i saw this post and it got me wondering, so i went on the dnr's web site. after reading some of the history of elk in wisconsin and the "frequently asked questions" i had my own question. what's the point? i have nothing against elk in the state, but i just don't get it. i live in western wis not to far from chippewa falls. i would be neat if i could go elk hunting in the northern part of wisconsin someday, but the way it looks on the dnr site they have no plans on expending the herd. so what is the point of monitoring a very small group of elk in a park? maybe its just me, but unless they expand the herd so we can hunt them it seems pretty useless, other than something else for the wolves to eat. i was suprised to see there have been wild elk in the state for 15 years and the herd has gone from the original 25 to "80-90 elk" at this rate i'll be able to apply for tag in about 150 years. leave it to the dnr to take a good idea and f--- it up.
The point was to make a huntable population. Wolves & bears might prevent that & Laine doesn't like it.
BTW, most of the $$ is provided by Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation contributors. Not tax $ or your deer liscense $.
You will notice that though the RMEF does fund parts of this program as you indicated, both Stowell and McKay are WDNR employees and that in the pdf file report listed on the WDNR website there are mentions of partial funding and of 50-50 funding of this/these programs. Can you answer where the funding is coming from? The statement that this funding is not coming from my/your tax dollars or license fees(note you spelled license wrong) makes me wonder if you can back up this statement. Please show me proof I'm/we are not contributing.
Wisconsin Elk Update 2007
Laine R. Stowell; WDNR; 10220N STH 27, Hayward, WI 54843; laine.stowell@Wisconsin.gov
Matt McKay; WDNR; 10220N STH 27, Hayward, WI 54843; matthew.mckay@Wisconsin.gov
Michele Windsor; WDNR; 910 STH 54E; Black River Falls, WI 54615-9276;
michele.windsor@Wisconsin.gov
abstract. Wisconsin began the current Elk Year (17 May 2007 to start of calving season in May
of 2008) with an estimated 109 elk. By looking at numbers of potentially pregnant cows (by
projecting pregnancy rates per the various age classes of mature cows, ie., 74 percent for 2.5 year
olds, 92 percent for prime aged cows, and 54 percent for cows 10 years and older) we estimate
40 calves were born this past calving season, for a total of 149 elk. We’ve observed 15 elk deaths
to date (10 calves, 3 yearling bulls, and one 4-year old cow—6 to bears, 6 to wolves and 3 to
vehicles). Those 15 observed mortalities are extrapolated to an additional 6 lost (3 to bears and 3
to wolves) for a total estimated loss of 21 animals, leaving about 128 elk. We still have 2
months before the start of the next calving season, so there will likely be more losses to account
for, before the next production cycle. We monitored 28 potentially pregnant cows last calving
season. We calf searched 25 of these cows, 33 times, finding 23 calves, resulting in a 92 percent
pregnancy rate. This is slightly less than the 93 percent (n=27) observed in 2006, but much
better than the 72 percent (n=23) observed in 2005. Of 23 calves found 13 were males and 10
females—a 130 bulls:100 cows born, which was an improvement from the year previous when
we observed a 150 bulls:100 cows calf ratio. Calves to 100 cows, by 31 August, were 69 calves
in 2007 (n= 18) compared to 74 in 2006 (n=20) and 59 in 2005 (n=12). Calves to 100 cows by
15 May, is currently at 50 calves (still 2.5 months until 15 May) (n=13) compared to 67 (n=18)
in 2006 and 35 in 2005 (n=8). Looking at all calf survivorship with cumulative data from 1996
through 2007 of 124 calves we’ve had 114 survive 4 days (s=0.92), 83 survive to 31 August
(s=0.67), and 72 survive to 1 year (s=0.58). This past calving season we weighed 22 calves
weighing from 14.5 kg to 20.4 kg, with a mean of 16.7 kg, compared to 10.1 to 19.5 kg in 2006
with a mean of 15.4 kg, and compared to 7.7 kg to 20.9 kg and a mean of 15.9 in 2007. The 4 kg
increase in the minimum and the half kg increase in the average compared to the previous year
indicated heavier calves and qualitative observations confirmed healthier calves in 2007. We
attribute these increased weights and more vigorous calves to better cow health. We believe that
this associated better health of cows and calves is primarily attributed with reduced parasite loads
due to the virtual disappearance of recreational feeding of elk in the Clam Lake area. Some
might assume that the mild winter of 2006/2007 was a primary influence, however, the winter of
2006/2007 wasn’t any milder than the winters of 2005/2006 or 2004/2005.
Elk project staff experienced our most successful elk trapping winter yet during the winter of
2007/2008 compared to the previous 6 elk trapping seasons (began elk trapping in January of
2002). From January through February we had 4 captures of a total of 65 elk. We recollared 17
cows and 2 yearling bulls, collared 2 uncollared cows and 3 uncollared calves. Our largest
capture was 31 and our smallest 6. We were surprised to capture Cow 26 who had been missing
in action since the middle of 1998 when her “break-away” calf collar fell off. Cow 26 was the
first Wisconsin elk calf captured and collared during the Clam Lake elk restoration project.
*******With funding from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation we created 5 acres of high quality forest
openings last year within the elk range, bringing our total RMEF funded forest opening creation
work to 30 acres to date. We have plans for 2 more projects totaling 6 acres during the summer
of 2008. We also have RMEF funding for a pilot forage fertilization project in 2008, that we
hope will eventually be expanded to 300 acres of forest openings. With 50 percent cost sharing
from RMEF, we installed 3, two mile receiver zones of a special motorist elk crossing warning
system along a 6 mile stretch of STH 77 west of Clam Lake. *******
This system is triggered by the 70
plus radio collared elk of the Clam Lake herd. During the first 6 months this system reduced elk
vehicle collisions by 60 percent, however, that level of protection has reduced to 40 percent
during the last 6 months. Assessment of the warning system’s effectiveness continues.
Working with Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the US Forest Service we’ve given input to
the Chequamegon/Nicolet National Forest Travel Management Rule, requesting permanent
closure to motorized vehicles of 4 trails in high elk use calving and wintering areas, and a
permanent seasonal closure during calving season of a trail through a major calving area. These
trails were closed under emergency rule during the calving season in 2007 (1 May through 30
June), will be closed under emergency rule in 2008 and are currently being proposed as on-going
permanent projects in the draft Travel Management Rule.
Restoration and importation update: The status of our ability to bring animals into the state,
and/or move animals within the state in an attempt to reestablish a second herd and increase the
genetic diversity of our current herd is still held up by USDA and the Wisconsin Dept. of
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP). Talks have resumed, but progress is
slow as concerns still exist from the captive cervid industry over perceived inequities with the
testing and marking requirements of animals being moved into and around the state. The state
Department of Natural Resources is trying to make its case that the animals being sought for a
reintroduction come from an isolated herd that has not had animals introduced in over 50 years,
so, have not been exposed to CWD, TB or Brucellosis. Evidence of such would have shown up
in the population through the testing program already in place. So, we are still in a “wait and
see” approach. Hopefully with collaboration with other states and continued improvements in
live testing will enable Wisconsin to continue to pursue the expansion of its elk herd.
