Wolves need to be managed on a trapline.Wolves are a bad predator and too many on your line will cost you.
Trappers around here who maintain healthy numbers of beaver on their lines also take some wolves each year.
In some parts of Ontario(central) fisher and marten co-exist.In the north the marten population on a trapline will suffer if fisher numbers start to climb.Fisher numbers are highest in Ontario in the Ottawa valley and surrounding area.

Fishers were in the Marten introduction area and population was balls to the wall for a few yrs but have taken a drastic drop becuase or canine diseases they have contracted. Fishers have moved south in Wi so hopefully Marten can increase populations but Wi Dnr cut funding for Marten studies so thats where it stands now.

Now that I have had time to clear my thoughts of that phrase I hope to never hear again I have pondered your question.

My answer is yes, yes and yes.

Maybe i'm not so clear headed.

One won't get trends unless one has data so utilizing population estimation models to me is essential. Sure we can all argue the accuracy of the data and that makes for a lot of parking lot type discussion. The use of estimation models helps establish numerical values and thus trends can be determined. Collaring and other sample work can help determine age structure, health and reproductive success which are all important in establishing trends. This is important really for all species and not just species we choose to hero worship or bash.

It is interesting in WI that we have high densities of say deer in the farmland area where the bulk of the land is private and thus using hunting to manage populations is quite limited. It is also the area with the least predation occurs and thus managing deer in that area is a political/social issue and not a science issue. Up north with deeper woods and much more public hunting area we have an abundance of predators in general and thus deer in many areas are below the population goals. Managing predators in the north is a political issue as well as managing deer is in the farmland areas. Habitat suitability for many species can and does change quickly in WI as succession is a natural process and early succession is always more rapid than more mature timeframes of succession. In many areas of North America where wolves have been around forever with say sheep, elk, deer, moose, beaver etc. there is a balance and in many cases very sustainable populations of wolf major prey species. That leads me to believe that here in WI in the areas where we have wolves, deer, elk, bear etc. the habitat supports the predators better than the prey.


Bryce

Here is something you may find interesting in terms of comparison.

Take Mount McKinley National Park ( Please !!! ) an area where no trapping or hunting is allowed. The population densities of predators and prey species are lower on that 6 million acres than in the adjoining game management units where hunting, trapping, fishing IS allowed. Of course they don't publish that information but it's available if you do the research.

They also try to tell you that the animals you do see are wild. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are completely habituated to humans. That's why they sleep on the park road and all the photographers jam up traffic.

If one has read the excellent book The Wilderness of Denali by Charles Sheldon, it becomes abundantly clear that animal populations in the park were far healthier and acted more normal ( wild) when hunting and trapping were still allowed. His journals cover his activities in that area in 1903-1906. Good read.

Bryce, those trends have already been determined.

White, I was wondering how long you were going to hold out on us with that info.

That comparison is pretty impressive.

Have they here?

LOL !! Well there it is for what it's worth.

My personal viewpoint is that wolves need to be manged but I also like having a few around.

You tell me.

Do the trends of a healthy species vary everywhe

I feel having more data never hurts and trends can change quite rapidly and also where the change is occurring the fastest or slowest. We have seen significant changes in population densities of limited number species such as fisher here in WI. It is very likely the same could be occurring with many other species be they low density or high.
Have ever had an in depth discussion as to why 350 wolves were established for our goal? That is total number, estimated densities and range etc. With that explanation we could better understand the impact of say double, triple or quadruple the 350 number as to density, range, prey impacts etc.

Bryce

Why should a "new " species take precedent over existing managed species. We should manage deer, bear, etc. in spite off, not because of wolves. Wolves are the newcomer and should be managed as such. once they begin to pay their own way they should then get some attention.

Absolutely correct. The more mange on wolves, the better.

It sure makes sense to me that the way to make sure a species thrives is to put a season or harvest on that species as that insures, research, population data and more probably a healthier population density from a survival and disease aspect. It will be interesting to see the results of say several seasons of no harvest on wolves as to pup mortality, litter size, disease prevalence, growth rates etc.

Bryce

In MN, marten populations are densest where you have true boreal forests. Go to NW MN and there are very, very few marten. NE MN with it's boreal conditions has tons of marten. WI doesn't have the extensive areas of boreal forest that MN does so they lack marten. Sure, marten will survive outside of those conditions but the population densities will be much lower.

Clark

Let me point out the obvious: we are the new species.

Clark

HAHAHH ! Good catch ! Obviously I meant "managed"

We are the only species that matters, without us this conversation wouldn't be happening. We also are the only species that is "trying" to manage others. It is the quality of our out door experience that matters, the only thing that matters. What matters to you is not what may matter to me.
Wolves are a big drain on our resourses and need to begin to pay their way. If they can be hunted as do deer, bear, coyote and can take the pressure they can stay, other than that no free rides.

It is the quality of our out door experience that matters, the only thing that matters.

Uggh. It raised it's ugly head again Justin!

Quality of experience is the most liberal term I ever have had the displeasure of hearing.

Bryce why wouldn't the data of "say several seasons of no harvest" not already have been collected.