Eric B, there was a time deer were so sparse we didn't have a season for a year. I'm glad I'm not the guy trying to manage them. Too many entities with different goals involved.

White, I don't think our DNR is lying, that would mean they are misrepresenting the figures intentionally. I won't even say their figures are wrong for sure. What I do know for sure is they have expanded their range and in the "core" areas the observance of wolves hasn't deminished and anecdotal evidence by layman suggests they are holding their own or increasing. To me that suggests the population shouldn't have remained static.

In the end it's not the states fault we can't manage our wolves and it's not because of a population estimate.

9r... I think it's difficult for some to understand the difference in our wolves versus the Canadian and Alaskan wolves. The primary offset being ranges. I speak from living in the middle of our wolf country for 60 years. Our wolves do not have the expanded territory of northern wolves. They don't need to. With deer, the few moose left, bears, pets, livestock etc they are not following roving caribou herds. Yellowstone being an example, the wolves do not have to have large roaming territories to survive.
All the time I have spent across upper Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan I have not seen a matching wolf density to what we have here, not even close. I hunted them in Alaska by airplane, still not easy and you covered a lot of ground to get on them. If we did not have as much cover and brush here as we do an airplane couldn't haul all the ammo a guy would go thru in a day, were it legal.
In fairness the bear population has exploded as well here. That takes a terrible toll on the hooved animals. Once again when it comes to the Bears here we are told by the DNR not to believe out lying eyes, tracks, or evidence from trail cameras. In this day and age their is always a hidden agenda it seems in every aspects of American government, kudos to you fellas north of the border if your still clear of it.

Osky

Have bear hunted every year since 1986. Up until about 15 years ago, had never heard a wolf howl while on stand.
now it's a very common thing.
More wolves or are they just more vocal now?

And I understand the deer population is much better than it was then. My dad talks about the days when cutting a deer track was big news. But they took a thriving population and decimated it in under 5 years, with vast over harvest. The guys killing 5 deer, for the most part, weren't eating all of it. They were donating to different causes, which is great, but not when they destroyed our natural resource for those of us who live there in the process. I'm also not claiming they're lying, I'm claiming they don't have it right. Whether that's survey methods or what, they're well underestimating the wolves here. Jmo. Also wouldn't irritate me near as much if I had the opportunity to harvest them, instead of my license fees paying others to. Like Ive said before.

I have absolutely no doubt that your wolf density is MUCH greater than ours !

As Osky points out...if they have enough to eat, they aren't going to disperse.

You large deer herds in the past I suspect are partly responsible for the increase in wolf numbers. We saw the same thing here when about 80,000 caribou moved through the country over a couple years time. The wolves came with them and stayed !! Because they found a healthy moose population they could live on without having to expend energy traveling with the caribou every day.


That walleye deal sounds absurd ~

No sense in getting panties in an uproar until this is settled in court once again.

I'd like to point out a couple of things.

I've got 900 ft of driveway that goes thru a section of hardwoods.
One day after a fresh snow I crossed 26 squirrel tracks crossing the drive.
about 2 weeks earlier I only counted 6.
does that mean my squirrel population exploded 4 fold in 2 weeks in the middle of winter?
Obviously not, weather, I think is the biggest factor. Just mention this to point out that counting tracks while it can be a method of pop. estimates is not an exact method of coming up with a population.

I'd like to see wolves trapped and or hunted again. No reason not to as long as a naturally reproducing population can be sustained.
If I was a betting man I'd say the wolf population in the last 30 years has increased in MN, WI and MI. The bigger question is what will it do in the next 30? At some point assuming that nothing changes as far as hunting/trapping them the population will tend to stabilize.

As far as deer populations go there are too many around yet. Do some research on Oak regeneration. One of the big problems that people that are restoring degraded or try to expand natural ecosystems/habitat have is deer. Even in areas with coyotes. Do some research into Somme woods in northern Ill. Deer reproduce at a very fast rate. Wolves will never totally eliminate the deer population.

Eric's last comment is very telling about deer populations. I've seen the populations of deer swing wildly over the years too. At times seeing over a 1 1/2 dozen in the first hour of the season was normal. You don't see that many any more, and yet there are still too many.

The DNR has a tough job trying to balance the many different desires of the residents of the state when it comes to deer populations.
It'll be the same for wolves if and or when they can be hunted/trapped in the Great Lakes States again.

Have a similar thing in WI, tribes can spear walleye and Muskie at night with spot lights in the spring. Again, like our current wolf issue it was a fed. court order that made it happen.

Eric, about the Mille Lacs walleye. The DNR did not give the natives the right to gill net or spear walleye. That was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The DNR and state of Minnesota fought it and lost in court. Also the Ojibway were never allowed to sell walleye, personal and ceremonially use only and harvest quota was strictly monitored. The tribal quotas have always been much less than the angler quota. The DNR may have botched the management of walleye on Mille Lac but they had no choice but to work with the tribes on harvest quotas.

Well if the DNR isn't lying then they're incompetent on the numbers. The traditional wolf range certainly hasn't seen a reduction in wolves. At the very least it has remained stable, most outdoor users (like trappers and bear guides who spend time in the woods)would say they have increased in that area. The wolf range has more than doubled since 1979, yet we're supposed to believe the population hasn't significantly increased? It just doesn't add up.
As far as not blaming the our DNR, IMO the courts would be much more likely to delist if the population estimates were significantly higher. But as White suggests, it's possible they have intentionally reduced the population estimates conservatively to guard against potential lawsuits.
They're going to have to do something soon. The current range map shows the basic timber line and habitat availability. They can't go much further west because they will run out of trees, and they can't go much further south because of human density.

The DNR botched the whole thing from the beginning, it didn't have to go to the courts. But that's a whole nother story,,,,,

For what its worth, I'll chime in on this one. First, its important to know that I'm not living in MN, nor have I ever done any work there. Second, in my experience, it is well worth listening intently to the "locals" when talking about wildlife populations.

Getting accurate and precise measurements of wolf populations is extremely difficult. I've done population estimates many times in Alaska where we had 1) the best aerial trackers in the world, 2) good snow conditions for tracking, and 3) usually not heavy, tall timber nor rugged mountains. In these optimum survey conditions, we always attempted to get our population estimates down to a midpoint estimate plus-or-minus 10 percent. Wasn't always attainable. In MN, you've got large areas of the state that are not under optimal conditions, yet the MN DNR 2017 estimate was 2,856 +/- 500, which is about 17.5 percent. Pretty good, with less than optimal conditions. So, precision, in my opinion, is reasonable. On the other hand, precision and accuracy are two different critters. Arguing over the accuracy of the population estimate is fruitless. As someone pointed out above, arguing over numbers is a waste of time unless you have "better" data (on a statewide basis) than DNR, and can defend those numbers with empirical data. The most recent Idaho data (admittedly conservative) has the wolf numbers at 786. Now, I've helicoptered pretty much the entire state north of the Snake River Plains looking for wolves. I've spent large chunks of time on snowmachines and pick-up trucks and on foot in various parts of the state looking for and trapping wolves. I feel that I have as good a handle on the wolf numbers as anyone. Can I argue against the 786 number that Idaho Fish and Game has reported? The answer is absolutely, unequivocally, NO! I don't have the scientific data to back me up. It would be like me arguing that there are really 2,000 wolves in the state, and the anti's arguing that there are actually only 200 wolves. Neither of us has any real data. The only "data" on wolf numbers is that collected by IDF&G.

One further comment. Regardless of the "data" on wolf numbers in MN, it is not a biological quandary (and this has always been a tough pill for me to swallow). It is a political problem, not biological. When wildlife management, no matter the species, is put in the hands of politicians, the sportsmen, and more importantly, the resource, takes it in the shorts. To allow reasonable management of wolves (or any wildlife species), the worst thing that can happen is to allow those management decisions to be made by judges or by politicians.

Jack

Thanks Jack !

Here,the courts recognize(and give equal weight to)Traditional Ecological Knowledge(TEK)
I find TEK way more useful and pertinent than western science when operating out on the land.
However the use of both together is complimentary.

Eric, about the Mille Lacs walleye. The DNR did not give the natives the right to gill net or spear walleye. That was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The DNR and state of Minnesota fought it and lost in court. Also the Ojibway were never allowed to sell walleye, personal and ceremonially use only and harvest quota was strictly monitored. The tribal quotas have always been much less than the angler quota. The DNR may have botched the management of walleye on Mille Lac but they had no choice but to work with the tribes on harvest quotas.

Very true. Also there has been no walleye stocking in ML til very recently.

I apologize for mis speaking. I admit that my knowledge of the issue comes from speaking with those connected to the issue. This is likely biased, and I'm not from there, and don't have enough ties to the lake to do my own research. One thing that no one can argue is that it was once an excellent,naturally reproducing walleye lake,and it's now dwindling.
As far as deer, there is no doubt in my mind we were over populated. There's also no doubt in my mind that the last thing we needed was 5 tags per person. At that time there were at least 5 absentee landowners within 2 miles of my house. All from the cities. Can you guess the one time of year they came? At least 5-10 people per property, most shooting all the deer they can, all but one on 60 or less acres. And those are first hand accounts, unlike my statements on mille lacs.
Our fisher and Marten management is a whole nother can of worms.
Sorry for derailing this thread.
Gulo, greatly appreciate your input and professional experience!

For all the talk of the accuracy of MN DNRs wolf population estimates I question if it really matters. In fact I wonder why they even bother to make an estimate. The court ruling that relisted Great lakes wolves seems to make it clear that wolves have to be recovered over their full range before they can be delisted. They have to be recovered in every State to be delisted in MN no matter how many wolves MN may or may not have.
So why are wolves in MT, ID and the eastern third of WA federally delisted? That came about through Congressional action and is separate legislation from the ESA. Clearly this is the only avenue to delisting in MN because the Court has ruled wolves must be recovered even in States where there is no suitable habitat before they can be delisted because those States are within the wolves historic range.
Here is a very good site that explains the court ruling.
http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2014/12/TheGreatLakesWolfDec.htm

I can comment on MilleLacs lake. It's true the DNR and other organizations fought the band at the US Supreme Court and lost by a 5-4 margin with Sandra Day O'Conner casting the deciding vote. Since they were Ojibway Indians, the Wisconsin bands were granted access to MilleLacs for netting and spearing.

The MNDNR has mismanaged the lake since this all began with the Indians. What makes the spearing and netting by the band so devastating is that they net and spear during spring spawning in the spawning beds. They should have a reduced poundage quota as compared to the anglers since they are destroying the future of the lake with the disruption they are causing in the spawning beds.

The DNR turns a blind eye by stating that this has little or no impact on the spawning fish. Yet, there are other lakes in MN where you can see signs around the lake saying, "Spawning Area, No Boats Allowed." How can being in the spawning area on one lake be harmful, but not on the other lake?

The DNR has concluded that wolf range has not expanded since the last survey five years ago.
This year their intention to determine expansion relies on natural resource personnel to document wolf sign,(tracks,wolf kills,sightings and howling),..while performing their everyday duties.
That seems be a rather inadequate way of collecting data?

my guess is the range wont expand much more because of the simple reason it can't. The available habitat is filled for the most part. They've already expanded into areas that would traditionally be considered marginal habitat for wolves, at least into areas where contact with people is a lot more likely.

If we look at the range of wolves in the USA (lower 48) prior to removal their range was 3-5 fold larger than it is today, so the idea that this range won't expand to me is not likely. Even the marginal habitat ( and that marginal is not due to lack of food and shelter but human occupancy) will allow wolves to expand. The fact that they don't need nearly the large range area to provide food and shelter will allow them to "dig in and hold". That also means as they need to roam less and interact less there will lower death rates due to disease and or the hazards of extensive movement. Not saying that is what I am hoping for but I do believe that wolves will find ways to become much more adaptable then they have been or we feel they would become. Somewhat scary to think that an area occupied by a pack of 30 lbs. coyotes may be occupied by a pack of 65 lbs. wolves. Whole different prey community involved in that transition.

Bryce