Wolves in the Backyard

The metro does not need wolves. Unfortunately, vehicles kill an ample amount of deer … year around.

I would not doubt that some deer have learned to live closer to humans with the idea that it deters wolves somewhat. How wildlife adapt is always interesting. I suppose as deer move closer the wolves naturally have to try follow. They then pick up on livestock and pets as an opportunity.

The old grizzly female that died in Yellowstone was well known because she and her cubs often lived near humans and roads … she even had a few encounters with humans that ended well … well for the not so wise human. The biologists’ theory was she lived close to roads and humans because it likely kept her cubs safe from male grizzly bears (one of the leading causes of death for a grizz cub).

The far northern suburbs already get random sightings, it won’t be long and established packs will start building. There’s plenty of suitable habitat and prey almost all of the way to downtown.

Here’s a depredation map from 2022 with the 2018 wolf range as the latest. Their range is like a growing glacier, it’s just a matter of time.

Attachments:

1. 

   Screenshot_20241229-111235.png
   

I can’t wait til the wolves invade the city. Then I can be an expert like Grubson on wolves.

Me to Grubson: “Have you spent your whole life in the concrete jungle? Have you talked to the hipsters in uptown about their wolf experience? Ever been on a 3 mile walk around lake of the Isles and seen nothing but wolf tracks? Has your doodle been taken by a hungry pack of city wolves? I will never, I repeat never ever ever, take an up north persons opinion seriously on city wolves. Get over it.”

B-man wrote:

There’s plenty of suitable habitat and prey almost all of the way to downtown.

I am skeptical of that. They need sizable stands of timber, not wide open ag country. The habitat further south of that line from eastern WI northwest towards Fargo is where the main timber line stops and the agriculture begins. It’s right where I hunt deer, wild turkey, and pheasants east of St Cloud. I don’t see packs of wolves thriving in fields of corn and beans. I feel like they would have already moved westward toward North Dakota in the far northwestern corner of the state if they could thrive on the prairie, and they haven’t.

Maybe I’m wrong. I’ll admit it when I’m wrong if it happens. You are correct, I think we will find out soon enough as long as this situation continues.

Gim, when you have a couple hours watch this Meateater podcast.

The guest has studied, worked with and trapped wolves (for relocation and research) for 40 years.

Her extremely informed opinion is that wolves will-could-would live virtually everywhere in the lower 48 again, (but humans keep shooting them)

They absolutely do not need big tracts of timber to thrive. They survive in big timber because they’re harder for humans to see and kill them (her opinion)

Where there’s ungulate prey, there’s alpha predators (if humans don’t interfere)

Thanks. I’ll check it out. Looks informational.

Matt Moen wrote:

I can’t wait til the wolves invade the city. Then I can be an expert like Grubson on wolves.

Me to Grubson: “Have you spent your whole life in the concrete jungle? Have you talked to the hipsters in uptown about their wolf experience? Ever been on a 3 mile walk around lake of the Isles and seen nothing but wolf tracks? Has your doodle been taken by a hungry pack of city wolves? I will never, I repeat never ever ever, take an up north persons opinion seriously on city wolves. Get over it.”

Are you OK? You’re losing credibility fast. You wonder why your opinion is always questioned or taken with a grain of salt. Then you post stuff like this? Find something to do.

Wolves used to thrive on the prairies. They certainly don’t need big timber, just food.

See no reason wolves can’t be around the whole suburbs of the twin cities in much higher numbers. They are around the cities up north and they aren’t an issue. They really don’t cause many problems and would be a great tool to reduce deer numbers in areas that have to many deer. They could stop the spread of cwd in southeastern mn and in southern Wisconsin. Heck they could be in a lot of areas of the south. Or out east. Hopefully they can start transplanting them all over the country to their historic range. Why should Minnesota be the only state to have the pleasure of having the highest number of the lower 48? We should share the wealth.

grubson wrote:

Wolves used to thrive on the prairies. They certainly don’t need big timber, just food.

The main issue is the lack of food now. Their primary prey when they roamed the prairie isn’t there, the buffalo. Deer are not present in dense enough numbers to support them on the plains. What are they gonna eat? Pheasants? Cattle? People? All three?

grubson wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Matt Moen wrote:</div>
I can’t wait til the wolves invade the city. Then I can be an expert like Grubson on wolves.

Me to Grubson: “Have you spent your whole life in the concrete jungle? Have you talked to the hipsters in uptown about their wolf experience? Ever been on a 3 mile walk around lake of the Isles and seen nothing but wolf tracks? Has your doodle been taken by a hungry pack of city wolves? I will never, I repeat never ever ever, take an up north persons opinion seriously on city wolves. Get over it.”

Are you OK? You’re losing credibility fast. You wonder why your opinion is always questioned or taken with a grain of salt. Then you post stuff like this? Find something to do.

Wolves used to thrive on the prairies. They certainly don’t need big timber, just food.

I’m just giving you a hard time. Lighten up.

I’ve been posting on this site for a long time. I’m not too worried about my credibility.

gim wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>grubson wrote:</div>
Wolves used to thrive on the prairies. They certainly don’t need big timber, just food.

The main issue is the lack of food now. Their primary prey when they roamed the prairie isn’t there, the buffalo. Deer are not present in dense enough numbers to support them on the plains. What are they gonna eat? Pheasants? Cattle? People? All three?

Good point, but between big game and small game I think there’s enough food to support a population if given the chance. Maybe not the population millions of bison could support but there’s food available. In some areas they could probably survive on road kill alone.

Not a lot of prairie in MN and what is there is not continuous. What is continuous is tilled black dirt waiting for next spring’s planting.

I listened to the bulk of that meateater podcast B-man. It was decent. But there was not much talk about the Great Lakes wolves. It was mostly western wolves in Montana and their recent re-introduction into Colorado.

That lady dodged a lot of questions too. Kind of just deflected answers like a politician. I have no doubt she is a smart and knowledgable individual of the subject but she just didn’t like giving straight honest answers.

The one part I did clearly observe is that she specifically stated that wolves have met or exceeded their population goals in nearly every state they have active reproducing populations, so they need to be de-listed from the ESA. So she does agree that federal protection needs to end, as do we all do here too under state control.

Apparently what some western states have done she does not agree with though. They’ve turned them into coyotes, there is a 6 month season, and unlimited tags. That’s partially what keeps them on the ESA under views of the public. If each state would treat them more like a very specific big game species instead, with limited seasons/quotas, rather than just trying to eradicate them like coyotes, people would be more willing to accept that.

just maybe out west the wolves are alot more afraid of humans…unlike here.

Well I have refrained long enough but my opinion is we don’t need any wolves in the lower 48. When it comes to ESA and wolves it’s a joke.
Alaska has up to 11,000 wolves, Canada has up to 70,000 wolves and Russia has up to 300,000 wolves. They are not endangered on the world stage by any means.
But then again we put Polar bears on the ESA as threatened meanwhile on the world stage they are saying just the opposite.

Our courts have ruled that the states wildlife agencies get to decide how to manage the wild life in the states boundaries for the states residents. The Whole ESA and wolves contradicts that. I bet if a poll was conducted in Wyoming, MT or ID the majority would not want wolves in their state. Colorado on the other hand well the culture there has definitely changed in the past 20 years.

In today’s age with 330 million people, habitat loss and no large buffalo herds (50 million?} there isn’t any room for wolves.

In Yellowstone and parts of MT they are a huge tourism draw. I don’t see that here or even the rest of the west.

For those that want to do the research there is enough data from Alaska on ungulate populations and hunter opportunity when wolf numbers are put in check and how drastic the numbers swing the other way when they are not. This in AK with a caribou population of 750,000 or more and a Moose population of roughly 200,000 and only 733,000 people on 375 million acres.
So yes MN wolves impact MN moose numbers as well as MN deer numbers.

what can we do, other than post on here, if we want to seek change in wolf management? just curious what people here are doing since many seem so passionate and outspoken… and I hope its something other than “talk to your local representative” because honestly that gets nowhere.

gim wrote:

That lady dodged a lot of questions too. Kind of just deflected answers like a politician. I have no doubt she is a smart and knowledgable individual of the subject but she just didn’t like giving straight honest answers.

I noticed that too and it was disappointing because she seemed quite knowledgeable but definitely didn’t answer many questions and just talked around it

Full draw wrote:

Well I have refrained long enough but my opinion is we don’t need any wolves in the lower 48. When it comes to ESA and wolves it’s a joke.
Alaska has up to 11,000 wolves, Canada has up to 70,000 wolves and Russia has up to 300,000 wolves. They are not endangered on the world stage by any means.
But then again we put Polar bears on the ESA as threatened meanwhile on the world stage they are saying just the opposite.

Our courts have ruled that the states wildlife agencies get to decide how to manage the wild life in the states boundaries for the states residents. The Whole ESA and wolves contradicts that. I bet if a poll was conducted in Wyoming, MT or ID the majority would not want wolves in their state. Colorado on the other hand well the culture there has definitely changed in the past 20 years.

In today’s age with 330 million people, habitat loss and no large buffalo herds (50 million?} there isn’t any room for wolves.

In Yellowstone and parts of MT they are a huge tourism draw. I don’t see that here or even the rest of the west.

For those that want to do the research there is enough data from Alaska on ungulate populations and hunter opportunity when wolf numbers are put in check and how drastic the numbers swing the other way when they are not. This in AK with a caribou population of 750,000 or more and a Moose population of roughly 200,000 and only 733,000 people on 375 million acres.
So yes MN wolves impact MN moose numbers as well as MN deer numbers.

Your name threw me off for a minute.

Bearcat89 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Full draw wrote:</div>
Well I have refrained long enough but my opinion is we don’t need any wolves in the lower 48. When it comes to ESA and wolves it’s a joke.
Alaska has up to 11,000 wolves, Canada has up to 70,000 wolves and Russia has up to 300,000 wolves. They are not endangered on the world stage by any means.
But then again we put Polar bears on the ESA as threatened meanwhile on the world stage they are saying just the opposite.

Our courts have ruled that the states wildlife agencies get to decide how to manage the wild life in the states boundaries for the states residents. The Whole ESA and wolves contradicts that. I bet if a poll was conducted in Wyoming, MT or ID the majority would not want wolves in their state. Colorado on the other hand well the culture there has definitely changed in the past 20 years.

In today’s age with 330 million people, habitat loss and no large buffalo herds (50 million?} there isn’t any room for wolves.

In Yellowstone and parts of MT they are a huge tourism draw. I don’t see that here or even the rest of the west.

For those that want to do the research there is enough data from Alaska on ungulate populations and hunter opportunity when wolf numbers are put in check and how drastic the numbers swing the other way when they are not. This in AK with a caribou population of 750,000 or more and a Moose population of roughly 200,000 and only 733,000 people on 375 million acres.
So yes MN wolves impact MN moose numbers as well as MN deer numbers.

Your name threw me off for a minute.

I figured I would match it up to my AT handle. I see your on there now.

Gitchi Gummi wrote:

what can we do, other than post on here, if we want to seek change in wolf management?

Well…there is this one thing

Your name threw me off for a minute.

I figured I would match it up to my AT handle. I see your on there now.
[/quote]

Yup, wanted access to the market place so I decided to become a actual member instead of just reading threads.
They don’t like wolves over on that site either. Seems guys in the woods all over the US are against the wolf population

Curious where you say there’s “lots of deer” nearby? PM me if you’d like
[/quote]

This site won’t let me post links but download the Scout N Hunt mobile app for grouse. It shows when land was cut. It is pretty easy to locate the areas with regular cuts which equals deer habitat. It also gives you the woods type which helps narrow it down. Plus public land info. Great app for grouse but it is also a great tool for deer hunters looking for productive ground to hunt. Worth the $ for the app. You mentioned that Cotton is not good anymore. Pretty evident why when you look at the map.

AT…….. another site i can read????

B-man wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Gitchi Gummi wrote:</div>
what can we do, other than post on here, if we want to seek change in wolf management?

Well…there is this one thing

I deer and grouse hunt in wolf country and have never seen one. I put over 100 miles on my boots this fall grouse hunting in the arrowhead and never saw one. I also spend roughly 2.5-3 weeks a year in the BWCA and have never seen one. How exactly is 1 person going to make any sort of a dent?

I’ve seen people say they leave poison out in the woods… “that will get em”… or leave a bunch of traps out in the woods that never get checked. As a hunting dog owner and an ethical sportsman, that is not acceptable and I hope you’d have the morals to not be doing that either.

glenn57 wrote:

AT…….. another site i can read????

Only if you’re into bowhunting. AT = Archery Talk

Could have been referring to the common chatter among some deer hunters that if they see a wolf shoot it and let it run off and die. I’ve heard this from multiple people over the years. In the long haul it won’t change anything, hunting wolves doesn’t put much of a dent in the population. Back in the day when they tried to eliminate all wolves in the US the only thing that worked was poison for complete extirpation.

crawdaddy wrote:

Could have been referring to the common chatter among some deer hunters that if they see a wolf shoot it and let it run off and die. I’ve heard this from multiple people over the years. In the long haul it won’t change anything, hunting wolves doesn’t put much of a dent in the population. Back in the day when they tried to eliminate all wolves in the US the only thing that worked was poison for complete extirpation.

Well I think the guys that were shooting them out of planes made a impact. I’ve seen the pictures of piles of dead wolves. Wish I could make a bill board out of it. I think wolves have a very important role in ecology. Worms gotta eat too. Only good wolf is a dead one. SSS. Kill and release.

crawdaddy wrote:

Could have been referring to the common chatter among some deer hunters that if they see a wolf shoot it and let it run off and die. I’ve heard this from multiple people over the years. In the long haul it won’t change anything, hunting wolves doesn’t put much of a dent in the population. Back in the day when they tried to eliminate all wolves in the US the only thing that worked was poison for complete extirpation.

Trapping and running with dogs is extremely effective. Especially dogs. Hunting over bait is very tough. If we wanted to significantly reduce the population we could.

You are correct, gut shooting one and letting it run doesn’t do much of anything other than some bragging rights for those who forget what the last ‘S’ stands for.

FinnyDinDin wrote:

Especially dogs.

What kind of dogs do they use to hunt a wolf? Man that must be one tough ass and fast dog to be hunting a wolf. Not to mention there’s usually not just one wolf, because they are in a pack.

Irish Wolfhounds?

Couple years ago when Wisconsin had that short and sweet season I think the vast majority of the quota was taken with dogs. And that season only last a coupled days before the quota shut it down. Doubt those guys had hounds specifically for wolves so guessing whatever hounds they used for coyotes or whatever else they hound in Wisconsin got the job done on wolves too.

Maybe Grouse has a market start breeding that retired Greyhound