Feds havent been taking anything since the edict.

I understand that RdFx. I am talking should we ever get close to the goal of 350. How many wolves we catching in box traps?

Hey WiMarshRat, we caught a wolf in box trap down at Sandhill Refuge, Wi., years back, so dont say we cant boxtrap wolves.....LOL......snicker! Any rate catch rate wouldnt be too high and maybe we can snag up a few wolves and put them in the judges backyard and let them munch her pets.... bet she would change her mind then !

Justin, what is the over/under on their estimates in WI?

Here it's 500.

The Martin restoration areas are well marked. I believe the Feds are already "taking' quite a few. That is just hearsay. When wolf tracks out number deer tracks in an area that used to hold deer "before" the wolves showed up enmass, that tells me it is more than "hysteria". This isn't something new, this has happened in Minn. and Michigan already, we have a blueprint to look at. We know what is going to happen with wolf populations and their effect on wildlife, pets and farm animals. We know that they can be effectively trapped to control numbers, we know what effect it has had. We are now just giving them a head start and the quotas allowed will never be allowed to bring them down, just maintain and I am not a fan of their current population.

My point being Diggerman is that Marten area is closed to trapping is it not? Well except for a few exceptions. This creates a safe habor for those predators to some degree. Even if we get the goal down to 350, you are going to have a large predator population in clam lake area unless we get the trapping restrictions limited.

Additionally, is Marten habitat good elk habitat? In reading about those elk, looks like they identified significant issues with habitat. The elk are only using small areas. Want to guess which areas those are? Yup, they are primarily using those young aspen stands.
http://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/WM/WM0626.pdf

So you concentrate a food source and the predators show up in droves. If food plots are the only add, then it is a loser long term. No different than man or any other predator for that matter. I look for places that have the largest concentration of fur in the smallest areas. Now if you spread out those concentrations of fur, it become a little harder to harvest.

Guess what they are going to do for the elk? Yup. Working to spread them out. They added a whole bunch of acres to the plan so they could get a bunch of actively managed aspen stands put into the elk range. Spread out all those calving elk to improve survivor-ship. Once too many elk get accumulated, they will run into problems again with the growth rate.

So back to Clam lake, do we have any control on changing the restrictions in the marten area? To me, that would be a much better idea than focusing our efforts on reducing wolves. That is going to happen as soon as they open back up the season. Wonder where our candidates stand on the issue. After all, we do have an election coming up this fall.

We give a range 49er instead of the over/under. Based on that, it looks like we are less than 5% of yours.

Let's add all the politicians to that list as well...they shoulder just as much blame for not fixing the broken system.

As someone that caught a coyotes each of the last two year in a box trap, I would never say never on a wolf. But with the season clock ticking, I wouldn't want to put my faith in that tool to come through for me

I don't have a real problem with the Martin zone, its not that big that it would effect wolf trapping, you can still water trap and live box trap, id say the Martin are probly worth the inconvenience, MY opinion. Elk traditionally are herd animals and traditionally calve in the same area, thus concentrating them for easy pickings. We were supposed to have an Elk season by now but the wolves have cancelled that out. so tell me again how these wolves are good for the ungulate population.

As the wolf populations continue to grow, they will also continue to seek new territory by moving farther south. Just as coyote & bobcat have. It was in 1980 when I seen the first coyote in Rock Co. I'm sure they' were here before that, but very few. Now there thick as fleas.
The wolf will adapt to the presence of humans the same as coyotes or any other predator for that matter.

Using our own DNR estimates, how many wolves can you fit in area below?
Within the Clam Lake area, approximately 300 square miles within a Marten Restoration Area will be closed to trapping by foot-hold traps in uplands, which may reduce harvest rates by trappers in that area.

And we now have a southern bobcat season because of it. Should we move back to our original population goal on bobcat so we can eliminate a southern bobcat season? In reality, that is what we are saying on wolves with the goal of 350.

Justin, you WI boys must be way better at counting your wolves than us Minnesotans.

Wisconsin's 2014-15 estimate was 746-771.

MN's estimate was 2221 with a range of 1789-2719. Basically plus or minus 500

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/wildlife/wolves/2015/survey_wolf.pdf

Something stinks in this world because evidently neither is using the same standards to determine populations.

Justin, population goals shouldn't be used to determine harvests on any species.

WI wolf numbers are probably based on a range based on confidence values but we may not have seen those numbers. Or as is stated there could be a totally different model in use. I would not object to that as the more tools used then hopefully more accuracy over time can be developed. I know many fish population estimates also have very wide ranges as well.

Bryce

49er, you have to get more precise at counting wolves if you want to go down like we do...remember, they are one of those species that have a little more scrutiny on them. Interestingly enough, the more harvest data we get, the better at counting we will get.

How do you manage a species if you don't have a goal? I agree numeric goals cause their own problems. I prefer increase, decrease, or maintain. For wolves I would prefer a slight decrease in most areas. Even then, they will still put a population goal out there. For bobcat, we put a range in population that we are trying to maintain.

How are we supposed to get harvest data when there's no season? When some of those zones were closing in 3 days, I think anybody with a lick of common sense would realize that the population is to high for those zones. Even when/if we can trap them again, they're still going to be more of a trophy status & not so much of a furbearer. With only 1 tag every 3-5 years. I don't think people are harvesting them to sell the pelt. Most will tan & make a wall hanger.
We should load em all on a truck & give to Mn., that way when they have NR trapping, we can just go there.

Did I ever say the population was too low in any zone Brian?

Anyone know the last time we only had 350 wolves in the state based on DNR estimates?

Justin, you cant get that precise.

When I first heard the number that the MN DNR was throwing out with a +- of 500 I was shocked. I was thinking throwing darts at a board would give a better estimate. But than realization set in and told me how the h e double hockey sticks would anyone be so arrogant to think they could count something like wolves fairly precise. IF Wisconsin think they can count their wolves within 5 percent one way or another they are arrogant beyond recognition. We can barely count our human population within 5 percent of this country.

My problem with goals is they are arbitrary numbers that are:

1. subject to change
2. subject to whims of unelected bureaucrats and public sentiment
3. hard to verify
4. et al.

Your bobcat and otter situation in Wisconsin is a prime example. I'm more in favor of using harvest trend data to set seasons and limits.

49er, now we are finally getting somewhere.

The same reason most have issue with me saying a higher number has value should be the same reason they should want to get rid of the 350 number. Neither make much sense. The trend data on some key metrics should tell us if we need to increase, decrease, or maintain the population. I still have more faith that WI has a more precise count than MN for wolves, but we also have some additional factors that benefit us as well.

Otter wasn't messed up because of the population goal...it was messed up because we decided to include trend data from a survey that was not calibrated correctly based on a few assumptions. We continued to use even when it lacked the correlation with the other trend data. Recently, we have continued to open up otter harvest even though modeling has shown us below the 10,000 goal. Bobcat harvest data can get real messy when you start to include things like "quality of the experience" into the equation. In reality, most of our trophy species have this now figured in and there in lies the problem. Not the artificial population goal. Lower the number of permits to improve the experience on public land.

But until we get a little more trend data from the harvest of wolves, we can't really test which state really has a better handle on their population of animals. So we are forced to get ready for when we can harvest them again. On that note...

RdFx, correct me if I am wrong, but I thought you work on that marten program? You think we have any flexibility in those regulations? To me, a wolf or even coyote would require such different equipment from a marten that we should be able to have some common sense change to help out the elk guys after we have had some time. After all, if they start more actively managing aspen stands for the elk, we know what that means for some of those other top predators.