Wolves vs. hunter in Star Trib

[thedeadsea]

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.

Except when a hungry pack of wolves really, really needs to eat. A pack can trot at the same steady gait for days. While a healthy deer can easily outsprint the fastest wolf, they don't always do so well when the wolves turn it into a tag-team marathon. They take turns keeping pressure on the deer, the others catch up when it is time to make the kill.

Steve

[BRULEDRIFTER]

Deep snow is a HUGE factor to consider as well. Deer are not built to move fast in deep snow, regardless of age or health. I would assume last winter a few "mature, healthy" bucks and does fell victim to the wolf packs.

But, the points are correct. Most of the time a mature, healthy deer will be able to flee a wolf and even a pack if it plays its cards right.

[thedeadsea]

And when the snow gets crusty, the wolves have a huge advantage.

[BRULEDRIFTER]

Yup, then too!

[thedeadsea]

Geez, round 6 of this thread is off to a pretty calm start!

[BRULEDRIFTER]

Well, fine then! You're wrong, I'm right and everyone else is just insane! :-O

[thedeadsea]

I'll substitute my comments with this smiley face.

[life=outdoors92]

"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."

this is somewhat incorrect. a deers age can be closely determined by the shape, size, and quality of teeth. i have seen it done many times. it has been shown in Outdoor News Magazine, and the Minnesota Conservation Volunteer Magazine

[Steve Foss]

"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."

this is somewhat incorrect. a deers age can be closely determined by the shape, size, and quality of teeth. i have seen it done many times. it has been shown in Outdoor News Magazine, and the Minnesota Conservation Volunteer Magazine

Somewhat incorrect is also somewhat correct.

[delcecchi]

How fast can a wolf move in deep snow? Crust, yes. But how much deep crusty snow is there in the north woods in average winter?

[delcecchi]

Originally Posted By: delcecchi

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.

Except when a hungry pack of wolves really, really needs to eat. A pack can trot at the same steady gait for days. While a healthy deer can easily outsprint the fastest wolf, they don't always do so well when the wolves turn it into a tag-team marathon. They take turns keeping pressure on the deer, the others catch up when it is time to make the kill.

Steve

How often does this really happen? Or is it more common that they hang around and make rushes until the deer is a little slow off the line? It would seem to be disadvantageous from an energy balance standpoint to spend hours running down a healthy deer when there are many more deer than wolves. Even in northern minnesota.

[Todd Caswell]

Only nature knows, all I know is there needs to be a balance and as far as I can tell from "WOLF" threads there sees to be an imbalance in almost all areas and thats not good......

I heard a saying a while back " Wolves should be heard not seen"

Seems to be alot of sightings lately ( almost more than Yotes)

and from what I have heard there are alot of ichy fingers out there

[caseymcq]

... I heard a saying a while back " Wolves should be heard not seen" Seems to be alot of sightings lately ( almost more than Yotes) ...

And that saying is based on what? Is it on someone's personal bias against wolves? Or does it give some sort of glancing blow to what the carrying capacity of an area would be for wolves?

I am curious, for those who feel that the wolf population in Minnesota needs to be managed (i.e. hunted / trapped to reduce numbers) now, why is that? What is impact that the current population of wolves is having that it is necessary to manage them? And what would be the desired outcome of managing the wolves?

[thedeadsea]

Personally don't think it will ever happen (Anti's have too much $$ and about 50% of hunters are against wolf hunting). If the wolves are delisted long enough to have a season, the anti's would tie it up in court for years. I'll drive to Manitoba and buy a $250 wolf tag if I want to get one.

Allowing management in areas with high wolf density (NOT the entire range in the state) would bring things back into balance. Restore balance similar to what would be achieved if nature was running its own course. The variable people don't consider is that deer hunters shoot a lot of deer each year. We are competing with the wolves for deer. If there were only wolves, or only hunters there would not be the imbalance there is right now.

Steve

[thedeadsea]

How often does this really happen? Or is it more common that they hang around and make rushes until the deer is a little slow off the line? It would seem to be disadvantageous from an energy balance standpoint to spend hours running down a healthy deer when there are many more deer than wolves. Even in northern minnesota.

I have seen this on many documentaries. The wolves dont have to run, they just trot. The deer waits till they get close then bolts away for a couple hundred yards at full speed and then stops to rest and listen. The wolves follow at the same pace. Eventually the deer is tired out and the pack moves in for the kill. It does take a while.

As far as deep snow, the deer has the advantage. It is on stilts. Watch a big dog try to get through deep powder, it has a heck of a time. The problem with deep snow is that it covers the deer's natural food and then weakens them, making them easier targets for the wolves as the winter progresses. Thats why last winter was so bad for the deer, because we got so much snow in December and they had to fight it for 4 full months.

Steve

[caseymcq]

Maybe I am missing it in your posts, but, what is the imbalance right now?

[thedeadsea]

Maybe I am missing it in your posts, but, what is the imbalance right now?

There are some areas in NE MN where the growing wolf population has literally cleaned out the deer population. Wolves become more agressive and they will eat anything they can get (i.e dogs). A wolf is a shy, secretive animal who doesn't want to grab a dog off someone's doorstep unless it has to. That is a great risk of life and limb that they wouldn't take if there were deer available. A wolf certainly has no qualms about killing a dog it comes across in the woods but IMO won't come into a yard or town unless it has to. EVENTUALLY the population of wolves will thin itself down, but that won't happen until they completely decimate the deer herd in this area. That is unless something widespread like CPV, mange, etc gets them first. There will be many lost pets and livestock between now and then. Hopefully there will not be any human attacks.

Twenty years ago, the *stated* population was roughly half of what it is now. You never heard of the constant contact or problems with wolves. There were still plenty of them out there to make their presence known without eating themselves out of food. Taking a few wolves out of the population wont hurt them one bit. (As I mentioned before I don't ever see this happening.)

Steve

[para1911]

Steve, I agree with ya on how the wolf density has increased over the past few years in the NE corner of the state. I can say that I've personally seen much more wolf activity along with the wolves themselves. I see at least 3 times the wolf kills (deer, moose, exc) than in past yrs. Sightings on roads, in town, and near homes are becoming more frequent with folks who I talk to. One of my good friends walked upon a dead deer while walking out to check his trail cams. He was very suprised to see the half eaten deer but shocked to see that there was 4 wolves within 25 yards of him. They followed him from a distance as he slowly backed out of the area and eventually backed off as he approached his yard. Embarrass.

Maybe they (wolves) just like hanging around me but I doubt it...

I don't go around and count wolves for a living so I can't justify in saying that gvt's wolf counts are wrong but, it's my opinion that they are thriving around my neck of the woods. As a person who despises the disgusting creatures (again, just my opinon) I'd like to see some pouplation reduction or relocation up here. If there was to be a managed wolf hunt I'd be the first one in line for a tag but like you said, this probably will never happen. Perhaps the relocation of 40 or 50 wolf packs relocated 200 miles south will allow those who don't have the pleasure of having a dense pouplation out thier back door to get to know them a little better!

When the deer pouplation drops down to levels where it will not sustain the more dense wolf pouplation they will move on or die. Natures simple economics if you will... Too bad it takes a few years for it to make its cycle huh!?

[caseymcq]

There are some areas in NE MN where the growing wolf population has literally cleaned out the deer population. ... EVENTUALLY the population of wolves will thin itself down, but that won't happen until they completely decimate the deer herd in this area. That is unless something widespread like CPV, mange, etc gets them first.

[upnorth]

So....I have a question. Was there a wolf over population in this area before people moved into it?

[delcecchi]

Probably there was too many wolves for the forage at times, but there weren't many deer either since the north country wasn't really suitable for deer until the Europeans cut down many of the trees.

So, if by "people" you mean all people, including "native americans" or aboriginal people who probably followed the ice sheets north, it is hard to say about the wolf population before people.

I guess what I'm trying to say is you can't talk about "before people" since the land has always had people living on it if it was habitable. But the early europeans weren't exactly conservation minded and produced major changes.

And as we saw in the 60's and 70's there seems to be an equilibrium with no deer and no wolves.

So would you clarify the question?

[Stizo]

Boy this thread has gotten way to long!

FYI, I swear I recently saw a pack of wolves near Crane Lake dragging a old 20" box fan off into the woods! Anybody else see this? or was it just the eggnog I had at Grandmas.

Merry Christmas all and a better new year,

Stizo

[caseymcq]

...

So would you clarify the question?

[delcecchi]

I don't know how you would estimate wolf populations in say the 1600's in Minnesota. I suppose you could compare the densities in Minnesota at the present time to those in Northern Ontario/Manitoba/Alaska where the primary large prey is Moose.

Found this on a web site and thought it was interesting (exerpt)

...Food sources may differ and change depending on the season and geographical area, when large prey animals are scarce wolves will prey on mice, Rabbits and squirrels, these smaller prey do not provide a substantial part of the wolf's diet but supplement it when larger prey are scarce.

Beavers play an important roll as an alternative food source in the summer months, in some areas 60% of the wolf's diet is beaver.

beaver One of the most odd part of the diet of wolves is fish! Biologist Bod Bromley once observed a wolf in Canada's Northwest Territories catch five fish in fifteen minutes in the Talston River.

Wolves will also scavenge, In one study of moose carcasses in Algonquin Park, of 30 moose only 4 were killed by wolves, the rest died of natural causes. .....

So that's why I couln't catch walleye last summer. Wolves ate them. :-)

[Steve Foss]

One of the most odd part of the diet of wolves is fish! Biologist Bod Bromley once observed a wolf in Canada's Northwest Territories catch five fish in fifteen minutes in the Talston River.

So that's why I couln't catch walleye last summer. Wolves ate them.

Now that's good humor right there.

Research on wolf diet has been going on for decades, and their food sources are very well documented. Deer, of course, are the main prey for wolves in many areas, but there are areas like the BWCAW/Quetico (if you go deep enough in) that don't support very many deer in the first place (originally moose and woodland caribou country). So wolves in those areas gotta find other ways to make enough meals to get by.

FWIW, if you come on a deer carcass that has been scavenged or killed by wolves, and that has the larger leg bones intact, snap one off and look at the marrow. If it's pinky-white and creamy it was a healthy deer with lots of fat in the bone marrow. If it's red or yellow and jelly-like the deer was so far gone from starvation that it burned all the fat in the bone marrow, and was almost certainly going to die anyway. Bone marrow fat is one of the last stores of reserve fat to be burned on a mammal.

I've only seen a couple winter wolf/deer kills after I learned this fact. In one case the marrow was white/pink and creamy, so it was a healthy deer. In the other, the marrow was red jelly. It should come as no surprise to any thinking human being that toward the end of the longer colder winters with deeper snow, there are going to be a lot more deer with red jelly marrow than there would be over a mild winter.

I'd also like to echo Casey's point on increased incidences of wolf/human contact. Development (mostly vacation and seasonal homes, but other development as well) has been steady and widespread in north central and north eastern Minnesota over the last 20 years. More people moving into wolf country and some increases as well in the wolf population = more contact. Contact = tension.

Sooner or later someone makes this point in all these wolf threads that start up for one reason or another and seem to go on and on forever for some reason or another. I've made the same point on other wolf threads. Mostly this point just gets ignored by people who don't want to be distracted by other perspectives.

I like how civil this discussion has been lately. Often enough, wolf threads get locked or deleted. Civility is good. Of course, I doubt this thread has changed anyone's mind, but it's fun to talk about these things when you know you're not going to get your face bitten off by some would-be Internet toughguy with sparse facial hair and too many beers under his belt.

[Casey Sunsdahl]

How do you know I didn't shave?

[upnorth]

I was half kidding, but what I am thinking is European populations as we know it. Not sure why we figure we can manage wild life better than nature. Been doing it a lot better job of it for many years.

[delcecchi]

I was half kidding, but what I am thinking is European populations as we know it. Not sure why we figure we can manage wild life better than nature. Been doing it a lot better job of it for many years.

We could leave it to nature but I don't think all the folks up there would like having to move out. :-) I don't think leaving it to nature includes having folks with guns and chainsaws running through the woods cutting down the animals and shooting the trees. Or something like that.

Let's face it, mankind is part of the environment in Minnesota. So mankind has to regulate their actions so as to not cause too large (whatever that is) an adverse effect (whatever that is) on the other parts of the environment.

So we have seasons and limits and protected species and rules about disposing of trash and septic systems and all sorts of other things.

At this time the rule is that wolves are protected, like loons and woodpeckers and gulls. If public opinion in general in the country changes enough then that rule could change also, as it has in the west where I think they now have a hunting season on wolves.

So what do you mean by letting nature manage wildlife?

[caseymcq]

So what do you mean by letting nature manage wildlife?

[upnorth]

I guess what I am getting at is nature has a way of balancing things. High deer(and other prey) population and the wolf(and other predator) population increases, the prey population decreases and do does the predator population. Wolves and other predators will cull the herd of the sick and weak one first, this allows for survival of the fittest. There senses lead them to the easiest meal, they don't hunt for sport or challenge, they hunt to survive they have no desired to put forth the time and effort to look for the big strong buck or even doe, they want the one that wont' take them to the edge of fatal exhaustion to take it down. Yes if they have to they will, but they are looking for food only. In the long run that makes for a healthier stronger deer herd.

I don't think anyone really wants the deer that the wolves take first, do they? CDW anyone!