Wolves vs. hunter in Star Trib

[upnorth]

I have absolutely no idea what idea you are trying to get across?

[thedeadsea]

I agree that story was embellished. With that being said I do know guys who were stalked by wolves when they were wearing deer scent. Guys in our shack have lost 2 deer to wolves in the last 35 years of hunting when following a blood trail until dark and taking up the trail again the next morning. Certainly not a trend but wolves have no problem eating a fresh hunter shot deer.

I find it interesting that 95+ percent of people who live in areas without wolves are all for keeping OUR wolves protected.

If they lived up here and had to worry about wolves harming their pets, livestock, or family members (yes, eventually a wolf is going to grab someone's little kid) many of them would be singing a different tune.

Ever had to give your dog an armed escort so they could do their business in your yard? Ever had a wolf stalk you while you walked your dog? Know someone who had their pet grabbed right out of their yard and/or right in front of them? I can answer yes to all three, and fortunately my caution has paid off as we have never lost a pet.

I'm not for the eradication of wolves, however there needs to be managent. We manage virtually every animal that wolves rely on for food, and obviously there is going to be an imbalance when the highest predator is allowed to run unchecked.

Steve

[Lee Lane]

I really was trying to get any point across...just random thoughts. hope that answers your question To the dead sea.... Ive also said on here that a timber wolf is going to grab someones kid but then I had to listen to smart @ss remarks from people who have probably never seen a timber wolf outside the glass window at the zoo talking trash and making comments about little red riding hood. I live In Effie Minnesota and believe me we have lots of wolves. Wolves Killed our neighbors dog this summer and a federal wolf trapper came to trap them but he never got a one!! they should have hired me I would have gotten them all. to this guys credit he did trap and kill 7 down the road after they wiped out a bunch of sheep. However this guy said hes been having wolves kill his livestock since the 70s so is it really doing any good?? I think they should put a bounty on wolves like they used to have ! It would kill 2 birds with one stone...Id make a decent living and it would boost the local econemy and maybe wolves would have a bit more fear of humans. I doubt it would dent the population though... most people I know that hunt can barely get a 2and a half yr old basket rack buck so I doubt they would be getting many wolves. Heres where Im conflicted on wolves tho...Ive read alot of material written by renowned biologists who studide wolves right here in northern minnesota such as David Mech and Sigaurd olsen and the things Ive seen timber wolves do totally conflicts with what they say. I also totally disagree with their claim to only about 3000 wolves in the state....It dont take an old Indian tracker to figure that one out. Someone is not doing THEIR job!! Drive down the Holstrom spur that runs from effie to togo or the caldwell forest road that runs from highway 6 near effie to highway 1 near northome or the wolf lake trail near balsam and tell me what you see... then ask people way south near hill city or in areas such as floodwood and meadowlands....or even down by mille lacs for that matter. that aint even counting ares up by the canadian border where wolves from canada can cross into minnesota without a passport. If theres only 3000 wolves in minnesota im a one eyed gimp AND I aint wearin an eye patch! All wimpering and whining aside I think we should give our deer some credit.....Like i said Ive been hunting a very large buck and the area hes in is totally Infested with wolf sign and Ive had many wolf sightings in the area... couple that with the significant snowfall we had last winter and yes I was worried the wolves were going to "get him" but this old buck found a way to survive.

[Lee Lane]

I pretty agree with everything you said steve......I know quite a few guys from canada who say we are asking for trouble with our wolf situation. and from what I hear the wolves up there are basically a different ball game.

[thedeadsea]

Lee agree 100% that the 3000 wolf number is way, WAY low. That survey is 12 years old. Things have changed big time.

Back in the 80's there were supposedly 2000 wolves and even seeing a wolf was very rare. We would see wolf tracks a couple times a year and there would only be 1 or 2 sets of tracks together. Now you hear about packs of 6-10 commonly.

I wont get into the math but if you divide the number of wolves by the sq miles they inhabit in MN and then take into account the average "accepted" range of a wolf pack, the number is much, much higher than 3000 wolves. Then if you take into account the average number of deer eaten per wolf each year, the number is pretty staggering.

Steve

[benbosh]

That survey is 12 years old.

Steve

From the article: "Surveys done in 2007-2008 estimate the state's wolf population at about 3,000."

The survey is 2 years old. Not trying to be picky but just clarifying

[thedeadsea]

Thanks. If I remember correctly the number didn't change since the 97 survey. Either way it is a joke.

[jon1719]

Last year i shot a 6 pt right at dark. the next morning i got out of my truck and could hear wolves howling and barkin right by where i shot it. the closer i got the louder it got. soon as i got within a few hundred yards it stopped. then i lost the blood trail. so i just started wandering looking for it. after about an hr of lookin w/ No luck i got back to the trail i shot it at, but about an 1/8 of a mile farther down. i was a lil discouraged so i sat down for a smoke. not 5 min later a Howl let out w/ a few barks and yips. so i started walking towards it "Again", then it stopped again! so i stopped! stood there quiet for a while and HOWWWLLLLLLL!!!!! Bark! bark! They were 100 yds or so away from me! So i started walkin towards and it stopped again. 2 min later i found my buck! Wolf tracks everywhere! Hair Everywhere and they were workin their way into 1 side of hind! So i gutted it, dragged it out with not even a hint of a wolf being near. when i got to the trail i looked to my right and less than a hundred yards away a there was 1 just staring at me. I said,"Hey" to it and it ran off. Later that day i brought the hind quarter that was chewed up back out there for em as a gift for helpin me find my Buck

[Steve Foss]

Last year i shot a 6 pt right at dark. the next morning i got out of my truck and could hear wolves howling and barkin right by where i shot it. the closer i got the louder it got. soon as i got within a few hundred yards it stopped. then i lost the blood trail. so i just started wandering looking for it. after about an hr of lookin w/ No luck i got back to the trail i shot it at, but about an 1/8 of a mile farther down. i was a lil discouraged so i sat down for a smoke. not 5 min later a Howl let out w/ a few barks and yips. so i started walking towards it "Again", then it stopped again! so i stopped! stood there quiet for a while and HOWWWLLLLLLL!!!!! Bark! bark! They were 100 yds or so away from me! So i started walkin towards and it stopped again. 2 min later i found my buck! Wolf tracks everywhere! Hair Everywhere and they were workin their way into 1 side of hind! So i gutted it, dragged it out with not even a hint of a wolf being near. when i got to the trail i looked to my right and less than a hundred yards away a there was 1 just staring at me. I said,"Hey" to it and it ran off. Later that day i brought the hind quarter that was chewed up back out there for em as a gift for helpin me find my Buck

Good story and thoughtful perspective, jon. Welcome to HSO/FM.

[caseymcq]

What work did Sig Olson do with wolves? I am guessing it would be fairly old and if it is research may have been an appropriate assessment at the time. More than likely outdated and wouldn't necessarily be applicable now.

Mech's stuff is usually pretty good (for as much as I know, I am definitely not a wildlife biologist). Mike Nelson, USGS, works with Mech a lot and works out of Ely on wolves / deer. He does a lot of radio colar tracking and has two projects on wolves going right now.

I am sure it stinks for those who have lost pets. My heart goes out to them. Although I haven't lost a pet to wolves I have fairly recently lost a dog well before her time so I can empathize in some respect. I wouldn't want to lose my dog to a wolf and would have no problem defending my dog against one (and wouldn't have a problem with anyone else doing the same).

Keep in mind, USFWS did de-list wolves and was ready to turn management over to the state. That decision was nulified by a judge after a lawsuit was brought up against the de-listing. It wasn't a decision made by a biologist or even based on biology. It was made by a judge at the behest of environmental groups who, IMO, like more laws that encumber natural resource management that they may not agree with.

Even after they are delisted, the Endangered Species Act stipulates that under a state management plan the population will have to be maintained at a sustainable number for five years before there can be any hunting / trapping of wolves. Again, this is not a decision by wildlife biologists with the MN DNR, this is federally mandated by the ESA.

Any natural resource agency isn't going to send biologists out in the woods to count wolves, that's why you won't see them from your deer stand (at least not count to count wolves). It would be extremely time comsuming and costly. Their population estimates are likely compiled form aerial surveys and/or radio colar tracking (Mike Nelson does this type of work utilizing Forest Service Aircraft) with a possiblity of utilizing other methods more efficient than actual counts. Much more cost effective. Not enough personnel and/or money to do more intensive surveys. The latest survey from 2008 estimates the population to be between 2,900 and 3,500 within the 90% confidence interval. 600 is quite a bit of wiggle room. For those of you who believe the population estimes are underestimated, what do you think the numbers are and how are you coming up with that number? I would be interested in hearing what other people are estimating the population at and what they are basing it on. (Not being a wise guy. Initially, I am honestly interested in hearing what other people think and understanding how they are coming to those conclusions. Then once I disagree with them I will ridicule them about their opinion ).

As easily as a wolf can cross into Minnesota from Canada with out a passport they can cross into Canada without a RABC.

P.S. Eyepatches are optional.

[jon1719]

Hey Thanks Steve i'm lovin this site already! LOTS of great info on here!

[upnorth]

As far as the de-listing process goes there will always be an argument against it. And the woo hoo we will get to shoot wolves again sentiment is some pretty good fuel to get them re-listed or keep them on the endangered list.

I too feel bad, very bad for anyone who has lost a pet to a wolf. I actually know a woman whose dog was attacked by wolves and she managed to scare them away, pretty brave act if you ask me. The dog escaped with some fairly minor injuries.

Wolves are part of the balance of nature up here. How many we need to maintain balance is not in my realm of expertise. I do tend to think the populations in some areas have grown, and in some case we have people moving to areas where there has not been people before and that may move wolves to other areas and make it seem like there are a lot more wolves.

I think if a person moves to get away from people they should expect to see some things that normally don't hang around people. Wolves live out in the wild and if you move to a wild area expect to see wolves or at least sign of wolves. And now with signs of big cats you might run across one of them too.

[bobbymalone]

For those of you who believe the population estimes are underestimated, what do you think the numbers are and how are you coming up with that number?

[Steve Foss]

Wolves excite us. It's hard to stay balanced when the subject comes up. I moved up here going on 7 years ago to be near wolves. That being said, there are always going to be problems when people move into wolf country or wolves repopulate their former range and move back into what has become people country.

I'll also take the biologists' estimates before I'll pay much attention to the armchair crowd. We've got an estimate with a 90 percent confidence level that there are 2,900 to 3,600 wolves in the state. Fine, I'll buy that.

People who say "there are a LOT more wolves where I hunt now than there used to be" and use that as "evidence" that the statewide wolf population is much bigger than biologists believe are taking one small bit of geographic information and extrapolating it far beyond its value.

Wolves move around. Always have, always will. A place that seems "full of wolves" the last couple of seasons may feel empty of wolves in the next few years, and are those same people going to use that anecdotal information to say "boy, the state's wolf population sure seems lower than the biologists estimate." Of course they won't say that, because in most cases the people making the argument that the wolf population is underestimated are people who want a trapping/hunting season on wolves and see a high population and increased contact with people/pets as a way to justify their desires.

Now, I do believe the state should be allowed to manage wolves, and if that involves a hunting/trapping season, so be it. Fine with me.

My main point here is that human beings tend to look for (or make up) logical reasons to justify their own beliefs/desires instead of using the best available information to influence their position on an issue, and accounts of state wolf overpopulation, IMHO, almost always fit squarely into that category.

[MrBialke]

I lived at a resort I was staying a in Cass Lake. There are wild dogs (rez dogs) there that are some of the nastiest most vicious animals you can encounter in the wild. No anxiety around people just viciousness. I was never unlucky enough to meet them in the woods but I saw them while I was driving fairly slow down the gravel road the resort is located on. There was a dirty white FemaleDog pit mix as well as a few others, I think three dogs in total. She just sat there and snarled at me with her front legs on the road and her back legs just off of it. As I drove by she made to lunge at my car, not like a house dog but more like I am going to eat you. I told a few people my story and had been told from more than one local that apparently back in the early 90's or late 80's there were several people killed by wild dogs. The authorities told everyone to chain up their dogs or put them inside, every dog that was seen outside during the alotted time was shot. I did a few google searches so I might post a link to a news report along with my story. However, I was unable to find any stories. I suppose that they were published before articles were also printed on the internet so I guess that I can.t really verify my story...

[thedeadsea]

I'm between meetings and dont have time to re-look up the statistics. But here is my formula.

Here's how I figure there are more wolves than 2900-3600 in MN. I did this once at home and don't recall my actual number but it was MUCH higher than 3000.

First determine the average accepted size of a wolf pack in MN (Figure A).

Then determine the average accepted range of each wolf pack (in square miles) (Figure

Then determine the TOTAL square miles that wolves inhabit in MN (Figure C).

If we determine that Figure B divided by Figure A equals the density of wolves per square mile (Figure D). Multiply Figure C by Figure D and you have a more realistic number of wolves, more like 4500-6000.

Then, if you figure that each wolf eats roughly one deer per week, consider that even 3600 wolves eat 180,000 deer in the portion of the state they occupy. Compare that against the number of deer shot statewide and it is pretty apparent why there are so few deer up here recently.

I can respect the opinions of those of you who simply accept the status quo.

But I ask you this:

These numbers were put together by a government agency who DOES NOT CARE about an animal that they have no control over (being that Wolves are currently federally protected). So being they have limited resources, WHY would they take the time to actually do a detailed study of how many wolves there are in the state. Regardless of their finding, they have nothing to lose/gain. It is nothing more than a business decision (spend $ where you have a chance to make $$$). If they state a higher number, the anti's compain. If they state a lower number, hunters complain. Simply put, THEY DONT CARE because they have nothing to gain by doing a more conclusive study. Furthermore, a higher number would cause a push for delisting, which would cause the Anti's to bring on more lawsuits. It all boils down to $$ and politics.

Steve

[Xplorer]

tds,

In your equation you are using, it assumes that every square mile of wolf "range" is used by a pack. This is not correct, and gives you a much inflated estimate.

You would need to account for all the unoccupied acreage between pack territories, which I think is near impossible to extract.

A pack's territory changes based on the prey biomass available. I believe that the last DNR estimate said that the occupied wolf range had shrunk in total, because the pack's needed less acreage due to high deer numbers. So that even tho the # of wolves had gone up, the net range had either shrunk or stayed about the same.

[Steve Foss]

Steve, I can think of reasons your numbers may be high just based on the methodology you describe. Primarily the fault lies with using the straight figure from table C. I need to see that table, but I'd bet it lists the square miles of geographic wolf range in Minnesota, which is larger than the actual square mile figure of the lands wolves inhabit.

Within that geographic range there are many, many square miles that aren't suitable wolf habitat and are inaccessible to or avoided by wolves. First, subtract all lake and river acreage, then subtract the square mileage of cities, as well as certain types of expansive bog/swamp environments, etc., and the area actually inhabited by wolves starts to shrink.

So using that total square mileage of geographical wolf range as a multiplicand will inflate the population estimate.

Now, if that figure from table C is not the totality of the geographic range but an estimate of the actual square mileage of the areas within that range that wolves inhabit, then your math becomes more credible.

Well, some of your math.

In Minnesota, each wolf takes the equivalent of 18 to 20 adult sized deer per year on average.

First, I don't buy the assumption that the DNR doesn't care about accurately gauging the wolf population because they don't have management responsibility. The assumption was that they would inherit that responsibility once the wolf was de-listed, and they would want their numbers to be as precise as possible. As for the quotation from the DNR's Web site listed above, even if I'd grant your contention that the DNR isn't interested in nailing down wolf numbers, they of course are VERY interested in deer numbers and predation by wolves on that deer herd, so perhaps you'll be more likely to accept a number they show from that arena. You can say they have the number wrong if you like, but it's hard to say they are not interested in deer.

That figure is less than half your guess of one deer per week per wolf.

Also, a note on your reference to the status quo. Sometimes the status quo is actually right.

[Steve Foss]

Chris, looks like we were making the same point at the same time!

[thedeadsea]

Steve F, I cant quote them off hand but other figures for deer eaten by wolves were much higher than that. Again that is the DNR number. I don't have much faith in them. Think about how much meat a 120# dog would eat if they traveled 5-20 miles per day and slept in the cold.

I know you guys are going to try and shoot holes in my math but that is using averages. If you assume 2-4 wolves per pack. But we know that sometimes a lone wolf works a smaller area and also some areas have 12+ wolves in a pack. I have talked to many people in geographically distant areas that have had run-ins with mega packs.

Also show me an area in Northern MN where wolves DONT inhabit (especially NE MN where about 80% of the state's wolves live) . Not buying into that. Not for a second.

Also my equation doesnt include the fact that multiple wolf packs do overlap their boundary lines.

Steve

[bobbymalone]

Here's how I figure there are more wolves than 2900-3600 in MN. I did this once at home and don't recall my actual number but it was MUCH higher than 3000.

First determine the average accepted size of a wolf pack in MN (Figure A).

Then determine the average accepted range of each wolf pack (in square miles) (Figure

Then determine the TOTAL square miles that wolves inhabit in MN (Figure C).

If we determine that Figure B divided by Figure A equals the density of wolves per square mile (Figure D). Multiply Figure C by Figure D and you have a more realistic number of wolves, more like 4500-6000.

There are so many things wrong with your armchair science that it isn't worth starting to pick it apart.

[Xplorer]

Steve/tds,

If you read the last survey info done for the 07/08 winter period, the report states that the estimated wolf range was increased by 37% to account for the unoccupied areas between packs. I live in the "wolf range" also, but the closest pack is west of me and in all my rambling around SW of cloquet I have not crossed a wolf track. I know they're around, but not every square mile has wolves on it.

If you havn't, I'd suggest at least giving the latest survey report a read (its on the DNR site). Check out the math/methods they used in getting to their estimate.

[thedeadsea]

You guys are sure putting a lot of faith into the DNR.

But then it's funny that everyone and their brother are totally peeved at the Wisconsin DNR for their deer herd estimations. Is our DNR that much better? Is it because wolves have a little more mystique than a regular ol' boring whitetails. Or because wolves only affect some of us? They say there are way more deer than there are, our DNR says there are way less wolves than there are. IMO sort of the same thing in reverse.

[bobbymalone]

You guys are sure putting a lot of faith into the DNR.

I'd put more faith in the DNR than in some kid with a calculator.

[thedeadsea]

Bobby, be my guest. I would like to hear what you think. Its easy to say someone is wrong but you have no real support of your opinion.

Steve

[JeffB]

Now thats funny.

[thedeadsea]

I'd put more faith in the DNR than in some kid with a calculator.

Isn't this a discussion on wolves, on a forum where all opinions are welcome?? State your opinions/facts on the issue rather than trying to dismiss my credibility. I dont agree with some of you but I do respect your opinions.

Steve

P.S. this kid has spent the last 30 years in the woods of Northern MN.

[Xplorer]

You guys are sure putting a lot of faith into the DNR.

But then it's funny that everyone and their brother are totally peeved at the Wisconsin DNR for their deer herd estimations. Is our DNR that much better? Is it because wolves have a little more mystique than a regular ol' boring whitetails. Or because wolves only affect some of us? They say there are way more deer than there are' date=' our DNR says there are way less wolves than there are. IMO sort of the same thing in reverse.

[thedeadsea]

XP, I don't bother on the WI forums. Hardly have time to keep up on this forum. I do have several friends who hunt in wolf AND non-wolf areas in WI and they unanimously agree that this was the worst year of deer hunting they have ever had. Wolves and a harsh winter contributed in some areas but as a whole it was the huge harvest in previous years that caused the herd to drop so dramatically.

I'm not claiming conspiracy in this instance among the agencies. Simply a lack of interest/care and an incomplete survey with a small sample. Just because an agency "cooperated" doesnt mean anything. If an author called me and asked me one question and then cited me in their book, I "cooperated". That doesnt mean I was intimately involved in the project. Same goes for this. How many different agencies were physically present when the survey was completed?

I have drawn my conclusions from hundreds of conversations with people (whom I deem credible) from all over northern MN. Whether they liked wolves or not, they all agreed there are a lot of thm.

I have a simple solution: Give us a wolf season. If you like wolves, buy a license and dont use it. If you dont like wolves, buy a license and fill it.

Steve

[bobbymalone]

Here are a couple possible problems with your model.

Averages. Is that the best statistic to use for wolf pack size in your calculations? What was the standard deviation of wolf pack size in your calculation? Why not the median number of wolves per pack? Did you use the geometric mean or the arithmetric mean? Same thing for the range. The DNR (should you chose to believe) says a wolf pack range can be from 40 to 120 square miles. Is the average of these two numbers (80 sq miles) accurate? Does wolf pack range follow a normal distribution?

Does thirty years mopping floors in a hospital make you anymore a heart surgery expert than 30 years in the northwoods make you a wolf expert? Even if you had hundreds of conversations with other hospital employees?

Didn't think so. I don't have to dismiss your credibility. You have none. Your just an armchair biologist with a chip on his shoulder because A) you want to shoot wolves or you think deer hunting sucks because there are too many wolves.

As for me, I don't know, nor do I care. I am not a wolf expert, nor do I claim to be. I am not gonna break out my calculator and spend 15 minutes coming up with an elementary formula to estimate wolf population and think it is a more "realistic" estimate because I talked to people up north.