Unfortunately today I am in the middle of blizzard and work was called off so I have some idle time on my hands. There been some post that I am compelled to address. I choose this day to express my ideology. I concluded that if negative sentiments can be allowed, then so should be my opinions. We have a public forum in WI with the Conservation Congress and Spring Hearings. This apparently is where the public can input or comment on the way the DNR manages our resources. It is similar to the Citizen Advisory Council in MI. If you ever attend any of these meetings, most agenda items progress without comment, until it involves deer. And then all that seems to occur is finger pointing along with a ranting and raving. Often some off the wall proposal is conjured that may raise an eyebrow or generate good laugh, but rarely is offered a realistic approach to a problem. Someoneâ€™s personal agenda typically is attached to the screwball idea. Then the complaints start to fling around that the DNR never listens to what the public is saying. Perhaps we (the public) donâ€™t always know what is best for the resource, and we donâ€™t like the answer so we donâ€™t hear what the DNR is saying. Thatâ€™s why there are laws to prevent the public from doing whatever we want. Look at the result of unregulated hunting and fishing, or unregulated discharges into lakes, rivers, streams and the air that occurred in the 1800â€™s and early 1900â€™s. Regulations are needed, but the quandary of how the regulations are determined is the real culprit. We donâ€™t like being told what we can and cannot do; itâ€™s basic human nature that can be plainly witnessed in childâ€™s behavior. If we let children do whatever they wanted, many of them would never see adulthood, and even if they do, the quality of their lives might be greatly diminished by ending up on the path of demise. Look at problem children and their home life. We hunters are very much like children; we need discipline to prevent us from harming ourselves. Is the DNR providing the perfect guidance? Not likely, but similar to most parents, they probably are doing the best they can with good intentions, despite the tantrums and name calling that they must endure. The UP of MI and Northern WI had two severe winters in a row which decimated the deer herd; the same complaints are being resounded here in WI as the UP. Perhaps these things are common because they were the result of a natural act. Until the DNR can control acts of God, there will good years and bad years. Wolves are not the reason the deer herd is lower this year, we need to blame the correct source. Please bear with me as I present an argument to see if we can put the wolf predation into context. It is estimated that WI has about 665 wolves, for our argument Iâ€™ll go 700. If a wolf eats one deer a week thatâ€™s 52 deer per wolf a year or 36,400 deer a year. Thatâ€™s a lot of deer, but this not happening all directly in my back yard. It is occurring over the entire landscape where wolves are living. WI has nearly 65,500 sq mile of land. Wolves are found in approximately 1/3 of the land mass, most of which is in the northern tier of the state, or 19,650 sq miles of wolf territory. 36,400 deer being eaten by wolves in 19,650 sq miles equals 2 deer in one sq mile per year (actually 1.8, but I rounded up). If there are 20 deer per sq mile in the area I hunt that leaves 18 for me to hunt. If there are 10 deer per sq mile, that leaves 8 for me to shoot. If there are 5 deer per sq mile that still leave me with 3. My point is, yes wolves eat deer and yes they compete with your hunting, but they are not the only reason you or I did not shoot any deer. To blame the wolf for failure to harvest a deer is a selfish statement. There are still deer there; the wolves are not eating them all. Wanting to eliminate them from the hunting equation simply because they directly compete with us harvesting â€œourâ€ deer is purely selfish. We are not the only creatures on this earth that has the right to exist. To argue otherwise is probably narcissistic. With that said, do I believe we should have a season on wolves? Yes, but not for the same reason many people are offering. I suggest we need to cull the size of the wolf population down to protect them from themselves. Too many wolves can be a bad thing. In years with an already lean deer population, they can decimate deer populations to a lower level that many hunters find disagreeable; which doesnâ€™t mean that the hunter canâ€™t be successful, it just makes it more difficult. Donâ€™t confuse what I am saying to mean wolves are to blame for a hunter not being successful. There are deer on the landscape, maybe not many, but they are there. Weâ€™ve been spoiled with mild winters and high deer numbers. This has created a lazy deer hunter that expects to see a deer on opening weekend and be home in time for the football game on Sunday. We need to harvest wolves for different reasons. As the deer population is lowered so is the carrying capacity for the wolf. Fewer deer means there should be fewer wolves, which will occur naturally overtime with diseases and starvation within the wolf population. Then barring that the deer population rebounds, so should the wolf population. This is the fundamental dynamic of predator prey relationship and people should be key players in the process by being allowed to harvest expendable surplus of wolves. Not all wolves born are going to make it adulthood; many will die due to the carrying capacities limiting factors. The landscape can only support â€œX â€œ amount of animals, the rest will die from something. The wolves that will die are the harvestable surplus. This harvest of wolves will not wipe out the population if regulated properly. In the past we hunted and trapped wolves when they were plentiful, but we eliminated them out of greed by putting a bounty on their head just because they compete with us. This was not managing the population, it was genocide. Wolves are a sustainable resource that can be managed. But at present special interest groups have gone to Federal Courts and blocked a stateâ€™s ability to manage their wolf populations. These groups are empathetic to the wolf and donâ€™t care about other factors. The only thing that matters to them is their perception. This includes saving an animal which they believe is imperil from the cruelty of hunting. These special groups are much like the deer hunter in that they believe only in their perception. This reasoning is typically derived from emotions, not biological dynamics. But biological considerations should not be the only consideration that drives the decision to allow harvest of the wolf. Sociological effects should also be scrutinized. For one, the deer hunter should have a voice, particularly since it is the hunter that purchases a license that partially funds the division of the DNR to protect the wolf in the first place. Bear hunters have a great interest as wolves kill their dogs. Live stock farmers have an economic complaint. To strictly base a decision on science would be just as wrong as the complete elimination of the wolf. There is another limit other than carrying capacity, it is called social tolerance. Social tolerance expands into the realm of deer as well the wolf. In WI we have goals of deer per sq mile in delineated management units. These goals take into consideration the biology and social aspects. Examples of social aspects include crop damage, car collisions, and landscape damage. Ask a non hunter that has hit a deer with their vehicle or canâ€™t grow hosta in their yard about their opinion on deer in their neighborhood. It will sound similar to a deer hunter that has to contend with wolves. Social tolerance is difficult to pinpoint as it is a moving target, as populations of people move out of the city into the rural landscape, these tolerance change. It is also difficult in that isnâ€™t tangible. One canâ€™t put a number on tolerance then put it into an equation to determine the number of animals that can be harvested, but it needs to be considered. This is true for deer as well as wolves. My point to all of this is to try discovering a common ground. I myself am a wolf enthusiast. I have seen wolves while sitting in a tree during a bow hunt. Rather than loath the wolf for killing my deer and ruining my day in the tree stand, I relished the experience and often recall the memory. Hunting shouldnâ€™t be strictly about killing an animal and despising everything that challenges my ability to harvest game. We as hunter claim to antiâ€™s that itâ€™s more than killing, itâ€™s an experience, the woods, nature, social bonding, etc. then perhaps we need to actually act that way.