Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wildlife services: bears and elk driving unusually high complaint counts; localized responses underway
Summary
USDA Wildlife Services reported increased bear and elk complaints this season and described responses including trapping, lure cropping, temporary fencing cost-share, and nonlethal wolf abatement measures.
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ethan Rose, coordinator for USDA Wildlife Services's Wisconsin wildlife damage program for Ashland, Bayfield and Iron counties, told the Land Conservation Committee that this season's pattern of wildlife complaints differs from recent years.
Rose said nuisance calls for bears were substantially higher than in 2023 but, because natural foods such as acorns, apples and mushrooms were abundant this late summer, the program's crop-damage assessments show some fields with less damage than expected. Rose reported capture activity across the four-county area he covers: 46 bears captured in 2023, about 199 captured in 2024, and roughly 96'plus captures to date in 2025 (numbers in his report predate the meeting and were described by Rose as current as of two weeks earlier).
Elk were a focal point of discussion. Rose described two distinct local elk herds with different behaviors: one near Butternut/Bridal that tends to concentrate in a small range and another near Marengo/Highbridge that roams more widely and spreads damage across several farms. The committee heard that the DNR and partners have tried lure cropping (private or DNR-planted 'food plots' to draw elk away from commercial crops), repellent trials, temporary pyrotechnics and, when conditions allow, trapping and relocation or selective removals. Rose said lure crops showed mixed results; a small lure plot can be overwhelmed by a herd of 30 or more elk and will not fully prevent damage.
Rose described the practical constraints of cost-share solutions: permanent fencing programs are available through DNR cost-share but usually require local contribution (for example, DNR cost-share commonly covers a substantial share but not 100 percent of construction cost). Committee members asked whether the state had considered 100% fencing cost-share; Rose said the idea has been discussed but would raise questions about selection criteria and long-term funding.
Wolf and livestock interactions also drew discussion. Rose said wolf complaints in the four-county region were lower in 2025 than in 2024 and 2023, and that nonlethal measures such as solar-powered radios playing sounds at night have been deployed and, in the areas where they were used, appear to be effective in reducing losses. He said more permanent fenced enclosures had been successful where they have been installed but that cost makes them feasible only for targeted calving pastures rather than entire farms.
Why it matters: Committee members and landowners described repeated, concentrated losses in some farms that have made the issue urgent locally. Committee members asked the department to pursue solutions that are cost-effective and that reduce repeated damage to individual farmers.
What the committee directed: The committee discussed continued use of lure cropping, repellent trials, DNR cost-share fencing where feasible, and radios and other nonlethal tools for wolves. Ethan Rose said wildlife services continues to coordinate with DNR biologists and with individual landowners on field-level mitigation and claims.

