a fairly
si

gnificant portion at 12%,

and then the next biggest
co

mponent

is dogs and hunting dogs.

Someone asked about a map

of wolf conflicts
in

the state.

You know, I get
th

is is kind of a wide scale,

but in 2015,

those larger red dots
re

present

those confirmed
an

d probable conflicts.

The smaller dots represent
th

e confirmed non-wolf

or the unconfirmed complaints
in

the state.

And as you can see, it's mostly
a

northern forest system

in the northern
wo

lf harvest zones,

uh, some
in

the central forest,

and then some scattered out.

Notably is Crawford County
in

southwest Wisconsin.

A pack of wolves
ha

s established themselves

down there, and they have
de

predated livestock

two years in a row now.

Um, in 2015,

we investigated wolf complaints
in 35 counties.

And we verified
or classified them

as confirmed or probable
in 23 counties of the state.

You know, this is-- this is
an important statistic

that we really keep track of
in our program,

and that's the number of farms
in

the state

where we verify wolves
ha

ve killed livestock.

[clears throat]
Th

is excludes fowl.

This is looking at sheep,

cattle-- dairy cattle,
be

ef cattle-- possibly horses.

Horse depredations
ar

e relatively rare,

but, um, in 2010,
wa

s the most farms

that we had ever verified
wo

lf depredations on at 47,

and then you can see
th

at trend started to decline

from 47 to 40
to

32 to 28,

and during--
in

2012, '13, and '14,

we had the recreational harvest
of

wolves in the state,

and our program had
th

e authority

to not only implement
nonlethal abatement on farms

to try to prevent
wolf depredations;

we had the authority

to set equipment on property,

and any wolves captured
would be euthanized.

So in 2012,
we had euthanized 57 wolves

that were causing conflict
on different farms,

and producers,
through shooting permits

and provisions of NR10.02

that allow livestock producers

to shoot wolves that are
actively attacking livestock,

you know, there was
an additional 17 animals removed

in 2012, in addition
to the 57 that we removed.

So we were beginning
to remove wolves

that had become associated

with depredating livestock,

and we started to see
the number of farms

that wolves were
killing livestock on decrease.

2014 was the last year
of recreational wolf harvest

and lethal control

for livestock depredation
protection,

and that number of farms
jumped up to 32 last year.

[stammers]
So as a livestock producer,

there's seasonal variation

in when you might
expect wolves

to depredate livestock,

especially
cow-calf producers.

Beginning in January
th

rough March,

it's a relatively rare event.

You don't have many
sm

all animals on the farm.

All your big animals
ar

e up around the hay ring

near the buildings,
an

d they're just--

they're not very vulnerable.

You know, but what happens,
as

soon as--

as soon as you start to calve

and pasture greens up,

your herds get dispersed
on

pasture;

they're in more remote areas
of

the farm.

You have young animals.

You have wolves
on

the landscape.

We start to see the uptick
in

depredation

starting in end of March,
fi

rst of April,

and then
ar

ound the middle of May,

end of May, it kind of peaks,

and then it starts
to

drop off.

And what's occurring is,
fa

wning has occurred,

and we see a decrease

in the rate of wolves
de

predating livestock

when they switch over

and there's this new
fo

od resource that's available

on the landscape,
an

d that's deer fawns.

And so we see this--
th

is bimodal relationship

where livestock conflicts

get a little slower
in

June, July,

but as soon as we begin
to

approach August,

end of July, first of August,
middle of August,

the wolf pups are weaned;
they're away from the dens.

They're old enough
to travel with the adults,

and you can possibly

end up with
an entire pack of wolves

that are called
"rendezvousing,"

or they have a rendezvous site
near your farm.

The bioenergetics
of the wolf pack

is increased tremendously

'cause you not only have
the two breeders

that need sustenance
for survival;

the pups are also old enough
to where they're depending

on meat for sustenance,

and we see these
depredations increasing

in August and September,

and then towards
the middle to end of October,

it starts to decline again,

and, you know,
pasture could be

froze off by that point;

maybe your feeder calves
have been shipped.

The vulnerability--

the number of vulnerable animals
out there

just starts to decline,

and this rate of depredation
drops off

to where when we get into
November--

late November, December,

it becomes
a fairly rare event.

What we have seen

when livestock producers
do

have wolves

on their farms
la

te in the year

and depredations are occurring,

those can be significant issues
fo

r that producer,

'cause those wolves are--
[c

lears throat]

They're going to spend time
at

that farm hunting livestock

because they've become
ac

climated to doing it.

And, you know,
wh

at predisposes

an individual farmer
to

a livestock depredation--

you know, I said earlier,
th

ere's 32 farms last year

that we verified
wo

lves killing livestock on.

We know that
it

occurs more than that.

[clears throat]
Th

ey may kill a calf,

consume it, and the producer's
ne

ver aware that--

why the calf is missing;
th

at has happened.

So that number of farms
is

higher than 32,

but what predisposes a farm
to

wolf predation

in Wisconsin is, generally,
it

's a larger farm,

usually has, you know,

50 to a few hundred
he

ad of cattle on it,

more remote pastures,

and what happens,
th

ese farms are just

positioned on the landscape
wh

ere they butt up

next to really good
wo

lf habitat.

And this is an aerial image
out of an aircraft

flying from Ashland
down along Highway 13.

So this would be right around

Marengo, High Bridge,

York area
lo

oking south,

and you can see
th

at pastureland right there,

but that blue haze
in

the background

is the Great Divide
Ra

nger District

of the national forest.

There's county forest land
th

ere.

And there's
ab

out a half a million acres

of really good wolf habitat

right up next to
th

is livestock production area,

and there's a lot
of

cow-calf operations

in this area.

And you simply have
fo

ur strands of barbed wire

separating your animals

from some of the best
wolf habitat in the state,

and that's not-- that's not
an abatement strategy.

Your fences are designed
to confine livestock.

They're not designed to keep
predators out of your pastures.

And, you know,
farm size can range--

the biggest producer
we deal with is--

he's got--
uh, about 1,200 acres.

And generally speaking,
on a farm, and, uh--

generally speaking--
there are exceptions,

but the average number of calves
killed per farm

using our statistics
is around two calves per farm.

There are situations,
as you can see,

where one particular farm,
we verify--

we verified
12 calves were killed.

That particular producer
had a fairly large

missing livestock claim
that year also.

[clears throat]

Cattle depredated by wolves.

Um, since they were listed

as an endangered specie
ba

ck in 1975,

we have verified
wo

lves have killed

661 head of cattle
in

the state.

Last year, it was 46.

Something that's not
ta

lked about

but is very important

are these
no

n-depredation impacts

that wolves can have
on

livestock production.

And, you know, Mr. Link
hi

t the nail on the head.

The instance--
in

2015,

there was an incident
on

that particular property

where we didn't have
go

od abatement strategies,

and the best solution was

just to move the cattle
of

f of the--

off of that pasture.

And, to me,
wh

en that is the solution,

the program has failed,

because we weren't able
to resolve that conflict

using just nonlethal techniques.

We need to have
an integrated approach

to resolving livestock
depredations from wolves.

But some of these
non-predation-related impacts

that wolves have had
on livestock production

includes weight loss.

That Ramler et al. 2014 paper

is a scientific
peer-reviewed paper

that looked at ranches
in Montana

and compared feeder calf weights
at the end of the season

on farms that had
wolf depredations

and on farms that didn't have
wolf depredations,

and those farms that had
wolf depredations,

their calf weights
were 26 pounds lighter

than the ranches
without depredations,

and, you know, that year,

if you look at, you know,
26 pounds per calf

at a couple of bucks a pound,

that adds up to real money
really quick.

I mean, and these are impacts
that aren't compensated for.

Increased cattle vigilance,
that Kluever paper,

looked at cow-calf herds
in the Southwest,

in Arizona and New Mexico,
that were exposed

to the Mexican gray wolf,

and those animals...
[clears throat]

Those animals
on those allotments

that had
the presence of wolves

spent more time looking for--

presumably for predators

than herds that didn't have
wolves on the allotment.

Meaning,
they spent more time grazing,

putting weight on.

I mean, that's the goal
of cow-calf production.

Cattle--
very difficult to handle,

that have been hunted
by

wolves.

Cattle have been stampeded
th

rough fences.

There's the potential
of

a disease transmitted

between wolves--
ot

her canids.

Coyotes, farm dogs,
fo

xes, and wolves

can transmit
Neospora caninum,

which can result
in

the cow aborting a fetus.

Um, fence damage,

and time spent
se

arching for depredations.

You know, these are some
of these secondary impacts

that folks like you
can have

when wolves start
hunting livestock on your farm.

So some nonlethal concepts.

Disruptive stimuli--
th

is is, you know,

an undesirable stimuli
to

prevent or alter

the behavior of an animal,

to try to frighten it away.

Aversive stimuli--

stimuli that cause
di

scomfort or pain

that's paired
wi

th a specific behavior.

When we talk
ab

out nonlethal concepts,

these are kind of
th

e two boxes that we look at

when we're trying
to

prevent wolves

from killing livestock.

And some of those
te

chniques are fladry--

and we'll go over these
wh

en we go out to--

when we go out
to

the Radzak farm.

Fladry,
ra

ndomly activated lights,

electronic guards,
ra

dio-activated guards,

and scare wires.

The image on the left,

that's a scare wire
on

a cow-calf operation.

It's placed between the ground
an

d the bottom barbed wired,

and it's electrified

with 12-volt fencers,
so

lar Parmak fencers,

or some other fencers.

Fairly high voltage.

It's a technique
th

at we're using

on a particular farm
th

at has

a huge history
of

wolf conflicts

to prevent wolves
fr

om accessing pastures.

The image on the right,

that's some of our staff
in

stalling fladry

on a farm in Douglas County

that had wolf depredations
in

2015.

In 2015, we had 17 major
no

nlethal projects.

We installed 16--
al

most 16 1/2 miles of fladry.

We put these
ra

dio-activated guards--

and you'll see these
th

is afternoon--

out on three different
pr

operties,

installed over six miles
of

electrified poly-tape,

used electronic guards

and various livestock husbandry
re

commendations.

You know, and some
an

imal husbandry practices

that might help prevent
wo

lf depredations--

you know, changing pastures,
ni

ght penning,

changing birthing dates,
an

d fencing.

Some other
no

nlethal approaches

that have been used
in

the past

has been actually
th

e sterilization of wolves.

They felt
if

they weren't breeding

and they weren't raising pups,

the energy demands of the pack
would be suppressed,

and therefore they wouldn't
depredate livestock.

It wasn't proven scientifically
with wolves,

but it was a technique
used in Utah

with coyotes,
where they were able

to actually reduce
rates of predation on lambs

from sterilized coyote pairs.

Translocation
of problem wolves--

that was a technique we used
prior to 2003.

There was
33 different wolves

that were caught from farms

that were suffering
depredations from wolves,

and we moved these
long distances

and released them.

It didn't prove to be
a very successful technique

because the majority
of these animals died

within the first six months
of them being released,

but what it did do is,
it stimulated nine county boards

to pass resolutions
not wanting us or the--

or the state of Wisconsin

releasing wolves
in those counties.

So it-- it was
a unpopular technique.

- [chuckles]
Yeah.

- That's an image
of a radio-activated guard.

It's got a strobe light
an

d some sirens,

and it's activated
by

the presence

of a radio-collared wolf.

So it's more
of

an interactive tool.

It's not going off all night.

We know if the stimuli

is going off repeatedly
and consistently,

animals will habituate to that
fairly quickly.

But this is--
it's an interaction--

it's an interaction
based on proximity

between wolves and this box
from its radio collar

where it sends a signal,
and it activates the device.

Potentially,
calving nearer buildings

might be something--

a recommendation
th

at you might consider.

It doesn't prove
to

be 100% effective.

We've had wolves kill livestock
ve

ry near buildings,

so to say
th

at this is foolproof

would be inaccurate,

but it's something
th

at you might consider.

And Mike will talk
mo

re specifically

about guarding animals.

You know,
I'

ve talked about

the importance of having
an

integrated approach

to resolving wolf conflicts.

And right now,

with the federal classification
of

wolves

as federally endangered,

we can only try
to prevent depredations

for folks like you using
nonlethal abatement techniques.

And this is a scenario
that happened in 2010

in Douglas
and Bayfield County.

This is-- that black line
represents

the summer territory
of a wolf

that Eric had radio-collared

in an attempt to use

a radio-activated guard,

and I'll just walk you through
wh

at happens.

And so the green represents
fo

rested cover.

The beige is-- is some type
of

agriculture,

and the blue's
se

lf-explanatory;

in the top of the screen
is

Lake Superior.

So on May 10th,
we

had wolves kill a calf.

You know, we applied
so

me nonlethal technique

to try to abate that situation,

try to prevent wolves
fr

om killing other calves.

Well, it worked there
fo

r a few weeks,

but over on a neighboring farm,
th

ey killed a calf.

So we applied some nonlethal
ab

atement there.

It's fladry, flashing lights,
or

electronic guards.

And then on the 15th of July,

we had a farmer report
wo

lves harassing livestock.

We verified that, so we did
pr

oactive nonlethal abatement

trying to prevent
an

y depredations

and these secondary effects

that wolves might pose
on

a particular farm.

So on the second of August,

they depredated livestock

on the north edge
of

the summer territory,

so we applied
no

nlethal abatement there.

And then on 8/19,

they actually depredated
li

vestock on the farm

where we had already applied
th

is nonlethal abatement,

so that didn't prove
to

be successful.

And then in September,

another depredation
on

an adjacent farm,

another one
a

couple of days later.

[stammers]

At this point, we're trying
ev

erything that we can try.

This is--
th

is is the era

when wolves
ar

e federally lifted,

and we don't have
th

e authority to remove them,

so...

Another depredation occurs
on

the 30th of September,

the 10th of Oct--
or

the 11th of October,

the 30th of October.

Without the authority

and the ability to have
an integrated approach,

that's not
successful wolf management.

Spreading the problem

from one producer to another
isn't successful.

And at that point, those animals
had become so habituated

to these nonlethal techniques

that none of them
were being successful.

And I would argue,
if you want to talk

about wolf conservation

and these
conservation strategies,

that-- that pack of wolves
did nothing to support

wolf recovery
and wolf conservation

when everybody in the community
is having problems with them.

Eric, would you like
to add anything

to that experience?
- No.

[laughter]

- It was a difficult summer.

- How many of those wolves
died accidentally?

- [laughs]

- Pardon me?
[laughter]

- How many of those wolves
died accidentally?

- Uh, I don't know.
- Do you refuse to answer?

- I forget-- that was W-757,
and I think--

maybe that winter,
it went off of the air.

I forget what happened to it.

But that is-- that is
a real-life example.

I think that's
a fairly compelling story that--

that trying
to resolve these conflicts

with nonlethal abatement
strategies--

although, we can select a farm--
maybe it's a single farm.

It's isolated.
It's relatively small.

We can stop wolf depredations
to livestock

with these nonlethal tools
relatively efficiently,

but there are these scenarios
that occur

where nothing in the realm
of nonlethal is practical.

In northern Wisconsin,

we conduct tribal
co-investigations

of wolf complaints.

The Menominee,
St

ockbridge-Munsee,

and the Ojibwe nations

value,
cu

lturally and spiritually,

wolves very highly.

If we have a depredation
wi

thin six miles

of tribal lands--
of

these tribal lands,

we will co-investigate
th

e complaint

with the tribal biologist.

So we do an on the ground--

boots-on-the-ground evaluation
of

the conflict.

So if we're starting to talk
ab

out abatement strategies,

we have the tribal biologist
on

board,

so when we start talking--

potentially, given the era
in

which we're at,

whether it's federally delisted
or

listed,

they can be part
of

the determination

as to what we're going to do
to

resolve that issue.

We had talked about
ca

rcass disposal,

proper carcass--

proper carcass disposal
te

chniques.

The--
th

e image on the left,

that's an
im

properly disposed of cow,

and those tracks coming into it
ar

e wolf tracks.

That could probably
pr

edispose you

to wolf predation,
wh

en you start

to calve on those pastures
in

the spring.

It's-- it's
a very important topic,

and it's a very difficult issue
to deal with

that you folks have to deal with
in the winter months.

Just a time frame of this
on again/off again

federal status of wolves
in

Wisconsin.

You've seen that earlier.

Wolves captured and killed
fo

r depredation management

by USDA Wildlife Services
an

d the Wisconsin DNR

from 1974 to 2015.

There's been
39

7 wolves captured

for conflict management,

and 335 of those animals

were euthanized.

An integrated site-specific

wolf depredation management
pr

ogram

has nothing to do
with population level control.

It is not our objective
to have any impact

on the overall
statewide wolf population.

It is to resolve your conflict,

not to reduce
the wolf population.

Generally speaking,

when we have a year
of full lethal control,

we will remove
between 5% and 10%

of that minimum estimated
wolf population

from the previous winter.

I would like to also add
to this

that site-specific
lethal control

for wolf conflict abatement
has had nothing to do--

or has had no negative impact

on wolf recovery
in the state of Wisconsin.

You folks
saw this image earlier.

I mean, what it speaks to is,

those years
wh

en we had the authority

to lethally remove wolves
in

2002 through 2008

and then
in

'12, '13, and '14,

you can obviously see that

the population growth line
is

increasing

while we had the authority
to

lethally remove animals.

Some weird wolf conflicts,

you know, some
no

n-predation-related things.

This is a silage bag
in

Marinette County

that a pair of wolves
ha

d ran up the side of,

and their nails had punctured
th

at silage bag.

And you can see where
th

e farmer had taped the bag.

And you all know
wh

at that means to you,

when you have
a

punctured silage bag.

You know, these are
right near the barnyard.

Just-- just some
non-livestock-related

wolf incidences that--

that do-- that do occur.

Um, you know,
so when we go back to 1908,

that first scientifically...

I wouldn't call it
pe

er-reviewed

but an effort
to

demonstrate

predator management tools
ba

ck in 1908,

to today, in 2014,

we still have scientists
th

at work both

for our agency
an

d other agencies

that are trying to develop
th

ese tools and techniques

to prevent
la

rge carnivores--

grizzly bears,
bl

ack bears, cougars,

wolves, and coyotes--
fr

om depredating livestock,

so there is still effort
out there, folks,

that people are spending
a fair amount of time on

trying to develop techniques
to resolve these conflicts.

And this 2014 just represents
another one of those efforts.

Dr. John Shivik has devoted
a lot of his career

to investigating techniques

to prevent
livestock depredations.

I know that's very quick.
It's a lot of information.

We could talk about this topic
for a very long time,

but we can go over some
of the stuff at the field day

with Eric,
but at this point,

before I open it up
to questions,

on the back are some magnets,

and if you want,
grab one of those.

Those have our 1-800
hotline numbers on them.

And so if you suspect
that you have

a wolf or a bear depredation,

it'd be nice for you to
have that on your refrigerator

so you know the number to call.

We monitor those numbers

seven days a week,
365 days a year.

If it's a holiday or a weekend,
there's someone assigned

to call in and check voice mail
every couple of hours

to see if we've received
a wolf or a bear complaint.

So it's
365-day-a-year service.

So grab one of those
on your way out.

And some of the packages--
packets that you got

on your way in,
they just contain

a lot of information
about our agency and program,

not only about bears and wolves
but some of

the other stuff we do
that might be useful for you.

So I encourage you
to grab one of those

and take it home.

So at that,
I've got a little bit of time,

if there's any questions.

[applause]