Commentary
A limited harvest is an important element of wolf management
By Mark W. Johnson
Mark W. Johnson is executive director of the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association.
Saturday marks the firearms deer opener. It also is the opener of Minnesota's first regulated wolf hunting season. While this new wolf season has raised controversy, the reasons for it are quite straightforward.
Minnesota's wolf population is conservatively estimated at 3,000. It has been at that level since 1998. That 3,000 number is estimated by wildlife biologists at the lowest population time of the year (around February). At the high time of year (around May), wolf researchers report that wolf numbers double as pups are whelped. This means that, in November, Minnesota will have fewer than 6,000 but quite a bit more than 3,000 wolves. Around 5,000 is probably a safe estimate. And about 90 percent of those wolves are in wolf zone A, the northeast third of the state.
So why the hunt? As part of federal delisting of the wolf in the Northern Great Lakes States (Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan), the federal government has handed down wolf management authority to the states. Each of the states has a federally approved wolf management plan with population benchmarks (safety valves) to ensure relisting should the state plans go awry.
Minnesota's and Wisconsin's plans include "public harvest." This public harvest is not because we "must" kill wolves; it is because public harvest is part of an overall biologically and scientifically grounded wolf management strategy that is designed to protect, monitor and manage wolves.
One benefit of public harvest is the license revenue it raises: approximately $180,000 in Minnesota this year, plus about $92,000 from wolf lottery permit application fees. This revenue will be used to help pay for wolf monitoring and research.
Another part of the management strategy is dealing with wolves that kill livestock and pets. Such wolves are generally trapped and killed to eliminate the problem, and livestock owners are reimbursed for verified wolf-killed livestock. The wolf season will not eliminate depredation problems, but it may help reduce wolf numbers in problem areas to reduce depredation occurrences.
Wolves are an incredible creature of the wild, as are moose, deer, ducks, grouse, etc. Interestingly, Minnesota has always been the stronghold for wolves in the lower 48 states. In large part this has been due to the excellent wolf habitat we have. In fact, when wolves were placed on the endangered species list (ESA) in 1974, they still had a relatively stable and persistent population of 500-700 in Minnesota. The problem was that they were not doing well in other states; hence listing under ESA was required.
Those opposing a wolf hunt vary in their opinions. Some believe wolves are sacred. Others believe wolves should never be hunted. Some believe wolves should be encouraged to repopulate all lands across all 50 states. Some blame wolf depredation of livestock and pets upon man's encroachment into wolf territory and believe man should leave. Some just don't like any hunting of any animal.
But those like me like to hunt and feel it is our intimate and sacred way of connecting with nature.
Whatever your opinion, the reasons for wolf management remain the same. Wolves have recovered and are now delisted from the ESA. As such, Minnesota is charged by the federal government to manage wolves. Part of that management plan is to make sure that Minnesota maintains a healthy wolf population of at least 1,600. Another part of the plan is to minimize wolf depredations upon livestock and pets. And yet another part of the plan is public harvest that in turn helps pay for the overall management.
I think all can agree that man now inhabits our landscape. With habitation comes responsibility to watch over and conserve our natural resources for future generations. Simply ignoring the resources will not accomplish conservation goals; neither will allowing unfettered use of the resources. Thankfully, in America, we consciously follow sound science and biologically prescribed wildlife management plans designed specifically to protect and to conserve, and to provide recreation opportunities as well. And the recreation pays for the plans.
This is the North American model of wildlife management. This is exactly what is being done in Minnesota by our DNR through the Minnesota wolf management plan. This is why, despite the controversy, the gray wolf will be assured of a long, healthy future in Minnesota.
For a contrary view, see "It's a mistake to start down the path of killing wolves again."
Comments (3)
Testing
Humans do need to be responsible. That means taking responsibility.
I am tired of hearing about wolves killing pets. When living in territory that is also inhabited by wolves, it is not the wolf that is at fault for behaving like a wolf, it is humans who are at fault for not caring enough about protecting their pets. If I lost a pet to a wolf, I would blame only myself.
As for livestock predation, those who run sloppy operations, dragging carcasses into the woods as a means of disposal, not bringing livestock in a night, not having guard animals, etc., have only themselves to blame for losses. And if a wolf problem does occur, in spite of taking all protective measures, the DNR has professionals who can handle it; instead of anyone off the street who can pay for a license to kill any wolf.
The DNR is inadequately funded so it is raising funds by having wolf and moose hunts, both scientifically flawed decisions. Our legislature has to do its job and take responsibility for funding the DNR adequately, not encouraging the agency to kill wolves for revenue.
As for connecting with nature and the sacredness of the hunt, there is nothing sacred about hunting to kill for a trophy. Any ethical hunter will say that if you do not eat what you shoot, you do not shoot.
Since Mark Johnson is the executive director of the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association, I would ask him to clean up the ranks of deer hunters before he advocates for a wolf hunt. Most of the deer hunters I have had contact with give the legitimate hunter a bad name, shooting from the road, shooting next to or directly toward occupied buildings, shooting when they do not see someone else is in the woods, shooting when they are drunk; unless someone is killed little happens and even then it is questionable because it is termed an accident. How can it be an accident if you shoot a person instead of a deer? The first rule of hunting is to have a clear shot.
unting random wolves is not managing them, they group breed, it plays to their prolific strengths. Most all are either breeding wolves replaceable by others in the pack, or non-breeders that do the replacing, the number of litters/pups whelped per adult almost always goes up by rather simple math, along with the amount of food each adult must obtain. More than useless long term "management", opposed to something like promoting larger wolf packs so reproduction is kept down to natural loss.
Public harvest is about as much a part of an overall biologically and scientifically grounded wolf management strategy that is designed to protect, monitor and manage wolves, as the sugary cereal is "Part of this nutritious breakfast" pictured with egg, bacon, and orange juice. It requires a definition for "part of " which is "In the same location as" or "beside this nutritious breakfast". The only thing it will accomplish is making it hard for other wolf pack members to survive without attacking livestock
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
