Great Lakes Wildlife Alliance

A non-profit organization

Can we trust Wisconsin’s Latest Wolf Count?

Wolves deserve respect

Can We Trust Wisconsin’s Latest Wolf Count? Flawed Methods Continue to Inflate Numbers in 2025

As autumn settles over Wisconsin’s wild landscapes, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has dropped its 2024-2025 Wolf Monitoring Report, boasting an estimated 1,226 gray wolves roaming in 336 packs across the state.That’s a slight decline from two years ago and on paper, it paints a picture of a thriving population. But let’s cut through the fog: this “estimate” relies on the same flawed “scaled occupancy model” (SOM) that experts shredded back in 2023 for pumping up numbers like a bad balloon animal. Adrian Treves and Francisco J. Santiago-Avila nailed it in their paper—Wisconsin’s method overestimates wolf abundance by massive, unquantifiable margins, ignoring the carnage from legal hunts and illegal poaching.And yet, state biologists, law enforcement wardens, and even the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service keep signing off on this nonsense. How do they find this acceptable? It’s straight-up bullsh*t, plain and simple, when accurate science should be the backbone of wildlife policy.

Let’s unpack this mess. Wisconsin ditched tried-and-true census methods years ago to “save costs,” opting for the SOM that blends guesses on occupied range, territory size, and pack numbers. Each layer adds uncertainty, and when you stack them, the error margin explodes. Worse, the data is often outdated—pulling from surveys up to four years old. Remember the 2021 bloodbath? Hunters slaughtered 218 wolves in four days, shattering the quota and wiping out up to 30% of the population. Those ghosts still haunt the counts, as packs spotted pre-massacre get included today. The model was built in a no-hunt era, so it’s blind to how killings shred populations. States like Montana and Idaho use similar tricks, and surprise—they’ve ramped up wolf hunts too.

Then there’s the enforcement farce. The DNR’s own report admits law enforcement recovered just 11 wolves killed illegally during the monitoring period. Conservation wardens handled 15 wolf-related investigations, slapping down a pathetic five citations and three verbal warnings. Eleven illegal kills? In a state itching to delist wolves federally by early 2025? Biologists know better—tools like camera traps, genetic sampling, and real-time tracking could deliver precision. But nope, we’re stuck with fuzzy math that props up hunting agendas. The USFWS, tasked with protecting endangered species, rubber-stamps it all, even as threats to the Endangered Species Act loom in Congress.It’s unacceptable, eroding trust and risking overkill based on inflated figures.



This isn’t isolated—Wisconsin’s wolves are part of a fragile Great Lakes recovery, with numbers teetering amid habitat loss and human conflict. Nationally, gray wolves cling to existence in pockets, while red wolves fight for survival with tiny wild populations. Flawed counts here echo across borders, justifying more destruction.

At the Great Lakes Wildlife Alliance (GLWA), we’re not buying the hype. Our mission is to advocate for Wisconsin wolves and wildlife through diversity, science, and democracy in policy. We’ve been in the trenches—winning court battles, rallying for strategy sessions, and pushing back against hunts.



## Howl for Truth: Join Our Emergency Wolf Defense Fundraiser!



With the Wolf Advisory Committee eyeing a potential fall hunt and federal delisting on the horizon, we’re launching the Howl for Accuracy Drive to raise $10,000 by the end of September. Your donations fuel:
– Legal Challenges  Funding lawsuits to expose and fix flawed monitoring methods.
– Grassroots Advocacy: Strategy meetings and public campaigns to demand real science.
– Independent Scientific Review: Supporting  the ones peer-reviewed independent science and accurate counts.
– Policy Push Lobbying against ESA gutting and for stronger protections.

We’ve already raised $2,500—help us hit the goal! Donate $25 to join the pack, $100 for a strategy session shoutout, or $500 to sponsor litigation efforts. You will be honored in our fall newsletter and website . Every bit counts in defending our wild icon.

We also have special amazing surprise gifts for anyone who gives $250 or more. (really cool art)

Howl for Truth Donation Drive



Donate Now

http://www.wiwolvesandwildlife.org/donate

Together, let’s turn the howl into action. What’s your move for Wisconsin’s wolves?



© 2025 Great Lakes Wildlife Alliance, All Rights Reserved

Friends of the Wisconsin Wolf

, , , , ,

4 responses to “Can we trust Wisconsin’s Latest Wolf Count?”

  1. John &Susan Prusis Avatar
    John &Susan Prusis

    Don’t trust them,especially if they were put in by the gop pedo loving traitors who don’t care about the enviorment,and all the animals

    Reply
  2. heidi ahlstrand Avatar
    heidi ahlstrand

    protect wolves

    Reply
  3. smeurett Avatar
    smeurett

    Melissa, Since I have been/am involved in wolf monitoring, the headline here did catch my eye.  I am familiar with the Treves, Santiago-Ávila 2023 published article on using the SOM (previously the POM & iPOM).  I am very familiar with the traditional winter tracking surveys and the iPOM, which also use 1) observations, 2) GPS collaring data, 3) illegal kills, 4) other mortality in quantifying a state wide wolf count.  Since moving to the SOM, those other supplemental data sets are still being used to adjust the SOM/POM model and it is reasonable to continue making adjustments to it to increase its validity.  The 2 & 4 year look back also has it’s advantages in addressing a year to year change in data (ie: poor tracking conditions).  Treves & Santiago-Ávila point out the 2021 wolf season (which in my view was a disaster as well) would have less of of an impact on the population model in the following year(s), but less so than the article may suggest (as observed in actual traditional winter tracking surveys in 2021/22, 2022/23, 2023/24). The assumptions by Treves & Santiago-Ávila,  (and myself) were that the 2021 hunt would have had a much greater impact that it actually did, wolves being very prolific.  If there is unoccupied space, it will be filled.  As of 2024/2025 winter surveys, and an average WI wolf lifespan being 4 years, the 2021 hunt probably has any little residual impact on the state population.   As you well know, wolves being density dependent are also not going to over occupy that wolf range, thus we see a fairly steady population in the state since 2014 and a very level population within saturated core wolf range.  The greatest variation noted in WMZ 6 of course.  My point of view is that a wolf hunt is not needed to “manage” wolf populations.  And I do personally detest the term “manage.”  Treves & Santiago-Ávila point out that difference in their conclusion that a hunt is a value decision and not a biological one and I fully agree. In the message here (9/12/25) I would take issue with some of the verbiage as it’s attached to the DNR.  The department presented it’s count using the methodology they consider as accurate as possible given the constraints placed on them (personnel, $, etc)-which Treves & Santiago-Ávila also point out in their article.  Reading the DNRs population count, I didn’t see any hint of “boasting”, just presenting their data.  Keep in mind that the anti-wolf crowd would take the opposite position (“way undercounting!”).  The GLWA email does mention a “thriving population” (not DNR attributed in the report), which is true-wolves currently in WI are in no danger of extirpation in range suitable for wolf occupation.    The email also points out the difference between the “tried-and-true census” vs. the SOM/POM.  Traditional winter track surveys (TWTS) also recorded “occupied range, territory size, and pack numbers” which is labeled here as “guesses” within the SOM/POM.  While I agree collecting pack data in the TWTS was more in the forefront, the winter count since 2018 has focused more on a statewide count.  While the article and the email state: (each) “layer adds uncertainty, and when you stack them” I see them as just more data being plugged in (1) observations, 2) GPS collaring date, 3) illegal kills, 4) other mortality)-more data = more accurate outputs. I agree in Montana and Idaho, the SOM and “observations” yield poor population counts-actually very poor counts.  That said, they also don’t have a long history of TWTS and road densities to conduct TWTSs or accurate SOM/POMs and at the state level an agenda to push wolf numbers as low as possible.  “Tools like camera traps, genetic sampling, and real-time tracking could deliver precision.” To some degree-game cameras are not good population estimators (IE: “Wisconsin Citizen Wolf Count” who use cameras and come up with populations of 10-15,000 wolves) because they cannot be placed in a randomized protocol in any practical way.  Real time tracking is still being done with the SOM (winter track surveys) and genetic testing would be another great data set, but funding? In conclusion, and I appreciate the topics here to respectfully discuss.  The opinions here are of a personal level not affiliated with any organization or professional entity.  I am not a advocate of a wolf hunt or delisting (I don’t trust states to not have the influence of politics or non-science in biological decision making-ie: MT, ID, WY are good examples), and the use of bear trailing hounds.  The topics I raise here are not meant to argue, but rather clarify another point a view.  I hope you appreciate that. Steve

    Reply
    1. Friends of the Wisconsin Wolf Avatar
      Friends of the Wisconsin Wolf

      I really appreciate this. I’m going to email you.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Great Lakes Wildlife Alliance

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading