i just read an article how combined Idaho and Wyoming have an estimated wolf population of 1,900 animals. Idaho is 83,569 sq miles Wyoming is 97,914 sq miles for a total of 181,483 sq miles. Wisconsin has a population of aprox 1,000 wolves and is 65,498 square miles. But yet some how they are endangered here? Court fights go on and on what baloney
Wolves per sq mile
I thought the point of a conservation approach was to make a stable population. Nature's course, do nothing, would be more swings in population, high and low, controlled mostly by starvation and disease.
That's the way I think of things I guess. They can die a lot slower if we let them be, or we have a season and keep the numbers healthy and get some benefit out of it. Whether that be less human impact, generate revenue, etc.
Basically what we do with deer right now, the difference being that more people see deer and could be impacted by high numbers. Whether its car collisions, ag damage, etc. Most people have never seen a wild wolf so its all emotional thinking.
Carrying Capacity is (primarily) a function of available food supply, social structure of the packs and suitable habitat.
Management comes into play when other variables such as agricultural interests, hunters, wildlife watchers, general safety interests, etc. recognize problems when a wolf population gets anywhere near its actual Carrying Capacity. As such, saying the Wolf population has "stabilized" is meaningless to anyone who is remotely impacted by the present population.
What proof do you have the wolf population has stabilized? If it has stabilized that means they are running out of food to eat - ie deer, turkey, etc. If this is true, it should concern the DNR and all hunters even more.
Saw my first wolf in WI a couple years ago spring turkey hunting my buddy's place just south of Mauston. Gave a whole new perspective to going out and taking a leak at night!
Without hunting/harvest, the wolf population has stabilized. Carrying capacity has a larger impact on wolf population than hunting.
This is info that was given to me from former wolf management guy, Dave McFarland?? I will use round numbers easier for me.
If we have 200 packs, only the alpha male and female breed, that’s 200 litters. Only 2 pups on average live for a year+. So that’s 400 new wolves a year. Now some will die from various reasons.
But in my opinion if we don’t kill 300 + a year we are only slowing the growth.
JamesD - I think I'm familiar with what you saw, the GPS locations of wolf packs turned into a map by the Voyagers Wolf Project. It's the only one I know of, and was somewhat recently released. Except it wasn't 3 packs it was 7. Also, there were 3 additional packs in that area that weren't collared (for a total of ten packs in the study). Also, it wasn't over a huge area as you described. I'll provide a link to that below so you can see it again, maybe refresh your memory.
Also of note: Wisconsin does not count, estimate, or include lone and dispersing wolves in any way. Those have no consideration at all in the WI DNR's population modeling. If a wolf isn't a pack member it doesn't exist in the eyes of the DNR. This was discussed at length in one of the recent WI DNR Wolf Management Plan Committee meetings (which are all available to watch online if you have an interest).
Isn’t it a pretty solid fact that at least 40% of the yearly population of wolves need to be harvested every year before the population will decrease? If that’s true we are at not even scratching the surface of lowering the Wisconsin wolf population .
Two posts for Noknot, who's got something of a bologna sammy going on here. There was a wolf pack study in the arrowhead of Minn. They collared some wolves to track their movements and found three packs ranging over a huge area. There was little, to no overlap between the packs but the areas they covered ranged all over, one group looping up into Canada. Found the satellite maps in a local magazine in Grand Marais MN. where we fish each summer. Enough factoids about canines ....now, back to emotional rants.