MN Wolf season? WHy not?

[Heartman]

With all due respect, this is an attempt to start a civil discussion about legally hunting Timber Wolves in MN.

These animals are hunted legally in Idaho and Montana, where their population is much lower than MN's wolf population. Is there too much opposition from the anti-hunters to keep MN from moving to legalize hunting wolves - public sentiment I guess?

Seems to me that we have enough wolves to sustain a legal harvest. MNDNR could sell licenses for maybe $200 and actually make some money? Make it a once-every-ten-years license or something? May be other ideas out to consider as well.

What do you all think? Not sure how I'd hunt them, but I do know many deer hunters report seeing them - maybe that's the best way. Have concurrent seasons - deer/wolf?

[TooTallTom]

I don't know if I'd participate or not, but I'm all for the option. I think a concurrent (with deer) season would work pretty well.

As far as limiting access (once per ten years, residents only) I'd say that should be dependant upon how many people want to participate and what the harvest goals are. I see no reason why MN DNR can't set up a reasonable, sustainable, harvest goal and set hunter numbers/ season length/ bag limit numbers based upon that.

[mrklean]

These animals are hunted legally in Idaho and Montana, where their population is much lower than MN's wolf population. Is there too much opposition from the anti-hunters to keep MN from moving to legalize hunting wolves - public sentiment I guess?

Seems to me that we have enough wolves to sustain a legal harvest. MNDNR could sell licenses for maybe $200 and actually make some money? Make it a once-every-ten-years license or something? May be other ideas out to consider as well.

On your first statement about the anti's they are against it for the entire country they are consistently trying to get those season shut down and get the wolf re-listed as endangered even though all logic shows they have very strong number across the rockies and north.

From reading different articles about wolf hunting in Canada and Idaho its not like yote hunting its very tough and much lower percentage for success, so i would be in favor 100% of a license for x amount of dollars and you can buy one every year but do what South Dakota does with the cougar hunt and have a quota and when that quota is met its over.

[Monkster]

Yes, this is going to be a VERY public hunt I am afraid if it happens. I saw an interview on a local TV station of a guy from a wolf preservation society. He said he didn't see how a hunt would manage the population...I thought to myself, that is really not the way to answer that question. Hunting may or may not be the way to manage the population, but it may be the most viable and cost effective way. I really hope the anti-hunters and other societies out there get their facts and research straight before protesting anything. Likewise, the DNR needs to do some homework also.

[brassman]

I like wolves as part of the natural ecosystem but the numbers that I am seeing and from the reports from others, a small percentage of wolves could be hunted every year without too much loss in population. I was out hunting with my bow the Tuesday before rifle season and had a lone wolf howl roughly 200 yards from me near dark then 5 seconds after that the rest of the group started in about 400-500 yards away. Its no wonder why I didnt see anything. From the sounds of it there were at least a dozen animals if not more but in fall the pack size is its largest due to pups that have not yet left on their own. However with that said there still leaves roughly 6-9 adults and that still is large. taking one of them a year isn't going to do a thing, and if you think about it, it probably would strengthen the rest by giving them that much more apiece at a kill. The DNR states that there is a 35% mortality rate for adults each year due to disease and starvation. The benefit for everyone is that a wolf season would bring in a lot of revenue that isn't there now. I know many people who be interested in wolf hunting. An application fee of $20, times that by XX,XXX people and there is money! then if you get drawn maybe a $500 tag, (its alot for a tag but lets face it, there are those willing to pay outfitters thousands for a chance at wolves) I am all for a season, maybe have a trial season then evaluate the population after thats done then if its successful, continue on. There is a huge group of people out there that would support a wolf season, hunters and ranchers alike. Congress needs to wake up and realize that the anti's don't really prove good points and that they don't understand how regulated hunting has helped many species come back, as well as benefit them wilst doing so in the way of funding from tags.

[Jarrid Houston]

I have not seen one yet, but hear a lot about people seeing them. I do know that a single wolf can grub down several deer in single year, and that does not help for the deer population. I know of a family in the Brule, WI area that lost 5 calves to wolves this year. They have the dnr involved now... I would say from what I have heard the population of wolves is doing pretty well. Some deer hunting areas are low with deer, and the hunters think wolves have some to do with it. I know of one MN hunter this year that sat in his stand and watched 3 for several hours. Needless to say, he did not see a deer!!!

[nonteepical]

It's federal law that if your a non profit and your net worth is less than 2 million dollars, like.peta and humane society, you can sue the federal government to stop any action like a wolf hunt, if it fits your organizations criteria, that's what these groups do tie it up in court through bogus lawsuits, the thing is it costs taxpayers money because since they are a nonprofit worth less than 2 million, all their lawyers fees have to be paid by the federal government by law so they file as many suits as they can think of that fits their organizations cause and it takes years to go through the system and their lawyers get rich.

[Heartman]

What would it take to create a legalized wolf hunt in MN?

[JIvers]

I don't know if I'd participate or not, but I'm all for the option. I think a concurrent (with deer) season would work pretty well.

As far as limiting access (once per ten years, residents only) I'd say that should be dependant upon how many people want to participate and what the harvest goals are. I see no reason why MN DNR can't set up a reasonable, sustainable, harvest goal and set hunter numbers/ season length/ bag limit numbers based upon that.

The Minnesota DNR would actually like to set up a limited season on the state's wolf population, but their hands are tied.

As others have said, the federal government, itself pressured by influential anti-hunting groups with money and connections, consistently blocks any sort of hunting of wolves in Minnesota, beyond specific killing of problem wolves by professionals.

Every attempt to open a limited hunting season on wolves in Minnesota has been, and will be, fought by various anti-hunting groups, who use federal court injunctions as their weapon. Nothing the MnDNR can do about that.

[TooTallTom]

Right. I wasn't too clear in my post, but I was thinking about the time when MN DNR has the option to create a season. Obviously, they can't at the moment.

I think a pretty serious PR campaign on the part of State of Minnesota and hunters should probably be undertaken to help smooth the waters (to the extent that's possible) before any open season on timber wolves. But there will always be those who are totally opposed to an idea, regardless of the facts and figures they're presented with. (On all ends of the political spectrum, and not just for a wolf season.)

[mrklean]

It's federal law that if your a non profit and your net worth is less than 2 million dollars, like.peta and humane society, you can sue the federal government to stop any action like a wolf hunt

PETA is worth less then 2 mill? i thought they got tons of donations and what not to put them well over that amount

[Mo Gator]

MN wolf season? YES!

I deer hunt along the Vermillion River in Buyck, MN and I can assure you the wolf population is very high in our area. Last year I hunted four days and saw four deer and 3 wolves. Two of the deer were being chased by two of the wolves. One of these wolves walked by me at 60 yds and it was huge! We are capturing pictures of wolves on our trail cameras on a regular basis, with nearly as many wolf pics as deer pics. It's time to start controlling the wolves.

Also, read the Outdoor news cuffs and collars. COs are responding to wolf incidents all over the northern part of the state on a regular basis.

I don't understand why some of you think a wolf license should cost alot, such as $500 mentioned... I think they should be the same price as a deer tag and there should be a lottery for them just like doe tags.

[upnorth]

I seen the state plan and if I remember reading it right even after the control is handed back to the state it would be at least 3 or 4 years or so before MN would allow anyone but a state certified trapper/hunter to kill a wolf. So even if the Feds relinquish control it might never get to the point where wolf hunt is anything more than talk/fantasy in the state of MN.

[reinhard1]

i also hunt up north. have wolves around. more deer, more wolves. less deer, less wolves. in short, property owners i think should have the right to protect their property and family and domestic animals. no permit required for that in my opinion. outside of that if any wolf control is needed it should be done by proffesional trappers and monitored so the wolves are "controled" and not eliminated. it is about control when needed in my opinion and done through the DNR and proffesionals.

have been hunting the same area since the 60's. i am only speaking for my area and i'm sure some have different situations where you hunt. i'm no expert. just have hunted in an area with wolves present and that's only my opinion. good luck.

[psepuncher]

one hand you have vegans like HSUS organizations who call hunters

"trophy hunters."

On the other hand, {given the chance} trophy hunters

pay more money to protect envirionmental habitat to

sustain wild animals.

In 2009, 15,900 wolf permits were sold in Montana and 26,428 in Idaho, for a total of 42,328 permits. However, the total number of wolves killed by hunters in both states was only 261.

[Dylan33]

I'll apologize in advance for my ignorance, since I am not a hunter. But, why would you want to hunt wolves? I assume you won't eat them, and the normal answer of population control that a lot of hunters give is a good answer, but as a previous poster said, a controlled method of population management by professional trappers would probably be a better way to manage the population.

And just to clarify, I am not anti-hunting. I support the legal harvest of all animals, i just wondering why some people seem to be pushing for a wolf season.

Thanks

[TooTallTom]

Just my own opinion: If there's no danger presented to the general public either by the animal itself (think lions or overly familiar bears) or by conducting the hunt (as in some urban areas), I don't see any reason for the State to pay professionals for management activities. There are plenty of people ready and willing to pay the State to hunt (manage) the population. We do it with small game and the deer herd, so why not with wolves?

And I think you probably could eat them. People in other parts of the world eat dog, and wolves are pretty closely-related. Plus, it'd be pretty neat to have a wolf rug. I don't know if I'd ever go out and get one for myself, but I'd like to have the option.

[flyfisher03]

I seen the state plan and if I remember reading it right even after the control is handed back to the state it would be at least 3 or 4 years or so before MN would allow anyone but a state certified trapper/hunter to kill a wolf. So even if the Feds relinquish control it might never get to the point where wolf hunt is anything more than talk/fantasy in the state of MN.

MN DNR's wolf management plan

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

I do remember Landwehr stating something about possibly reviewing the management plan once they are delisted to maybe shorten the waiting period but don't know if would be legal to do so.

"The endangered species act requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to monitor wolves in Minnesota for five years after delisting to ensure that recovery continues." from the DNR's page.

[mrklean]

I'll apologize in advance for my ignorance, since I am not a hunter. But, why would you want to hunt wolves? I assume you won't eat them, and the normal answer of population control that a lot of hunters give is a good answer, but as a previous poster said, a controlled method of population management by professional trappers would probably be a better way to manage the population.

And just to clarify, I am not anti-hunting. I support the legal harvest of all animals, i just wondering why some people seem to be pushing for a wolf season.

Thanks

Do varmint hunters eat yotes and beavers, no but for the furs. I thought wolf furs were hot item since there are few places you can legally harvest one so you could get some good cash for them.

[KidMoe]

UpNorth clearly stated the time line that i had also heard for the chance of a wolf season. I think we underestimate the anti hunters. I heard an interview with the first person to legally shoot a wolf in Idaho and he was being relentless harassed with death threats and people showing up at his home to protest.

I believe the DNR has plenty of data to justify that the population needs controlling but convincing the anti hunters is a huge hurdle.

[reinhard1]

sometimes i wonder if some shooting of wolves outside of property damage is already going on. a few years ago i seen a large black wolf who was shot and put behind a snowmobile trail shelter in the area were we hunt and my brother has seen one shot also. i'm not a tree hugger but that type of activity is just plain wrong. if it became leagal i would not like it but i would accept it. good luck.

[Steve Foss]

There's another existing and active wolf thread here, and hunting is also part of that conversation.

Not going to bother repeating my long spiel on this thread, too.

In the end, however, it wouldn't surprise me at all if it comes down to an initiated ballot measure to approve or deny a wolf hunting/trapping season. That would allow the DNR and Legislature to say: "Hey, we stepped back and let the people decide."

What a bloodbath that would be. Animal rights groups pitted against those advocating for wolf hunting/trapping, with the vast majority of Minnesotans somewhere in the middle. It's going to get ugly no matter how it goes down. Minnesota may in fact be the most intense battle ground on this issue because it was the only state among the lower 48 with a wolf population back in the late 60s and 70s (if you don't count Isle Royale).

[reinhard1]

your probably right. people that live up there 24/7 have varied opinions and i respect that. for me having hunted up north since i was a kid the wolf has never botherd me, although i have had concerns about their population [especialy when the deer didn't end up on my table]. but nature has a way of controling populations in their own way, and sometimes we as humans help things along wether our actions are to the positive or negative. i only hope that people that are experts on wolves and deer make the proper decisions with this issue. wolves play a role just as deer do in the sceam of things. good luck.

[upnorth]

There's another existing and active wolf thread here, and hunting is also part of that conversation.

Not going to bother repeating my long spiel on this thread, too.

In the end, however, it wouldn't surprise me at all if it comes down to an initiated ballot measure to approve or deny a wolf hunting/trapping season. That would allow the DNR and Legislature to say: "Hey, we stepped back and let the people decide."

What a bloodbath that would be. Animal rights groups pitted against those advocating for wolf hunting/trapping, with the vast majority of Minnesotans somewhere in the middle. It's going to get ugly no matter how it goes down. Minnesota may in fact be the most intense battle ground on this issue because it was the only state among the lower 48 with a wolf population back in the late 60s and 70s (if you don't count Isle Royale).

I agree with what you said there Steve. If Wolves get de-listed and the state someday allows hunting and trapping it will not be pretty. The people on the opposite ends of the spectrum will make this an an ugly, ugly thing. I can see a lot of harassment going on for those that do choose to hunt wolves.

[Jameson]

Why not? I have no good answer.