Just ran into a friend of mine in Fleet Farm. He hunts a 600-acre property just across the Mississippi River from a property I have access to. This area has a lot of wolves for several years now and I tried to draw a tag to trap one when there was a MN wolf season. I never got a chance.

So this friend of mine told me that the DNR trapped 15 wolves from the 600-acre property in the past few months. I would have paid to buy a license to trap one of those wolves and so would a lot of other people. This whole wolf thing is ridiculous and getting dumber all the time.

I'm just blowing steam because there's not a darn thing any one of us can do about this. But it's just plain wrong.

Bernie do you know if they disposed of the wolves or just move them elsewhere?
They may be headed to a certain island in Lake Superior.

Osky

Agreed. Why they won't take money from licenses, to generate extra income, is beyond me. And get the same results. Population control, and money to boot.

Same thing with hiring night time snipers, killing deer over corn piles at night down here in the cities, and getting a huge bill for doing so. When we hunters would gladly pay to do it.

Now you went and got my blood pressure all up, Bernie. Thanks...

with the feds in charge..you are right nothing we can do..frustrating for sure

Oftentimes state game agencies want to achieve a certain goal within a specified period of time. Usually, trappers are not able to meet the goals..... So the agency does it on their own.

That has nothing to do with this particular situation. All wolf hunting and trapping is outlawed by the courts, so the DNR has to hire trappers to come in and do it.

Are you saying that DNR is prohibited from doing it themselves ?

So if all trapping/hunting is outlawed....how is it legal to hire trappers to do it ? Are they federal ?

Most likely federal trappers doing that trapping.

You were thinking you could catch one?

I believe that they are all federal trappers. I know a guy that was a MN state wolf trapper, he would get calls to trap nuisance wolves during the time that they were delisted and after the relisting he is not able to trap them anymore, only the feds.

May have been turned over to the USDA APHIS

I absolutely guarantee I can snare one.

That makes sense.

I blame our own DNR as much as I do the Feds. They claim there are roughly 2300-3000, or whatever, wolves in this state. That's the same amount they said there were back in the early 1990's. Anybody, and I mean anybody, that spends any time outdoors knows there are FAR more wolves in this state now than there were in the early 1990's. I rarely saw a wolf track in the 1980's, now I see tracks everywhere I go when hunting, trapping, or even ice fishing. It's an absolute joke. If the state would report the correct amount of wolves, they would be delisted much quicker. Either somebody's lying, or the DNR is totally incompetent when it comes to estimating the actual population. Look how quickly the harvest quota was met the last time we had a season. If they actually think there are only 2500-3000 wolves here, they need to throw out the computers and try another means of estimating the population.. Seems the more they rely on computers the worse our fish and game management becomes. Bears, wolves, Mille Lacs, our DNR has lost a lot of respect by sportsmen, and deservedly so.

As I remember the ruling the court made, wolves have to be recovered in every State to be delisted. They could not be delisted regionally or State by State. So no matter how many wolves there are in MN they still won't be delisted unless the courts ruling is overturned or by Congressional action.
ID, MT,WY, and the eastern third of WA were Federally delisted by Congressional action.
I cannot see how you can blame the DNR for the situation.

idaho has a mountain of them two but we can trap and hunt them, it helps a bit but not much rearally do we see mature wolfs trapper or shot mostaly pupps!

prolly with your eyes closed ! i read your books

. They Have a Responsibly to provide the Sportsmen, Public and the Feds As accurate a Count of these Wolves in our State as is Humanly possibly with all the technology at their disposal. To this extent they are inherently at fault for providing false numbers.

The USDA trappers are doing the damage control trapping in Minnesota...there are some State trappers approved for damage control of Wolves...very few though and they are extremely limited as to the methods they can use compared to the Feds.

That's a pretty big responsibility. A lot of fluctuation can occur between spring and fall in population numbers of wolves

Are any of you guys from Minnesota chatting about this on the forefront with any of our 3 associations? Sometimes screen names are not accurate to decipher.

I understand it is a federal matter at the moment.

As long as hunters and trappers keep buying licenses to pay to have our game animals mismanaged by gosh guess what is going to happen? In this time of Canadian Wolf introduction how many states lowered license fees to compensate or recognize a new apex predator eating game animals which in turn lowers hunter opportunity?????

Why do you think they are "mismanaged" ?? What are your qualifications to make that judgement ?

interesting and a good question!

You MN guys sound like you know everything about handling these wolves just like the new kid knows how to run his employers business!

Ya well, unless you've lived here and had to deal with all these wolves, you have no idea what we are talking about.

I will also guarantee that you, and many other trappers from MN could easily snare one.

Maybe the DNR has different plans for the wolves that brings more money to them than trapper fees.
Some of you guys want to trap them just to make a video and post it on your website so YOU can make money on it and get views. Hey don’t forget to buy that trail camera from my sponsors!

JP didnt your mama teach you if you dont have anything nice to say then dont say nothing, so if i am right you have nothing to say!!!

Sometimes what you "hear" and what is the truth are vastly different. 15 wolves trapped on 600 acres. Uff da. I'm sure the DNR has a phone one could call to talk to someone who actually knows about those numbers. I'm sure MN,WI and MI all have similar censusing methods. Why would MN not report what they actually thought was their best guesstimate? They have a professional reputation to protect. The guys in the coffee shop do not.

If the numbers are reported as lower nothing needs to be done.

Why they give Lower numbers than their concievably could be over time? Statistics that we're quoted virtually the same now as decades ago IS THE QUESTION ?

Ole. What are we seeing currently in the highest levels of the FBI... Organizational Reputation means nothing compared to personal agenda. Our head of the bear research department who many of us have dealt with has made it pretty clear he is against bear hunting. Bear licenses keep dropping in availability while bear numbers are crazy hi and they are expanding state wide and out of state. Wolves, no different. Keeping number counts low and truth away from the public keeps the all important wolf research business and its experts a whole lot busier than those who manage other species with the help of controlled seasons and hunters and trappers.
Osky

Board Stretcher.......
This type of nonsense is standard from this one.

Osky

The DNR would like to offer a hunting and trapping season but it was taken away by the courts. Wolves are not currently being managed at all in the state of minnesota, except when nuisance complaints come in, they send out a government trapper to catch a bunch of them. We are paying to have around 250 wolves per year killed, when hunters and trappers would pay for the privilege. The DNR knows that, they would prefer to have the income of course, but they cannot because the antis are abusing the Endangered species act in court to prevent any management of wolves.

Anything you don’t agree with is nonsense?
Thought you guys were pro voice your opinion...freedom of speech...all about your amendments. I guess only if you agree with what the other is saying. Kind of a Liberal way I guess.
I’ll tag you guys next year once I catch a wolf, prob will be a Minnesota Wolf too!

Well I heard it from the landowner himself, you think he wouldn't know about the numbers? He has more than a dozen trail cameras out and is still getting pics of one big male and one pup.

I know of one other case in which a gov. trapper caught 8 wolves in two days all within sight of each other. This guys owns 600 acres but I seriously doubt if they needed all 600 to trap 15 wolves. You just need to have a basic understanding of wolves, their interactions and their packs.

So how are you going to pick out which non Government trappers to do the job? Are these non Government trappers qualified to do the job?
In my opinion the best way to handle these wolf problems Is with someone that Is qualified to do It and has the governments backing.
Until this wolf protection thing goes away It seems to me this Is the way It should be handled.

sounds like good old Bernie Is wanting the job.

Bernie--why were those 15 wolves trapped? Must not have been any food around with that many in one area!

I agree Beav. I can't imagine the conflicts of more than one or two trappers on a piece of ground as small as 600 acres. It is not a stretch to imagine catching that number in a small location but they sure weren't supporting themselves on that small a space................unless there was a supplemental source of grub.

As far as population numbers go........wolf numbers fluctuate a lot seasonally but I don't find it hard to believe that there is no, or low growth over a couple decades. We know their numbers will be limited by the available food sources. If it isn't there, packs will be smaller due to smaller litters, greater dispersal, greater intra and inter-pack mortality.

. We Totally Understand ALL of The Fact that the Feds are running the Show Right now; However, It is Not the Feds Putting out the False Numbers ( And No White,Wolf numbers like that cannot stay at 3k for 15 to 20 years) It is still the MNDNR that reports to the Public in print.A population count that is False and those numbers are used by many , Anti's ,The Feds etc...

330: Actually numbers CAN stay like that for years. If I can manage to find the data I will post the source.

This thing about wolves being endangered is the root of the whole bunch of crap. The overall wolf population is by no means in any danger. There are wolves from Minnesota all the way to Alaska and to the arctic. It would make more sense protecting them if the wolves we have in Minnesota and Wisconsin were the last remaining wolves in the world. But they are not. It's just more senseless liberal crap we are forced to live with.

No question about that !

Wolves cover a lot of area. They do not live on 600 acres, they have huge home ranges, the property is just where they were killed. The fact that the property is 600 acres has little to do with it. The 8 wolves killed on a different farm were all killed on five acres.

Packs have well defined territories and it's possible that the territories of two packs overlapped on this property. It also borders the Mississippi river, which is a major travel corridor for all kinds of wildlife in the winter. My guess is that one pack was killed off and then another moved in and the trappers got them too. 15 would be a pretty high number for one pack, but about right for two.

Wolves have been expanding their numbers in Minnesota for the past 30 years by expanding their range. There are large numbers of wolves in areas now where they were never seen 30 years ago when the DNR estimated there was 2500-3000 wolves. Those people who say the wolf population is much higher than the DNR estimates can certainly make a good case for that, but the truth is nobody really has any idea how many wolves there are in this state. Plus the routinely cross back and forth between wisconsin, ontario, even the UP of Michigan.

I have lived, hunted, fished and trapped in a lot of states and I have never seen another state where the DNR is so distrusted, even hated, as is the case here in Minnesota. People simply do not trust them because they have such a history of screwing things up at all levels of fish and wildlife management, and they have a culture of suppressing public opinion and ignoring the insights of people like us who are in the woods all the time. Call up the DNR and your response is going to be something like this, "We are smarter than you and we know what we are doing, so shut up and do what you're told." That's the attitude and that's why the culture of us-VS-them is so common here.

I know they are in Southern MN. Not big packs ,but we have them on trail cameras .

Okay suppose you tell me the whole story.

But it hasn't, and that's what ticks us off so much. We don't have the vast areas of wilderness that you have in Alaska. We have reasonable access to most areas, and sportsmen take advantage of that, so they see what wildlife is actually out there. Like I posted earlier, ANYBODY that spends any time in the outdoors has seen a HUGE increase in the amount of wolf sign in the last 30 years, yet the DNR claims the numbers have stayed the same. It's an absolute joke! Bernie's claim of 15 wolves in an area is not uncommon. As just one example, a year ago when walking out of my deer hunting area after dark I heard four different packs within 3/4 mile, not singles but multiple wolves howling back and forth for an hour. And that's not even in an area that is considered prime wolf range. I've heard many stories of people actually seeing large packs while deer hunting, and seeing large packs on their trail cams. People can sit behind a computer and make wolf population estimates all they want. But ask trappers and hunters in wolf range that are in the woods everyday and they will tell you how much more wolf sign they are seeing now compared to 30 years ago.

Because he can't trap wolves.

Okay I called my friend back for more details so here goes.

In the past few years, the owners of this farm have had a lot of trouble with wolves but the DNR has not been able to do anything. They at one time called in a fed trapper who didn't put in much effort and didn't catch anything. Last spring wolves killed a cow so they asked for a specific federal trapper from Grand Rapids and he came down and got almost the entire pack in just a couple days. He got the female last because he found the den and she didn't come out for two days but he caught her on the third day. She had placenta scars from six pups so he believed the six pups died in the den.

As soon as that pack was killed off, another pack moved right in. They killed a cow, so the federal trapper was called back and he also caught almost that entire pack within a couple days. (this guy must be really good). The pups were 45 pounds so I guess that means they were last year's pups. They have still been seeing one adult male and one pup on trail camera and the landowner believes that he will have more problems during calving season this spring because more wolves are sure to move in. That area (northeast of Brainerd) is a hot bed for wolves and has been for many years now.

He sent me pics but I am not going to post his pics on a public forum.

The wolf range in Minnesota is so saturated with wolves that any available habitat gets filled back in quickly. It's just more evidence that the population estimates are skewed. Brainerd is right on the edge of what is considered wolf habitat.

It sounds like calling In a professional was the way to go.

How are your Coyote, Bobcat, Bear and Mountain Lion numbers in Minnesota? I'm just wondering if wolves not only have an effect on other predators as well as prey?

I am not targeting you personally but this story answers a few questions IN MY OPINION. Guys ask, Why cant the average trapper/hunter pay to fix the problem? The sportsmen know more then the state, THey just sit behind a computer, WE really know how many are out there. ALL these comments seem to be pretty common. When I talk with a rancher or even an avid hunter, I hear some of the most ridiculous theories/ideas. They hear a pair of coyotes but it "had to be 10-12 of them". It really amazes me what the average hunter/trapper thinks he knows compared to the people that are actually running the show.MOST of these state employees are not as dumb as you think. If game animals were managed by the average hunters and trappers, we would have to look for new hobbies.

Jurrasic the point is not that you cannot disagree, but critizing people who understand a local problem and issues you haven't a clue about. I do not think anyone here would make those comments about the game numbers, problems, or management in your particular area, nor should they.


Bernie I believe I know the more than competent trapper you refer to. There are properties north of bigfork up to and around little fork with beef and sheep operations of one size or another. They are absolute magnets to the wolves and a big bunch of wolves are taken off of them in very small areas every year. Much done, little said.

Oh and Jurrasic ........ PLEASE tag up any and all wolves from Minnesota you can. I would stand in line to thank you.

Osky

The wolves we have in MN. now are a far different animal than the ones Buck Snyder was after. Half tame puppy dogs compared to back then. Anyone who has trapped coyotes in the wolf range in MN. has no doubt taken many incidentals. I really doubt that happened in Buck Snyder's day.

Yes. That's what I said.

Exactly ! There's a lot of difference between anecdotal and empirical evidence.

If four of us are out deer hunting and we each see a wolf during the day........... does that mean there are at least four wolves there or did we all see the same wolf ? Same applies to tracks.

I suspect we are all guilty of this

It's easy for you guys in Alaska or South Dakota to say that, you don't spend any time in our state or probably even talk to other trappers and outdoorsmen in our state. The OVERWELMING majority of trappers and hunters that spend any time in the outdoors will tell you the amount of wolf sign and wolf sightings has GREATLY increased in the last 30 years. That includes incidental wolf catches in traps, an increase in livestock damage control problems, decline in moose calf survival (they had to close the moose season), decreased deer populations, etc. I guess I tend to believe the overwhelming evidence over some guy sitting behind a computer any day.

Ken, although I know what you speak of is true, what you dont realize is they have and are expanding their range.

I live in what is basically farm country and I can think of three pacKS close to home relatively speaking. 20 years ago it was a straggler every know and then

We live in a state with a million deer and that is not an exaggeration, food is plentiful.

I am sure you are correct about the observations you mention. But that doesn't mean that your DNR is lying to you. It stands to reason that when more people are in the woods, more interactions will happen. The more livestock is available to the wolves, the more there will be.

Wolf numbers are directly related to available prey. The pack won't out grow it's food supply without wolves dispersing into new areas....which is certainly happening. Also, the less food there is per wolf, the greater the tensions between individuals in a pack and between packs at territory boundaries. The greatest source of wolf mortality, is other wolves. Also as available protein declines, litters or litter survival rates will decline.

The problem you guys have is that there are several different food sources available to them. And they are very adept at switching to targets of opportunity...dogs, cats, cattle, pigs, etc. Farmers that use dead pits for morts are just setting up feeding stations.

On the moose calf survival issue, I would question your bear population. They are a lot tougher on moose calves than wolves are.


A very good book on the whole subject is here:

https://www.amazon.com/Wolves-Behavior-Conservation-David-Mech/dp/0226516970

Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. Mech & Boitani

In my opinion, the biggest problem with every topic one cares to discus, is that the State of Minnesota is full of Minnesotans.
They elected Jesse "the body" Venture for Governor, and Al "glad hands" Franken for US Senator.
The vast rural nature of the State makes wolf population estimation extremely difficult.
Without a trapping or hunting season, they lack harvest records.
While harvest records do not provide population estimates, they do provide year-to-year data which is valuable for measuring trends, and it is virtually free to conduct.
It will likely take some bad press from a dead child or a famous persons poodle to change the tide.

Well you are right on some points. The urban areas of Minnesota have a history of voting for idiots and there are now more people in the cities than there are in the country so brace yourself for more idiots.

No amount of bad press is going to change things. It's in the hands of the courts. As long as the antis can find a judge that will side with them, there will be no wolf hunting or trapping. And unless the DNR and the feds can prove that the wolves should be removed from the endangered species list, the things will stay the way they are right now. Unless of course we have a governor and legislature that is willing to take things out of the hands of the courts. If you are hoping for that to happen, go back to the earlier point about electing idiots.

Minnesota is basically made up of two very different entities. You have the metro area of Minneapolis/St Paul and the rest of the state. Unfortunately, the metro area has more people and are largely liberal so they control most of the state elections.

Two things. One, the DNR has come out and said their population estimates are on the conservative side. I think the evidence shows that might be a gross understatement. In one of my first posts I said either the DNR is lying or they just are doing a really bad job of getting a handle on the true count. It's probably a combination of being really conservative and having bad computer models. Like was said above, without a hunting/trapping season, they just don't have much to go on. I know they were surprised how quickly the harvest quota was met during the last allowable harvest season.
As far as moose calves, wolves were responsible for the deaths 67% of collared moose calves in a study done a couple years ago.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...b5m3aKXVtBWjyau

I can personally attest to the wolf population spreading vastly south. I'm 45 minutes southwest of brainerd and I have seen wolves on our land, see tracks annually, and when I go 10 minutes north to trap bobcats, I see more wolf sign than bobcat sign. Unheard of 5 years ago.

X2

Look at this map and tell me the population is the same now as in years past like the DNR is telling us. Any fool can see how much the range has expanded southward, and they've expanded because the carrying capacity of the original wolf range is saturated with wolves. And we are to respect their population estimates? It's pretty obvious they aren't being totally truthful.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...=mrc&uact=8

Now take that map and spread 3000 wolves around where it shows they are, and you’ll see that’s a lot of wolves to disperse in that small area.
You guys sound like the guy that says the wolf he caught weighed over 200lbs.

What's your stake in this? You have the right to trap the wolves that inhabit your area, and aren't paying others to do it for you. I'm not necessarily trying to get rid of wolves. I don't mind having them around per se, but I would like the opportunity to harvest them. Particularly if I'm putting up with them traveling through my yard, killing the deer in my area, and causing a threat to my livestock. Wolves around here have no respect for humans, because we can't touch them. I just want them to have a healthy fear of people like they would in a place with regulated harvest. I don't think you realize just how many wolves we have. You can go drive on a snowy day and make a 50 mile loop on back roads north of my house and cut tracks from 3-4 different packs easily. It's far easier to cut wolf tracks than bobcat tracks around my area these days. I understand that you have wolves in your area and you know your wolves, but what do you know about our wolves? I've lived here all my life and seen things change. That would be like you taking your deer hunting abilities from the area you live, and trying to translate it to hunting deer in the appalachians. It's a whole different game animal, even though it's the same species.

Eric, how many wolves do you have in Minnesota?

I don't know. Do you? I don't believe the DNR knows either, if they say that the numbers are stable and not increasing over the last 30 years. They've doubled their territory. I also don't claim to know anything about your wolves. Our wolves are becoming a huge problem, regardless of the total number, due to the fact that they have no fear nor respect for human establishment or humans in general.

Once the wolf population gets high you'll see a drastic reduction in beaver overall.
You will also notice that the few beaver that are left will have changed their habits drastically,very noticeably in the fall when putting up feed.

I have noticed that I'm finding a lot more dead lodges than I did when I started trapping. Do you think this may have something to do with this Boco?

Some dead lodges and mudded lodges in the fall with little or no feed.
Also one or two large beaver in a big colony with no yoy,or year and a half beaver.
Look for beaver hair in the wolf scat,it is easy to identify.

Last week I watched a FABULOUS program about the wonderful wolves of Jellystone. 13 packs in the park. They showed a neat map of what area each pack # controlled. Funny there were no wolves outside the park. They stop right at the boundary! SUCH smart wolves!!!

Ken, I didn't say the DNR is lying to us or even that they are wrong in their estimations.

You gave a viable reason why population levels may stay stagnant. I gave a good reason why they could be increasing.

Their over under on population estimations is +- 500. That is quite a variation on a 2500 estimation

Standard errors in estimating wildlife populations can be quite high as a percentage. It's very difficult to get it lower. Errors in estimating jobs to the economy are even higher, often 50%. Estimating large, mobile and changing populations is difficult and fraught with many known and unknown sources of error.

I don't disagree with the sentiment that wolf populations have risen significantly in the last 20 years. I have no way to prove that. We can say the DNR wildlife biologist, sitting behind his computer (while we type on a computer) doesn't know anything but you're certainly wrong about that. He has numbers that he can satisfy a court with. We have, at best, anecdotal data that gives us a hunch of what is going on.

330 - The best way to prove the DNR wrong would be to talk to them, get their raw data (it's public) and prove to the world they are wrong. Until you can do that any two-bit, law school drop-out would make mince meat out of you in a court room.

Clark

Steven: I was responding to Goldy there. Sorry for the mix up.


But I want to point out that I also stated that in my post above that wolves are certainly dispersing. I was trying to agree with you guys that they are most likely expanding their range. Again. It makes it tough when people can't see facial expression and hear a tone of voice.


As far as being -/+ 500 wolves in their census and being "conservative" in their estimates goes.........that may actually work in your favor. Many times on different species census issues, animal rights groups have sued to end harvest because the managing agency had no data, or inflated data. Your DNR may be trying to avoid another lawsuit based on population estimates.

You may actually be better off LEGALLY with a lower estimate.

I also want to make clear that I believe it when some of you report an apparent increase of wolves in your area. It may also be true that there is a decrease in other areas due to all the reasons listed previously.

That's why I think it makes complete sense to say that populations are more DENSE in certain areas but the wolf population statewide is fairly stable. As such, I don't think DNR is lying.....if that isthe case. We know one thing for certain. Wolf populations are not static.

If we could get Gulo to chime in on this we would all benefit from the experience of a professional in the wolf wars.

White, you may be right that there could still be only 2500 wolves in the whole area, but even in their original range, people who live there talk about how much more abundant they've become. So if they've doubled their range, and seem plentiful in the entirety of it, it's only natural to believe their populations have grown significantly. And they only continue expanding, when their is abundant food in the places they're already living. This seems to me that they are only moving due to expansion of population.
Also, a couple of the many examples of my states mis management of our natural resources. Have you ever heard of mille lacs lake? Used to be one of the top walleye fisheries in the state. The dnr allowed the mille lacs band of ojibwe to net them during spawning. This would be fine if they were for personal consumption, but they were netting them for sale. While the rest of us were paying for stocking efforts through the dnr. Used to be able to go and catch your limit of walleyes there virtually any time you wanted to. They just reopened the season, I believe, so that you can keep one. Used to be 6. So we pay for them to be stocked, for the mille lacs band net them when we can't target them, to sell them to restaurants and fish markets.
Example 2, my area used to be abundant in deer. Over abundant, maybe, but made for very interesting hunting. The dnr made a 5 deer per person quota and people took advantage of it. And that includes tons of people from urban areas hunting small parcels. We have one neighbor who had 9 people hunting 160 acres. They killed 45 deer. And that's not a unique story. Lots of people taking every deer they could during that time. After a few years of that, our deer were all but gone. We used to see 20-30 deer per hunt. That started about 8 years ago. This year was the first year when we started to see deer again. There were seasons in between where we saw 1-5 deer in a 9 day season. We used to see that in the first 15 minutes of light on opening day of the season.

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

I think the wolves are proving you correct already. As long as they are untouchable, why wouldn't they eventually prosper in deer and livestock rich Iowa? Or other places south? Coyotes came back. Since the beginning of time when Mother Nature creates food, she also creates something that will eat it.

Osky

I think if there hasn't been much expansion in the last five years that we won't see much more, at least significant. I live a few miles from on the edge of wolf range and live in an area that still has some wildness to it, but have had no breeding pairs. We've had wolves travel through a few times that I know of, but I've never seen their tracks stay in the area, at least not when there's snow on the ground. Before the last couple years I did a lot of predator hunting too in the best habitat in the area, seldom saw wolf tracks. But there's deer hunters in every woods for miles around and have little doubt many shoot every "coyote" they see, so it's unlikely they would ever get the chance to stay in this area and breed.

Unfortunately expansion into social carrying capacity areas may be the only way the delisting issues may change. As long as politics will rule over science we will need more voters with more money, assets and leverage then we have now and that may change things more quickly but also bring along other baggage sportsmen may not like as well.

Bryce

Don't think I can remember Wolf tracks 20 ,30,40 years ago .Got trail cam pictures of wolves and bears now right on the Iowa border and I know they would not dare cross that line,

I just saw recently on a Facebook post where a wolf was released from a coyote snare in Anoka county.

I had a coyote bait on the Anoka/Isanti county line last winter that had a pair of wolves hitting. Wonder if it was one of the same wolves.

We won't be trapping wolves in Minnesota any time soon. In case you didn't see the thread, they didn't delist again this year. Ridiculous.

I've"Released" a few wolves over the years.

Snowpa, the wolves might kill some of your coyote

Here's some more data to throw into the mix...

Anyone care to make an estimate on the numbers of SSS that happens in your state?

A lot of guys talk about how they'd off one if they had the chance.
Do they? Would they?

I'll make a guess...
Conservatively, I think at least 40 wolves are shot each year in Wi
The wolf population densities perceived by most northern MN, WI, & MI deer hunters along with the low deer population, adding in the frustration of not having any kind of wolf harvest season has pushed some people too far.
One would think as the years of no wolf season go by, each year SSS numbers would creep higher and higher.

Weather it makes a substantial impact on the overall population, I don't know but I would sure think it could.

Take away peoples hope and faith in any matter and look the heck out!

And the fact that wolf delisting was removed from the bill lands squarely on Representative Betty McCollum DFL, MN 4th District, St Paul. Nice to have a metro rep dictating wolf management across Nothern MN and the entire midwest. She should be hearing from every one of us loud, clear, and often!

She lives in her own little worlds in downtown Minneapolis and Washington D.C.. The wolf protection groups have her in their back pockets. And there is zero chance of getting her voted out of office because they love her in her liberal district. This wolf thing is going to be a problem until they can get a federal judge that understands the population has recovered and is willing to turn management over to the states. The stupidity of the whole thing is that the continental wolf population isn't in danger, and never has been. There's wolves from Minnesota all the way to Alaska. They never should have been put on the endangered species list in the first place.

Hatchetman,
Speculative guessing is not exactly data but I get your point.
I also understand peoples frustration and how it does result in SSS.
Unfortunately, there probably is a significant amount of this going on, but it plays right into the wolf protectionist's hand. They claim there is no need for active wolf management, that their population will self regulate by some mystical ecological balance. If SSS is happening at a level effecting population expansion we are helping support that claim.

Understood. What I am suggesting is that we make her own little world a little less comfortable by letting her know what is actually going on outside the metro bubble she lives in.