Wolves vs. hunter in Star Trib

[BRULEDRIFTER]

I think there's about 4,453...... because I said so!

[thedeadsea]

Brule, Agree!!!!

FACT: The state says that the arrowhead region of MN holds 80-85% of the total count. I agree with that. Everyone you talk to from Grand Rapids/Deer River up to Bigfork to I'Falls over to Grand Portage down to Duluth and everywhere in between says there are wolves everywhere and big packs of them are sighted often. That's why I have so much trouble believing that there are only 2000-2500 in that area. Thats a lot of square miles.

I know several people who have seen packs of 8-12 wolves. You can't tell me if I make a couple of calls and come up with 300 wolf distinctive sightings that I have personally accounted for 10% of the wolf population of the entire state.

Then they say there are about 500 wolves for the entire rest of the state (of the area that wolves inhabit). Seems low but I don't have the knowledge to dispute it.

Steve

[delcecchi]

I would think that "one deer per week per wolf" is on the high side, given that they eat other things besides deer.

[bobbymalone]

Always the moderator, Foss-Man.

I think 2900-3600 wolves in MN is a fair estimate because that is the only number that has been given by legitimate wolf biologists who have compiled years of scientific data and relied on years of experience with wolf biology to come up with that number. Of course this is based on my assumption and some level of trust that the DNR study is subjected to the level of scrutiny that is held by other biologists doing population estimates.

Is their number correct? I don't know, but there is evidence to support this number, it is not just the DNR says so.

[delcecchi]

With a couple minutes of searching I found this document with a population survey for 2008.

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fish_wildlife/wildlife/wolves/2008_survey.pdf

He used a similar method to steve's only with more data. A quote

"Dividing estimated occupied range (71,514 km2) by average territory size (~104 km2 X 1.37 ≈ 142 km2) gives an estimate of 503 wolf packs in Minnesota, 4% more than 2003-04 and 26% more than in 1997-98. Multiplying by average pack size (~4.9) and accounting for an estimated 15% lone wolves provides a population point estimate of 2,921 wolves, or 4.1 wolves per 100 km2 of occupied range. The 90% confidence interval ranges from 2,192 wolves to 3,525 wolves."

Those interested really ought to read the report. It also discusses deer density relative to wolf packs.

[Steve Foss]

He used a similar method to steve's only with more data.

More data = generally more precise math.

Thanks for posting the link in here, del. I agree that everyone interested in wolves and in expressing their opinions on wolves should read and weigh it, even if they end up disagreeing with it.

[thedeadsea]

You are totally and completely discounting the law of averages. Is that not how mathematicians determine population counts?? Let me guess, it works for people but not for wolves?

Insurance actuaries determine how many claims per 100,000 will occur within a given set. They are usually very, very accurate.

Look at the population of any species. Some areas will have a high density and others will have a lower one. But if you add it all up and then divide by the number of square miles, you have AVERAGE density. This cannot be disputed. No fundamental problems here.

Some areas of NE MN don't have as many wolves as others. Areas with more feed, better shelter, and fewer people are going to have more wolves. Areas with more rugged terrain are going to hold more wolves because there are more places for them to hide from their predators and prey, travel out of sight, and dig dens. I know that as a fact from being out in the woods. You dont learn that in the science lab.

If you measure the average density of wolves in semi-agricultural/broken woods like Cherry or Toivola there will almost definietly be a lower density than heavily wooded areas like Orr, Greany, Togo, or Brimson. Then look at the entire BWCA which has huge areas that see little human presence other than the thin corridor along the more heavily travelled lakes. But average it out and you will get a reasonable population number.

[Steve Foss]

Jus' watchin' the show.

[thedeadsea]

He used a similar method to steve's only with more data.

Gee Bobby, guess I wasn't dead wrong after all. Those were the numbers I was originally disputing.

Steve

[delcecchi]

And on the DNR page

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/wolves/mgmt.html

there is a link to an article in the Minnesota Deer Hunter Association magazine by a guy who has done 15 years deer study in Grand Rapids area including interaction with wolves.

Article is titled "Do Wolf Tracks and Few Deer In Your Fall Hunting Area Mean What You Think They Mean?"

I found it very interesting. I hope these references are of interest to the group as well.

[thedeadsea]

Del,

Thanks for posting those. I had read the highlights in several different publications/articles but not the whole thing. Very good read but several assumptions he noted in there further support my opinion that they are underestimating the number of wolves in the state.

Steve

[bobbymalone]

When a population is distributed symmetrically you should use the mean, if it is skewed, you should use the median in your calculations. Never said you were wrong, just wondering why you chose the mean. If you want to get into a pi$$ing match about statistics I am game.

I would question the DNR wolf people the same way.

I don't see where you guys are getting that the DNR study incorporated more data. They used different numbers.

Pack size = 4.9 wolves

average range = 54 sq mi

total wolf country 34000 sq mi

Plug it into thedeadsea's equation and you get 3094. Where did your numbers come from? Which are you disputing?

[caseymcq]

... These numbers were put together by a government agency who DOES NOT CARE...

[thedeadsea]

You asked, here it is.

The official survey that gives a count of 3000 wolves also discounts for the following:

He has discounted the total square mileage of wolf territory because areas where wolves were not witnessed during the survey were considered to not hold any wolves. He discounts for the amount of lone wolves which reduces the total count. Anyone who knows wolves know that lone wolves have a VERY small range that is much lower than the average density for a pack. The survey was completed in the winter which totally discounts for that years unborn pups which underestimates the actual population for that calendar year. Also the population is increasing annually, which means that there are more pups being born every year and the survival rate of pups to adulthood is apparently good. He also notes that wolf pack ranges are decreasing which further indicates that the wolf population is growing. Readjust any (or all) of the figures in his or my formula and you have IMO a more realistic figure.

Steve

[BRULEDRIFTER]

I'm going to hang back and enjoy the show as well. I've said my peace, and after what Casey posted, well, you just can't top that! Well put!

[caseymcq]

The population increase for wolves in Minnesota is estimated at 4% per year. Canine parvovirus(CPV) apparently has a bit of an impact on the survival rate of pups, notably in Minnesota. I can't remember if it was last year or the year before it seemed like there had been a number of pups found that had died from CPV.

[thedeadsea]

Casey, hope the boat has worked out well for you! I know we can both state our points without bashing the other and still walk away as friends. I always enjoy your opinions even if they dont agree with mine. (But clearly some on here have to attack one's personal merit rather than stating anything of real value).

I said it about 6 pages back that I have no beef with the actual biologists. Through the course of my work I have met one of the people mentioned in one of the studies (have to keep it vague due to privacy laws) and thought that individual was VERY knowledgeable. I have stated my opinions on both the thoroughness of the study as well as some of the assumptions which lead to their conservative estimate of the population. I think they are wrong and I have stated why multiple times during this very lengthy thread and have cited many examples. At this point that is a pretty dead horse, although I'm sure Bobby will continue to beat on it for a while.

Steve

[BRULEDRIFTER]

Brule, ...... Regarding the WI story, the dogs were killed in front of peoples eyes. Pretty hard to dispute that.

I just realized I overlooked this earlier....

I don't doubt in the least that the dog was killed by wolves. It's horrible, I feel bad for the family.

What I don't believe is the DNR biologists/trappers, whoever, that came out and flat out denied the fact that it was a wolf and that there are no wolves in that area. That is the part I feel is absolute bullhooey!There is no way! I mean, that could cost them their jobs to say that.

If it did happen, well, those that said that should probably have a good talkin' to because it was ill-advised and definitely the WRONG thing to say!

Back to my popcorn......

[thedeadsea]

What I don't believe is the DNR biologists/trappers, whoever, that came out and flat out denied the fact that it was a wolf and that there are no wolves in that area. That is the part I feel is absolute bullhooey!There is no way! I mean, that could cost them their jobs to say that.

If it did happen, well, those that said that should probably have a good talkin' to because it was ill-advised and definitely the WRONG thing to say!

Not alot of recourse these days for a bureaucrat who makes an untrue statement. (But that's a whole separate discussion!!)

[Steve Foss]

Steve, BTW, I just noticed your new avatar. Nice coyote! And a really BIG one, at that!

[BRULEDRIFTER]

Not alot of recourse these days for a bureaucrat who makes an untrue statement. (But that's a whole separate discussion!!)

So it was an actual politician that came to the house?

This is what I was talking about earlier..... separation! Pretty sure the biologists that claimed to have said this wouldn't lie about it. Like I said, it could cost them their jobs. Plus by verifying a wolf in the area, could maybe give them some job security????

This is one of those comments/rumors that those that loath the DNR agency as a whole tend to spread... I've herd a'plenty!

[thedeadsea]

Steve, That old coyote is 7'6" from nose to tail. He was the leader of a pack of 7; 5 black and 2 grey in the mountains of B.C. He and 4 of his compadres got free airfare back to MN when they made the mistake of getting a little too close to my dad's group of elk hunters who happened to have wolf tags.

Brule, wasnt an elected official that made that call but as far as I'm concerned anyone with a gov't job that isn't held responsible for their actions is a bureaucrat. In my travels I have dealt with others such as department heads who were absolutely worthless. Not trying to broadbrush here as there are many good people who work for the gov't also.

Steve

[Steve Foss]

I know bud. I remember the story. And a good story it is indeed. You know I'm just ribbin ya.

Brule, FWIW, lots and lots of good ole boys consider any gubmint worker a bureaucrat. You don't have to be elected to be part of the bureaucracy -- or to be captured by it. The distinctions you are making are not shared by all. Well, I'm sure you know that.

[delcecchi]

As a wise man once said "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They are not entitled to their own facts"

So I thought I would inject something with some facts into the argument.

I didn't see anything in the 2008 population estimate that I considered unreasonable. I thought remembering to subtract the area of the lakes before dividing by territory size was a good point. :-)

[Steve Foss]

I thought remembering to subtract the area of the lakes before dividing by territory size was a good point. :-)

Exactly!

[Duffman]

Coyote?? Looks more like my folks stuffed and mounted the lead dog on our old sled team. Meh, one mans trophy is another mans Chinese dinner.

The popcorn has been most enjoyable, please keep it coming.

[upnorth]

Good lord that was interesting. I am not why anyone would think the DNR would want to under estimate the size of the wolf population, especially since MN would like to get wolves de listed. But then....

[bobbymalone]

Where I start to take issue is when it begins to sound like a "I am right, they are wrong" song and dance with no merrit (science) to their argument. It gets a little more annoying when a person becomes a blow-hard on an internet sight. I would definitely NOT lump you into the blow-hard category Steve(thedeadsea). Your discussion on the topic has been respectful, IMO (not that my opinion is worth any more than the lint in my belly button) and yours has been a discussion and not what I had just made reference to.

I'll stand by my words in regards to what's science and what isn't. I am more than qualified to make that distinction, and if it makes me a blowhard then so be it. I have been called worse.

[Xplorer]

Wow, leave work and take a kid to his cub scout meeting and see what happens

The source that del has been quoting is the same piece i was. Is it the be-all end-all of surveys.....no. But it is about the only thing in this thread that is documented. This survey was done in essentially the same way as the 03-04 and 98-99 surveys were.

Using my simple math, there are @34000 square miles of wolf territory in MN. Just for 2 views, lets use DNR data and International Wolf Center data.

DNR indicates that average pack territory size is 40 square miles and average pack size is 4.9 in its study. If every square mile of the total territory was occupied by an average wolf pack, that would equate to 4165 wolves. There, I just proved the DNR is wrong, way low.

Using IWC info, pack territory in MN is between 30-150 square miles. Using a lower end figure of 60 square miles on average territory for their data, would equate to 2833 wolves at an average pack size of 5.0 Now I just proved the DNR number to be wrong again, but on the high side.

As for my wolf pedigree, for the record I have had 2 wolves stalk my dog in the Canosia wildlife area before i scared them off onto the ice grouse hunting, I have lived in wolf country for 18 years, seen more tracks than i can recall, been as close as 60' from one, and my last sighting was the friday before deer opener just north of cusson on hwy 53

I dont put 100% faith in the DNR's @3000 number, could be 2000 or 4000. But I havnt been able to find anything factual to top their data/estimate to date. Done on subject, LOL

[Steve Foss]

Originally Posted By: caseymcq

Where I start to take issue is when it begins to sound like a "I am right, they are wrong" song and dance with no merrit (science) to their argument. It gets a little more annoying when a person becomes a blow-hard on an internet sight. I would definitely NOT lump you into the blow-hard category Steve(thedeadsea). Your discussion on the topic has been respectful, IMO (not that my opinion is worth any more than the lint in my belly button) and yours has been a discussion and not what I had just made reference to.

I'll stand by my words in regards to what's science and what isn't. I am more than qualified to make that distinction, and if it makes me a blowhard then so be it. I have been called worse.

Careful you don't come running when no one has called your name.