Wolf Delisting

[BLACKJACK]

The good news with all this delisting talk is that a wolf hunting season will get established, and once the not-afraid-of-humans wolfs get shot or shot at, they'll be a lot less likely to hang around humans.

[WalleyeChamp]

Doesn't it usually take a very long time before any hunting occurs? Maybe I'm wrong.

[jigginjim]

Delist the would allow guys to thin the packs legally. How it has the 3-S policy.

Shoot'em , stash, and shut-up.

[caseymcq]

Doesn't it usually take a very long time before any hunting occurs? Maybe I'm wrong.

WalleyeChamp - Under the state plan it would be at least five years after delisting before there would be a hunt.

...

I heard an additional set of 3 S's in reference to the 3 S's that have already been mentioned: Shortsighted, Shady and Senseless... fitting IMO.

[matchset]

i read an article today that outlined the impact wolves have on elk herds in yellowstone.

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

being that there are roughly 300 wolves within the park boundaries; that translates to roughly

5,000-7,920 head of elk dying each year by wolves.

-note- this does not include the impact wolves have on mule deer, and coyote populations within yellowstone.

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.... a SINGLE wolf in minnesota would kill 2.8-4.4 deer per 30 days.

and since the wolf population in Minnesota is estimated at 2,921 animals... nearly TEN TIMES as many as Yellowstone.

rough estimates could conclude that wolves kill upwards of 98,145-154,228 whitetail deer per year in Minnesota.

the impact wolves have on NORTHERN Minnesota's deer herd is significant.

[B. Amish]

wow, you might as well have that published in a scientific journal.

[Xplorer]

matchset,

I think you should do a bit more research on what has already been researched here in MN as to the # of deer an average wolf kills per year. Extrapolating numbers from an article about western wolf populations in Yellowstone really isnt a good method. Using upper numbers from MN studies, a wolf takes about 2 deer/month, which works out to an top-end estimate of 75000 deer per year. That's less than half of what your top-end extrapolated estimate is using the yellowstone article.

Just sayin, there has been wayyyyyy more data gathered here in MN for a lot longer time about our wolf population than the Rocky Mountain packs

PS: Very interesting article for sure, thanks for the link.

[Bear55]

I think the real question is do we only have 3000 wolves? They have been saying 3K wolves for 20 years now but I would be willing to bet those numbers are low at this point and the population is large enough to be hunted.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

but I would be willing to bet those numbers are low at this point and the population is large enough to be hunted.

There were 289 Bighorn sheep counted in North Dakota this year. They hold hunts for them. So the wolf hunt is long overdue.

[Xplorer]

I think that at 3000 there is definitely enough for a regulated hunt. I think that even at half that number there is enough for a hunt in MN.

Original management recovery goals were reached long ago, and eventually hunting will become one part of the management tools used to regulate wolf populations (tho as stated the adopted state plan included a provision for no hunting season for 5 years after delisting).

Mech's paper raises lots of good discussion points of any proposed hunting season; season timing so that pelts are prime etc.

If the delisting sticks this time in 2011, then somewhere around winter 2016 we may have our 1st "wolf season". It'll be interesting to see what happens in the 6 years in between.

[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.