I like his attitude.

"He said if there is a wolf in Eau Claire, it will likely stick around for a few days and then move elsewhere."

The article does not mention how important the deer and moose are for bears to prey on spring fawns and calves. Too many wolves leaving too few deer overall takes away that food source.
Many of us here in northern and northwestern Minnesota have been seeing all of that happening for many years here. Those of us out and about in the winter have seen the listed scenarios for years, evidence in the snow. Since the wolves got thick things have sure changed.
We had a wolf season for two years as I recall, hunters did just so so, the trappers took care of things expeditiously.

Osky

True. But, even those were just token seasons and didn't really reduce wolf numbers beyond replacement rate. We were a long way from having an actual management impact.

I called 2 biologists from mn about 10 years ago and explained "in detail" wolves killing and eating bear.
Both TOTALLY poo_pooed it.
They had never heard of it and discounted my findings.
I have zero respect for both of them!
Maybe Dave Garrselas (spelling) could come on here and explain if he's learned anything from that call?

Saw this in the Minneapolis Tribune
https://www.startribune.com/dnr-feb...-wolf-population/600211666/?refresh=true

Clipped this from the article
"Conservationists feared that a February 2021 hunting season would devastate the population after hunters killed 218 wolves in just three days, about 100 more wolves than the DNR allowed. Conservationists and wolf lovers called the hunt a slaughter. But the new numbers indicate the season had little effect on the population, which stood at roughly 1,100 wolves before the hunt began."

It really chaps my behind when they refer to animal rights advocates as Conservationists. One of the hallmarks of Conservation is the wise sustainable use of renewable natural resources. No true conservationist would oppose the biologically sound use of harvestable surplus from a healthy thriving population.

First off, if you can take 218 wolves in three days... you have a lot of wolves. Lets face it, ignore the numbers, you aren't going to hurt the population in a three day hunt. They also conveniently ignore the fact that the DNR gave a bunch of tags to the Indians. Those tags were included in the number that was chosen by the DNR for the desired harvest number. But the Indians wanted to screw the white man so they demanded as many tags as they could get, in order to lower the number of tags given to Wisconsin residents, then didn't use the tags they were given. So actually that 218 number isn't over the number the DNR allowed for being harvested, it is just over the number they allowed for non Indians to harvest.

I forget the amount of time after harvesting one you had to report it, 24 or 36 hours, I think. But I do know hunters back there were intentionally, and telling everyone else to do the same, waiting until the last allowable minute to report their harvest. Because they knew the numbers were kept artificially low, they only got the season because the DNR was forced by court order to open it, and it was probably the only season they were going to get for a long time, and the only chance to legally control the wolf population. So they were attempting to raise the harvest numbers as high as possible. Again, you can't double the quota in the grace window unless your quota is WAY too low.

Harvested 218, but I remember when the population goal was something like 200.
Overshot that goal tenfold or more, the "Conservationists" don't have any issue going over that quota though, do they.

Wow !! That tells me Quota was way to low and population of wolves was way too high wouldn't u say?

That 200 number was decades prior to the hunt, but still...............

But yes, I thought the 200 number was more than we needed.

Pierce, ever been in the woods? Ever have a trail cam on a bear bait? The so called 1100 or so wolves in Wisconsin is so far off its ridiculous. There really could be that many in just Ashland , Bayfield, Sawyer, and Price, counties

true story right there

I agree with you 100%. Well stated.

I sent that same comment to the Tribune reader comments and apparently it didn't pass their censors.

I live in Ashland Co., so I agree with you 100%
WI lost the ability to count already when Wydeven was still Wildlife Manager.
I don't think the published population number has ever been even close to reasonably accurate.
The first set of tracks I ever saw was in the 80s, there were two wolves. And I was told they were from Minnesota and heading back that way, and I doubt that was true.
So even when I counted 2 the state still said zero.

Pierce same here in 80s, while bvr trapping i noticed a pair of wolves making the rounds on some of the bvr ponds i was trapping. Mentioned to Wisc DNR . They told me i didnt know what a wolf track looked like...............

Same here trapping beaver in Chippewa cty, watched two chasing a buck on a ridge. Game warden said I was nuts. He said the same when I seen our first turkey.

Here’s a quote from the article, I don’t hunt with hounds but what could a hunter possibly do to avoid this?

“The DNR wants to remind dog owners to exercise caution in wolf occupied areas. Conflicts between hunting dogs and wolves are most common during bear training and hunting season. Dogs have also been depredated pursuing other wildlife including fox, coyotes, bobcats, rabbits, snowshoe hare and upland birds. More information can be found on the DNR's website.”