Wisconsin conservation wardens spent more than a year building a sweeping poaching case against a man they believed continued hunting and fishing despite having his outdoor privileges fully revoked, according to body-camera footage and narration presented by the YouTube channel WildlifeWarden.
The channel identified the suspect as Dylan Wolf and said investigators documented about 174 hunting and fishing trips between October 15, 2024, and January 8, 2026. Wardens ultimately alleged that Wolf illegally harvested roughly 22 deer, two wild turkeys, and 43 fish across Shawano, Oconto, Waupaca, Brown, and Forest counties.
WildlifeWarden described the case as one of the largest serial-poaching investigations featured on the channel, with 109 alleged violations tied to hunting, fishing, weapons, locations, and animals taken while Wolf was barred from those activities.
The body-camera footage shows that the final confrontation was not based on a single tip or one suspicious deer. Wardens repeatedly told Wolf that they had spent months gathering photographs, messages, surveillance records, witness information, and other evidence before approaching him in January 2026.
Wardens Find Him Near a Baited Hunting Site
The encounter began near Pulaski, Wisconsin, where wardens located Wolf walking away from a wooded area.
A warden addressed him by name and said officers already knew he had been hunting there. Wolf acknowledged that a corn pile, a stand, and a crossbow were still in the woods, while wardens later reported finding bait, a crossbow hanging in a tree, and a bolt still loaded in the weapon.
Wolf initially estimated that he had hunted the property about five times, then agreed that seven might be closer to the truth. He said he had seen no deer that evening and claimed he was mainly hunting for a buck.
A rifle was also visible inside his truck. Wolf said it belonged to his mother and warned that it was probably loaded, prompting officers to secure it carefully.
The first part of the interview was calm, but the wardens made it clear that they already knew far more than they were revealing. One officer told Wolf they generally knew the answers to the questions they were asking, which turned the conversation into a test of whether his story would match the evidence.
That approach is interesting because the wardens did not begin by presenting their entire case. They allowed Wolf to offer a limited account first, then gradually confronted him with photographs, hunting locations, weapons, and animals he had not mentioned.
His Story Expanded as Evidence Was Revealed
Wolf first denied killing any deer during the season, saying he had barely been hunting.
After further questioning, he admitted shooting a damaged-rack buck during muzzleloader season. He described it as a four- or five-point deer and said he killed it while walking on public land near Pella.
Wardens then asked about another animal, described as a large buck with a dark or “chocolate” rack.
Wolf initially denied knowing which deer they meant, but an officer told him that people had sent investigators photographs. Wolf then admitted killing a nine-point buck with a crossbow on October 23.
He first claimed the buck had also been taken on public land near Pella. Later, after wardens challenged that account, he said he had actually killed it near Stockbridge, close to a cabin and an existing tree stand.
Wolf said the buck began running as he fired, causing the first bolt to strike near its rear hips. He said he shot the animal again after it fell, then drove his truck into the area and loaded it.
Wardens also asked about photographs showing a deer in a wheelbarrow outside Wolf’s truck.
He first suggested the remains may have come from the nine-point buck, then said the animal had been struck by his vehicle or found freshly dead in the road. His explanations continued to shift as officers pressed for a date and location.
The repeated changes became a major part of the interview. Each time wardens introduced another detail, Wolf’s account widened slightly, moving from no deer, to one deer, to several animals and additional hunting trips.
Bloody Arrows and a Deer in the Truck
One warden told Wolf that investigators knew about bloody arrows found with his compound bow in the truck.
Wolf said the compound bow needed a new string and was unsafe to use, claiming he had hunted with it fewer than 10 times. He eventually admitted wounding a doe with it but insisted he never recovered the animal.
The wardens also focused on a deer lying in the back of Wolf’s truck.
Wolf initially claimed his mother had killed it during a special antlerless hunt and that he was only storing the frozen carcass because he had no garage. He even suggested officers could call her to verify the story.
A warden told him directly that the deer did not belong to his mother and criticized him for bringing her into the investigation.
Wolf then admitted that he had shot the deer and said his mother had tagged it. He claimed she otherwise had nothing to do with the incident.
Wardens examined the carcass and identified what appeared to be a crossbow wound. Officers also said they had found blood near the bait pile and along the trail leading from the hunting site.
Wolf eventually admitted the deer had been killed on that property during the late-December holiday hunt.
This portion of the footage shows why wildlife cases can become much broader than a single illegally taken animal. Tags, borrowed identities, bait sites, weapons, photographs, and transportation records can connect one deer to several different alleged violations.
Investigators Trace Hunting Across Multiple Properties
Wardens questioned Wolf about several other locations, including public land near Pella, marshland near Mud Lake, an industrial park, private property near storage units, and wooded land around Stockbridge.
Wolf admitted hunting in several areas but often disputed how frequently he had gone or whether he had actually been pursuing animals.
At one point, wardens asked about an incident in casino woods where investigators said others had followed his tracks and found three places where he had been sitting. They also claimed Wolf ran after seeing a truck and dropped a brown Carhartt hat in the woods.
Wolf first said he had only been in the area because of a flat tire and had not been hunting.
When wardens mentioned an empty rifle casing found on the passenger seat of his truck, he conceded that he may have carried a rifle while walking through the woods looking for a ride. He later acknowledged that he had taken the gun with him.
Officers also questioned him about turkey season.
Wolf initially said he had not hunted turkeys at all, but a warden told him photographs showed otherwise. He then admitted going out around five times, including once on property where he did not have permission.
He continued to deny killing any turkeys during that portion of the interview, although WildlifeWarden later reported that the completed investigation linked him to two illegally harvested wild turkeys.
The scale of the alleged activity is what makes the case stand out. Investigators were not describing one impulsive hunt during a revocation; they alleged a repeated pattern stretching across five counties and nearly 15 months.
His Phone Became a Central Piece of Evidence
Wardens told Wolf they intended to seize his phone because it was part of the criminal investigation.
They offered him the choice of consenting to a data extraction, which they said could allow the device to be returned sooner, or waiting while they obtained a search warrant.
Wolf repeatedly questioned why the phone was relevant and initially refused to authorize a search.
Officers explained that phones were routinely collected in serious wildlife investigations because photographs, location history, messages, and other digital records can reveal hunting trips, animals taken, weapons used, and people involved.
Wolf eventually provided the password but resisted signing a formal consent document. He said the wardens would search the phone regardless of what he wanted, while officers continued explaining that they would seek a warrant if he did not voluntarily approve the examination.
According to WildlifeWarden’s narration, investigators later recovered dozens of photographs and messages from the device. Those records reportedly helped document approximately 174 hunting and fishing outings.
Digital evidence can transform a case like this because people often record their own activity without considering that photographs contain dates, conversations show planning, and phone data may place them near specific hunting or fishing areas.
A single image might be explained away, but a long timeline of pictures, messages, and locations can become much harder to dismiss.
Wardens Seize Weapons, Antlers and Other Evidence
The wardens collected several items during the encounter, including the crossbow, deer carcass, trail camera, weapons, and the rack from the large nine-point buck.
They later accompanied Wolf to his home, where he retrieved the rack from a plastic tote and turned over another bow. He said the deer hide had begun to smell after warmer weather arrived because he did not have a freezer large enough to store it.
Officers told him that the court system, not the wardens at the scene, would eventually decide whether seized property would be returned.
Despite the seriousness of the investigation, the exchange remained largely respectful.
One warden told Wolf that they had known each other through several previous enforcement contacts and said Wolf had always treated officers decently. The warden also said the current case was serious and likely to result in a longer revocation, although charging decisions would be left to prosecutors.
Wolf admitted that hunting and fishing were central parts of his life and said it had been difficult to stop, even while his privileges were suspended.
The warden responded that he wanted Wolf to return to the woods and water someday, but only after the revocation ended and only if he followed the law.
That conversation added an unusual human element to the case. The wardens were building a major prosecution, yet they still spoke to Wolf as someone they believed could eventually return legally rather than as a person permanently beyond reach.
109 Alleged Violations Follow the Investigation
WildlifeWarden reported that the investigation ended with 109 hunting and fishing violations connected to Wolf’s alleged activity.
Authorities claimed he hunted or fished approximately 174 times while prohibited from doing either, taking about 22 deer, two turkeys, and 43 fish during the period examined.
The alleged incidents were spread across Shawano, Oconto, Waupaca, Brown, and Forest counties, making the investigation much larger than a local case involving one property or season.
The footage shows how the case grew through several layers of evidence: informant tips, surveillance, witness accounts, photographs, phone records, hunting equipment, bait, blood, animal remains, and Wolf’s own changing statements.
What began with wardens approaching a man near a hunting stand ended with an alleged record of activity covering more than a year.
The case is notable not only for the number of animals involved, but also for the persistence authorities described. A revocation is meant to remove someone from hunting and fishing for a set period, yet investigators alleged Wolf continued returning to woods, fields, rivers, and lakes across a large part of Wisconsin.
By the time wardens confronted him, they said they were no longer trying to determine whether he had violated the ban once. They were attempting to measure how often it had happened and how many animals had been taken along the way.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.
