Here & Now

A Lawsuit to Halt Wisconsin's Wolf Hunt

Frederica Freyberg:

Wisconsin’s wolf hunt is set to begin in a little more than three weeks on November 6. But just days before that, a federal judge in Madison will consider a lawsuit from six Chippewa tribes calling to halt the hunt. We invited Hunter Nation, which sued to hold February’s wolf hunt, but they were unable to join us tonight. We are joined by Peter David, biologist with the Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission and thanks very much for being here.

Peter David:

It’s a pleasure. Thank you for the opportunity.

Frederica Freyberg:

So let’s unpack the reasons the Ojibwa tribes want to stop the November wolf hunt from happening. What are the concerns about the wolf population in Wisconsin, especially after that February hunt?

Peter David:

Well, the February hunt was certainly an unprecedented event compared to wolf hunting in history. That impact was entirely nested into the heart of the wolves’ breeding season, so we’re far from even understanding the biological impact from what happened in February and yet we’re proceeding here with another hunt. That’s really unconscionable I think to the tribes. They have tremendous cultural connections to Ma’iingan or to the wolf and they also value them incredibly ecologically and rely on them to do things like keep the deer healthy, which the tribes depend on very much. So the tribes’ real goal is to allow wolves to reach their natural level on the landscape, which they were probably close to doing before the February hunt.

Frederica Freyberg:

The tribes’ lawsuit states the DNR and its board violated treaty rights in setting hunting quota for this hunt basically saying the quota shouldn’t be 300 or 130, but zero. How were treaties violated?

Peter David:

Well, there are a number of ways, frankly. The quotas — first of all, there’s a real question about whether there’s a need for a quota at all. The question shouldn’t be what’s the right quota but is there a legitimate reason to hunt wolves? I think both in the sport hunting ethic I grew up in and in the Ojibwe worldview that I learned as an adult, we apply ethical considerations to hunting any animal, especially something that’s as sentient and social and ecologically and cultural significant as Ma’iingan. So that’s the first question. Then the state unfortunately has a situation where they have a law that requires a hunt to take place. That law if you have to live with that, it at least needs to be applied with the best available and defensible science. It was clear that the actions that the Natural Resources Board was taking were an effort to get around the tribes’ right to protect Ma’iingan. And so that’s a tremendous concern. And then the lack of sound science behind the process that was used to reach this quota is another tremendous concern of the tribes. And the many people in the non-tribal community.

Frederica Freyberg:

There are those as well. Now, supporters of a robust wolf hunt say that the animals prey on livestock and their numbers need to be reduced. What about that?

Peter David:

You know, I think it’s instructive to look at our neighboring states. There are wolves obviously both in the upper peninsula of Michigan and in Minnesota. Neither of those states rushed to kill wolves. Michigan’s population is similar to Wisconsin’s. Minnesota has two and half times as many and certainly a livestock industry as well. We know hunting has very little to do with addressing livestock depredation concerns. We look at the February hunt. Nine out of ten wolves killed in that hunt were taken more than ten miles from the nearest verified depredation event. So while there are livestock concerns, we know that hunting is not a legitimate way to address them. And Wisconsin I think needs to emulate the other two states and take a thoughtful and practical path forward. Those states are doing social surveys. They’re talking to their constituents. They’re consulting with the tribes. They’re going to develop, I think, a legitimate and science-based and defensible path forward and that’s really something I think Wisconsin needs to catch up to.

Frederica Freyberg:

As to the cultural significance of wolves for the Ojibwe, wolves are sacred. For them, what kind of a violation is killing them?

Peter David:

In the Ojibwe worldview, it’s understood that wolf is an animal that the tribes’ fate is intertwined with and the relationship is really one of a brotherhood. This is literally like coming into your family and killing family members to traditional Ojibwe people. So it’s that wrong and it’s that close to home and you can imagine how this feels to tribal people, especially when the justifications given for this event really don’t hold up to any scientific scrutiny.

Frederica Freyberg:

So we will be looking to see what happens in federal court just days before the hunt is set to begin. Peter David, thanks very much. Thanks for your information.

Peter David:

It was a pleasure. Take care. Be well.

Frederica Freyberg:

Thank you.

Speaking of lawsuits, the group that sued to get the February wolf hunt on the books may go to court again, this time over dueling quota numbers. Hunter Nation president and CEO Luke Hilgemann offered a statement discussing the lower quota set by the DNR after the higher one was originally approved by the board saying, “The Natural Resources Board is the governing body of the department and we believe this may be another illegal move by the DNR and the Evers administration to override the will of the people. Hunter Nation is actively reviewing this move with our legal team and will continue to lead the fight to make sure that this season’s wolf hunt continues at the 300 quota approved by the board.”

At the State Capitol this week, Assembly and Senate Republicans released a slate of pro-hunting bills they’re calling the Wisconsin Sporting Freedom Package. Proposals include legalizing the hunting of sandhill cranes, easing or eliminating various DNR hunting regulations and a bill to allow gun owners to conceal and carry a firearm, a measure that if passed Governor Tony Evers is likely to veto.