The MN wolf hunt was closed today nearly a month early with 405 wolves being taken 5 more than the 400 quota set. The success rate is at 2% twice as high as in the rocky mountain states. Everyone (especially me) has been shocked at how fast and how easily the quota has been reached. I have been reading several reasons for this from every interest group involved and would love to get some AR Opinions.

Question:
Why was the MN wolf hunt quota reached so quickly?

Choices:
MN hunters and trappers are the best in the world
Wolves are dumb animals and need federal protection
There are more wolves than the 3000 estimate
Being protected for so long MN wolves have no fear of people
It was a statistical fluke and next time it will be different

Question:
Will MN wolf hunting and trapping continue in the years to come or be blocked by the lawsuits?

Choices:
Continue
Blocked

 

Minneapolis paper story about the season...

http://www.startribune.com/loc...epage=1&c=y#continue

We had our first wolf hunt here as well. Like Minnesota's it has already ended. Our quota was 116 and 117 were killed before the season was closed. Actually, the quota was over 200, but about half was allocated to the tribes that live in the wolf zones and they refused to take any. We anticipate that the official population in spring, in spite of the hunt, will be over 1000, three times the population goal set back when it was discovered that wolves had come back to Wisconsin (probably from Minnesota.)

I suspect that the reason the quota was reached so quickly is that these wolves had not been hunted before. It will be very interesting to see what happens in the next season.

HSUS=douchebags inc

Well IMO it's probably a combination of factors. Wolves in my experience have little or no fear of man and I've long suspected the population numbers were always estimated on the low side.

quote:

Originally posted by Heym 450/400:
Well IMO it's probably a combination of factors. Wolves in my experience have little or no fear of man and I've long suspected the population numbers were always estimated on the low side.

In Idaho we killed more the second year because it was opened to trapping the second year. I believe the first year of hunting any population is usually the high year because they don't know that they are being hunted and that there is now danger out there. But they learn fast and kill numbers usually drop the second year. I do agree that in most cases wildlife biologists err population numbers on the low side. Typically, helicopter surveys will only see about 65% of the deer, elk, moose or sheep out there.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:

quote:

Originally posted by Heym 450/400:
Well IMO it's probably a combination of factors. Wolves in my experience have little or no fear of man and I've long suspected the population numbers were always estimated on the low side.

In Idaho we killed more the second year because it was opened to trapping the second year. I believe the first year of hunting any population is usually the high year because they don't know that they are being hunted and that there is now danger out there. But they learn fast and kill numbers usually drop the second year.
465H&H

I would tend to agree with this assessment except for the fact that State and Federal trappers and shooters here in MN have been taking 200-300 wolves a year off of cattle ranches for years.

Lots of wolves... I'll be getting a tag this coming season.

did you guys see me on tv the other day?

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S2884419.shtml?cat=0

400 wolves killed good start should be closer to 600 plus

If you have 3000 wolves according to Wis DNR population numbers you will have about 2150 extra wolves born a year about 650 liveing to adult hood.

You in MN should be killing over 600 a year and still wouldn't reduce the population.

quote:

Originally posted by jb:
did you guys see me on tv the other day?

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S2884419.shtml?cat=0

nice jb your a rock star now!

i seriously doubt that the dnr has any idea of how many wolves there are in the state, and for that matter i seriously doubt the dnr has any idea of anything other than when their next party is

quote:

Originally posted by butchloc:
i seriously doubt that the dnr has any idea of how many wolves there are in the state, and for that matter i seriously doubt the dnr has any idea of anything other than when their next party is

It's like the old joke about what you need to know to be a plumber.
Shit runs downhill,
payday is on friday.

Last year I got to seriously questioning how many wolves were in the state. Just figuring similar density to where I had a good handle on how many there were and how much territory they occupied, I came up with more than twice the DNR estimate.

My suspicion is that density varies year to year, that when density gets to the point that the DNR has to bring in trappers and shooters because of problems, that there really is a lot more than an area can support.

I think we'll likely see another year of meeting harvest goals because these wolves are still less wary of people than they used to be. The question is whether now that wolves are no longer a felony to shoot will people just start whacking them when the opportunity presents itself. A little of that will go a long ways to reducing the population and restricting the distribution/expansion.