Wolves in the Backyard

Gitchi the map might not be the lastest, but I researched the latest listed amount of wolf habitat as well as Alaska and Minnesota’s latest listed guesstimated population.

Please double check my work, but my calculations show Minnesota having a wolf density 6.5 times higher than Alaska.

Also from what I found while researching, I believe MINNESOTA currently has BY FAR the HIGHEST WOLF CONCENTRATION IN THE WORLD

Yet some think we could use even more to give non-rural people (see, I’m being nice Matt ) a chance to see one on their oh-so-special once-a-year camping trip…????

Someone please prove me wrong. Seriously.

Again, I’m not anti-wolf.

I’m simply pro-balance.

When you northern boys figure out how to get rid of wolves head down here and do it to the coyotes.

IMO wolves are like poachers. They, a lot of the time, kill for excitement and not for the actual meal itself. That is an issue. I have had 3-4 coyotes eat a whole deer in a few hours. Now imagine how many deer it would take to fill a pack of 6-12 wolves.

Matt Moen wrote:

Perspective isn’t “I live up north and I haven’t seen any deer this year so the wolves are to blame.”

Next time someone that lives north of 694 makes a comment on a city issue can I summarily dismiss their opinion just because of where they live?

What a tired narrative.

Yes you absolutely can. We will worry about wolves, you should worry about gang violence.
You’ve definitely beat that narrative to death at this point. It is surely tiring to hear about it.
I can’t understand why you’re so convinced that you know more about the situation than someone who actually lives in wolf country.
They’re coming your way, I’d guess the laws will change fast when urban and suburban pets start disappearing.
On another note. I’ve never seen so many missing pet signs in the isanti county area as I have this year. Is it a coincidence that there’s an increase in missing pets on the same year that wolf sightings in the area increased?

Fear-mongering^

Anyone who hunts around the Midwest should know that the Iron Range is about as poor as it gets for whitetail habitat. Wolves need managing. The Iron Range sucks for deer hunting. They can be two separate Venn Diagrams.

Pets go missing because Cletus and Harley are too dumb to have fencing or be responsible pet owners.

B-man wrote:

Please double check my work, but my calculations show Minnesota having a wolf density 6.5 times higher than Alaska.

Also from what I found while researching, I believe MINNESOTA currently has BY FAR the HIGHEST WOLF CONCENTRATION IN THE WORLD

Yeah, maybe. For the sake of argument what is prey density, they need something to eat right?

Quick Google says MN has around 1 million deer and Alaska has 950k caribou, 200k moose, 290k Sitka deer, so let’s say 1.4 million total?

Alaska is 7.5 times bigger than MN so their density seems quite low in comparison.

Maybe this mean our wolf to prey relationship is about the same as Alaska? We know in MN wolves and deer aren’t evenly distributed though and I’d bet the same is true of the animals in Alaska so maybe it doesn’t mean anything by itself

ganderpike wrote:

Anyone who hunts around the Midwest should know that the Iron Range is about as poor as it gets for whitetail habitat. The Iron Range sucks for deer hunting.

You sure about that? The link below has some interesting graphics of top states in 20 year intervals, and the top 5 counties all time, St Louis County aka The Iron Range is still #3. It’s almost like Northern MN fell off a cliff since 1980, which seems to coincide with the wolves resurgence. Could be coincidence tho

http://www.boone-crockett.org/buffalo-county-wisconsin-why-do-they-grow-so-many-record-book-whitetails

So what I’ve gathered from this thread is that we need to manage wolves and do more logging in this state. Sounds good to me!

Or, I guess we can kick everyone out and let the wolves manage it so it can be just like Yellowstone.

B-man wrote:

Again, I’m not anti-wolf.

I’m simply pro-balance.

I think pretty much everyone agrees with you on this. I haven’t seen a single post stating they should be completely eliminated, and I haven’t seen a single post stating they should expand further so their numbers reach a historical range.

We all agree there should be a balance, they should be controlled by the states with a limited hunting/trapping season, and that they have at least met or exceeded their population goals in the Great Lakes States.

I personally think its just a matter of time before there is a limited season on them again here. But there are logistical and legal hurdles to accomplish that, both at the federal and state level. When that season does begin again, I highly doubt that the deer population up north is just going to explode. Each type of habitat has a carrying capacity and northern MN is not going to support the population numbers that the southern half does, even if the number of wolves are kept in check, because there are other factors that go into it other than the presence of an apex predator.

ganderpike wrote:

Fear-mongering^

Anyone who hunts around the Midwest should know that the Iron Range is about as poor as it gets for whitetail habitat. Wolves need managing. The Iron Range sucks for deer hunting. They can be two separate Venn Diagrams.

Pets go missing because Cletus and Harley are too dumb to have fencing or be responsible pet owners.

The iron range is a very small portion of northern mn, and yes there’s probably not too many deer down in the pits. Not many years ago northern mn was some of the best big buck habitat in the country. Only one thing has changed since then.
Cletus and Harley are probably smart enough to not make a fool of themselves by assuming everyone who lives outside the metro is dumb or are hillbillies. What a idiotic statement. If you don’t have an actual arguement, resort to insults. That will show everyone how smart you really are.

grubson wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Matt Moen wrote:</div>
Perspective isn’t “I live up north and I haven’t seen any deer this year so the wolves are to blame.”

Next time someone that lives north of 694 makes a comment on a city issue can I summarily dismiss their opinion just because of where they live?

What a tired narrative.

Yes you absolutely can. We will worry about wolves, you should worry about gang violence.
You’ve definitely beat that narrative to death at this point. It is surely tiring to hear about it.
I can’t understand why you’re so convinced that you know more about the situation than someone who actually lives in wolf country.
They’re coming your way, I’d guess the laws will change fast when urban and suburban pets start disappearing.
On another note. I’ve never seen so many missing pet signs in the isanti county area as I have this year. Is it a coincidence that there’s an increase in missing pets on the same year that wolf sightings in the area increased?

I didn’t say I know more…I said don’t discount my opinion just because of where I live.

I mean, your astute observation that there are more “missing pet” signs certainly establishes you as an expert.

At least B-Man brings some actual research and evidence to his arguments.

Matt Moen wrote:

I mean, your astute observation that there are more “missing pet” signs certainly establishes you as an expert.

Maybe people are moving there from Sprinfield Ohio

tswoboda wrote:

Lol no worries. And for reference here’s the actual super-duper official map of whose opinions matter on different topics

That’s funny.

tswoboda wrote:

Lol no worries. And for reference here’s the actual super-duper official map of whose opinions matter on different topics

LOL

Matt-
I didn’t say I was an expert, but thanks for the compliment I guess.
I’m not going to go back and forth with you about my experience with wolves, wildlife and the wild county of northern mn.
I have spent years exploring, hunting, trapping, and foraging there though. I’ve hiked about 30 miles this fall just grouse hunting. What’s your experience in wolf country?
Have you been on a ten mile hike and seen nothing but wolf tracks and no deer tracks? Do you own land in wolf country? Do you know 90+ year old men who have spent their lives in the woods and have seen the changes first hand over the last century? Do you know people who make a living in wolf country? I have friends and family who are loggers, foresters, and farmers who all agree that the wolf population is too high and needs management.
I dont think data and research are necessary. I’ve been researching the wildlife of northern mn my entire life. Just go and actually talk to people who are affected. Go spend some time up there and educate yourself.
Your opinion from the concrete jungle will never matter to anyone who lives with or deals with these issues on a daily basis. Get over it.

grubson wrote:

Matt-
I didn’t say I was an expert, but thanks for the compliment I guess.
I’m not going to go back and forth with you about my experience with wolves, wildlife and the wild county of northern mn.
I have spent years exploring, hunting, trapping, and foraging there though. I’ve hiked about 30 miles this fall just grouse hunting. What’s your experience in wolf country?
Have you been on a ten mile hike and seen nothing but wolf tracks and no deer tracks? Do you own land in wolf country? Do you know 90+ year old men who have spent their lives in the woods and have seen the changes first hand over the last century? Do you know people who make a living in wolf country? I have friends and family who are loggers, foresters, and farmers who all agree that the wolf population is too high and needs management.
I dont think data and research are necessary. I’ve been researching the wildlife of northern mn my entire life. Just go and actually talk to people who are affected. Go spend some time up there and educate yourself.
Your opinion from the concrete jungle will never matter to anyone who lives with or deals with these issues on a daily basis. Get over it.

You’re right, you do have more experience than me. I do, however, have plenty of experience in the north woods. Don’t assume what my lived experiences are…I’ve spent plenty of time in the woods and “up north” to at least have a perspective.

I’m sorry you can’t even have a modicum of respect for my opinion because of where I live.

One thing is, there’s always been wolves in Northern MN, it was the only place in the lower 48 they were never extirpated from. Wolves in MN could go the way of the mountain lion in CA. They closed the hunting season for good back in the 80s. Now the government controls population with hired sharp shooters.

crawdaddy wrote:

One thing is, there’s always been wolves in Northern MN, it was the only place in the lower 48 they were never extirpated from. Wolves in MN could go the way of the mountain lion in CA. They closed the hunting season for good back in the 80s. Now the government controls population with hired sharp shooters.

Yes, that’s been discussed. They have always been here.
Think how much revenue they could have by selling licenses instead of hiring federal trappers to do the work.

I noted already that MN wolves die at a clip of around 100 – 200 per year via USDA trappers and sharpshooters. The stats are public.

Made the same comment on revenue too.

USDA trappers and sharpshooters will always be needed to target problematic wolves and specific troublesome wolf packs, but a regular season would result in wolves being a bit more leery of humans and possibly a better balance of deer to wolf.

I would manage it like bears … quota zones in the far NE part of MN. Areas to the west or south … say south of Hwy 200 … no quota … wolves unprotected.

ND for years said mountain lines were only transient visitors, but trail cams and a high bighorn sheep death rate demonstrated otherwise. ND has a very controlled mountain lion season in the badlands and when the quota is hit or a lower quota of breeding females are killed the season is immediately stopped. Outside the badlands, mountain lines are viewed as an unprotected animal.

Anyone doing napkin math and statistics … make sure you use the area of MN that has wolves or wolf habitat and not the entire state when calculating densities.

The Arrowhead Region and Superior National Forest are indeed moving to old growth forest. I am all for protecting significant old growth areas, but most forests can be managed by select cutting, etc… vs. nature >>> wind storms, downed trees, and fire.

A decade or two ago the DNR came up with this … top to bottom is the level of forest management for greatest bio-diversity…

private land
county tax forfeited land
state forest land
Chippewa and Superior national forests
Voyagers

Brittman wrote:

I noted already that MN wolves die at a clip of around 100 – 200 per year via USDA trappers and sharpshooters. The stats are public.

Great info Brittman! Where can you see the stats?

Interesting read. I do not believe that fencing is the answer everywhere across MN, but in a few areas in may make sense.

https://www.hastingstribune.com/a-clever-wolf-repeatedly-snuck-into-a-minnesota-ranch-biologists-figured-out-its-mo/article_17799056-aac4-11ef-928e-ef1ea75513bd.html

The article noted that problem wolves are killed and others filled the void. This is how compensatory wildlife management works.

Brittman wrote:

Anyone doing napkin math and statistics … make sure you use the area of MN that has wolves or wolf habitat and not the entire state when calculating densities.

Assuming you’re referencing me??? Hold my beer…

I researched the information that is given to the public, using hard numbers without bias.

Minnesota is compromised of 51,200,000 acres of land (terra firma). Of that, it’s deemed by biologists there are 18,560,000 acres of wolf habitat. So just over 1/3 of the state is deemed wolf country (36.25%).

18,560,000 acres with 3,000+/- wolves is 6,186.6 acres per wolf (exactly what I posted earlier).

If I used the entire state as wolf habitat it would drastically skew the number (reducing the density) and would be completely inaccurate.

I calculated Alaska the exact same way. Acres of wolf habitat (deemed by biologists) ÷ wolf population estimate (deemed by biologists) = 40,555 acres per wolf (deemed by B-man fifth grade napkin math)

Which again shows Minnesota currently having a wolf density rate 6.5 TIMES HIGHER THAN ALASKA.

Think of it this way. For every pair of wolves you see in Alaska, you’d see 13 wolves in Minnesota.

It’s likely the highest density in the world (by a long shot from what I could surmise).

Or is figuring out some simple statistics on your own too hard for you?

Deleted

Deleted

YR Wolves
Killed

1979 6
1980 21
1981 29
1982 20
1983 42
1984 36
1985 31
1986 31
1987 43
1988 59
1989 81
1990 91
1991 54
1992 118
1993 139
1994 172
1995 78
1996 154

1997 216
1998 161
1999 163
2000 148
2001 109
2002 146
2003 125
2004 105
2005 134
2006 122
2007 133
2008 143
2009 195
2010 192
2011 203
2012 215
2013 95
2014 172
2015 213
2016 183
2017 190
2018 189
Avg. 114

Thanks B-Man. You are on it the right way.

https://assets.senate.mn/committees/2023-2024/3130_Committee_on_Environment_Climate_and_Legacy/CY%2022%20MN%20WS%20Wolf%20Summary%20final.pdf

Some may find this interesting

Reef you posted some numbers above, I can’t double quote but yes, the entire of Minnesota has an estimated 1,000,000 deer.

If you can find the deer population in the deemed Minnesota wolf habitat we could run some numbers and compare predator/prey ratios for both states.

I’d love to look myself but it’s the witching hour on the State of Minnesota Funded Walleye Farm, gotta go

Attachments:

1. 

   Screenshot_20241227-160052.png