Timber wolves

[otis32]

Any body else sick of the timber wolves??????????????

Man they can sure ruin a hunt in a hurry!

Had deer coming in 1st weekend, 2nd weekend brought the kids and all we seen were BIG PUPPY DOG tracks!! I would like to hear from people what they think? this topic has proably been discussed a million times!???

[Musky Buck]

There will be a season in MN before we know it or folks are going to take it upon themselves. Some already are I would guess. 5,300 jobs are supported by deer hunting and millions in revenue etc. I hear from some at this point their land isn't hardly worth a hill of beans, more wolves than anything. But, what comes around goes around, disease or lack of food for them or whatever and they'll get thinned down to sustainable populations once again and now they are showing up in good numbers out of the wolf's primary area and those people will really help get the ball rolling more than those that have dealt with it with frequency.

[pulleye16]

Saw alot of wolves in one day on my deer stand. Saw more deer this year then any other. Had deer come by my stand ever day. Shot a mature buck out of that stand as well.

Then can take a toll on a deer heard but it's natural selection at it's best. They will bounce up and down in numbers as will the deer herd. They've co-exsist before and they'll do it again.

It'll be a matter of time before the human involvment takes into consideration...we'll just have to wait it out. until then, there still are more then enough deer out there!

[matchset]

Dont quote me, but I believe the to money used "refund" folks for losses due to wolves runs out Jan1st

[Hoyt4]

Seen plenty of Wolves since I've started hunted. Don't mind them and never will. Still shoot plenty of deer and see them. They move and out of areas and always will part of nature.

[Musky Buck]

Hey Hoyt, quick difference like here in the farmland where packs are established, not nearly as many acres of wolf cover, I'm talking south of US HWY 10, they are not moving on, they move some around the area but are still within the same cover and return again and again. I think more of the travel the further north you go the larger the forests per acre and they do need to put on more miles, here they just lay near the same old ridge(s) but deer hunters likely spooked them some, and the deer will now be yarding up within the next month most likely and then it's slaughter time. But right on, they can't get em all. But it's different wolf territory here, unchartered territory.

[InTheNorthwoods]

Wolves, like humans, are an apex predator. So, I ask, do you [humans] want to primarily control the deer numbers or do you want the wolves to? Becasue as long as there are growing numbers of wolves, there will be less deer (and other game) available to human hunters. With each wolf, the number of deer (and other game) killed grows. It doesn't take many wolves to really impact deer numbers in localized areas.

Sure, there have always been wolves in parts of Minnesota, but in past generations (and as long as there have been humans) there have been efforts to minimize the wolf numbers, and their populations were not allowed to grow unchecked. I think part of the problem now is that we are seeing expanding packs/numbers which causes wolves to disperse into non-traditional areas.

While I respect scientists and wildlife officials, I respectfully disagree with their management of wolves when they disregard the growing number of complaints about wolves and try to minimize population numbers and wolf impact. Lets face it, if a number of people are seeing wolves in different areas, there becomes a point where it is not logical to state that people are likely seeing the "same wolf" or "pack".

[monstermoose78]

Where I hunt its natural deer movement or wolves pushing them so with out the wolves the deer may not move as much. I have seen alot of wolves but I have shot deer within 10 minutes of seeing wolves. I like to see wolves and moose while deer hunting.

[john skarie]

Deer numbers have been steadily growing along with the wolf numbers over the past 30 years.

We've had record deer herds at the same time we've had our largest wolf populations of the last century.

How can anyone sit and say that the wolves will cause a decline in our deer numbers if left unchecked?

Furthermore, deer aren't here just so we can hunt and eat them. Wolves were here before we were living in MN. You can either be part of the food chain, and respect it's other creatures or not.

JS

[swamptiger]

Wolf Population Expansion in Minnesota

William Berg and Todd Fuller, MN DNR

Quote:

Populations of white-tailed deer, the main prey of wolves in Minnesota, benefited from many mild winters and accelerated timber harvests over the years. These factors, which reduce winter-caused mortality and create more suitable habitat, allowed the deer herd to increase most years, even in the main wolf range. In Minnesota, each wolf takes the equivalent of 18 to 20 adult sized deer per year on average. Based on this average, wolves kill the equivalent of about 40,000 deer per year, compared to deer hunters, who have taken 60,000-80,000 deer across the entire wolf range through the 1995 deer season. But then, winters got much worse. The 1995-96 and 1996-97 winters set records for their severity, and deer numbers decreased by about half. Consequently, deer hunters took about 25,000 deer (all bucks) in 1996 in the Minnesota wolf range, while wolves, whose numbers remained unchanged, continued to take about 40,000 deer.

When prey populations fluctuate dramatically, predator numbers usually follow, and wolf numbers stabilized (if not slightly decreased) following the deer decline, albeit temporarily. The winters of 1997-98 through 1999-2000 were among the mildest on record, thereby allowing the deer and the wolf population to again increase. By 1999, the deer hunter harvest had increased to 73,000 deer, and the wolf scent station index (DNR's annual index of the wolf population) rose to a new record for Minnesota.

How many more wolves can Minnesota hold? And how should wolves be managed? Wolf populations increased about 6% annually in the 1970s, about 3% annually in the 1980s. All indications are that those increases have continued during the 1990s, and about 4.5% currently. Annual increases of this magnitude can be equated to compounding bank interest in a savings account, and doubling your money (or wolf populations) every 15 to 20 years. Wolf range, as well, continues to increase. Much of the unoccupied and potential range identified in the 1988-1989 survey, and even many areas deemed unsuitable for wolves, now contain wolf singles, pairs or packs. Some wolves are surviving in areas with higher road densities (more than one mile of road per square mile of area) and human densities (more than ten people per square mile) than identified as critical to wolf survival in 1988-1989. Wolf packs have even colonized Camp Ripley in Morrison County. Dispersal continues to areas as distant as the west-central and south-eastern part of the state, the northern Minneapolis/St. Paul outer suburbs, as well as North and South Dakota. Thus, wolves seem to be adapting more to humans and, perhaps due to more education about wolves, humans are becoming more accepting of the wolf's presence. The most wolves that the MN DNR believes Minnesota can sustain without increased wolf-human conflicts is about 2000.The DNR wolf survey was repeated in the winter of 1997-98, using an even larger base of natural resource professionals and applying more advanced GIS technology. That survey estimated a population of 2,450 wolves residing in a contiguous pack range of about 34,000 square miles. A total of 385 packs existed in the contiguous range, in addition to several west and south of the "new" wolf range.

Full article here:

http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/intermed/inter_population/mn.asp

[leech~~]

Based on this average, wolves kill the equivalent of about 40,000 deer per year, compared to deer hunters, who have taken 60,000-80,000 deer across the entire wolf range through the 1995 deer season.

So, we are the Top dogs! Also, if you do the math on how many Wolves there are that take out 40,000 Deer as compared to the 500,000 deer hunters that only take out 60-70,000 deer. The Wolves are taking out a huge number per Wolve as compared to Hunters. Across the entire HUNTER range!

[john skarie]

Notice it says wolves take out the "eqivalent" of 18-20 deer.

That's because wolves don't eat only deer.

I've hunted for years in the heart of wolf country north of Ely.

With the logic some of you use deer would be extinct up there.

But deer hunters will always blame something else for thier failures.

Some people are just so proud to manipulate nature. Let's kill the wolves so we have more deer to shoot at. Then we can beat our chests and be happy about how we can make deer hunting easier.

Nevermind that having a predator like the wolf makes the deer herd stronger. That's not important.

We all know that soon they will be managed by hunting, and they should be. We also all know that some of you would shoot every wolf you see out of ignorance.

JS

[swamptiger]

Quote:

Nevermind that having a predator like the wolf makes the deer herd stronger. That's not important.

We all know that soon they will be managed by hunting, and they should be. We also all know that some of you would shoot every wolf you see out of ignorance.

Sounds like you're basing most of your opinions on old studies that have been proven to be factually incorrect or outright lies...

[john skarie]

Sounds like you want to believe the studies that are convenient to believe based on your point of view.

Kind of like the tobacco companies clinging to studies that smokes are safe.

You can't educate yourself by reading studies you aren't qualified to interpret or understand. Googling on the internet until you find what you want to read doesn't prove your point or make you correct.

JS

[swamptiger]

Quote:

You can't educate yourself by reading studies you aren't qualified to interpret or understand. Googling on the internet until you find what you want to read doesn't prove your point or make you correct.

Bad mouthing people who don't agree with your point of view doesn't either.

[nolte]

John,

Feel free to post a link (or PM me) a study that supports your theory. I'd like to read it. I've always wondered how fawns factored into 18-20 adult deer. Does say 4 fawns equal 1 adult.

We both agree that they should be managed (notice I said managed, not wiped out). I think it naive to think that wolves can't have an effect on a localized deer herd or impact deer by their presence. It all just depends on what one wants or can put up with.

The "balance of nature" is long gone (if there ever was one). All we can do is try to find a balance and manage to the best of our ability with the factors we control. What we want to avoid is boom/bust cycles which can be common with unchecked predator populations where the bottom lasts longer.

[Bear55]

Interestng numbers, I wonder how many of us hunt in wolf territory. You can't really say 500K hunters take 80K deer in the wolf zone because the numbers of actual hunters are far less. I do find if interesting that the wolves take half as many deer as us, they are good at what they do.

[Bear55]

Bad mouthing people who don't agree with your point of view doesn't either.

This stuff does make the site less enjoyable that is for sure. It's like the entire polical forum gets spilled over into the rest of the site.

[swamptiger]

Quote:

Interestng numbers, I wonder how many of us hunt in wolf territory. You can't really say 500K hunters take 80K deer in the wolf zone because the numbers of actual hunters are far less. I do find if interesting that the wolves take half as many deer as us, they are good at what they do.

I think they were estimating more like 60 to 70 thousand hunters in the wolf range, so yes, actually over half as many. Then if you factor in the number of incidental kills by vehicles, etc., it's a very substantial impact. After a bad winter it gets even more significant.

[psepuncher]

I 'll take qualified research over any one hunters point of view.

Just think about it...if you're hunting in one area and seeing wolves that's gtreat. It means you're lucky enough to be sitting in a very ..very small section of their territory. But If you think deer numbers are continuing to rise you're way off base on that assumption. We have many factors that co-exist with hunting. Hunting is not the only contributing factor for manageing deer populations. Weather, predation, pressure, disease. Heck the DNR even said we are at or below population goals for deer. Below means one thing, tough huntin to come for many more years.

As far as reading opinionated yib yab, sometimes it jives with real research and most times not. Doesn't matter where you sit on the fence about wolves. Research from non biased interests usually proves reality exists. Keep paying big money for damage control, it makes perfect sense...umm yeah.

-----

Economics of Damage and Control

Wolves can sometimes cause serious economic losses to individual livestock producers. Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Montana have established compensation programs to pay producers for damage caused by wolves. In recent years, $40,000 to $45,000 has been paid annually to Minnesota producers for verified claims of wolf damage. Control of depredating wolves is often economically feasible, but it can be time-consuming and labor intensive. If wolves can be trapped, snared, or shot at depredation sites, the cost is usually low.

Deer, moose, and other ungulates have great economic and aesthetic value, but wolves have strong public support. Thus, wolf control is often highly controversial. Where wolves are the dominant predator on an ungulate species and prey numbers are below carrying capacity, a significant reduction in wolf numbers can produce increases in the number of ungulates (Gasaway et al 1983, Gauthier and Theberge 1987) and therefore sometimes can be economically justified. When control programs are terminated, wolves may rapidly recover through immigration and reproduction (Ballard et al. 1987). Therefore, wolf control must be considered as an acceptable management option (Mech 1985).

So you've got to look at it from an econimical imapact. Deer in the corn or wolves in the pen, what ya gonna do?

[MN Shutterbug]

Sometimes I think the human population needs a little thinning out.

[bigbucks]

One thing you have to factor in when comparing hunting efficiency. Those hunters hunting in the wolf zone let's say average 16 days per year, which I'm sure it's less then that. The wolves hunt 365 days per year. They're effective, but you sure would want to pay them by the kill not the hour...

I agree the wolves need to be managed by hunting & that they will be. I don't think every wolf needs to be killed, but I think there could be less of them & that would be just fine.

[john skarie]

I'm not badmouthing anyone. I'm saying you can't google up a study and not have the technical knowledge to be able to interpret that study to come away with an educated conclusion.

That's why studies are reviewed by peers of the field and not by people who aren't educated in that field.

Saying you can't become a biologist by googling studies is not badmouthing, it's just reality.

JS