Rachel Tilseth: Ron Johnson’s anti-wolf meeting was dirty politics

Capital Times Wednesday August 30, 2017
Dear Editor: Wisconsinites have been subjected to a great deal of political rhetoric regarding the wolf. All this rhetoric is about instilling hate and fear in order to gain support for delisting of the wolf as endangered. It’s best to let scientific fact and public input be the guiding factors in determining the fate of Wisconsin’s wild wolf. But first you’ve got to get past the lack of factual information and politicians’ fearmongering.

Wisconsin voters must remember the saying that there’s no such thing as an honest politician. That saying rings true no matter what political side of the fence you sit on. Politicians are good at agitating on either side of an issue, which in this case is the heated debate of whether to delist the wolf.

I wouldn’t waste any time worrying about the wolf. It’s unscrupulous politicians that we all should be concerned about. Recently, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., held a meeting in Spooner on short notice, inviting only folks that were for wolf delisting, and failing to inform the rest of his constituents about the meeting. His aides ran the Aug. 16 meeting, which was held to drum up support for Senate Bill 1514, the HELP for Wildlife Act, which Johnson is co-sponsoring. This bill calls for delisting the wolf, and has a rider attached to prevent any judicial review of the decision.

Holding a meeting that denied access to all of the public is just dirty politics. This meeting in no way represented the will of the people. Instead it represented the will of politicians with unscrupulous agendas. 
Rachel Tilseth 


Featured image by Ian McAllister

Send your letter to the editor to tctvoice@madison.com. Include your full name, hometown and phone number. Your name and town will be published. The phone number is for verification purposes only. Please keep your letter to 250 words or less.

Tips for writing your letter:

Keep your letter short, focused, and interesting. In general, letters should be under 200 words, 150 or less is best; stay focused on one (or, at the most, two) main point(s); and get to the main point in the first two sentences. If possible include interesting facts, relevant personal experience, and any local connections to the issue. If you letter is longer than 200 words, it will likely be edited or not printed. 
Write the letter in your own words. Editors want letters in their papers to be original and from a reader. Be sure that you take the time to write the letter in your own words. 
Refute, advocate, and make a call to action. Most letters to the editor follow a standard format. Open your letter by refuting the claim made in the original story the paper ran. Then use the next few sentences to back up your claims and advocate for your position. Try to focus on the positive. For example: According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, investments in renewable energy would bring over $200 million to our state and create 36,000 jobs by 2020. Then wrap your letter up by explaining what you think needs to happen now, make your call to action. 
Include your contact information. Be sure to include your name, address, and daytime phone number; the paper will contact you before printing your letter. 

For tips click HERE

Wolf news from across the country…

It certainly has been an up and down whirlwind of a week for news on gray wolves. From the disheartening reports out west where wildlife officials are killing members of Washington’s Smackout pack and the Harl Butte pack in Oregon, to the two encouraging news stories concerning Wisconsin wolves.

The first story affecting Wisconsin’s gray wolf was the Washington DC appellate court’s  3-0 decision to retain protection for gray wolves in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan. The court cited that the USFWS had not sufficiently considered how loss of historical territory would affect the predator’s recovery and how removing the Great Lakes population segment from the endangered list would affect wolves in other parts of the nation.

The second story affecting Wisconsin’s wolves was Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filing a criminal complaint citing state payments to hunters to compensate for hunting dogs killed or injured in clashes with wolves as evidence of violations. PEER has requested a criminal investigation for violation of the Endangered Species Act.  PEER Staff Counsel Adam Carlesco states, “Endangered species are legally protected from human activity which adversely affects the animals, not just physical injury but harm to habitat or breeding. Loosing packs of dogs on them absolutely constitutes an adverse impact.”

“Wisconsin encourages hunting practices that seem calculated to cause fatal conflicts with wolves,” ~Adam Carlesco, PEER

According to PEER, the WI DNR has not been authorized to give payments for hound depredations since 2014, but have been doing so in violation of Wisc. Stat. § 29.888 since then. This statute reads as follows:

“The department shall administer a wolf depredation program under which payments may be made to persons who apply for reimbursement for death or injury caused by wolves to livestock, to hunting dogs other than those being actively used in the hunting of wolves, and to pets and for management and control activities conducted by the department for the purpose of reducing such damage caused by wolves. The department may make payments for death or injury caused by wolves under this program only if the death or injury occurs during a period time when the wolf is not listed on the federal endangered list and is not listed on the state endangered list.”

“Wisconsin DNR does not pretend to manage bear hunting in any discernible fashion, nor do they even bother to monitor what is taking place.” ~Adam Carlesco, PEER

Rachel Tilseth, worked closely with PEER in gathering information for this criminal investigation. Rachel reached out to PEER a couple months ago requesting their help and stated that she was impressed at the amount of investigation, research, and digging that PEER did. Read her blog on this story here. WPR will be publishing more on this story. Email us at wolvesdouglasco@gmail.com for more information.

Both of these stories are wonderful news for Wisconsin’s gray wolf, but this is no time to rest on our laurels; we must remain vigilant and continue advocating. US Senate bill S1514 is getting closer to coming to the Senate floor for a vote. This bill would permanently delist wolves in the Great Lakes states, and preclude any judicial review – no appeals period – taking away a fundamental bedrock of our democracy. Our wolves deserve better than this.



Editorial Opinion “Legislators’ wolf summit just more rhetoric” by Outdoor writer Patrick Durkin

I’m posting Durkin’s article that I just read in in the Green Bay Press-Gazette.  Patrick Durkin of Waupaca, Wis., is an award-winning outdoor writer, free-lance newspaper columnist, and general outdoors reporter. 

The following is Durkin’s editorial: Legislators’ wolf summit just more rhetoric

One can’t help but clap, hoot and holler “You tell ’em, Tom!” when reading state Sen. Tom Tiffany’s news releases about some insult or outrage he deems returning.
Currently, Hazelhurst’s favorite demagogue is mad that “the wolf population is being allowed to run rampant in Wisconsin.” That’s why the headline on his May 9 news release — issued jointly with state Rep. Adam Jarchow, R-Balsam Lake — shouted, “Enough is Enough.”

Their announced solution is a Great Lakes Wolf Summit in September, which will “send a crystal clear, grassroots message that it’s irresponsible to ignore this issue any longer.” 
Cool. What could be more “grassroots” than a meeting run by two lawmakers, and what could be more “crystal clear” than sending a message to a person or agency not identified?

I know. Details, details.
Anyway, Tiffany and Jarchow also announced June 28 that their summit will be 9 a.m.-3 p.m. Sept. 15 at the Das Lach Haus in Cumberland. They’ll open registration July 20.

But the lawmakers seemingly lost some of their fury the past two months. Their recent news release was merely two paragraphs and ended weakly: “Our goal remains to have a policy-driven discussion about the situation at hand.”
Yawn. Who’d drive to Cumberland for that? I mean, Cumberland is three hours from Eagle River, 4½ hours from Marinette and about 100 minutes from Superior. Maybe Tiffany should dust off “Enough is Enough” from that May 9 release and add three exclamation points. He also could recycle this line: “Let us be clear: Wisconsin is not a wolf sanctuary and it’s irresponsible to allow it to be treated as such.”
And just so we’re clear, I agree with Tiffany and Jarchow that Wisconsin proved from 2012 through 2014 that it can responsibly manage its wolf population. It’s ridiculous that Great Lakes wolves are back on the Endangered Species List nine years after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service first delisted them, especially with the minimum population nearing a record 900 animals and 222 packs.
The current relisting began in December 2014 under court order, marking the fourth time that lawyers, not biologists, reinstated federal protection for the region’s wolves after the original delisting in 2007.
But will yet another wolf meeting hasten the F&WS’s ongoing appeal of this current relisting? Or will calling it a “summit” inspire Capitol Hill to permanently remove federal protections and let the Department of Natural Resources resume management duties?
Granted, we’re talking wolves, which likely generate more controversy than all other wildlife species combined worldwide. Still, it’s unlikely Tiffany and Jarchow’s invited “experts in the field” or six hours of testimony from weary travelers will provide any new insights for federal courts and Washington insiders.
But perhaps Tiffany can detail the actual impact of a “wolf population being allowed to run rampant.” Or is this just more of his routine exaggerations? According to DNR data on agriculture abatement for wildlife-inflicted damage, wolves accounted for 6 percent of Wisconsin’s $1.24 million in payments during 2014, the most recent year in which those totals are available.
If Tiffany and Jarchow want to target more costly consumers of crops and livestock, they should attack white-tailed deer, which caused 73 percent of Wisconsin’s 2014 abatement bill. And heck, don’t forget about black bears, 12 percent; or Canada geese, 8 percent.
And if we’re going to reimburse people for wolf-killed pets, hunting dogs, sheep, calves, horses, llamas, emus and other livestock, why stop there? To be fair, we should also compensate folks when a coyote or bobcat kills their cat or dog; or a fox, weasel or raccoon kills their rabbit, chicken or other barnyard fowl.
And speaking of wolf-killed dogs, maybe the summit should address whether Wisconsin could save some hounds by shortening our bear-baiting season. Depending on the year, our bear hunters lose two to seven times more hounds than their counterparts in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, according to a 2013 study by Joseph Bump at Michigan Technological University in Houghton.
The most obvious difference is that Wisconsin allows bear baiting from April 15 through the end of bear season in mid-October, which covers most of the time they aren’t hibernating. That’s the United States’ longest bear-baiting season. Michigan is next longest, but it doesn’t allow baiting until 31 days before its bear-hunting season, or roughly mid-August.
The longer a bait site is active, the greater the chance wolves discover its pull on prey. As Bump notes: “The extended, pre-training baiting period in Wisconsin provides wolves increased opportunity to discover and defend bait sites. This (is) based on observations of wolves using bait sites for food as documented by cameras, tracks and the stomach contents of a captured wolf. Bear hunters using dogs frequently start their dogs at bait sites, and it seems reasonable to expect that dogs in Wisconsin would be more likely to encounter wolves that are in the proximity of and potentially defensive of bait sites.”
Therefore, instead of having some vague “policy-driven discussion” as the summit’s goal, perhaps Tiffany and Jarchow should get specific. Do they want more deer in the Northwoods, which is mostly a function of habitat and winter severity; or do they want fewer wolf-killed hounds, sheep and calves?
Then again, maybe they simply want to cap the wolf population at 350, 500, 1,000 or some other number determined by a show of hands. If so, why make wolves the exception in Wisconsin’s current approach to managing large wildlife?
We no longer target specific population goals for deer or bears. With deer we simply ask if a county’s herd should go up, down or stay the same. And with bears, we’re content to hold them at roughly 30,000, which is 18,700 more than the longtime goal of 11,300.
And if Tiffany and Jarchow think deer management is all about predator management, then why ignore bears? Recent DNR studies in northwestern Wisconsin linked bears to nine (20 percent) of the 46 radio-collared fawns killed by predators in spring and summer from 2011 to 2013. Further, bobcats were linked to six (13 percent) of the dead fawns, coyotes to five (11 percent), and wolves to one (2 percent); but 17 (37 percent) couldn’t be tied to a specific predator based on evidence at the death site.
For those reasons and more, expect the Tiffany-Jarchow wolf summit to simply restate best guesses and half-baked assumptions. But shouting them more loudly won’t make them true.


Featured image: John E Marriott Photography