[Otto Weigand, Agricultural Agent, University of Wisconsin- Extension]

Our next speaker is David Ruid from, uh, U.S.D.A.-A.P.H.I.S. And he’s gonna talk about integrated predator management concepts. Thank you, David.

[David Ruid, Supervisory Wildlife Biologist, U.S.D.A-A.P.H.I.S. Wildlife Services]

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.

[wide shot of the audience with Eric with his hand waving]

Thank you.

Yeah, so we’ll get going, lickety-split. So, when we’re talking about livestock predators –

[slide titled, Livestock Predators, featuring three photographs, one of a pack of wolves in a field, one of a black bear in a field, and one of a coyote in a field]

– in the state of Wisconsin, primarily we’re dealing with wolves, black bears, and coyotes. Very rarely we’ll have bobcats maybe kill a lamb or domestic fowl, but typically speaking – this is Cow-Calf Workshop, when we’re talking about cow-calf wildlife predation, we’re dealing with wolves, black bears, and coyotes in the state of Wisconsin.

[new slide titled, Current gray wolf Range, featuring a map of the United States with areas of gray wolf populations outlined in green. Most populations are in the West east of the Rocky Mountains with pockets in northern Maine as well as northern Minnesota and Wisconsin]

And I’m primarily gonna talk about gray wolves today and – and our program in dealing with – with gray wolf conflicts in Wisconsin. This is a – this – this map of the U.S. represents – those green areas represent what most people feel is suitable wolf habit in the 48 states. The black polygons represent those suitable habitat areas that currently are occupied by wolves. And most recently, what we have seen is, there is now a breeding pack of wolves that have moved into California. Wash – Eastern Washington, Oregon have recently been colonized by wolves.

[David Ruid, on-camera]

So, we’re getting upwards of ten states that have wolves in them, and – 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 species. 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, well – we’ll talk about nonlethal abatement techniques to try to resolve predator – predator problems, and – and one of – you – you go back in time, this isn’t a relatively recent phenomenon.

[slide titled, Early non-lethal method (Preventative methods), featuring a photograph of wolf-proof wire fencing in a snowy field with a herd of dairy cattle in the distance. The slide also features the following list – first proposed wolf proof fence – 1717 in the Cape Cod Region of Massachusetts (Young and Goldman, 1944, Wolves of North America) – proposal failed from complaints from unprotected neighbors outside the fence who didnt want the wolves shut-out on them. 6 high board fence; Woods Burning was used to reduce vegetative cover near livestock, 1928, Ouachita, NF, AR; Methods were likely used concurrent with lethal techniques]

You go back to 1717; in the Cape Cod region of Massachusetts, there was a proposed wolf fence to protect livestock from predators, and that would have been bears, wolves, and coyotes. But in 1717, people were thinking about, “How do I exclude my livestock from predators?” And interestingly enough, this proposal that was put forth, it failed from complaints from the unprotected neighbors outside the fence who didn’t want the wolves shut out on them, and the proposal was a six-foot-high board fence. Another technique that was used was vegetation management. Woods burning was used to reduce vegetative cover near livestock. There’s – theres an example of that in the literature from 1928 in – in Arkansas. And I would imagine a lot of these techniques – they were used in conjunction –

[David Ruid, on-camera]

– with lethal control, but nevertheless, these were some nonlethal efforts to separate livestock from predators.

Some – some of the most early scientific literature pertaining to this topic was from the U.S.D.A. Forest Service in 1908 –

[slide titled, Early Scientific Work – Non-lethal methods, featuring the following bulleted list – U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 1908 – developed a predator proof fence; Wallowa National Forest, Oregon; 2,560 acre pasture fenced; successful in reducing depredations from coyotes, unsuccessful in reducing depredations from grizzly and black bears; labor rate was $3/eight hour work day]

– when they developed a predator-proof fence in Oregon on a 2,500-acre pasture, and their results found that they could successfully fence livestock from pre – from coyotes, but it was unsuccessful in dealing with grizzly bears and black bears, and – and I would suspect that this was probably in an era when wolves had likely been extirpated from this particular region.

And how about this for a farm labor rate? Um, three bucks a day per eight hours.

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 –

[slide featuring and aerial photo of Wisconsin farmland with a black pentagon surrounding and area between county roads]

– set – set – establish territories in areas that were becoming more fragmented. It wasn’t the big blocks of contiguous forestland. As you can see – this black polygon represents a wolf pack territory, and those open areas, that’s agriculture. The north end of the wolf pack was forested public land, and the southern fringe of that particular pack, um, started to – it – it was fragmented and 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 killing livestock annually.

[new slide with a new aerial photograph of land in Marathon County with the wolf pack territory demarcated with a black polygon in what is mostly agricultural areas]

And then, as late as 2010, 2013, this is an actual example of a wolf pack territory in Marathon County, and you can see, predominately, that pack’s territory is agricultural land, a lot of it being row crop, but there is livestock production included in that. So, as this – as this really suitable habitat has been saturated, we’re starting to see wolves spilling out of the northern forest, central forest, and establishing territories in this – what we would call unsuitable habitat, because generally speaking, when we do see wolves colonize areas –

[David Ruid, on-camera]

– 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 – and – this – this comes from the – the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan, and – and state law drives compensation in the state, and so we have to package wolf complaints that if we received from you into these four categories, and they’re –

[slide titled, Many depredations detected by presence of birds on carcasses, featuring a photograph of bald eagles surrounding a dead animal carcass and featuring the following bulleted list – confirmed; probable; confirmed non-wolf; unconfirmed]

– confirmed, probable, confirmed non-wolf – that would – a confirmed non-wolf complaint would be, for instance, a farmer calls us out about 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 the reason the calf died. It just means we know wolves didn’t kill the calf.

The interesting thing about this photograph, if you notice, there’s a magpie in it. Eric took this picture with a trail camera, and it has a magpie in Douglas County.

[Male audience member, off-camera]

That is rare.

[new slide titled, Wolf Project Report, featuring a scan of the documentation that Wildlife Services uses when filling out a wolf depredation complaint]

So, when – when we’re investigating complaints, if – if you call us out to investigate a wolf complaint, the policy says: Call 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.

[David Ruid, on-camera]

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 – is manure on the hoof, maybe its ear tag –

[slide titled, Worn hooves/tags/emasculating bands, featuring two photos, one a close-up of a calf hoof, and another a close-up of an ear tag on a depredated calf]

– it has a emasculating band –

[new slide tilted, Wolf Scat/Track, featuring three photos, one of wolf scat on the ground with a ruler underneath it, one of an agent holding up wolf scat in their hand measuring it with a ruler, and one of wolf tracks in the mud]

– so we – we know that the animal was born alive and we’re actually dealing with – with predation and not just scavenging. ‘Cause producers aren’t paid for wolves scavenging on livestock, only if they depredate livestock.

While we’re there investigating complaint, the evidence we’re looking for, you know, are – are wolf – or predator tracks. Wolf tracks, generally speaking, they’re 4 inches long by 3 1/2 inches wide. Coyote tracks are much smaller. Wolf scats – there’s – theres a big difference between –

[David Ruid, on-camera]

– 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 –

[slide titled, Attack Pattern/bite locations, featuring four photos of dead livestock, two on the right-hand side where a calf has been bitten on the side along with a close-up of the bite marks next to a ruler; the two photos on the left show calves with neck bites]

– bitten dorsally over the vertebrae, that’s very classic of wolves killing young livestock, calves that are, you know, less than three months of age. Coyotes typically –

[David Ruid, on-camera]

– won’t do that. The – 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 – a newborn beef calf – Red Angus calf –

[return to the previous Attack pattern/bite locations slide with the four photos]

– that was attacked by coyotes in the flank region, and they – they – they simply killed the animal by stress, blood loss, shock, and trauma.

So, the – I mean, when we’re out there –

[David Ruid, on-camera]

– and – 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 – the canine puncture space in the hide of a depredated animal. The lower right, you can see the spacing of that –

[return to the Attack pattern/bite locations slide with the four photos]

– is about an inch and 1/2, inch and 3/4. That’s very signature of a wolf bite. Fairly large diameter puncture holes – 3/8 of an inch generally speaking. Inch and 1/2 or greater is – is – is –

[David Ruid, on-camera]

– a very signature of – of a wolf bite, and you can see all the hemorrhaging and shock and trauma and blood loss. That’s – thats evidence that obviously this animal was alive when it was bit.

And – and that just represents the canine tooth spacing of a wolf –

[slide titled, Evidence assessed – canine teeth spacing, saliva swabs, featuring two photographs, one of a wolf with its teeth exposed and a ruler showing the canine teeth spacing, and one of a wolfs head skeleton with a ruler showing the canine teeth spacing. Additionally, it is noted that genetic evidence/saliva swab from bite area and nuclear D.N.A. is also used]

– right there in that image. It’s about an inch and 5/8. Another technique that we’ve used – sometimes successfully, sometimes unsuccessfully –

[David Ruid, on-camera]

– 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 –

[slide titled, Carcass location/Consumption/ Drag Trail, featuring two photos, one of a dead calf with only its midsection consumed, the other of a calf carcass where only the head and front hooves remain]

– how much of the animal was consumed? If – if we know when it was killed, we know when you found it, how much of it was consumed? Is it improbable for a coyote to have consumed that much, or a bear? Or how big – how large of an animal is it?

[David Ruid, on-camera]

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 – or a livestock carcass or – or – or 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 – 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 – those blue bars represent –

[slide titled Wolf complaints investigated by W.D.N.R. and U.S.D.A/W.S., 1974 – 2015, 2,392 complaints, 1,172 verified complaints, featuring a hybrid line/bar graph with the years 1974 to 2015 on the x-axis and the wolf population in the left y-axis and wolf complaints on the right y-axis and showing an increase in both wolf populations and wolf complaints year-over-year]

– wolf complaints we’ve received in the state of Wisconsin where we actually went out and investigated. Those red bars represent those complaints that we classified as confirmed or probable. And obviously, the black line is the trend of the gray wolf population. So, there is a very strong statistical relationship that says, as wolves recovered and their population increased, so did complaints and verified complaints. Some people have argued that necessarily more wolves does not mean more complaints. In the state of Wisconsin –

[David Ruid, on-camera]

– there’s a strong correlation that it does mean that. But – this is important. These are the confirmed and –

[slide titled, Trend in Confirmed Complaints, 10 year average = 81, featuring a bar graph with the years 2003 to 2015 on the x-axis and the number of confirmed complaints on the y-axis and showing an increase in complaints year-over-year on average]

– probable wolf complaints we’ve received since 2003. So, 2003, we have 35 verif – confirmed or probable wolf complaints. In 2003, the wolf population, the minimum count was about 350 animals. And today, in two thousand – last year, in 2015, we had 91 confirmed or probable wolf complaints, but if you look at roughly a ten-year average, that trend is beginning to stabilize somewhat, but there’s nuances to this because there’s been on again/off again management scenarios based on the federal status of wolves, and also the new –

[David Ruid, on-camera]

– 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 – on farms.

So, in 2015, while investigating –

[slide titled, Wolf Complaint Classification, 2015, featuring a pie chart with the percentages for the four possible outcomes of wolf complaints, Confirmed (74, 46%), Probable (16, 10%), Confirmed Non-Wolf (28, 17%), and Unconfirmed (44, 27%)]

– wolf complaints we confirmed 46 of those and another 10% as probable. So over 50% of the investigations that we conducted were classified as confirmed or probable, and 17% of those were confirmed as non-wolf. And generally speaking, when it’s a non-wolf complaint, it’s usually, coyotes have killed a beef calf. These beef calves are fairly vulnerable to coyote predation –

[David Ruid, on-camera]

– that first day or two of their life.

And resource categories – while we’re investigating complaints, beef cattle –

[slide titled, Wolf Complaints by Resources Category, 2015, featuring a pie chart of the other species of animal that wolves depredate and the percentage they are of complaints – Beef Cattle (83, 51%), Dairy Cattle (20, 12%), Captive Deer (6,4%), Human Safety (16, 10%), Guard Dogs (2, 1%), Pet Dogs (10, 6%), Hunting Dogs (23, 14%), and Sheep (3, 2%)]

– makes up the majority of it by over 50%. 50% of the conflicts that we’re looking at relates to cow-calf producers. Dairy cattle is a fairly significant portion at 12%, and then the next biggest component is – is dogs and hunting dogs.

[new slide titled, Wolf Complaints investigated by U.S.D.A./W.S. in Wisconsin in 2015, featuring a map with the counties of Wisconsin on the left-hand side with confirmed and probable wolf depredations marked as red (confirmed) or black (probable) dots on the map. On the right-hand side of the slide is a pie chart breaking down wolf complaints by the six wolf harvest zones in Wisconsin with Zone 1 (northern) having the most with 84 (51%) and noting that there were 35 counties with complaints and 23 counties with verified complaints]

Someone asked about a map of – of wolf conflicts in the state. You know, I – I get this is kind of a wide scale, but in 2015, those larger red dots represent those confirmed and probable conflicts. The smaller dots represent the confirmed non-wolf or the unconfirmed complaints in the state. And as you can see, it’s mostly a northern forest system in – in the northern wolf harvest zones, uh, some in the central forest, and – and then some scattered out. Notably is Crawford County in southwest Wisconsin. A pack of wolves has established themselves down there, and they have depredated livestock two years in a row now.

[David Ruid, on-camera]

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 – that –

[slide titled, Farms with Confirmed/Probable Depredations, featuring a bar graph with the years 2003 to 2015 on the x-axis and the number of farms with wolf depredations on the y-axis and showing and increase year-over-year for wolf depredations with the year 2010 having the most with 47]

– we really keep track of in our program, and that’s the number of farms in the state where we verify wolves have killed livestock. [clears throat] This excludes fowl. This is looking at sheep, cattle – dairy cattle, beef cattle – possibly horses. Horse depredations are relatively rare, but, um, in – in 2010, was the most farms that we had ever verified wolf depredations on at 47, and then you can see that 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, the authority to not only implement –

[David Ruid, on-camera]

– 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 – 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. So, there – theres – theres – so, as a livestock producer, there’s – theres seasonal variation in – in – in when you might expect wolves to depredate livestock –

[slide titled, Seasonal Variation in Livestock (excluding fowl) Depredated by Wolves in Wisconsin, featuring a line graph with the months of the year from January to December of 2015 on the x-axis and the number of wolf depredations on the y-axis and showing spikes in depredations in April and May, a decrease in June and July, and then another increase in the Fall, finally leveling out to very few over the Winter months]

– especially cow-calf producers. Beginning in January through March, it’s a relatively rare event. You don’t have many small animals on the farm. All your big animals are up around the hay ring near the buildings, and they’re just – theyre – they’re not very vulnerable. You know, but what happens, as soon as – as soon as you start to calve and – 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 – in end of March, first of April, and then around the middle of May, end of May, it kind of peaks, and then it starts to drop off. And – and what’s – whats occurring is, fawning has occurred, and – and – we we see a decrease in the rate of wolves depredating livestock when they switch over and there’s this new food resource that’s available on the landscape, and that’s deer fawns. And so, we see this – this bimodal relationship where livestock conflicts get a little slower in June, July, but as soon as we begin to approach August –

[David Ruid, on-camera]

– 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 – on meat for sustenance, and we – 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 –

[return to the Seasonal Variation in Livestock Depredated by Wolves in WI slide]

– fairly rare event.

What we have seen when livestock producers do have wolves on their farms late in the year and depredations are occurring, those can be significant issues for that producer, ’cause those wolves are [clears throat] – they’re going to spend time at that farm hunting livestock because they’ve become acclimated to doing it.

[new slide featuring an aerial phot of farmland in winter and the following bulleted list – Large farms = chronic farms; farm size ranges from hobby farm to over 1,200 acres; a few livestock animals to over 500 bred cows; in 2012 calf depredations per farm ranged from 1 to 12 with and average of 1.7 calves per farm]

And, you know, what – what predisposes an individual farmer to a livestock depredation – you know, I said earlier, there’s – theres 32 farms last year that we verified wolves killing livestock on. We know that it occurs more than that. [clears throat] They may kill a calf, consume it, and the producer’s never aware that – that – why the calf is missing; that has happened. So, that – that number of farms is – is higher than 32, but what predisposes a farm to – to wolf predation in Wisconsin is, generally, it’s – its a larger farm, usually has, you know, 50 to a few hundred head of cattle on it, more remote pastures, and – and what happens, these – these – these farms are just positioned on the landscape where they butt up next to really good wolf habitat.

[David Ruid, on-camera]

And this is an aerial image out of an aircraft flying from Ashland down along Highway 13. So, this would –

[return to the previous slide with the aerial photo and bulleted list]

– be right around Marengo, High Bridge, York area looking south, and you can see that pastureland right there, but that blue haze in the background is the Great Divide Ranger District of the national forest. There’s county forest land there. And there’s about a half a million acres of really good wolf habitat right up next to this – this livestock production area, and there’s a lot of cow-calf operations in this area. And you – you simply have four strands of barbed wire separating your animals –

[David Ruid, on-camera]

– from some of the best wolf habitat in the state, and – 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 – is he’s got – uh, about 1,200 acres. And generally speaking, on a farm, and – 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.

[slide titled, Cattle depredated (killed and injured) by Wolves in Wisconsin 1974 – 2015 (661 cattle), featuring a bar graph with the years 1974 to 2015 on the x-axis and the number of cattle depredated on the y-axis and showing an increase year-over-year in cattle depredations. The years 2010 and 2011 stand out with 70 and 71 depredations, respectively]

Since they were listed as an endangered species back in 1975, we have verified wolves have killed 661 head of cattle in the state. Last year, it was 46.

[new slide titled, Non-depredation impacts (secondary effects), with the following bulleted list – Weight loss (Ramler et. al. 2014); increased cattle vigilance (Kluever et. al. 2008); cattle difficult to handle; cattle stampeded through fences; disease transmission (Neospora caninium); fence damage; time spent searching for depredations]

Something that’s not talked about but is very important are these non-depredation impacts that wolves can have on livestock production. And, you know, Mr. Link hit the nail on the head. The – the instance – in 2015, there was an incident on that particular property where we didn’t have good abatement strategies, and the best solution was just to move the cattle off of the – off of that pasture. And, to me, when that is the solution, the program has failed, because –

[David Ruid, on-camera]

– we weren’t able to resolve that conflict using just nonlethal techniques. We need to have an integrated approach to – 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 –

[return to the Non-depredation impacts slide]

– that have been hunted by wolves. Cattle have been stampeded through fences. There’s the potential of a disease transmitted between wolves – other canids. Coyotes, farm dogs, foxes, and wolves can transmit Neospora caninium, which can result in the cow aborting a fetus. Um, fence damage, and – and time spent searching for depredations. You know, these are some of these secondary –

[David Ruid, on-camera]

– impacts that – that folks like you can have when wolves start hunting livestock on your farm.

[slide titled, Non-lethal Concepts, featuring a bulleted list – Disruptive Stimuli = Undesirable stimuli that prevent or alter behavior of animals, e.g., fladry flashing lights; Aversive Stimuli = Stimuli that cause discomfort or pain that are paired with a specific behavior to condition against that behavior, e.g., shock collars]

So, some nonlethal concepts. Disruptive stimuli – this 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 discomfort or pain that’s paired with a specific behavior. When we talk about nonlethal concepts, these are kind of the two boxes that we look at when – when we’re trying to prevent wolves from killing livestock.

[new slide titled, Non-lethal methods used by U.S.D.A./Wildlife Services in Wisconsin, and featuring the following list – Fladry; Randomly Activated Lights; Electronic Guards; Radio Activated Guards; Scare Wires. The slide also features three photos of some of these methods in farm fields]

And – and some of those techniques are fladry – and – and we’ll go over these when we go out to – when we go out to the Radzak farm. Fladry, randomly activated lights, electronic guards, radio-activated guards, and scare wires.

[new slide titled, Non-lethal Methods, and featuring two photographs, one of scare wire on a farm and the second a photo of Wildlife Services placing fladry on a farm]

The image on the left, that’s a scare wire on a cow-calf operation. It’s placed between the ground and the bottom barbed wired, and it’s – its electrified with 12-volt fencers, solar Parmak fencers, or some other fencers. Fairly high voltage. It’s – its a technique that we’re using on a particular farm that has a huge history of wolf conflicts to prevent wolves from accessing pastures. The image on the right, that’s some of our staff installing fladry on a farm in Douglas County that had wolf depredations in 2015.

[new slide titled, Non-lethal Wolf Abatement 2105, featuring a photo of a Wildlife Services female employee standing next to some fencing and featuring the following bulleted list – 17 major projects; installed 16.32 miles of fladry; RAG box on 3 properties; installed 6.2 miles of electrified poly-tape; used electronic guards; livestock husbandry recommendations]

In 2015, we had 17 major nonlethal projects. We installed 16 – almost 16 1/2 miles of fladry. We put these radio-activated guards – and you’ll – youll see these this afternoon – out on three different properties, installed over six miles of electrified poly-tape, used electronic guards and – and various livestock husbandry recommendations.

[new slide titled, Additional Non-lethal Concepts, featuring a photo of fencing on a farm and a bulleted list – Animal Husbandry, e.g., changing pastures, night penning, changing birthing dates, fencing; sterilization of wolves; use of livestock guarding animals; translocation of problem wolves]

You know, and some animal husbandry practices that might help prevent wolf depredations – you know, changing pastures, night penning, changing birthing dates, and fencing.

Some other nonlethal approaches that have been used in the past has been actually the sterilization of wolves. They felt if they weren’t breeding and they weren’t raising pups –

[David Ruid, on-camera]

– 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.

[slide titled, Radio Activated Guard, featuring a photo of a radio activated guard on a farm property]

That’s an image of a radio-activated guard. It’s got a strobe light and some sirens, and it’s activated by the presence of a radio-collared wolf. So, it’s – its more of an interactive tool. It’s not going off all night. We know if –

[David Ruid, on-camera]

– 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 – and this box from its radio collar where it sends a signal, and it activates the device.

Potentially, calving nearer buildings might be something –

[slide titled, Husbandry – calve near buildings, guard animals, featuring an aerial photo of a farm with the farms boundaries outlined in red and a calving area near the farm buildings proper outlined in blue. Additionally, there are two other inset photos, one of a guard dog protecting a herd and one of a donkey protecting a herd]

– a recommendation that you might consider. It doesn’t prove to be 100% effective. We’ve had wolves kill livestock very near buildings, so to say that this is foolproof would be inaccurate, but it’s something that you might consider. And Mike will talk more specifically about guarding animals.

[new slide featuring a color-coded map of farmland next to Lake Superior which is at the top of the screen in blue. A sprinkling of beige areas at the center of the map represents areas of agriculture which are surrounded by green areas that represent forested areas. A black polygon in the center of the map represents the summer territory of a radio-collared wolf that was used for a radio-active guard]

You know, I- I – 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 –

[David Ruid, on-camera]

– for folks like you using nonlethal abatement techniques. And this is a scenario that happened in 2010 in – 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 –

[return to the slide with the color-coded map]

– radio-activated guard, and I’ll – Ill just walk you through what happens. And so, the green represents forested cover. The beige is – is some type of agriculture, and the blue’s self-explanatory; in – in the top of the screen is Lake Superior.

So, on May 10th [a red dot appears on the far west of the map] we had wolves kill – kill a calf. [a circle with a line through it appears to represent and abatement method] You know, we applied some nonlethal technique to try to abate that situation, try to prevent wolves from killing other calves. [A new red dot appears in the center of the map] Well, it worked there for a few weeks, but over on a neighboring farm, they killed a calf. [new abatement circle appears at that farm] So, we applied some nonlethal abatement there. It’s fladry, flashing lights, or electronic guards. [a new abatement circle appears between the two previous red dots] And then on the 15th of July, we had a farmer report wolves harassing livestock. We verified that, so we did proactive nonlethal abatement trying to prevent any depredations and [a new red dot appears in the north of the map] 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, [a new abatement circle appears next to this red dot] so we applied nonlethal abatement there. And then on 8/19, [a red dot appears at the farm where they had already had an abatement circle] they actually depredated livestock on the farm where we had already applied this nonlethal abatement, so that didn’t prove to be successful.

And then in September, [a new red dot] another depredation on an adjacent farm, [another red dot] another one a couple of days later. [new abatement dots next to previous red dots] At – at – at this point, we – we – we – we’re trying everything that we can try. This is – this is – this is the era when wolves are federally lifted, and – and we don’t have the authority to remove them. So, another [another red dot appears] depredation occurs on the 30th of September, [another red dot appears] the 10th of Oct – or the 11th of October, [another red dot appears] the 30th of October. [the map is now full of red dots and red abatement circles]

[new slide titled, Tribal Consultations, featuring a map of northern Wisconsin with the Wolf harvesting zones demarcated as well as tribal land indicated by colored areas on the map on the right-hand side and the following bulleted list on the left-hand side – offer co-investigation to tribal biologist when complaints are less than 6 miles from Tribal Lands; consult when depredations are confirmed; develop mitigation strategy to resolve conflict; looking at a strategy to collar wolves near Tribal Lands to implement non-lethal or preventative (measures)]

[return to the color-coded map with all the red dots and red circles]

Without the –

[David Ruid, on-camera]

– 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?

[Eric Fromm, off-camera]

No.

[laughter]

[David Ruid, on-camera]

It was a difficult summer.

[Male audience member, off-camera]

How many of those wolves died accidentally? –

[laughter]

[David Ruid, on-camera]

Pardon me?

[laughter]

[Same male audience member, on-camera]

How many of those wolves died accidentally?

[David Ruid, on-camera]

Uh, I don’t know.

[Same male audience member, on-camera]

Do you refuse to answer?

[David Ruid, on-camera]

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 – 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.

[return to the previous Tribal Consultations slide]

The Menominee, Stockbridge-Munsee, and the Ojibwe nations value, culturally and spiritually, wolves very highly. If we have a depredation within six miles of tribal lands – of these tribal lands, we will co-investigate the 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 about 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.

[new slide titled, Wolves scavenging dead livestock carcass, featuring two photos, on of a dead animal next to some birch trees near a farm field, and one of a multitude of wolf tracks in the snow leading away from that dead animal]

We had talked about carcass disposal, proper carcass – proper carcass disposal techniques. The – the image on the left, that’s an improperly disposed of cow, and those tracks coming into it are wolf tracks. That could probably predispose you to wolf predation, when you start to calve on those pastures in the spring. It’s – it’s a very important topic –

[David Ruid, on-camera]

– and it’s a very difficult issue to deal with that you folks have to deal with in the – in the winter months. Just a time frame –

[slide titled, Federal Classification of Wolves and Control Authority 2003 to 2015, featuring a list with year and status in the left-hand columns and the duration (in months) of Lethal control in the right-hand column – with the years 2003-204 – Threatened; 2005-2006 – Endangered; 2007 Endangered/Delisted; 2008-2009 Delisted/Endangered; 2010-2011 Endangered; 2012 Endangered/Delisted; 2013 Delisted; 2014 Delisted/Endangered; 2015 Endangered]

– of this on again/off again federal status of wolves in Wisconsin. You’ve – youve seen that earlier.

[new slide titled, Wolves Captured or Killed for Depredation Management by W.D.N.R./U.S.D.A./W.S. 1974 to 2015 (397 captured, 335 killed), featuring a bar graph with the years 1974 to 2015 on the x-axis and the number of wolves on the y-axis and showing small numbers of wolves captured or killed in years when they were endangered and larger numbers of wolves captured or killed in years when they were delisted. The years 2012 and 2013 stick out with 57 and 48 as years with the most wolves captured or killed]

Wolves captured and killed for depredation management by U.S.D.A. Wildlife Services and the Wisconsin D.N.R. from 1974 to 2015. There’s been 397 wolves captured for conflict management, and 335 of those animals were euthanized. An integrated site-specific wolf depredation management program has nothing to do with population level control.

[David Ruid, on-camera]

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 had – 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.

[return to the Wolf Population 1980 to 2015 slide featuring the graph showing an overall increase in the wolf population year-over-year since the 1980s]

I mean, what – what – what it speaks to –

[return to the Wolfs captured or killed for depredation management slide]

– is, those years when we had the authority to lethally remove wolves in 2002 through 2008 and – and then in ’12, ’13, and ’14 –

[return to the Wolf Population slide]

– you can obviously see that the population growth line is increasing while we had the authority to lethally remove animals.

[new slide titled, Conclusion, with the following bulleted list – 1) Restoration of large carnivores requires an integrated conflict management program that must include non-lethal; 2) conflict management strategies have occurred incrementally during recovery; 3) Quick and efficient resolution of conflicts identified as integral in wolf recovery; 4) limited lethal control has not impeded wolf recovery in Western Great Lakes D.P.S.; 5) overall very few wolves involved in conflicts, but impacts can be significant to individual landowners; 6) there is no biological metric that supports wolves being classified as an Endangered Species under the Endangered Species Act]

[new slide featuring a photo of wolf tracks that had penetrated a silage bag with the list of – Marinette County; numerous claw punctures; degrade silage]

Some weird wolf conflicts, you know, some – some non-predation-related things. This is a silage bag in Marinette County that a pair of wolves had ran up the side of, and their nails had punctured that silage bag. And you can see where the farmer had taped the bag. And you all know what that means to you, when you have a punctured silage bag. You know, these –

[David Ruid, on-camera]

– are right – right near the barnyard. Just – just some non-livestock-related wolf incidences that – that do – that do occur.

Um, you know, so when – when we go back to 1908, that – that first scientifically –

[slide featuring two photos, one labeled 1908 and showing the cover page of an article by the U.S.D.A. titled, Preliminary Report on Grazing Experiments in a Coyote Proof Pasture, the second labelled 2014 and featuring a photo of the book cover of The Predator Paradox – Ending the War with Wolves, Bears, Cougars, and Coyotes by John Shivik]

– I wouldn’t call it peer-reviewed but an – but an effort to demonstrate predator management tools back in 1908, to – today, in 2014, we – we still have scientists that work both for our agency and other agencies that are trying to develop these tools and techniques to prevent large carnivores – grizzly bears, black bears, cougars, wolves, and coyotes – from depredating livestock. So – so, there –

[David Ruid, on-camera]

– is still effort out there, folks, that – 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 – we could talk about this topic for a very long time, but we can go over some of the stuff at – at the field day with – 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 voicemail every couple of hours to see if we’ve received a – 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 – and take it home.

So, at that, I’ve got a little bit of time if – if there’s any questions.

[applause]