Wolf Delisting

[NoWiser]

What seems strange to me is that the DNR estimates the moose population in MN to be around 7,000 animals and the wolf population to be around 3,000. The wolf's range is quite a bit larger than the mooses, therefore the population should be much less dense than that of the moose. Yet, wolf sightings are extremely common, and moose sightings seem to be pretty rare.

I don't know what my point really is, its just an observation I made that makes me think 3,000 animals is on the low side. Then again, I don't spend a lot of time in the core-range of the moose. Either way, I look forward to having a tag for each animal sometime in my future!

[Bear55]

So lets just assume at some point in the future we have a season, how does one go about hunting wolves? Any Canadians or MN guys who have hunted wolves in Canada?

[surewood]

This is from the MN DNR in 2009. I'd like to see them delisted. I also read other articles that said these numbers were on the conservative side. Had someone close to my area lose his dog to wolves. Try to tell someone who lost a family pet, who's never had a problem with wolves coming around before that they should'nt be delisted. There was also other articles in the paper around northern MN of people losing dogs to wolves.

There’s no question wolves in Minnesota rely on white-tailed deer as their primary prey source. Based on research in Minnesota indicating that wolves require 15-19 adult-sized deer biomass-equivalent per year (per wolf), an estimated population of 3,000 wolves in Minnesota take approximately 45,000 to 57,000 deer per year. Wolves also prey on moose in portions of the Superior National Forest and the Boundary Water Canoe Area in Minnesota where deer tend to be less abundant. Wolves supplement their diet seasonally with smaller prey like beaver and snowshoe hare. These contributions to their diet are likely biologically-significant during brief, specific times of the year, but overall, they’re relatively minor compared to deer in most parts of the wolves’ range. Considering an annual population estimate of 450,000 deer residing within all of Minnesota’s wolf range, the annual estimate of 45,000-57,000 deer taken by wolves, represents about 10-13% of that deer population.

[Xplorer]

The folks that I know that have taken wolves in Ontario, have done it in winter with the aid of a plane, either shooting from it on the wing, or as Mech calls it in his paper "land and shoot". The other method he speaks of in Canada is tracking with a snowmobile. Give the paper a read, its current and good info.

Personally, not having access to a plane , I would walk from my house to the closest deer yard I could find, scout the area thouroughly (I already know that my house is in the local packs territory) and stand hunt. Also, snowmobile trails are good places to find winter wolves. The packed trails make it easy for deer to move, which makes them a natural hunting/travel area for wolves also (and no, as a sledder, I am not advocating hunting over a designated trail, but I clear/pack one in the woods near my house to access the nearest grant in aid trail about 1/2 mile away, and it gets used by deer and wolves in winter)

Maybe they could make it a "once-in-a-lifetime" deal like a moose tag is? Of course this is all speculation at this point. I'm just happy that the state will have control over the process .

[nonteepical]

the western states (idaho, montana)get to controll their population of wolves with an estimated population of 1500.

[Bear55]

The folks that I know that have taken wolves in Ontario, have done it in winter with the aid of a plane, either shooting from it on the wing, or as Mech calls it in his paper "land and shoot". The other method he speaks of in Canada is tracking with a snowmobile. Give the paper a read, its current and good info.

Hmmm not sure either of those are going to fly here. I wonder if a combo deer/wolf season would work. Lots of hunters in the woods already and I bet a lot of guys would apply for a wolf tag.

[Red Cabin]

I like that idea!

[lungdeflator]

Baiting is common too. I think beaver is used to bait out on frozen lakes and stuff. The guys who had success in Idaho during their season in 2008 located a pack of wolves and then listened for them howling before light and then trekked to were they were.

According to the DNR wolf management plan BACK IN 2001, the wolf population was already double the management goals. The thing that has held the Yellowstone region back has been the fact that wolves dont know state boundaries. So the management plans need to include Wisconsin and Michigan as well, which they do. And all three states where at and above the management goals back in 2001. Now almost 10 years later what have those populations done with no human interaction? Most likely they have grown in all three states. Making the population far above the management goals.

Why human control for wolves? Why human control for deer? To many deer eguals destruction of food sources, agricultural areas and forests alike, no food equals a sour deer herd. We feel the need to control deer because they eat our beans and corn. To many wolves equals destruction of food sources, deer, beaver, livestock. No food equals a sour wolf population and that probably puts wolves back to where they were pre 1973 when the ESA was introduced. Humans have had to big an impact on every kind of environment and almost everything in the environment for nature to balance things out evenly in a relativly small time period, so human management is required.

BTW, a management plan is just that, a management plan. The DNRs plan will ensure the wolves stay at a healthy population, adjusting the number of tags as the population flexes year to year. Taking the wolves off the list and a hunting season does not mean every wolf will be shot and they will be back to low numbers. There will be penalties for poaching wolves just like there are for poaching any other critter.

There will be no pitchfork and torch parade down mainstreet when the wolves are delisted.

[caseymcq]

... and moose sightings seem to be pretty rare. ...

Take a trip down MN Hwy 1 between Ely and Finland or Lake County 2 between Finland and Two Harbors, that will put you in moose country and give you a chance to see a few. Especially after the roads have been salted ...

Some one had already mentioned Mech's recent publication. There is also good research on the wolf / moose interaction on Isle Royale.

Matchset, I thouhgt your estimate of deer taken by wolves was pretty interesting. For conversation sake, let's use the nice round number of 100,000 deer (that's within your range) taken by the wolf population for any given year. And for conversation sake let's say the deer density in the state is roughly 10 per square mile and that the state is roughly 85,000 square miles resulting in a deer population of 850,000. That would mean wolves would tap into about 12% of the population. That really isn't too terribly much to argue that wolves are having much of an impact on the deer population. Now take into consideration the deer population is likely 1,000,000 and that research would indicate that Minnesota wolves take 57,000 deer on the high end of the estimate, it is an even smaller impact.

Again, I have no problem with a hunt to keep the population in check, but let's make sure we are doing it with sound science and as a knee jerk reaction.

[grousehunter]

I've seen more wolves on on hwy 1 and county 2 than moose

[caseymcq]

Just the opposite for me...

WOW! You must make quite the trek from Brookings to go down Hwy 1 & Co Rd 2.

[Steve Foss]

In the years since I moved to wolf country (August 2001), I've seen about equal numbers of moose and wolves. But anecdotal reports such as this are meaningless in the larger context of the discussion on this thread.

[grousehunter]

lol..yup, up there every day....or it could be from the 4 years I lived in Duluth and 2 1/2 in Ely before moving here.

Not saying I'm some kind of hwy 1 and CR 2 expert, just saying what I've seen. Maybe I'm just a wolf magnet, but I've also seen more wolves than moose while hunting up there..walking or driving.

I agree with Steve though that my personal observations are pretty meaningless when looking at the population dynamics. Hopefully once the state has control more beneficial studies will be done. I love seeing and being around wolves when I don't have my pup with me.

[caseymcq]

lol..yup, up there every day....or it could be from the 4 years I lived in Duluth and 2 1/2 in Ely before moving here. ...

[InTheNorthwoods]

Matchset, I thouhgt your estimate of deer taken by wolves was pretty interesting. For conversation sake, let's use the nice round number of 100,000 deer (that's within your range) taken by the wolf population for any given year. And for conversation sake let's say the deer density in the state is roughly 10 per square mile and that the state is roughly 85,000 square miles resulting in a deer population of 850,000. That would mean wolves would tap into about 12% of the population. That really isn't too terribly much to argue that wolves are having much of an impact on the deer population. Now take into consideration the deer population is likely 1,000,000 and that research would indicate that Minnesota wolves take 57,000 deer on the high end of the estimate, it is an even smaller impact.

Again, I have no problem with a hunt to keep the population in check, but let's make sure we are doing it with sound science and as a knee jerk reaction.

I agree that knee jerk reactions shouldn't rule the day. However, if we are using sound science in evaluating the impact of wolves on the state's deer population, you have to begin by using sound reasoning. The portion that I have highlighted in bold in your example drastically skews the estimated impact wolves have on the state's deer herd.

Still assuming that deer numbers per sq. mile are equal throughout the state as you suggest, you are including the entire state's deer population when estimating the wolves' impact on the deer herds. Yet, wolves inhabit less than 50% of the state. Meaning, deer numbers in over half the state are not impacted by wolf predation. Whereas, in areas where wolf populations exist, the wolves' impact on the deer herd is going to be far greater than your estimation. We are now talking about half the number of deer, with twice the number of wolves of what your example contemplates (i.e. all of the wolves are living in 50% or less of the deer's territory, but the wolves still eat the same number of deer).

So for those areas that have wolves, their deer herds will be impacted at exponential rates compared to your examples. If the wolf population is killing the same number of deer each year, there will ultimately be a point where deer herd recruitment cannot adequately keep up to replace the deer that are lost to wolves (and other causes of death) and you no longer have 10 deer per square mile.

Based on my own anectdotal evidence, this is what we are seeing in areas of the state. The wolf population is remaining the same (or growing) and the deer population is declining. Again, in my opinion, this is at least in part because the wolves continue to kill and eat the same number of deer whether there are 10 deer per sq. mile or 5 deer per sq. mile, and deer recruitment cannot replenish the the herd size. I have seen a drastic increase in the number of wolves sighted and the amount of wolf sign over the past 10 years. In the same time frame, I have seen a corresponding decline in the number of deer - a number that is well below the carrying capacity of the land.

I guess I have no issue with sustaining a population of wolves, but at the same time, I see no benefit in allowing the wolf populations to grow unchecked. Wolves are of little benefit to mankind, whereas deer, elk, moose, etc. are. They are a food source, and now a source of sport. If humans are able to keep the population of these ungulates in check without the wolves, I see growing wolf populations as a nuisance.

[Bear55]

Based on my own anectdotal evidence, this is what we are seeing in areas of the state. The wolf population is remaining the same (or growing) and the deer population is declining. Again, in my opinion, this is at least in part because the wolves continue to kill and eat the same number of deer whether there are 10 deer per sq. mile or 5 deer per sq. mile, and deer recruitment cannot replenish the the herd size. I have seen a drastic increase in the number of wolves sighted and the amount of wolf sign over the past 10 years. In the same time frame, I have seen a corresponding decline in the number of deer - a number that is well below the carrying capacity of the land.

I guess I have no issue with sustaining a population of wolves, but at the same time, I see no benefit in allowing the wolf populations to grow unchecked. Wolves are of little benefit to mankind, whereas deer, elk, moose, etc. are. They are a food source, and now a source of sport. If humans are able to keep the population of these ungulates in check without the wolves, I see growing wolf populations as a nuisance.

I partially agree with this and I do think the wolves have had an impact on the northern deer herd the past few years. However the wolves population isn't going to keep growing while the deer population declines forever. With far less deer than we were seeing 5 to 10 years ago there just won't be enough food for the wolves to sustain or grow their population and their numbers will fall back a little. I still believe there will be a strong huntable population of wolves just maybe not as large a population as we have seen in recent years.

[InTheNorthwoods]

I partially agree with this and I do think the wolves have had an impact on the northern deer herd the past few years. However the wolves population isn't going to keep growing while the deer population declines forever. With far less deer than we were seeing 5 to 10 years ago there just won't be enough food for the wolves to sustain or grow their population and their numbers will fall back a little. I still believe there will be a strong huntable population of wolves just maybe not as large a population as we have seen in recent years.

I guess I maybe should have been clearer or expounded on my position. Clearly, there will be environmental constraints on any species, the wolf and the deer are not immune. Essentially, there will become a tipping point where the wolf numbers will begin to decline as the deer herd cannot support the growing wolf packs. However, with wolves, you will begin to see pack dispersement that you typically won't see in whitetail deer herds. Wolves will, to an extent that the habitat is suitable, keep expanding their territory to find more plentiful hunting as their numbers continue to grow. I think we are also seeing this in the past few years, with more and more wolf sightings and issues showing up in more southern regions than we have been used to seeing (central MN).

Yet, the point I was trying to make remains the same (at least I think). Do we want wolves to regulate the deer populations, or do we want humans to do so? Do we want larger wolf numbers, or larger deer numbers? I firmly believe that the deer numbers are more beneficial to society than the wolf. Just my opinion.

[Musky Buck]

The delisting seems logical and I'm sure numbers will be monitored closely and regulated by population estimates therefore making both sides happier I would hope.

[caseymcq]

I agree that knee jerk reactions shouldn't rule the day. However, if we are using sound science in evaluating the impact of wolves on the state's deer population, you have to begin by using sound reasoning. The portion that I have highlighted in bold in your example drastically skews the estimated impact wolves have on the state's deer herd....

[matchset]

it said that a SINGLE wolf will kill 1.4-2.2 elk per 30 days.

"for sake of comparison"

"i estimate that an elk is roughly double the size of a whitetail deer in minnesota"

thus, using the same numbers....

and since the wolf population in Minnesota is estimated at 2,921 animals...

rough estimates could conclude that wolves kill upwards of 98,145-154,228 whitetail deer

i'm no scientist; but i am a Biology student who likes to converse about wildlife.

my post was neither intended to be "knee-jerk", nor outrageous in comparison.

it was simply Conversation.

whether wolves kill 1 or 100,000 deer; we can never be absolutely "scientifically certain" on an exact number. but what i do know (from personal experience) is that the whitetail population is (slim pickin's) in range of the gray wolf

[goblueM]

What seems strange to me is that the DNR estimates the moose population in MN to be around 7,000 animals and the wolf population to be around 3,000. The wolf's range is quite a bit larger than the mooses, therefore the population should be much less dense than that of the moose. Yet, wolf sightings are extremely common, and moose sightings seem to be pretty rare.

I don't know what my point really is, its just an observation I made that makes me think 3,000 animals is on the low side. Then again, I don't spend a lot of time in the core-range of the moose. Either way, I look forward to having a tag for each animal sometime in my future!

wolves roam HUGE amounts of territory on any given day, which is why they are much more likely to be seen by humans. Moose don't move nearly as much, and tend to inhabit areas that folks don't usually frequent

[bigsmallie]

I've had up to four wolves in my backyard area half mile outside of bemidji. There is a huge black one that has been around for four years and have seen him numerous places within 5 miles. I bowhunt hardcore on state land, I know when the wolves move in, the deer move out. I also shed hunt a lot.....and when I find deer that are killed by wolves, typically the guts are gone and the rest is left for the coyotes. When food is plentiful, they pick out the "tasty pieces" and move onto the next. They do prey on the weak, but that means they prey on a big buck that is worn down and trying to recover from the rut. So typically they prey on the fawns, injured, and larger bucks. They need to be controlled like any species. There isn't even a season on coyotes, and they reproduce the same litters. Things have been tied up in the court systems for way too long, and the activists make a living off of donations and charities. Sad

[flyfisher03]

From what I've heard from other sources is the FWS or the judge that issued the injunction is not concerned with Minnesota or Wisconsin or Michigan's wolf management plans. The issue of de-listing comes from a few western states that don't have a wolf management plan besides shoot on site.

[caseymcq]

... i'm no scientist; but i am a Biology student who likes to converse about wildlife.

[Xplorer]

matchset,

I just think that with all the data that we have from studies done here in MN, that using one article about wolf elk kills out west to extrapolate deer kill numbers here isn't good methodology. No [PoorWordUsage] match intended.

"but what i do know (from personal experience) is that the whitetail population is (slim pickin's) in range of the gray wolf"

I do think you need to qualify that a bit, to "some range of the grey wolf". Four of the 18 Intensive harvest area's in the state (177,180,181,182) are in the heart of wolf range. If it was slim pickin's I dont think that they'd allow the taking of 5 deer per person, and since i live in 182 I can tell you that there is no shortage of deer at this time. Could that change? Sure, but I bet it will be more due to man than wolves.

[caseymcq]

... I can tell you that there is no shortage of deer at this time. Could that change? Sure, but I bet it will be more due to man than wolves.

No shortage up the shore either ... I think those management areas along the shore have a bit of a milder winter due to the lake effect. Even the furtherst area up the shore is a managed area (2 deer). 180 has an early antlerless season so a person could take up to 7. There are definitely wolves in those areas... and definitely no shortage of deer. The winters may have a pretty significant impact on the deer, possibly even more so than wolves or hunters.

[matchset]

Xplorer & Caseymcq... i guess i don't believe everything i read from so-called experts.

lol, gotta love the "great migration" of deer this time of year....

[goblueM]

ah, the good old "i'll trust my anecdotal observations, and extrapolate them to all situations, even over those already described by scientific, widely-accepted methods for quantifying ecological issues"

and from a biology student no less

[matchset]

yikes, did i say that? quotes even.... wow!

[cbrooks]

Groups seeks to restore wolves across the U.S.

by Matthew Brown

Associated Press

Billings,Mont.-An environmental group filed notice Tuesday that it intends to sue the federal government to force adoption of a plan to recover gray wolves acros the lower 48 states.

The predators were poisoned and trapped to near extermination in the U.S. in the last century. But they have bounced back in some wilderness areas over the last few decades.

Biologists with the Arizona-based Center for biological Diversity said Tuesday they want to expand that recovery nationwide.

In the notice filed with the Interior Department, the group said it will sue within 60 days if the agency doesn't start crafting a plan to expand wolf ranges. The Endanger Species Act requires the agency to be notified two months before the lawsuits is filed.

Despite making gains in some areas since the species was first listed as endangered in 1974, the gray wolf remains limited to about 5 percent of its historical range. About 6,000 wolves live in the lower 48 states. They are protected from hunting except in Alaska.

Public hunts for wolves have been allowed briefly in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, but were halted after the federal government was rebuffed by the courts in several attempts to take the animal off the endangered list.

Judges have ruled that the government has not proved existing wolf numbers would ensure the population's longterm survival.