State pays scofflaws over hound deaths

Compensation for wolf kills also goes to repeat claimants, nonresidents

A redbone coonhound used for bear hunting, 2010 photo. Credit: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

By Bill Lueders
Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism

Wisconsin, the only state with a program that compensates the owners of dogs killed by wolves while hunting other animals, has paid tens of thousands of dollars during the past decade to individuals who have violated state hunting or firearms laws.

Seven individuals received a total of $19,000 in payments after they were convicted of crimes or paid forfeitures for hunting or firearms-related offenses, according to an analysis by the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism. An additional $20,000 went to four claimants who were subsequently fined for such offenses, including bear hunting without a license.

In one case, the state Department of Natural Resources paid $2,500 to a man for a dog death that happened while he was prohibited from having a hunting license, due to a prior criminal conviction. The DNR, in response to the Center’s inquiries, is investigating. But even if the claimant was breaking the law at the time, which he denies, he will get to keep the money.

“Having a license is not an eligibility requirement for reimbursement of dogs killed by wolves,” said Tim Andryk, the DNR’s chief legal counsel.

The DNR program also has approved more than $80,000 in payments to repeat claimants — those who put dogs in successive situations where they were killed by wolves. And money has gone to people from other states who brought their dogs here to hunt.

No other state compensates owners for hunting dogs killed by wolves, DNR staff confirm. The purpose of the program is to mitigate damage caused by an expanding state wolf population.

In all, during the decade under review, 2004-2013, the DNR’s wolf depredation program has approved nearly $390,000 in payments for lost hunting dogs. The deaths typically occur when hounds with electronic tracking collars are released to hunt or pursue other animals, especially bears.

Some compensated depredations occurred in areas that the DNR has flagged as being at high risk for wolf attacks.

Most of the hunting dog owners compensated for fatal wolf attacks do not have a history of violating hunting or firearms laws, and those who do are not precluded from getting payments.

“There is nothing in the legislation or state statute that would exempt someone with a criminal or hunting violation from getting compensation,” said DNR wildlife damage specialist Brad Koele, who oversees the program.

Wolves are highly territorial and may kill dogs and other animals. The state has a program to compensate the owners of these animals. Courtesy of Jane Belsky

Courting disaster?

The DNR’s payments to the owners of hunting dogs killed by wolves has long been controversial.

Patricia McConnell, a University of Wisconsin-Madison zoologist and expert on dog behavior, has criticized the program for rewarding people who deliberately “choose to put their dogs at extreme risk.”

Of the 32 states that allow bear hunting, 14 ban the use of dogs, according to the Humane Society of the United States, a nonprofit animal welfare group.

Hunters frequently place the value of their lost hounds at well above the state’s maximum reimbursement rate of $2,500.

“They’re like our kids to us,” said Amy Visger, a board member of the Wisconsin Bear Hunters’ Association, in a 2010 Wisconsin Public Television news segment. “We really don’t want anything to happen to them.”

Bear hunter Amy Visger releases a hound in this still shot from a 2010 news segment on Wisconsin Public Television. Visger filed a claim in 2013 seeking compensation for a dog killed in a wolf attack.

Visger is among the owners of the 23 hunting dogs killed in 2013 who are seeking compensation. She did not respond to an interview request.

Elizabeth Huntley of Wisconsin Wolf Defenders, a pro-wolf advocacy group, agreed that some hunting dogs are worth “upwards of $5,000,” depending on how much training they receive. But she believes some hunters consider their dogs expendable, and are willing to put them in harm’s way — especially if the state will compensate them for any loss.

To minimize depredations, the DNR maintains a website and sends out email alerts regarding areas in which wolves, who are highly territorial, have killed dogs. But some hunters with dogs are not avoiding these areas.

For instance, the site lists a dozen attacks since 2009 by the Flag River wolf pack within a small area in Bayfield County. Four dogs were killed there in 2013, despite the warnings.

A study released last April by researchers in Michigan found significantly higher rates of wolf attacks on dogs in Wisconsin than Michigan, which does not compensate owners for wolf attacks. Besides being a reporting inducement, it said, “compensation also creates an incentive for riskier behavior.”

Dogs die hunting bears

Since its wolf depredation program began in 1985, the DNR has paid out $1.6 million in compensation for attacks on livestock and other animals. Nearly a third of this sum has gone to the owners of hunting dogs.

According to the DNR’s Koele, the USDA’s wildlife services office has verified claims for all 23 lost hounds in 2013. The claimants have asked for up to $10,000 per animal, but the program’s established maximum is $2,500 — unless there are additional veterinary costs.

Most of the claimants for 2013 are set to get $2,500. The claims add up to $56,000, higher than any other year. The payments will be processed in mid-January, Koele said.

For many years, funding for these payments came from sources including the state’s Endangered Resources Fund, from people who bought endangered species license plates or made contributions via their tax return.

Since 2012, these payments have come from the state’s wolf-hunt application and license fees. That means these fees have not been available for other costs associated with the wolf hunt.

State Sen. Fred Risser, D-Madison, opposes the use of these funds to compensate the owners of hunting dogs: “I don’t feel that the money the DNR gets should pick up the tab for what is discretionary by hunters.”

In December, Wisconsin began letting dogs be used to hunt wolves. The owners of dogs who are killed or injured in this activity are not eligible for compensation.

The state also does not issue compensation for hunting dogs killed by bears. In a chapter written for a new book, DNR wolf expert Adrian Wydeven said these losses are “possibly much higher” than those caused by wolves. But the deaths caused by wolves are “usually more gruesome because, unlike omnivorous black bears, wolves often eat the hounds and disarticulate the bodies.”

One USDA report on a Wisconsin kill, from 2008, said the dead hound was “mostly consumed, with the head, rib cage and hind legs mostly stripped of flesh and many small pieces of hide and bits of clotted blood hanging from the surrounding vegetation.”

The hound owner in this case, Paul Hauge, a dentist in Polk County, was paid $2,500. In 2011, he lost another hound to a wolf attack, and filed another claim.

The day after he did so, Hauge was charged with “assist with bear hunting without license,” a noncriminal offense, for which he was fined $263. The second claim was also approved. Hauge, who did not respond to an interview request, received another $2,500.

In the money

State officials do not routinely check whether those seeking compensation for dogs killed while hunting or training are properly licensed. But DNR attorney Andryk said “we’re looking for a way to do that,” after the Center called the agency’s attention to a particular case.

A 2011 claimant, Josh Schlosser of Oconto, received a $2,500 payment. Two years earlier, Schlosser was fined $2,108 and had his hunting privileges revoked for three years after being convicted of a crime for killing a bear without a license.

If Schlosser was hunting without a license, Andryk said, he could be penalized. But he will not have to return the $2,500, because the depredation program does not require claimants to be obeying that law.

Schlosser maintains that it was his wife, not him, hunting at the time. He is angry that the matter has resurfaced.

“I don’t get why it’s an issue,” Schlosser said in a phone interview. “A dog was killed by a wolf. I should get paid for it. They’re (the DNR) the ones who brought the wolf back.”

At least three other claimants have had criminal convictions for hunting-related offenses prior to getting compensated by the state. (See sidebar.) Several others had hunting or firearms-related forfeitures. At least one claimant with a hunting-related fine was denied a payment — but it was because the depredation was unconfirmed, not the claimant’s transgressions.

Repeat and out-of-state claimants

In the decade under review, the state paid or approved about 150 claims for hunting dogs killed by wolves. Of these, 31 came from 14 individuals who filed more than one claim, including a four-timer. A total of $82,236 has gone to these repeat claimants.

The review also found claims totaling $28,086 from six individuals who live in other states. They lost a total of 10 dogs while hunting in Wisconsin.

The leading recipient for the period under review is an out-of-state resident: Marne Gall of St. Pierz, Minn. He received a total of $10,586 for three claims involving four dogs.

Gall chalks up his losses to “bad luck.” All four dogs were killed in a small area near his cabin in Bayfield County. A pleasure hunter who only runs dogs in the bear training season, not the actual hunt (“I don’t like to kill animals”), Gall uses stationary cameras to track wolf activity to protect his dogs from harm.

“It’s hard to replace a dog,” said Gall, who mourns the ones he has lost. He said it almost made him stop. Why didn’t he?

“I love to hunt,” Gall explained. “What are you going to do?”

The nonprofit Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism ( collaborates with Wisconsin Public Radio, Wisconsin Public Television, other news media and the UW-Madison School of Journalism and Mass Communication.

All works created, published, posted or disseminated by the Center do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of UW-Madison or any of its affiliates.

Back to top


Claimants include hunting-law criminals

At least four individuals who have filed verified claims to receive compensation from the state of Wisconsin for hunting dogs killed by wolves had prior criminal convictions for hunting-related offenses. These payments, as well as those to individuals with less serious hunting-related forfeitures, are legal.

The four convicted criminals are:

Josh Schlosser in a mugshot from Oconto County.

* Josh K. Schlosser, 31, of Oconto: 2009 misdemeanor conviction for killing a bear without a license; was fined $2,108 and had his DNR hunting privileges revoked for three years. Filed a claim seeking $4,500 for the death of a hound in 2011; received the maximum $2,500.

The state Department of Natural Resources is now investigating whether Schlosser was hunting without a license in 2011. Schlosser, in an interview, said his wife was doing the hunting when the hound was killed, adding of the DNR, “There’s not a damn thing they can do.”

* Rickey J. Nelson, 49, of Loyal, in Clark County: 2002 misdemeanor conviction for killing a bear without a license; he was fined $2,064 and lost his DNR privileges for three years. Nelson also had prior misdemeanor convictions for trapping during closed season and without a license and possessing a deer during closed season, for which he was fined $2,860.

The state has paid Nelson $2,500 for each of two dogs — one killed in 2009, the other in 2012. Nelson said his prior violations “had nothing to do with getting paid on a dog that the goddamn wolves come and killed.”

Kenneth Strobl in a mugshot from Price County.

* Kenneth F. Strobl, 66, of Catawba, in Price County: 2003 misdemeanor convictions on one count of killing a bear without a license and one count of unlawful sale of animal parts. Strobl was originally charged with illegally killing two bears and selling 30 bear gall bladders to an undercover conservation warden. He was fined $2,749 and had lost DNR privileges for five years.

Strobl received $2,000 for a hunting dog killed in 2011. He declined comment.

* Brandon M. True, 43, of Gillett, in Oconto County: 2009 misdemeanor conviction for being party to killing a bear without a license; he was fined $1,000 and lost hunting privileges for one year.

True is in line to get $2,500 for a dog killed in 2013. He noted, correctly, that this occurred in an area not flagged as a wolf danger zone until afterward. True called the state’s wolf population “out of control.”
Bill Lueders

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Pin it on PinterestShare on LinkedInShare via email

Related posts:

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

10 Responses to “State pays scofflaws over hound deaths”

  1. Nina Bisgaard says:

    Why does the state pay hunters for the loss of their dogs? This makes no sense to me and seems to encourage hunters to put their dogs in danger. Wolf and bear hunting is a questionable activity, even though legal. Ask anyone who truly understands how ecosystems work and they will explain that the large predator actually improves the stock of the prey species. Predators have an important place in the natural word and do not compete with humans at all. There seems to be no logical reason to encourage this type of hunting, and certainly no reason to (over) compensate the hunters for putting their dogs in harm’s way. This whole activity seems to be participated in by blood lusty individuals who need some form of treatment, not compensation.

  2. Kevin says:

    Hi Bill,

    I read your article as published in The Gazette. The title is accurate but along with the subtitle is very misleading. Your subtitle suggests that hundreds of thousands have been paid to “scofflaws” in the last decade. But the facts tell a different story. If your figures are correct, only 10% of the $390,000 paid out from 2004-2013 were to individuals with prior violations. It follow then, that the vast majority of those payments making up the “hundreds-of-thousands” comment were made to law abiding citizens.

    Even with that, it shouldn’t make a difference whether any of the payments were made to individuals with past convictions or not. Unless they were violating some law at the time they lost their dogs, these individuals have paid their fines and served their time and deserve compensation as the law allows. They are forgiven. Try to coexist with them.

    I think your article had some great fact and figures. If it had been written with a better balance of views from both sides of the aisle rather than just the left it would have been much more informative and useful.

    • Bill Lueders says:

      Thanks for your comment. The subhead in the Janesville Gazette does say “Hundreds of thousands paid out in last decade,” under the headline, “State pays scofflaws over dog deaths.” You should know, first of all, that this headline was written by the Gazette, not the Center; the subhead we assigned to it was the one that appears above: “Compensation for wolf kills also goes to repeat claimants, nonresidents.” I see why you feel the subhead was misleading, but I would note that subheads commonly are might to add additional information, not just amplify what the headline conveys. The Gazette’s subhead is not wrong: Hundreds of thousands have been paid out to the owners of hunting dogs killed by wolves, which some people find noteworthy in and of itself.

      The story itself does make the point that you make, explicitly: “Most of the hunting dog owners compensated for fatal wolf attacks do not have a history of violating hunting or firearms laws, and those who do are not precluded from getting payments.” It includes the correct numbers as to how much has gone to claimants with hunting law violations, repeat claimants and people who live in other states.

      You write: “[I]t shouldn’t make a difference whether any of the payments were made to individuals with past convictions or not. Unless they were violating some law at the time they lost their dogs, these individuals … deserve compensation as the law allows.”

      The point I wish to highlight is “unless they were violating some law at the time they lost their dogs.” Not wanting state funds to go to such individuals is a fine opinion for you to have, but, as the story notes, it is not current state policy. A hunter who loses a dog while violating the law is fully entitled to compensation under this program. I make no claim that this has occurred, only that state officials confirmed for me that breaking the law while losing a dog would not affect an individual’s ability to receive compensation.

      Thanks again for your thoughtful comments.

  3. Valerie says:

    If your dogs are like family, then why do you put them intentionally in harms way?????

  4. William huard says:

    We have clear video showing these hounds in action killing and ripping animals to shreds. People that do that, allow that, and enjoy that- need some psychological help. What- it’s a tradition…. How does these activities resemble hunting in any way?

  5. William huard says:

    You really can’t make this stuff up. Now if only we can get someone to tell us why the Wisconsin DNR allows these Wisconsin bear hunters to kill bear cubs, raccoons, bobcats, coyotes, and other native wildlife every day with these bloodthirsty hounds and the DNR just looks the other way. It’s happening in the northern Wisconsin woods every day.

  6. Dave says:

    How interesting: a peek into the minds of the exact same people who would criticize welfare or food stamps, no doubt. Clearly the hunting industry has the state by the ba!!$ … right where they want them. Paying someone for their hobby loss? Will they pay the average Joe for a lost or damaged tennis racket? How about the camera I dropped which no longer works?!
    The DNR needs to STOP squandering taxpayer’s money. The collateral damage of their action is to further unfairly demonize wolves.
    If the dogs “are like kids” to these people, I’d hate to think of their parental skills toward their human children.

  7. Fred Olsen says:

    So…. no one was breaking the law in making or accepting these payments….. so it’s really just another tempest in a teapot over a relatively low-buck issue.

    Just the sort of thing our highly skilled investigative journalists should be spending their time on instead of catching real high-buck crooks in government.

    How much of the state’s funds (and WPR listener money) went for this investigation? Those are fair questions.

    Pay a little closer attention, Bill, and you could catch some million dollar crooks right there at 821 University Avenue.


Leave a Comment

Comments are moderated. Please keep your comments respectful and on topic.

Follow us on Twitter: @WisWatch

View our newsletter archives.