Minnesota’s wolf population estimate was 2,655 wolves and 465 wolf packs during the winter of 2017-2018 within Minnesota’s wolf range, an estimate that is statistically unchanged from the previous winter, according to the Department of Natural Resources.

“Subtle changes in wolf population numbers year to year indicate that Minnesota supports a healthy wolf population and the long-term trends demonstrate that the wolf population is fully recovered,” said Dan Stark, large carnivore specialist for the DNR.

The survey’s margin of error was plus or minus about 700 wolves and makes the estimate statistically unchanged from the previous winter’s estimate of approximately 2,856 wolves and 500 wolf packs.

The population survey is conducted in mid-winter near the low point of the annual population cycle. Immediately following birth of pups each spring, the wolf population typically doubles, though many pups do not survive to the following winter. Pack counts during winter are assumed to represent minimum estimates given the challenges with detecting all members of a pack together at the same time.

Survey results suggest pack sizes were the same as last year (4.85 versus 4.8) and packs used larger territories (61 versus 54 square miles) than the previous winter. Although neither individually represented a significant change from recent years, slightly larger pack territories last winter explain the lower population estimate and are consistent with estimated changes in deer numbers in many parts of the wolf range.

“The accuracy of our wolf population estimate is dependent on radio-collaring a representative sample of wolf packs,” said Dr. John Erb, DNR wolf research biologist.
“The accuracy of our wolf population estimate is dependent on radio-collaring a representative sample of wolf packs,” said Dr. John Erb, DNR wolf research biologist.

Annual wolf capture efforts are focused on areas for radio-collaring that are believed to collectively represent the overall wolf range, particularly with respect to land cover and deer density. Capture success varies each year, some collared wolves die or disperse, and some radio-collars prematurely fail, creating annual variability in the degree to which collared packs are representative of the entire population.

“Nonetheless, confidence intervals for the past two surveys widely overlap, indicating no significant change from last year,” Erb said.

Although wolf population estimates have been conducted annually since 2012, the portion of the survey that is used to calculate total and pack-occupied wolf range is completed every five years. This past winter’s survey estimated a 9,321 square mile increase in total wolf range from the 2012-2013 wolf population survey; however, the survey results indicated that only about 23 percent of this new area, or 2,175 square miles, was deemed to be occupied by resident wolf packs during the winter of 2017-2018.

Minnesota’s wolf population remains above the state’s minimum goal of at least 1,600 wolves and is above the federal recovery goal of 1,251 to 1,400 wolves.

The DNR’s goal for wolf management, as outlined in the state’s wolf management plan, is to ensure the long-term survival of wolves in Minnesota while addressing wolf-human conflicts. Wolves in Minnesota returned to the federal list of threatened species as a result of a Washington, D.C. federal district court ruling in December 2014.

Hmph..............

Hard to tell how many wolves are up there in the brush. +- 700 on estimates Lol.

Dont you guys know how to address the wolf-human conflict up there?? lol.

Good luck getting a season on them, hope it happens.

happy we dont have here

What else do you need to know?

Wolf range increased over 9000 square miles but no more wolves. Right.

"The population survey is conducted in mid-winter near the low point of the annual population cycle. Immediately following birth of pups each spring, the wolf population typically doubles, though many pups do not survive to the following winter."
If up to half survive or "many do not survive" then the total numbers are being kept MUM....

Actually that is not out of the range of credibility.

The report says that pack size remained almost the same...just fractionally different. The main reasons that wolf range increases are 1. More wolves, 2. less prey. If the pack size is the same but prey base is smaller, the pack has to increase it's territory or decrease the number of animals in the pack. It's just a matter of enough protein to keep them going.

Pup mortality is going to be high as it is with any species, but adult mortality is factored into their estimates as well. It would be nice to know what their mortality estimates are across age groupings, assuming such estimates are more fine-grained than simply adult and pup. Are there any links to the data or published studies?

The largest vector in wolf mortality is other wolves.

I think that as long as APHIS is around, we will never see a season. We need to defund APHIS in MN first, suffer through a bunch of wolf conflicts, and take control of the control issue.

Minnesota’s wolf population remains above the state’s minimum goal of at least 1,600 wolves and is above the federal recovery goal of 1,251 to 1,400 wolves.

Seems to me the State would set its minimum goal at the Federal minimum not above the Federal maximum?

Ugh the DNR baffles me sometimes, well most times. Wolves part of the eco system, fine I guess I can see some logic in that. Letting them go unchecked while destroying the moose and deer populations, that I do not understand. Granted a large portion of humans get their groceries at a store, some of us really do enjoy wild game in the diet. I would bet within 10yrs they will be prominent down here in southern mn breaching into iowa. We already are witnessing it with the black bears, bobcat, and other predators.

Its noth but a Shell Game in Mn as far as counts go.

I've said it many times before and I'll say it again. The DNR says we have the same amount of wolves now as we did in the 90's. What a bunch of crap. Just ask anybody who spends any time in the outdoors, especially trappers, and not one will tell you they see the same amount of wolf sign now as they did back in the 90's. Most will tell you it's not even close. I've lost all respect for any biologist having to do with wolves or bears in this state.

Here's a suggestion: Since you are talking about anecdotal evidence and DNR is talking about empirical evidence, why doesn't MTA consider having a wolf survey done on it's own ? That way you can present your evidence to DNR or whoever else you might want to, and it will be directly comparable to theirs.

That is exactly what should be done and has been discussed Sir White, but it's time and money wasted as the state has no real power over the situation.

Osky

Which brings us full circle, why even blame the DNR if their estimates come out above the federal minimums required for delisting? We all "know" there are at least that many wolves out there, we have good reason to switch management over to the State but it won't happen because of federal judges. So why the hate for the DNR when they are currently doing what they can to get the wolves delisted?

Clark

Clark, it's because of the insincerity and smoke screens the DNR throws our way. If they were more honest about the counts and the damages the current wolf population is causing it would be easier to believe they are a friend of the state hunters and trappers.

Osky

We had a discussion on wolf predation on the deer population, and how few deer are around the area I have hunted for years. Our high school educated son explained how the lack of small aspen trees caused the low population. I informed him of the pack of 18 wolves that were seen multiple times last fall in the area. He had a sudden change of mind about where all the deer went.