I might guess that most if not all of us would agree that some control of wolf numbers is warranted, at least where they are doing well.
The way to get there though is not to suggest they all should be killed, or portray them in a wildly inaccurate manner. That only polarizes the issue when "our side" is already in the minority.
Just about every time this topic comes up someone from a wolf state claims that it's only those who don't have to deal with them who want wolves protected. I don't know the situation out west as well, but I do know opinion polls in MN/WI/MI clearly show much more support for wolves and wolf protection that those making these claims indicate.
To make headway--even in states with wolves--facts are needed.
I was asked to address some of the incorrect info in the thread.
1) It was said wolves have exceeded their "cap number": The feds--working with biologists--develop a plan to achieve recovery of endangered/threatened species. They set a recovery goal number in each state. That number corresponds to a number that according to the plan suggests the population has "recovered". In essence it acts as a minimum, and certainly NOT a cap. If a state exceeds it's recovery number (as MN has for many years and WI/MI have in recent years), any drop in those numbers that approaches the goal may be used as evidence that full protection is again needed for wolves.
2) The "But they kill for Sport" comments: This feeling is based on personal emotions, not facts. Wolves kill to survive. Just like any predator. They can be pretty good at it, and no it's not necessarily pretty when they are successful. Some people seem to really struggle with that basic understanding--I get that, but have a hard time with folks who hunt not holding all the other species that do the same standard.
It's not an easy business being a predator of big animals who can hurt you. They do get injured and occasionally die while trying to take down deer, even more so with elk and moose. They have the ability to take down healthy animals and will take advantage of a healthy animal in a compromised position when the opportunity comes along, but generally will tackle those that are weak or sick first. They'll chase quite a few prey for each one they take down in an effort to find those that are easier (and safer) for them to tackle. In wolf country they will often get on the track of a hunter-wounded deer, find it, and finish it off.
3) The "Kill more than they consume" comments: Biologists call this "surplus killing". It's not uncommon in predators--many a poultry farmer has tales of mink/weasels/raccoons wiping out a whole coop at night. It hasn't been documented that often in wolves, and keep in mind there have been radio-collared wolves followed by biologists for 30 some years now.
Someone mentioned MN in the mid-90's. We had two very tough winters back to back in those years, and surplus killing by wolves was documented in the first of those two winters. It was not in the second, nor to my knowledge has it ever been since.
And lost in the story was what condition those deer were in that first winter. As someone who investigated this personally I can say this--we had a pretty high deer population in most areas at the time, and lots of fawns. Most of the wolf kills were completely consumed, but of the ones that were not, they were almost always young deer that were dead on their feet--the wolves got to them before Ma Nature would have. They were starving with no fat reserves left. Wolves did do pretty well that winter!
The next year--equally bad weather--not only was surplus killing not documented but wolves killed a lot fewer deer. The weak or old were pretty much wiped out by the first winter, and those that were left were younger and stronger, and better able to escape wolves even in a bad winter.
4) The "wolves are reducing deer #'s" view:
I've seen a number of wolf studies and have yet to find one that indicates anywhere close to 50+ deer/year numbers. Most run in the low 20's, less than 1/2 the figure OnPoint used. The biggest mortality factor for deer in any of the lakes states has always been hunting.
In this part of the country we've had very high deer numbers at the same time we've had a high wolf population. The claims that they affect deer #'s just don't wash when compared to facts. After the hard winters here in the mid-90's deer #'s recovered completely within a few years even though we had high numbers of wolves.
WI and MN both have alterred deer season regs a great deal in recent years, with the goal of killing more deer and/or putting more presure on does during the hunting season. For the most part, those efforts have worked well. The winter of 08-09 was a bit tough in some areas of the state but otherwise winters have been pretty mild. If you are seeing fewer deer, it's most likely due to hunting harvest increases or more pressure on does.
