Wolves vs. hunter in Star Trib

[bobbymalone]

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.

AHHHH. See! That's all I wanted somebody with legitimate numbers rather than snowmobile counts.

Ooooo, Foss-Man with the dig... and you are usually the guy that just wants everybody to play nice.

BTW Foss-Man that avatar picture would have turned out better if you changed the F stop to 3.9 and the shutter speed to 1/250

[Steve Foss]

Ooooo, Foss-Man with the dig... and you are usually the guy that just wants everybody to play nice.

I don't always play nice.

Sometimes I just like to play ball. Any of my ex wives will tell you that.

BTW, how would those camera settings have made my avatar a better avatar?

It's just fun that we're having fun now. Any Internet expert can be as serious as a case of cancer, but it's a very cool thing to take us all with a grain (or a packet) of salt. No one who has only "met" any of us online knows us at all. The virtual world ain't the real world, and there are virtual experts and tough guys everywhere we look online these days.

What I really think is that it would be cool for the folks who have contributed something to this thread to sit down and have a few beers together and actually LISTEN to what the others have to say. It would be . . . um . . . educational.

[Casey Sunsdahl]

Insert internet tough guy picture HERE....

any one have that one?

[Casey Sunsdahl]

I love it..

[Steve Foss]

I love that picture, Casey. It's a classic! I was going to trot it out but people have been taking themselves so seriously in this thread that I didn't know if someone would be set off in thinking it was aimed at them.

[Casey Sunsdahl]

It just needs to be posted from time to time..

[bobbymalone]

BTW, how would those camera settings have made my avatar a better avatar?

You get my point? Admittedly, I know jack about cameras other than I have one and I have ran into them out in the wild.

There are about three things on this planet that chap my butt. Two of them I won't mention and the third is when folks think that because everyone is entitled to an opinion theirs has equal pull as people that have devoted their lives or years of study to said subject. That goes for science, auto-repair, rocket surgery, or... photography.

If you guys want to think I am a blowhard and I don't respect other peoples opinion today, wait until somebody starts posting about my actual field of study

[Steve Foss]

Originally Posted By: Steve Foss

BTW, how would those camera settings have made my avatar a better avatar?

You get my point? Admittedly, I know jack about cameras other than I have one and I have ran into them out in the wild.

There are about three things on this planet that chap my butt. Two of them I won't mention and the third is when folks think that because everyone is entitled to an opinion theirs has equal pull as people that have devoted their lives or years of study to said subject.

If you guys want to think I am a blowhard and I don't respect other peoples opinion today, wait until somebody starts posting about my actual field of study

Yes, bm, I got the subtleties. And when it comes to the validity of expert analysis vs armchair/snowmobile analysis, I'm firmly in your corner. But let it go, dude. It's just the Internet, after all. What does it matter? Is a moot argument about wolf populations going to transform anyone's life?

[bobbymalone]

Your making the assumption that this is something that is really getting to me. I've got real life for that. This is just for fun and good a way to vent frustration without getting fired.

[Steve Foss]

There are about three things on this planet that chap my butt. Two of them I won't mention and the third is when folks think that because everyone is entitled to an opinion theirs has equal pull as people that have devoted their lives or years of study to said subject.

[bobbymalone]

internet chapping my butt doesnt even show up as a blip on the real life chapping my butt radar. well maybe a little, but not much.

nobody on this board is even real as far as i am concerned.

[Steve Foss]

nobody on this board is even real as far as i am concerned.

Then you've been talking to yourself all this time. Man, why bother?

[bobbymalone]

No I have been talking to bots and other AI entities.

It's a way to pass time.

[caseymcq]

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.

I was NOT referring to you either. It would be a short list that you are not on. Of course it really doesn't matter becasue that distinction is my opinion and as I have said before my opinion is essentially no more valuable than the lint in my belly button. But if you have a T-shirt that says so you can be

[upnorth]

I love that picture, Casey. It's a classic! I was going to trot it out but people have been taking themselves so seriously in this thread that I didn't know if someone would be set off in thinking it was aimed at them.

If the shoe fits.....

[delcecchi]

"posting about my actual field of study". What a coincidence. I could do that if you you would like. but this probably isn't the place. Steve would really get mad if I started posting maxwell's equations and stuff. :-) Besides those greek characters are hard.

[thedeadsea]

internet chapping my butt doesnt even show up as a blip on the real life chapping my butt radar. well maybe a little, but not much.

You sure get worked up about something that isnt even a blip. You continued to argue with others even after I left the conversation so apparently you just want to argue.

Some of you guys are quick to dismiss me. I'll admit I could be way off. But then again the survey could be way off in EITHER direction. They estimate there are between 2100-3500 wolves. Thats a lot of margin of error. Maybe there are only 1500 wolves in the state????? I again question why you put blind faith into the goverment when they clearly have been proven wrong SO many times in the past on wildlife counts (deer, ducks, cougars, and so forth). As previously mentioned, I don't broad brush the gov't but in this case numbers are being determined by small amounts of incomplete data.

Regarding armchair speculation; It is interesting that I can be dismissed as knowing nothing simply because I don't have a wildlife biology degree. I ask you this; before universities were invented, people learned their trade through apprentice programs i.e time in the field. I have put my time in the field, and personally know a lot of other people who have also; CO's, loggers, foresters, biologists, and others who spend lots of time in the woods. I have only formed my opinion AFTER gathering my own data from these sources and others. So while I can't tell you the biological makeup of wolves, I can tell you there are a lot of them, and reading the study in it's entirety further supports my claims that it is incomplete and not thorough. If there is any armchair speculating going on here, it is from the guys who live out of wolf range telling me I am dead wrong. People's lives shape their opinion, and I respect those, even if they don't agree with mine. I'm sure if I grew up in an area with a light wolf popluation or no wolves at all, I would be a little more sypathetic towards them. But I certainly wouldn't be shoving some survey down the throat of a guy who disagrees with me.

It is apparent that some of you (who have not met me in person) have dismissed me as a backwoods Jack who is stuck in my ways about this sort of thing. I'm not a redneck with an 8th grade education who lives in a tarpaper shack and only bathes on leap years. I'm a college educated individual with a math/business background. I grew up in NE MN but haven't spent my entire adult life up here so I may just be a little more well rounded than some of you give me credit for. I have seen so many of these "experts" proven wrong again and again, so I have learned it is good to do your own research and be prepared that the real number may be well out of the accepted range.

And finally, science proves itself wrong virtually every day with new findings that re-write the textbooks. If it didn't we wouldn't need scientists anymore. So while you are betting your life that this study is right, if a new one came out tomorrow with different numbers, you would all blindly accept the new one.

This debate has been time consuming, but for the most part fun. Again, thank you to those who have contibuted something of value on either side.

Carry on....

[thedeadsea]

Originally Posted By: bobbymalone

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.

Now that is funny. Some good Foss humor! Keeping FM not only informational, but also entertaining.

[Silver Scale]

[Casey Sunsdahl]

Another classic.. thanks JR

[Duffman]

nobody on this board is even real as far as i am concerned.

Oh, I'm for real.......

Seriously, I do have to say one thing, this has been very tame and respectable for a "Wolf Thread".

[leech~~]

Originally Posted By: bobbymalone

nobody on this board is even real as far as i am concerned.

Oh, I'm for real.......

Seriously, I do have to say one thing, this has been very tame and respectable for a "Wolf Thread".

I'll have to say! I just said I heard and seen Wolf tracks in my Deer area on a few earlier threads and got my head bit off!

[thedeadsea]

I'll have to say! I just said I heard and seen Wolf tracks in my Deer area on a few earlier threads and got my head bit off!

How many times have I told you. THOSE WERE COYOTES!!!!

[caseymcq]

... I have put my time in the field, and personally know a lot of other people who have also; CO's, loggers, foresters, biologists, and others who spend lots of time in the woods. ...

That recent study used that type of data also. There were surveys sent out to various natural resource management agencies (county, state, federal) and there were efforts to gather information from those involved in private resource management (timber companies).

I feel comfortable with the estimate because while I understand there may have been some considerations made that would under estimate there were also some that could have lead to an over estimation. The one that really stands out for me was the method used to estimate road densities. The data used was from the DNR 1:24,000 road cover (GIS data). It is my understanding that the data in that particular cover wouldn't account for roads constructed for private developments, roads that were not managed as permanent roads (temporary roads used for resource management which may have an influence for up to 10 years) or some township roads. Those roads would have an influence on the wolves's territory if they are utilized year round.

My two cents, which may actually be worth less than that

[leech~~]

Originally Posted By: leech~~

I'll have to say! I just said I heard and seen Wolf tracks in my Deer area on a few earlier threads and got my head bit off!

How many times have I told you. THOSE WERE COYOTES!!!!

Like the very rare black Coyote one in your Avatar!!

[thedeadsea]

Casey,

You are correct, there are several equations inside the equation that I agree with. Lakes should definitely be discounted, as should developed areas, roads, etc. It is not the equation that I am disputing, it is some of the inputs as well as some of the other discount methods inside that give it an artificially low total count.

It would be interesting to research this further. He notes that areas that they determined to not have wolves present were removed from the total range. How many sq miles of wolf-free area were there within the overall range of wolves in MN?? Perhaps I should email Mr. Erb for some additional information.

Leech, that coyote will dwarf a 100# dog in height, length, and body circumference.

Steve

[life=outdoors92]

its funny how the state shoots so many deer the past 2, 3 years (not including this year) and no one seemed to complain publically about the wolves. no one around my place did at all. but after this year they did.... listen up:

its a proven fact that wolves have no intention of killing younger deer. some people don't seem to believe study after study that proves the average deer age a human shoots is around 4.5, to 5 yrs old and that the average wolf kill is 8 yrs old!there was a 20 year study just completed in minnesota that proves this point, and another well known study in alaska bout 50 years ago that took over 10 years to complete, that once again said wolves aren't the problem for the loss of animals. wolves do not have energy to take down a healthy adult doe or healthy fawn. and if they do, the animal was sick and was hurting your heard where you hunt.if you have a snowy cold winter like this past year, deer are going to die! deer can't survive in deep snow and frigid temperature because of the extreme shortage of food. so stop blaiming wolves for everything!

wolves aren't the only thing taking down deer either. a healthy bobcat is excellent at taking down a deer in the deep snow because its weight distribution on its feet make it good for walking on snow. Bobcats can sit on the branches of trees, and wait for that helpless deer to walk by so it can jump on its back on slice its neck up. you would be surprised to actually how many deer are killed this way.

and of course a wolf is going to be aggressive towards some free food! they are stressed enough as it is at this moment because the hare population is not as high. they are going to take what they can, just like any animal.

as hunters, we are entitled to take deer for food and sport. but we have a hard time distinguishing what is the problem with deer populations.

[thedeadsea]

Several good points....

Personally the wolf kills I have found are almost always smaller deer (verified by finding the head and/or a hoof). But I'm just one guy....

I always considered old bucks (run down by the fall rut), fawns, and fawn laden does (later in the winter) to be the prime targets of wolves. A healthy 1.5-3.5 yr old buck is a pretty formidable, strong animal. Wolves are obviously equal opportunity carnivores though and will eat anything they can catch. On that point, it is virtually impossible to determine the age of a doe because they dont have antlers and the presence/absence of white on their face is actually determined by genetics. Are wolf killed does the older ones of the herd, or were they simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I usually see a 5:1 to 6:1 ratio of does to bucks during rifle season. This year it was an even 1:1 ratio with lots of 1.5 yr old bucks in that number. May have been even more bucks than does but it is pretty hard to judge fawns at more than 50 or so yards.

[delcecchi]

The article from the Minnesota Deer hunters magazine that is linked from the dnr page discusses this as well. Basically a wolf can't catch a healthy deer, so they make a jump at one and if it takes off the wolf quits after like 100 yards. If the deer is old and slow like me then it is toast.

[Steve Foss]

Good points indeed life=outdoors. The studies, however, are not absolute, and as tds mentioned, wolves will kill whatever they can catch. The studies indicate that, most often, wolf kills are made of of the age classes you describe.