Who Wrote WI Wolf Hunt Bill? Insiders Said They Didn't Know

Republicans in Wisconsin like writing legislation in secret.

* They had attorneys and Legislative staffers write the most recent redistricting bill in private law firm offices  - - earning a tongue-lashing from a US District Court Judge appointed by Ronald Reagan.

* They let an out-of-state coal mining company work behind closed doors to help write the iron ore mining bill.

* And you can put the 2012 wolf hunt law on the list of Wisconsin legislative legerdemain, according to comments in minutes of a public, all-day, April 21, 2012 Wisconsin Wolf Stakeholders Committee meeting in Wausau.

I received a copy of the minutes from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources pursuant to a recent Open Records request. The committee advises the DNR on wolf hunting issues.

Twenty representatives from the DNR, and a wide variety of environmental, Native American, conservation, animal, hunting, and other organizations attended the meeting, along with DNR facilitators and additional staffers.

Up for discussion: wolf hunting issues and, specifically, implementation of the wolf hunt law that had been recently approved in 2012 by the Legislature. 

(The 2013 hunt will allow a substantially larger wolf kill, though one area of discussion at the meeting - - the use of dogs in the hunt - - is still hung up in the courts.)

Among the many remarks during the stakeholders' pro-and-con/give-and-take were several that expressed dissatisfaction with the way the bill was drafted, communicated to stakeholders and approved by the Legislature. 

There is a published report linking the drafting to Wisconsin hunting and sporting organizations.

I have pulled out some of the comments, below, because I think they speak to the larger issue of secret legislating and a related issue - - the disregard of scientific input:

From Al Brown, representing the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, a citizens' organization that advises the DNR:

How was this bill written? Conservation Congress, DNR, NRB [Natural Resources Board], biologists, etc. were not consulted. Who wrote this law? Somebody other than our legislators wrote it. Legislative process should have been more open regardless of the side you're on. Upset over the process.

From Randall Wollenhaup, representing the Stockbridge-Munsee Nation:

In addition to written comments to be submitted: Beyond those comments, I want to point out that there was a lack of consult with tribes or tribal biologists, not one of them was consulted. When we were notified we only got 48 hours notice.

From Gloriann Klein, Wolf Info Now:

Echo thoughts already voiced. No sound science used. Expert wolf biologists not consulted. Lack of participation and input has been dictated to them. It is not about hunting of delisting but about the process.

From Peter David, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission:

This is not an official GLIFWC statement. I want to make clear that this process does not replace state-tribe meetings. I am here in part to hear what the other partners have to say. To DNR- concerned with certain echelon of DNR. Wolves are a species that the Ojibwe see their future entwined with. There is not time to talk about issues with bill (today). Saw report from Bureau of Wildlife Management about partnerships then watched process with wolves and the disregard for all partners. The DNR Administration opted to intentionally disregard staff, Science Committee, Stakeholders group, Natural resources Board, and the Conservation Congress. Three days before bill still no notice from DNR on website. particularly unconscionable that among all these groups that the Tribes were not contacted or consulted. Tribes can take 1/2 of the harvest in the ceded territory. Tribes need to be fully engaged. Tribes and GLIFWC on and off reservation. I strongly suggest that this group (Stakeholders) function as it was designed to. If at the June meeting DNR comes with issues decided then that will be another nail in the coffin of partnerships with the Tribes.

From Laurie Groskopf, Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association:

The WBHS [blog editing note: typo?] was not involved with drafting legislation. What organization helped draft law? Lobbyist for hound groups? Unknown.

From Gloriann Klein, Wolf Info Now:

What we have heard today is that people are frustrated with circumventing the scoentific process. The experts not consulted. Reiterate tha tthe use of calls, baiting, etc., we are unclear how this will work. Cable restraints are an issue. So many unanswered questions. We know that predator/prey relationships are intertwined but not considered as part of the legislation. Need reason to backup actions. Other states will follow our example. Need to base it on science.

So ask yourself: why would these people have been kept in the dark, and what does that say for the general public?

Rachel Tilseth Guest Blog On DNR, WI Wolf Hunt

Over the last few weeks I had posted several items like this one about how the Wisconsin DNR and its Wolf Advisory Committee gather and assess wolf population data before setting annual hunting season kill quotas.

A specific issue raised in the posts was whether the wolf population estimate that was released at the 4/29 advisory committee meeting in Wausau was based, in part, on an annual open meeting of interested parties where tracking data and other numbers were openly shared, discussed and debated.

While a DNR spokesman had told me that the process used prior to the April meeting was the same as in past years, others disagreed, and Rachel Tilseth, one of those stakeholders, has written for this blog, below, her personal experience with the process. 

Her guest post is below:

I was a Wisconsin wolf stakeholder as a WDNR volunteer wolf tracker from 2000 until I resigned in the spring of 2013. 

You are right that a very important meeting is missing from the tracking and gathering of wolf population numbers prior to the 2014/15 hunt. 

This meeting was held every spring and helped get accurate numbers on wolves as well as discussion/input on wolf recovery.

I also was in on the process of wolf recovery and the wolf management plans. The 350-wolf population number the WDNR uses now as its goal was only a gauge to measure when the wolves could be taken off life-support early on in wolf recovery.  

But since then, the pro-hunt camp has seized on that number as an end goal that they allege can sustain the wolf population. 

Wisconsin can support more than 350 wolves.  

There is the matter of social carrying capacity, whereby the questions become whether people living in wolf country can tolerate wolves. Then it becomes a question of education and helping people to learn to live with wolves as neighbors.  

The WDNR has dropped the ball on that concept, restricted public involvement and turned too much of the process over to hunting advocates. 

- - - - Rachel Tilseth

Rachel Tilseth WDNR volunteer winter wolf/carnivore tracker 2000 to 2013. Photograph taken winter of 2005, Northern Wisconsin. 

Rachel Tilseth is the founder of Wolves of Douglas County Wisconsin, a wolf advocacy grassroots organization first started in the summer of 2012 for the purpose of getting  dogs out of the wolf hunt. Rachel is an artist and educator living in the heart of wolf country in northern Wisconsin. 

Gaps in Journal Sentinel pro-wolf hunt stance

Journal Sentinel associate editorial page editor Ernie Franzen wants the courts to again allow wolf hunting in Wisconsin.

There are gaps in Franzen's argument:

"It seems to me that a state-managed hunt with quotas is a reasonable check on [wolf population] growth, albeit with some changes in the state law. 

But the quotas set by state officials have been exceeded in all three seasons since wolf hunting was re-authorized by the Legislature in 2012, and the Wisconsin DNR has let the quotas it announced be broken this year even though it was clear that another overkill was coming. 

Does this suggest that the DNR takes its quota-setting role seriously?

Franzen points out that the DNR is close to releasing an updated Wisconsin wolf management plan.

But the Journal Sentinel last fall ran an op-ed disclosing that the DNR had drastically remade its citizen wolf policy-making stakeholders group by removing nearly all those opposed to wolf hunting, leaving pro-hunting members of the DNR's selection with lopsided representation:

This year, the long-standing Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Wolf Science and legislatively mandated Stakeholders Committees were wiped out by order of the DNR secretary. In their place, the Wolf Advisory Committee was created, membership "by invitation only" from the DNR Secretary. Twenty-five of the 26 members are wolf removal agents. 

Meanwhile, members of the Bear Hunters' Association instigated resolutions to cull Wisconsin wolves in 18 counties -- the same bear hunters who were instrumental in the expedited implementation of wolf hunting and trapping legislation, mandating the use of dogs on wolves, even though the majority of Wisconsin residents oppose the use of dogs on wolves, as demonstrated both in polls and in the Conservation Congress Hearings.

Although the Wolf Advisory Committee may have considered data presented by University of Wisconsin faculty, who have been barred by the DNR secretary from sitting on wildlife committees, the membership has not followed scientifically informed recommendations. They rejected the well-defended need for refuge areas. They also rejected the need for more conservative quotas. Additionally, they have rejected findings in social science, specifically the research of Dr. Adrian Treves and the Carnivore Coexistence Lab that indicates hunting does not "increase social tolerance."

DNR Secretary Stepp confirmed that the membership change was made to remove opposition.

Does that sound like the DNR takes citizen input seriously?

Wisconsin wildlife isn't owned by hunters or their lobbies. Wildlife belongs to all the people of the state; DNR's job as trustee is to oversee it in the broadest public interest, not to hand over undo influence to a few people interested in running up a kill.

Franzen wants to give Wisconsin officials the benefit of the doubt in this matter.

I don't think they've earned it, because in several key enforcement and management arenas, the DNR has turned a blind to science and environmental protection.

Franzen wants the court to revisit the ruling that ended the hunt.

No doubt the DNR will do just that.

WI Wolf Hunt Kills Prove Lobbyist Wrong 321 Times

The accelerating wolf kill in Wisconsin justifies a closer look at who and what is driving it.

First, the numbers:

The Wisconsin DNR reported 117 wolves were killed in the state's initial, 2012 hunt and, so far, 204 have been killed in this year's hunt in which 251 kills are authorized, state records show.

Now, the players:

The DNR turned over wolf hunting policy to a stacked advisory group on which hunting interests dominate and from outside experts are now barred:

This year, the long-standing Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Wolf Science and legislatively mandated Stakeholders Committees were wiped out by order of the DNR secretary. In their place, the Wolf Advisory Committee was created, membership "by invitation only" from the DNR Secretary. Twenty-five of the 26 members are wolf removal agents.

Meanwhile, members of the Bear Hunters' Association instigated resolutions to cull Wisconsin wolves in 18 counties -- the same bear hunters who were instrumental in the expedited implementation of wolf hunting and trapping legislation, mandating the use of dogs on wolves, even though the majority of Wisconsin residents oppose the use of dogs on wolves, as demonstrated both in polls and in the Conservation Congress Hearings.

That brings to mind one of the most inaccurate statements about wolf hunting, and it was made by a representative of pro-wolf hunting organizations that pushed for the hunt and even for the use of dogs to chase and confront wolves (an issue hung up in court by humane societies' efforts):

And remember when hunting lobbyist and former Redgranite GOP State Sen. Bob Welch predicted that without dogs, not one hunter would be able to kill a wolf?

Bob Welch, executive director of the Wisconsin Hunters Rights Coalition, an organization that was active in lobbying for the season and also in authoring the legislation creating the hunt, said hunters who cannot use dogs won't kill wolves.

"I think it would be very unlikely you'd even get one," Welch said.

No other state has approved the use of dogs in wolf hunts.

Records show that Welch is a lobbyist for the Bear Hunters, which has a seat on the DNR's new wolf advisory committee.

More on the wolf hunt and related myths.

Journal Editorial About Wolves, And The DNR, Frozen In 1999

The Journal Sentinel ran a curious editorial today in support of the Natural Resources Board move last week to fix the upcoming wolf hunt kill quota at 156.

The paper is comfortable with the "reasonable" figure because it takes a middle ground between the goals and views of wolf advocates who oppose the hunt and wolf hunting supporters who wanted a higher kill.

Editorials like this are not uncommon: 'No one's happy with the decision...so it must be the right call, etc.'

So I get that.

But what is troubling is that the editorial endorses the current quota that originated with a DNR advisory committee that will also play a key continuing role drafting a broad, wolf management plan based on a 1999 recommendation of 350 as the state's wolf population goal.

The wolf advisory committee had, until recently, been made up of a broad cross-section of interests that included both hunt opponents and proponents. It was called a stakeholder's group.

Well, stick a stake in that, as proponents were handed control of the committee when most of the opponents were booted off  - - a situation explained in a recent Journal Sentinel op-ed and admitted to just last week by DNR Secretary Cathy Stepp in a media interview.

One link with context, the Stepp interview and the op-ed about the remade committee is here.

I'm surprised that the newspaper, in the face of these developments, would validate the work and the mission of such an advisory committee.

Where's the fairness and a true search for facts in that kind of a process by a public agency, let alone one dedicated to management of shared resources?

In fact, how about a committee with membership, like the wolf quota praised by the newspaper, that splits the number down the middle - - half opponents, half proponents - - with a priority on scientists from both sides.

Secondly, the goal of a statewide wolf population of 350 has been challenged as politicized, superficial, and outdated even by members of the wolf committee before Stepp remade it into a defacto wolf hunt support group, who objected as recently as last fall to the lack of transparency and science in the creation of the hunt by the Legislature and its implementation by the DNR.

Here is how one independent expert put it last year:

“My opinion is the 350 number is the one people who simply don’t like wolves have seized upon,” said Timothy Van Deelen, a wildlife ecologist and associate professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who is not on the committee. “You have a lot of the stakeholders who don’t know the science or feel any obligation to the science.”

That's the sort of opinion and information less likely to be heard or recommended by the remade advisory committee.

The paper should be calling for an independent, unbiased and scientific-based assessment that takes into account the last 15 years of wolf research.

If 1999 was the baseline defining sound government action and scientific focus, we'd still be planning for Y2K, no?

If we relied on 1999 standards, we'd be buying cars that met federal standards of 27.5 MPG instead of the 34.1 MPG that will be required of 2016 passenger vehicles.

We'd be following health standards that do not take into account the last 15 years of knowledge from research and science about cholesterol and sugar intake, or PTSD treatment, or weather and climate prediction.

We'd be telling veterans that the way that VA has been operating since 1999 is good enough for them, and for us, too.

Just because something was stated or believed in 1999 doesn't mean it's valid, let along set in stone; shouldn't the state's largest newspaper be calling for independent science to be used as the standard for the size of Wisconsin's wolf population - - living creatures over which the state has life and death power ostensibly for the benefit also of all the people in the state,?

Before Trump, EPA's Pruitt came WI's Walker, DNR's Stepp

When it comes to exposing the public to corporate favoritism and pollution, Wisconsin has been Donald Trump's dirty air and brown water proving ground.

Scott Pruitt is the pollution industry's secret email buddy now busy dismantling on Trump and corporate America's behalf the US EPA and the clean air and water public health protections that is the agency's reason for existing.

While Pruitt's highest profile act of science nullification has been his removal of the agency's climate change page and encyclopedic collection of studies and links, he's been busy on Trump and Big Polluter's agendas by negating a wider range of commonsense and science-based protections which will take a toll on clean air, clean water, public health and people's lives.

Since February, the EPA has announced some two dozen major regulatory actions on climate, water pollution, pesticide use and other areas. Trump’s executive orders calling for the elimination of Obama’s Clean Power Plan and of a rule protecting small and intermittent waterways rank as the highest-profile moves. 

Pruitt also reversed his own science advisors and kept a dangerous pesticide on the market as its manufacturer Dow Chemical had urged, and later fired most of the EPA's science advisory board members so he could replace them with industry representatives.

All we can say in Wisconsin: been there, suffered through that.

Right-wing GOP Wisconsin Governor and corporate bellhop Scott Walker put known DNR antagonist and GOP partisan Cathy Stepp atop the state's Department of Natural Resources, added more senior managers from the ranks of major businesses and lobbies and directed her to run the agency with what he called "a chamber of commerce mentality."

A summary post is here.

Since his 2011 swearing-in, Walker has drastically cut the DNR's science staff, thus intentionally weakening its traditional and logical mission to oversee the state's resources which the state is supposed to manage as the people's trustee.

He has either tolerated, ordered or signed into law provisions that eased or rolled back protections for shoreline, wetland integrity and drinking water purity near farms and feedlots.

Little wonder that Wisconsin keeps adding impaired waterways by the hundreds to an annual report it must file with the EPA - - though I'm sure the EPA under Pruitt will get rid of that requirement.

Tut tut, ye anglers and boaters and swimmers: you don't need to know what Walker and Trump's polluter friends are putting in your waters.

Significantly, Stepp deleted - - as first disclosed on this blog - - the agency's climate change page before the EPA's Pruitt did, and just as Pruitt is firing science advisors in favor of industry insiders, Stepp in 2013 booted nearly everyone from the DNR's wolf stakeholders committee who didn't support the state's highly-controversial, dog-assisted, large kill wolf hunt and replaced them with pro-hunting advocates.

This year, the long-standing Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Wolf Science and legislatively mandated Stakeholders Committees were wiped out by order of the DNR secretary. In their place, the Wolf Advisory Committee was created, membership "by invitation only" from the DNR Secretary. Twenty-five of the 26 members are wolf removal agents.

Walker and Stepp don't have as big a sandbox to play in as do Trump and Pruitt, but that doesn't mean the Wisconsin corporate servants can be as intentional about soiling it.

DNR Turns Over Wolf Hunting Policy To The Hunters

Science? Independent expertise? Our current DNR can do without it:

This year, the long-standing Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Wolf Science and legislatively mandated Stakeholders Committees were wiped out by order of the DNR secretary. In their place, the Wolf Advisory Committee was created, membership "by invitation only" from the DNR Secretary. Twenty-five of the 26 members are wolf removal agents.

The result: 202 wolves have been killed by trappers and gun-hunters in less than a month during this hunting season - - up from last year's total of 117, with 251 the goal. 

The Wisconsin wolf hunt is a disgraceful, bloody ballot-box sop to conservative GOP constituencies.

Gun Lobby, Other Current DNR Favorites, Upended Baraboo Land Plan

The public is learning what happens when the Wisconsin DNR, beholden to special interests, allowed certain lobbies to change an agreed-upon land use plan:

At the heart of the dispute: Should the new Sauk Prairie Recreation Area include a shooting range and space for all-terrain vehicles to rumble across the property? 

Both are under consideration. So are other plans for hiking trails, wildlife watching and habitat restoration. 

Another possible plan is to simply leave the land alone.

The possibility of the shooting range and ATV trails has come up relatively late in the planning process. 

A 2001 plan that had the input of the DNR, local government, citizens and others made no such recommendations, but instead emphasized restoration of the land and uses such as hiking and bird watching.

 This blog has been following this for a while:

Walker's DNR wants to unwind a 12-year-old, all-stakeholders' consensus agreement for so-called low-impact recreation activities on land making up the now-closed Badger Ammo complex near Baraboo. 

At an agency now directed by a "chamber of commerce mentality," why a) honor past agreements focused on conservation, and, b) listen to the will of the people expressed through negotiations and comment periods when, for example, the ATV lobby wants more land over which to gun their machines? 

Why not turn over that area for the full Walker Monty? 

How about more DNR shooting ranges (like one proposed at a DNR-run nature center frequented by school kids), and dog training runs for the wolf hunt. Surely there is some timber to cut, land to lease to developers, and maybe some iron ore to excavate.

DNR 'Rethinking' Major Baraboo Land Conservation Plan

Walker's DNR wants to unwind a 12-year-old, all-stakeholders' consensus agreement for so-called low-impact recreation activities on land making up the now-closed Badger Ammo complex near Baraboo.

At an agency now directed by a "chamber of commerce mentality," why a) honor past agreements focused on conservation, and, b) listen to the will of the people expressed through negotiations and comment periods when, for example, the ATV lobby wants more land over which to gun their machines?

Why not turn over that area for the full Walker Monty?

How about more DNR shooting ranges (like one proposed at a DNR-run nature center frequented by school kids), and dog training runs for the wolf hunt. Surely there is some timber to cut, land to lease to developers, and maybe some iron ore to excavate.