ENDANGERED SPECIES

Canada lynx population appears steady in Minnesota

Seth Roeser / For the News Tribune — Thu, 06 Mar 2025 13:00:00 GMT

DULUTH — Though low in number and prone to fluctuating, Minnesota's Canada lynx population appears consistent with previous years, according to a 2024 U.S. Forest Service report and wildlife experts.

Minnesota has the third-largest lynx population in the United States, after Alaska and Maine. Current estimates for lynx vary from 100-300 individuals in the state; the ratio of Minnesota-born to Canada-born is unknown.

“We’ve been doing the occupancy survey since 2014, and it’s kind of had ups and downs, but you could probably draw almost a straight line through those over that time,” said Superior National Forest wildlife biologist Dan Ryan, who has been studying lynx since 2002.

Most lynx detections in the state occur in St. Louis, Lake and Cook counties, where all of the fieldwork of the 2024 survey took place.

“I would say they (lynx numbers) were probably lower in the 1990s, just because there weren’t that many reports,” said Ron Moen, University of Minnesota professor and Natural Resources Research Institute senior research associate. “But people are more aware now, and I would say that from 2003 on, it's been kind of status quo as far as we can tell.”

Summary of the 2024 Superior National Forest’s Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) DNA database and population monitoring used DNA samples collected from hair, tissue and scat found by snow tracking from biologists. Specimens were entered into the Forest Service’s genetics database for lynx to document their occurrence, persistence and reproduction in Minnesota.

For the 2023-24 season, the survey identified 98 individual lynx — 44 of which were new to the database, including 25 kittens.

The elusive cat species has had a peripheral presence in the state for decades, but gained more notoriety in the 1970s, when prices for their pelts reached highs of $700-$800, according to Moen. It was also the peak of Minnesota lynx harvests by hunters and trappers.

Canada lynx were hunted and trapped throughout Minnesota until becoming a protected species in 1984. In 2000, they were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

According to John Erb, furbearer research scientist for the DNR, from 1978 to 1983, nearly 50 lynx were legally harvested in Minnesota and none were older than 3 1/2.

“We don’t have enough samples that I could say, 'average lifespan is 5 years or 6 or 4,'" Erb said. "But my bet is there aren’t many lynx that live past 6 or 7.

“It’s a tough life to be a carnivore in a northern environment,” he continued. “Very few of these species are living to be 5 and beyond.”

Gauging the population of Canada lynx in Minnesota requires knowledge of another Northland critter: the snowshoe hare, which constitutes around 90% of a lynx’s diet. A 2008 lynx scat analysis conducted in Northeastern Minnesota, co-authored by Moen, found up to 97% of scat specimens studied contained hare remains.

Snowshoe hares have famously cyclical population booms and busts, with hare numbers reaching an apex and crashing within 10-year periods. When hares become scarce, lynx either die or move in search of food — sometimes driving them into Minnesota from Canada.

“That means every five or every 10 years, they’re going through these tight bottlenecks where it's tough to survive,” Erb said. “They quit reproducing, they quit having kittens, the adults have trouble surviving.”

When hares are up, lynx eventually come up, and when the hare numbers go down, lynx go down, kind of lagging behind.

Snowshoe hares provide more calories than other potential prey like squirrels and birds. Lynx are especially adept at hunting hares, as their large, fur-covered paws allow them to walk on top of snow, acting like snowshoes. Compared to similarly sized predators such as bobcats — frequently misidentified as lynx — this adaptation allows lynx to thrive during periods of high snowfall, while lower snow levels mean more competition for food from other predators.

Though the two species’ populations are still dependent on one another, the lynx-hare cycle became less pronounced for reasons unknown to biologists after the harvest peak in the late 1970s.

“It’s just not very dramatic,” Erb said. “It’s not a big cycle like it used to be; it's sort of a little bump.”

Theories about the dampened cycle range from habitat and climate changes to increased predation of hares from other predators. According to Erb, conservation efforts within the past few decades have caused increased bobcat, fisher, coyote and fox populations — more competition with lynx in the cat’s southern range, which includes Minnesota.

“Compared to 50 years ago, we had nearly eradicated a lot of predators,” Erb said. “A lot of those species have rebounded and are doing OK."

When hare populations crash, these predators will move to other sources of food — a behavior not exhibited in lynx to any major extent.

The 2024-25 survey is underway. According to Ryan, there appear to be fewer lynx occurrences this season compared to last, which saw higher trends of lynx than usual.

“This winter, we’re collecting that information now and we think we’re seeing maybe the start of a decline a little bit, which is kind of natural and expected,” Ryan said. “When hares are up, lynx eventually come up, and when the hare numbers go down, lynx go down, kind of lagging behind.

“So, we don’t have any information for this winter yet," Ryan said, "but it kind of seems like maybe we’re starting to see some lower snowshoe hare numbers, so maybe we’re going to start going through a bit of a decline.”

]]>

Having no regulation won't work, so we better focus on smart regulation

Jenny Schlecht — Mon, 10 Feb 2025 11:30:00 GMT

Sitting on the top deck of a double decker bus driving through the San Diego Zoo, my mind was pretty far away from work. Granted, I was in San Diego for work. But it was Saturday, and my daughters and I were enjoying one of the nation's premier zoos, and I wasn't really thinking about agriculture or journalism.

But, as it often happens, I got a quick reminder that agriculture really is connected to everything, in some way, shape or form. Usually, that happens when someone talks about food or a product that originates from agriculture. This time was a little different.

The tour guide gave us so many interesting facts on animals that I'm sure I've already forgotten most of them. But the one that really stuck with me concerned the California condor.

According to the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, condors once ranged from British Columbia to northern Baja California, Mexico. But, our guide told us, condor populations declined to as low as 22 birds in the 1980s. There were multiple reasons for that, but one he mentioned specifically was DDT.

DDT, or dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, was an insecticide developed in the 1940s. According to the EPA, it was initially used to control insects carrying things like malaria and typhus, and it later was used around the world for insect control in other applications, including agriculture, homes and gardens. Eventually, some insects became resistant to it.

But there were problems beyond insect resistance. Evidence showed DDT was harmful to wildlife and humans. First the USDA tightened up regulations on it, and then the EPA (which was formed in 1970) issued a cancellation order for DDT in 1972. DDT is believed to cause reproductive issues in humans and animals and is classified as a possible carcinogen.

California condors first began shrinking in numbers due to issues related to western settlement, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife says. They've faced habitat loss, illegal killing, contamination from lead in the carcasses they scavenge, threats from other species and accidental collisions with wires and structures. And DDT may have prevented the hatching of some eggs.

Clearly, DDT wasn't the only problem facing condors, but it was one of them. And DDT certainly had an adverse effect on humans and the environment.

The real reason I was in San Diego was to cover the American Sugarbeet Growers Association's annual meeting, which had a heavy focus on politics, including regulation.

Jim Wiesemeyer, Washington analyst for Pro Farmer and Farm Journal, gave a wide-ranging talk at the meeting about politics. At one point, he noted the Trump administration's desire to cut regulations. That can be a good thing, Wiesemeyer said, with many regulations amounting to unfunded mandates that small businesses have trouble affording, thus losing business to larger companies with deeper pockets.

However, Wiesemeyer cautioned that in his travels he had come to appreciate some level of U.S. regulation when he experienced the realities of what it means to be somewhere that lacks regulation. He felt like "kissing the ground" upon returning to the U.S., he said, truly appreciating the quality of life that some of our regulations provide.

The California condors, if you were wondering, have made a bit of a comeback. They're still endangered, but the Bureau of Land Management in a September news release said the population was up to 560, thanks to a lot of partners, including the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance.

I've been thinking about all of that — about California condors and problems with human health and the environment and quality of life. No, not everything needs a regulation. And yes, some regulations are only going to come about after we realize something bad is happening. But wouldn't it be better if, when we can, we prevent the bad thing from ever happening?

In ag, we'll probably continue complaining about some EPA actions that appear based on incomplete or poor science or that don't take into account the trade offs between the good something does and the bad. Ag groups will continue to work on those things. But let's never lose sight of the fact that we do need some regulation. We need testing of new products and we need to know that we're not using products that could harm people, animals or the world around us. We don't want to face another DDT.

]]>

Biden admin seeks to remove federal gray wolf protections

Jimmy Lovrien — Tue, 17 Sep 2024 00:03:27 GMT

SAN FRANCISCO — The Biden administration asked a federal judge to reinstate a Trump-era rule that removed Endangered Species Act protections for the gray wolf.

In an 87-page opening brief Friday in the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, U.S. Department of Justice attorneys argued that a lower federal district court erred in 2022 when it overturned the rule and reinstated the species’ protections.

The attorneys wrote that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2020 determination that “no configuration of gray wolves was threatened or endangered in all or a significant portion of its range” was “well-reasoned and well-supported by the administrative record” and shouldn’t have been rejected.

“The district court misunderstood the (Endangered Species Act’s) clear mandate and compounded that error by imposing its own views of the science,” the government’s attorneys wrote.

Wolves first gained federal protection in the 1970s, when Minnesota was the only state in the contiguous United States to maintain a small wolf population. After their comeback across Minnesota, Wisconsin and Upper Michigan, every administration since President Bill Clinton has moved to delist wolves in favor of state control.

While there have been periods when the wolf has been delisted, efforts by federal wildlife officials to delist the wolf have been repeatedly thwarted by the courts.

Friday’s filing does not change the current legal status of gray wolves in the U.S.

Gray wolves are considered “endangered” in 44 states, “threatened” in Minnesota, and under state jurisdiction in Montana, Wyoming, portions of eastern Oregon and Washington, and north-central Utah, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service, which is part of the Department of Interior.

Fish and Wildlife Service spokesperson Vanessa Kauffman said in a statement Monday that the agency “is focused on a concept of recovery that allows wolves to thrive on the landscape while respecting those who work and live in places that support them” and pointed to a settlement agreement reached in December that gave the agency two years to develop a draft gray wolf recovery plan.

“The Department of the Interior remains steadfastly committed to the protection, preservation and longevity of gray wolves,” Kauffman said. “We recognize that this work must go beyond the Endangered Species Act to facilitate a durable and holistic approach to wolf recovery.”

Defenders of Wildlife, one of the environmental groups that had successfully challenged the Trump administration’s rule, said removing protections now could reopen wolf hunting and destabilize populations.

“Wolves have made monumental progress toward recovery but have yet to re-establish sustainable populations in much of the available habitat across the Lower 48,” Ellen Richmond, senior attorney at Defenders of Wildlife, said in a news release Monday. “Delisting at this time would set us on a backward trajectory, imperiling the species before it’s made a full recovery.”

The group was joined by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Humane Society of the United States, among other groups, in challenging the Trump-era rule.

Meanwhile, like the Fish and Wildlife Service, the state of Utah, the National Rifle Association and other groups seek to reinstate the rule.

U.S. Rep. Pete Stauber, a Republican from Hermantown, authored a bill to remove Endangered Species Act protections for the gray wolf that passed the House of Representatives last spring. Stauber said in a press release Friday that Gov. Tim Walz should direct the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to carry out an annual wolf hunt “to cull our out-of-control wolf population.”

“Now that the current Administration is taking the right step in restoring the Trump Administration’s rule delisting the gray would under the ESA, responsible management of the species can return to the states,” Stauber said in the press release.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources already has an updated wolf management plan that allows for wolf hunting and trapping seasons if and when the federal status changes. The plan allows for wolf seasons at certain wolf populations but does not require seasons.

And, if the wolf is delisted, any decision on wolf hunting or trapping would follow "robust public engagement, as required by state statute," DNR spokesperson Gail Nosek said in a statement to the News Tribune on Monday.

Nosek said the agency is aware of the Biden administration's Sept. 13 filing and that while the Endangered Species Act remains in effect, "our data show the wolf population has recovered in the state."

"As we articulate in the 2022 Wolf Management Plan, the Minnesota DNR is committed to maintaining a well-connected and resilient wolf population in Minnesota, while seeking to minimize human-wolf conflicts and recognize diverse human values regarding wolves," Nosek said. "This work will be grounded in science, public input, and state and federal laws."

The DNR and other biologists agree that wolves are a factor in the diminished deer herd in parts of northern Minnesota, most say the biggest factors are winter weather and habitat. A decade-long string of deep-snow winters — the snowiest 10-year span on record in parts of Northeastern Minnesota — have throttled deer numbers, causing some animals to starve outright and making others more vulnerable to predators.

The DNR estimates about 2,919 wolves roam here, mostly in the northern half of the state, by far the most of any state outside Alaska. That's similar to figures in the early 2000s when northern Minnesota had record-large deer herds and record deer harvests.

Some hunters, however, say the DNR wolf population estimate is flawed, blaming predators and not deep-snow winters for the deer decline.

During one of the periods when wolves were federally delisted, under the support of the DNR and then-Gov. Mark Dayton, Minnesota held wolf hunting and trapping seasons for three years, from 2012-2014, killing more than 900 wolves before a federal judge ordered the animal protected again.

In January 2021, after the Trump-era rule went into effect, states again briefly regained control of wolf management. Minnesota did not take action.

But, Wisconsin held a mid-winter wolf hunt allowing tracking hounds and night-vision goggles. That hunt lasted only three days before state officials shut it down. Licensed hunters killed 216 wolves in 72 hours, more than 80% over the intended quota of 119 and nearly 20% of the state's estimated 1,000-plus wolves.

The federal judge then overturned the Trump-era rule, again giving wolves in the Great Lakes region federal protections.

While no public hunting of wolves is allowed in Minnesota, about 200 wolves are trapped and killed by a federal agency each year in Minnesota near where pets and livestock are attacked.

]]>

Angry deer hunters rally against wolves, DNR, Democrats

John Myers — Thu, 07 Dec 2023 14:17:20 GMT

CARLTON — Deer hunters across Minnesota must rally together and pressure politicians in St. Paul and Washington to remove wolves from federal endangered species protections and allow an open season to cull their numbers.

That was the message to a packed meeting Wednesday night organized by the new northern Minnesota-based group Hunters For Hunters in a steamy upstairs room of the Four Seasons Sports Complex.

More than 200 people heard Steve Porter, one of the group's founding members, rail against Democrats, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and even the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association for not working hard enough to delist wolves and start culling the state’s wolf population.

Porter urged attendees to follow up their anger with action and join the group to put pressure on Minnesota lawmakers and the DNR.

“Tonight we are going to try to create a voice. And we will be heard,’’ Porter, of Lake Bronson, Minnesota, said, adding that liberal, environmentalist wolf supporters are welcome to have a “love affair with wolves,’’ but that it shouldn’t be allowed to “spill over onto my property” with what many hunters say is an overpopulation of the big canine predators.

Porter noted that the effort already had paid off with media coverage of their fight spreading across the state.

Many deer hunters are seeking state wolf management — hunting and trapping seasons — to bring wolf numbers down and bolster deer numbers. But that's not legally possible now as wolves in the Great Lakes region are a federally protected species under the Endangered Species Act.

Organizers of the meeting, and several more planned in coming weeks, say they planned the gatherings to closely follow the state’s November firearms deer hunting seasons. With memories of seeing and shooting very few deer still fresh in their minds, organizers figured many hunters would be more willing to express their sentiments against wolves.

They appear to be right.

When asked if they had a poor deer hunting season in November, nearly all of the attendees raised their hands. When asked if they distrusted the DNR’s wolf population estimate, almost all raised their hands. When asked if they knew someone who had illegally killed a wolf, most of them raised their hands.

“I’m sick and tired of this and it’s time we take some action,’’ said Jim Dahl, a Carlton County resident who said he’s been hunting for more than 60 years on his land.

For most of those 60 years, the deer hunting had been good, Dahl said in front of the gathering. But for the past few years, “we don’t have any deer” because wolves are killing them.

Dahl suggested that hunters take the situation into their own hands, adding that “they ain’t going to put us all in jail” for killing the federally protected animal.

Carlton County Commissioner Gary Peterson, of Barnum, suggested that hunters take extreme action and set down their rifles for a year to send an economic message to the DNR, which relies heavily on license sales to fund wildlife programs.

“Boycott the deer season,’’ Peterson suggested.

State Sen. Nathan Wesenberg, R-Little Falls, a former wildlife biologist, said wolf supporters mistakenly believe that deer hunters want to eradicate all wolves.

“The people in the Cities that think we hate wolves — that’s not true. We need wolves. They belong here,’’ he said. “But we need to manage wolves.”

Porter, Weseneberg and others repeatedly urged hunters to vote for Republican politicians to help support the fight for wolf management, saying Gov. Tim Walz and other Democrats must be defeated before meaningful action on wolves occurs.

While DNR and other biologists agree that wolves are a factor in the diminished deer herd in parts of northern Minnesota, most say the biggest factors are winter weather and habitat. A decade-long string of deep-snow winters — the snowiest 10-year span on record in parts of Northeastern Minnesota — have throttled deer numbers, causing some animals to starve outright and making others more vulnerable to predators.

Severe winters also reduce how many new fawns are born each spring, with females too malnourished to give birth, further worsening the deer decline for years to come.

Hunters For Hunters scheduled additional meetings on the issue, including Dec. 7 in Aurora, Dec. 8 in Coleraine, Dec. 17 in Longville, Dec. 29 in Detroit Lakes, Jan. 11 in Nisswa and Jan. 15 in Bagley.

The Minnesota DNR estimates about 2,691 wolves roam here, mostly in the northern half of the state, by far the most of any state outside Alaska. The agency says that’s about the same or even fewer wolves than in the early 2000s when northern Minnesota had record large deer herds and record deer harvests. Some hunters, however, say the DNR wolf population estimate is flawed, blaming predators and not deep-snow winters for the deer decline.

Minnesota’s deer harvest during the firearms season was down 6% statewide this year from 2022. Hunters bagged more deer in the southeast and central regions of the state but shot 18% fewer deer in the northeast compared to 2022 and 57% fewer than 2017, a recent high mark.

Wolves first gained federal protection in the 1970s. After their comeback across Minnesota, Wisconsin and Upper Michigan, every administration since Bill Clinton's has moved to delist wolves in favor of state control. But efforts by federal wildlife officials have been repeatedly thwarted by the courts.

During one of the periods wolves were federally delisted, under the support of the DNR and then-Gov. Mark Dayton, a DFLer, Minnesota held wolf hunting and trapping seasons for three years, from 2012-2014, killing more than 900 wolves before a federal judge ordered the animal protected again.

In January 2021, states again briefly regained control of wolf management. Minnesota did not take action. But Wisconsin held a mid-winter wolf hunt allowing tracking hounds and night-vision goggles. That hunt lasted only three days before state officials shut it down. Licensed hunters killed 216 wolves in 72 hours, more than 80% over the intended quota of 119 and nearly 20% of the state's estimated 1,000-plus wolves.

After the Wisconsin hunt, a federal judge again gave wolves in the Great Lakes region federal protections, and that court case remains the law of the land. Efforts to act in Congress on the issue have not advanced. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Biden administration says it will try again to delist wolves in 2024. (While no public hunting is allowed, about 200 wolves are trapped and killed by a federal agency each year in Minnesota near where pets and livestock are attacked.)

Killing wolves in Minnesota to leave more deer for hunters to shoot may be a tough sell across much of the state. A 2020 poll by University of Minnesota researchers found that 86% of Minnesotans want to keep the same or even more wolves in the state. Among the general public, only 41% supported wolf hunting and only 30% supported wolf trapping.

Deer hunters also make up a small share of the statewide voting population. Fewer than 500,000 of Minnesota's 5.7 million residents hunt, about 9% of the population. The number of hunters in the state has declined over the past 20 years as the baby boomer generation ages out and fewer younger people take up hunting.

]]>

New Minnesota deer hunting group to hold meetings on wolves

John Myers — Tue, 28 Nov 2023 23:00:00 GMT

DULUTH — A new hunting group has formed in Minnesota and has taken on wolves and wolf management as its first major issue.

Hunters For Hunters has scheduled public evening meetings for Dec. 6 in Carlton, Dec. 7 in Aurora, Dec. 8 in Coleraine, Dec. 29 in Detroit Lakes and Jan. 15 in Bagley to discuss predator management.

The group calls itself “a watchdog organization dedicated to protecting the rights of hunters, landowners and sportsmen in the State of Minnesota. We are a community of like-minded individuals who believe that hunting and outdoor activities are an important part of our heritage and culture. Our mission is to ensure that future generations can enjoy the same hunting opportunities that we have today.”

The group’s website says its goal is “taking back your rights, and forging a better direction that benefits our hunting traditions.”

The group says it is starting with the deer and wolf issue in Minnesota but hopes to expand to other states and other issues.

“We’re a grassroots group of passionate hunters and landowners who see our tradition of deer hunting being destroyed because of wolves,” Lake Bronson resident Steve Porter, a member of the group, told the Duluth News Tribune.

Porter, whose son, Dillon, is chairman of the group's board, said Hunters For Hunters held a meeting in mid-November in Squaw Lake that drew 250 people and three state senators.

“There are a lot of angry people out there who feel this issue is not getting the attention it deserves,” Steve Porter said. “We’re trying to get the attention of the Legislature, state and federal. … The wolf has to be controlled in some capacity.”

Biologists say northern Minnesota's deer population, especially in the northeast, has been hit hard by a string of deep-snow winters over the past decade, which forced deer to struggle and reduced their ability to reproduce and escape predators.

Some hunters in the region believe that wolves are the primary reason deer numbers are down, and they want to kill wolves to increase deer numbers. That’s not legally possible now as wolves are a federally protected species under the Endangered Species Act, placed there under court order after a judge ruled individual states were bungling the effort to manage the big canines.

While no public hunting is allowed, about 200 wolves are trapped and killed by a federal agency each year in Minnesota near where pets and livestock are attacked.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources estimates about 2,691 wolves roam here, mostly in the northern half of the state, by far the most of any state outside Alaska. The agency says that’s about the same or even fewer wolves than in the early 2000s when northern Minnesota had record large deer herds and record deer harvests.

Some hunters, however, say the DNR wolf population estimate is flawed, blaming predators and not deep-snow winters for the deer decline.

Under the support of the DNR and then-Gov. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, Minnesota held wolf hunting and trapping seasons for three years, from 2012-2014, killing more than 900 wolves before a federal judge ordered the animal protected again.

In January 2021, states again briefly regained control of wolf management, and Wisconsin held a mid-winter wolf hunt allowing tracking hounds and night-vision goggles. That hunt lasted only three days before state officials shut it down. Licensed hunters killed 216 wolves in that time, more than 80% over the intended quota of 119, and nearly 20% of the state's estimated 1,000-plus wolves.

After the Wisconsin hunt, a federal judge again gave wolves in the Great Lakes region federal protections, and that court case remains unresolved. Efforts to act in Congress on the issue have not advanced.

Fewer than 500,000 of Minnesota's 5.7 million residents hunt, about 9% of the population. The number of hunters in the state has declined over the past 20 years as the baby boomer generation ages out and fewer younger people take up hunting.

Hunters For Hunters is seeking annual memberships of between $35 and $60. For more information on the group or the meetings, email info@hunters4hunters.org or go to hunters4.hunters.org.

]]>

Wolves kill many fawns in areas people have impacted

John Myers — Fri, 03 Nov 2023 11:00:00 GMT

INTERNATIONAL FALLS — Wolves around Voyageurs National Park kill many deer fawns near areas where humans have impacted the land — cabins, roads, ATV trails and logging sites — according to a new study.

Research by the Voyageurs Wolf Project, published recently in the journal Ecological Applications, shows wolves are using areas very near humans to find and kill fawn deer, at least for a few weeks each summer when the fawns are most vulnerable.

The study shows humans are making it easier for wolves to make their kills.

“The premise is really quite simple: Human activities change where deer are on the landscape, and wolves go where the deer are," said Thomas Gable, a University of Minnesota researcher at the Voyageurs Wolf Project and co-lead author of the study. "Plus, humans have done an excellent job of creating and maintaining a diverse, well-connected web of roads, trails and other cleared linear features that are ideal corridors for wolves to hunt deer."

The study was conducted by a collaborative team of researchers from the University of Minnesota, Northern Michigan University, Voyageurs National Park and the University of Manitoba.

Most logging in northern Minnesota involves clear-cutting forests. After forests have been cleared, dense stands of young aspen saplings provide prime food for deer and provide excellent hiding spots for newborn fawns. But wolves find out these recently logged areas are good hunting spots, turning these nursery grounds into risky areas for deer fawns during summer.

“Our work indicates wolves disproportionately hunt and kill deer fawns around recently logged areas, those that have been logged within the past five years,” Gable said. “But not areas that have been logged more than five years ago. This is likely because clear-cut forests are much better deer habitat for the first few years after the area has been logged.”

The study found wolves also will move in close to human-occupied cabins and homes to find deer.

“Surprisingly, wolves tend to kill deer fawns closer to human infrastructure, like cabins, year-round residences and barns than expected,” said Sean Johnson-Bice, a University of Manitoba researcher and co-lead author of the study.

Because wolves tend to avoid people, deer in some areas have learned to congregate around humans to avoid predators and to find food that people provide — either direct deer feeding or gardens, fruit trees and crops. However, it appears wolves are more willing to come into more human-dominated areas to hunt fawns during the summer.

“Although the high concentration of deer near human development attracts wolves to areas near people, wolves still definitely avoid encountering people when hunting fawns around human infrastructure,” said Austin Homkes, another Voyageurs Wolf Project researcher and co-lead author of the study. “Wolves spend substantial time in close proximity to occupied cabins and residences and yet almost no one sees them.”

The researchers note that wolves mostly overlook other prey options in early summer and turn almost all of their hunting attention toward finding fawns, as do black bears and bobcats.

The Voyageurs Wolf Project, funded by the state of Minnesota conservation money, has tracked dozens of wolves over the past decade in and around Voyageurs National Park in far northern Minnesota using GPS transmitter collars that show where wolves are day and night for months on end. The project has made groundbreaking discoveries of wolf behavior in northern Minnesota, especially summer behavior that had been mostly unknown before.

Roads, ATV trails help wolves kill deer

In a related study, the researchers also found that roads, powerlines, ATV trails and cleared hunting lanes near hunting shacks in rural areas often serve as hunting highways for wolves. Wolves can travel faster and farther along these linear features compared to traveling in the dense forests of northern Minnesota. In turn, these features appear to increase wolf hunting efficiency by allowing wolves to cover a larger area more effectively while burning fewer calories.

“Wolves face the same general issues that people do when traveling in the woods, and just like humans, wolves often prefer to travel on linear corridors like roads and trails rather than bushwhacking through the dense forest,” said John Bruggink, a professor at Northern Michigan University, and a co-author of the study.

Thus, it came as no surprise to the research team that wolves preferentially hunted fawns from these linear features and disproportionately killed fawns closer to these features than would be expected.

“When we put all of the pieces together, it is pretty clear that the cumulative effects of all major aspects of human activity in the north woods — logging, infrastructure development, and road/trail development — have fundamentally changed where and how wolves hunt deer fawns here,” Johnson-Bice said. “The rules of this predator-prey game change when people alter ecosystems, and it’s possible we have created conditions that may have tipped the scales in the predator's favor.”

]]>

Billboard with Bambi rekindles debate over wolves in Minnesota

John Myers — Thu, 05 Oct 2023 13:00:00 GMT

DULUTH — A billboard claiming wolves kill and eat 54,000 deer fawns every year in northern Minnesota has rekindled the debate over the big predator’s role in the state and whether hunting and trapping is needed to keep wolf numbers in check.

The sign has also raised some eyebrows over its accuracy.

The billboard, which went up in September along busy U.S. Highway 53 in Cotton, about 30 miles north of Duluth, claims that “Wolves devour over 54,000 fawns a year in Minnesota.”

The billboard was paid for by the Sturgeon River Chapter of the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association. The chapter posted on social media that it's intended to promote wolf management, state-sanctioned hunting and trapping seasons to reduce wolf numbers.

The issue is currently moot because a 2022 federal court decision is keeping wolves under the protection of the Endangered Species Act across much of the U.S. outside the Rocky Mountains.

There’s no doubt that wolves (and black bears and bobcats) kill a lot of fawns every year in the state, mostly in June and July before fawns are fast enough to escape. Wolves in fact are the primary cause of non-human mortality for all deer in Northeastern Minnesota, according to the Department of Natural Resources.

But critics say the billboard’s number simply doesn’t add up, and that in fact there is no scientific data on how many deer or deer fawns the state’s estimated 2,700 wolves kill each year.

Researchers with the Voyageurs Wolf Project in and around Voyageurs National Park say they have documented one wolf that killed as many as 38 fawns in a year while some haven’t been good enough hunters to kill any. The average yearling wolf, which makes up the majority in packs, may kill three to five fawns in a year in the Voyageurs area as they learn how to hunt, said Thomas Gable, lead researcher in the project.

But Gable said there is no way to take site-specific research data and extrapolate it across an area as large and diverse as northern Minnesota. Wolves are also eating moose, beaver, snowshoe hares, fish, berries and human food left out as bait or left behind as garbage.

“If you want to say you don’t like wolves and that you want to shoot some, that’s fine, that’s your opinion,” Gable said. “But when you try to bring in a number that has no scientific basis, and which just can’t hold up, then that’s a problem. It’s not factual. It might be higher, it might be lower. We just don’t know.”

Social media sensation

Gable posted about the billboard on Facebook last week where the Voyageurs Wolf Project has 232,000 followers and said no one has come forward to offer evidence that the 54,000 number is valid. Across Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, Gable said a series of posts about the billboard reached 728,660 people as of Monday.

“If you want to look at the science of predator/prey relationships, there is ample research out there that shows killing a few wolves, or even if you killed all the wolves, doesn't mean you get more deer. There are other limiting factors … and fawns die from all sorts of reasons other than wolves. Minnesota deer hunters kill 25,000 fawns each year,” Gable noted. “And if you got rid of wolves, nature would fill the void, maybe with coyotes. And coyotes kill a lot of deer fawns where their densities are high.”

Dan Stark, large carnivore specialist for the Minnesota DNR, said he knows of no accurate estimate of fawn predation across the state.

“There’s no information available to determine whether the estimate (54,000) is accurate or evaluate how close it is to the actual number,” Stark told the News Tribune. “The annual percentage of young fawns taken by wolves, and other predators, in Minnesota are still relatively unknown.”

Stark added that the most recent data from field research in Minnesota shows black bears and even bobcats both killed more fawns than wolves.

Jared Mazurek, executive director of the statewide Minnesota Deer Hunters Association, the state’s largest deer hunter advocacy group with about 20,000 members, said the billboard was not approved or paid for by the statewide organization.

“The state organization was not involved in this initiative,” Mazurek said. “You are correct that the intention behind the billboard was to advocate for wolf management within the state. However, I agree that this message is not clearly conveyed by the statement on the billboard. We are contacting our chapters around the state to ensure that any type of public messaging such as this, must go through our state office so that we can align our message and ensure that we are sticking to the science and providing an appropriate call to action.”

But Mazurek said the statewide group does indeed support wolf management and wolf reduction efforts. In fact, this year the association is boycotting the Minnesota Governor’s Deer Hunting Opener festivities because of Gov. Tim Walz’s opposition to wolf hunting and trapping.

“Wolf population estimates clearly show that we are above target population numbers. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service set a recovery goal of 1,251-1,400 wolves within the state. To provide a buffer, the DNR expanded that goal to 1,600 wolves. The wolf population in Minnesota has stabilized at around 2,700 wolves,” Mazurek noted. “With an increasing human population and resulting habitat fragmentation, this is not an ecologically sustainable population for wolves in the state.”

Deer thrived with wolves when winters were less snowy

The current population estimate of 2,700 is about the same or even down some from 20 years ago when Northeastern Minnesota had record-high deer populations and record-high deer harvest by hunters. Biologists say that fact shows deer numbers can climb even with wolves around — if they have good habitat and mild winters.

But a trend toward deep-snow winters over the past 10 years has conspired to bring deer numbers down in the northeast. Biologists say habitat and winter severity may be bigger issues for deer at the far northern fringe of their range, with wolves then piling on during harsh winters.

The Minnesota DNR has a new wolf management plan that generally keeps wolves near their current level, but also allows the option of hunting and trapping seasons if wolf numbers spike or their range expands more. Under current state law, the decision on any wolf season is up to the agency, but only if federal protections are removed.

“Predator control alone isn’t the answer. But it can be a component,’’ Stark said. “Wolves are the primary cause of natural mortality on deer in northern Minnesota, but there has been little evidence that wolves alone are a limiting factor on deer or have caused population declines across the entire range. From 2003 to 2007, we had record-high deer harvests in Minnesota, which coincided with the highest wolf population estimate.”

Those highest-ever deer numbers, even with modern record wolf numbers, were likely the result of a string of mild winters and a period of good deer habitat, Stark said. At that point, it didn’t matter how many deer that wolves killed because there were still plenty of deer for hunters.

Meanwhile, wolf advocates say the billboard shows the ongoing animosity many wolf opponents have toward the big canine, one reason federal protections are still warranted.

“The misinformed hostility that fueled efforts to wipe out the nation’s wolves (in the past) still exists today,” said Collette Adkins, carnivore conservation director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This billboard shows that wildlife conservationists like me have a lot of work to do to educate people about the ecological importance of wolves and other carnivores.”

It's estimated as many as 2 million gray wolves once roamed North America, including much of the contiguous United States. But European settlers nearly wiped the animals out of the U.S., outside Alaska, with fewer than 500 remaining — all of them in Minnesota's Superior National Forest — by the time the wolf received federal protections in the 1970s.

Groups representing ranchers, hunters and farmers say wolves have since recovered enough in Minnesota, Wisconsin and northern Michigan to remove federal protections and resume state wolf hunting and trapping seasons in those states.

But wolf supporters note that the animals are still only at about 1% of their historical numbers and occupying only about 15% of their historical range. A national wolf recovery plan, they say, should look at additional places wolves could roam beyond where they are now.

In November 2020, the Trump administration finalized a rule that removed all Endangered Species Act protections from most gray wolves nationwide. But a federal court vacated that rule in February 2022 and restored the wolf's federal protection in the lower 48 states except for the northern Rocky Mountains. So far, that court action is holding with no sign wolves will be delisted soon.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Biden administration has announced it will try again in 2024 to draft a wolf delisting plan that will hold up in court.

]]>

US House committee passes bill to delist wolves

John Myers — Mon, 01 May 2023 21:27:47 GMT

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The House Natural Resources Committee last week passed a bill that would remove federal Endangered Species Act protections for the gray wolf.

The Republican-controlled House may yet act on the bill this year, but it is unlikely to advance in the Democratic-controlled Senate or be signed by President Joe Biden.

The federal government since the Clinton administration has tried several times to delist wolves in certain geographic areas, including the western Great Lakes, but have been thwarted by court rulings that found the animal still needs protections.

Republicans in Congress also have tried several times to pass a law that would supersede the court rulings, but they, too, have failed.

The latest bill was supported by both U.S. Rep Tom Tiffany, who represents northern Wisconsin, and U.S. Rep. Pete Stauber, who represents northern Minnesota.

If the bill passed, it would give control over any wolf regulations back to state and tribal resource agencies.

Several hunting and livestock groups say the time is long-overdue to reduce wolf numbers. But wolf supporters say states can’t be trusted to keep wolves at a sustainable level and that the animals haven't recovered over a large enough area of its former range to be considered a recovered species.

]]>

Bills introduced to prohibit any wolf hunting, trapping in Minnesota

John Myers — Mon, 27 Feb 2023 21:53:00 GMT

ST. PAUL — Bills removing any option for a wolf hunting and trapping season from Minnesota statutes have been introduced in the Minnesota Legislature.

The Senate introduced SF 2062 on Monday, sponsored by Sen. Mary Kunesh, DFL-New Brighton. It was referred to the Senate Environment, Climate and Legacy Committee.

The House companion bill, HF 2144, was introduced last week, and is sponsored by Rep. Peter Fischer, DFL-Maplewood.

Minnesota state law currently allows the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources commissioner to hold wolf hunting and trapping seasons if and when the wolf is removed from federal protections under the Endangered Species Act. The DNR commissioner is not required to do so.

The new bills — if they pass the House and Senate and are signed by the governor — would prohibit any wolf season even if the animal loses federal protections. A similar ban on wolf hunting in Minnesota passed the full House in 2019.

Some hunters and cattle farmers want a state-sanctioned wolf season to reduce wolf numbers. But statewide polling by the Minnesota DNR and University of Minnesota showed most Minnesotans want to keep about the current number of wolves in the state.

Maureen Hackett, president of Howling For Wolves, a Minnesota-based wolf advocacy organization, said her group strongly supports the new legislation, saying breaking up wolf packs by killing individuals can cause more problems than it solves for livestock farmers.

“There is no need to kill wolves in a public hunting and trapping season. As apex predators, they have social and biological systems to control their own pack behavior and numbers. We need to leave wolves undisturbed to function as social packs,” Hackett said in a statement Monday.

Other bills have been introduced to require the DNR commissioner to hold a wolf season if delisting occurs.

]]>

Wolves in national parks often killed when they roam outside boundary

John Myers — Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:00:00 GMT

DULUTH — Humans were the most frequent cause of death for research wolves that live in five of the nation's most highly protected places, national parks, and those deaths led to long-term consequences for wolf packs, a new study has discovered.

Some 36% of collared wolves in the five parks included in the study died at the hands of humans, usually when they ventured just outside the park boundaries and were shot.

The research shows that many wolves that spend most of their time in national parks, like Voyageurs in Minnesota and Yellowstone in Wyoming, still amble out of the park frequently, where they are vulnerable to human-caused deaths, often illegal poaching and, where allowed in some states, legal hunting.

“In all the years of our study, we’ve never had a single wolf that remained entirely within the park for an entire year,” said Thomas Gable, lead scientist in the Voyageurs Wolf Project and a University of Minnesota researcher.

Researchers said those wolf deaths caused instability and long-term repercussions for the wolf packs involved, setting in motion changes that impact whether the pack survives and if new pups are reproduced.

The study was published Tuesday in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment and included scientists in several states who used data from 193 wolf packs from the five parks and recorded 978 wolf mortalities from 1986-2021.

While past studies already have documented how humans impact wolf populations, this study took a new approach, looking at how human-caused mortality affects individual wolf packs. To do this, Kira Cassidy, a research associate at Yellowstone National Park, and the other scientists contrasted what happened to wolf packs after at least one pack member was killed by humans with packs that had no members that died of human causes.

The researchers found that the odds of a pack staying together to the end of the year decreased by 27% when a pack member died of human causes, and whether or not that pack produced pups the next year decreased by 22%. When a pack leader died, the impact was more substantial, with the chance of the pack making it to the end of the year decreasing by 73% and reproduction by 49%.

“These results indicate that human activities (outside the parks) can have major negative effects on the biological processes of wildlife that use protected areas,” the study concluded.

The study looked at wolf deaths from Voyageurs and Yellowstone as well as Denali National Park in Alaska, Grand Tetons National Park in Wyoming and the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve in Alaska.

“For gray wolves, the biological unit is the pack or the family. We wanted to focus on the impacts of human-caused mortality to the pack, a finer-scale measure than population size or growth rate,” Cassidy said in releasing the findings.

While the human-caused deaths may not impact the overall population of wolves in each park studied, as other packs may expand to fill in for the affected pack, the study shows that people are clearly altering certain aspects of wolf ecology in national parks.

Of the five parks in the study, wolves in Voyageurs National Park spent the most time outside of park boundaries. In fact, wolves that had territories in or overlapping Voyageurs spent 46% of their time outside of the park. The result: 50% of all mortalities for these wolves came at the hands of people. The largest source of wolf mortality was illegal shooting and at least one wolf studied inside the park was killed by federal trappers when it roamed near a cattle farm outside the park.

“The unique shape of Voyageurs means that there are very few wolf packs that live entirely within the boundaries of the park. Instead, many wolf pack territories straddle the park border and when wolves leave the park, they are at an increased risk of being killed by people,” Gable said.

While Voyageurs saw the highest human-caused mortality, the Minnesota park wasn’t alone. Human-caused mortality accounted for 36% of collared wolf mortality across all five parks. Legal hunting and trapping of wolves outside of national park boundaries, in places like Alaska, Wyoming and Montana (and Minnesota from 2012-2014, before the animals received renewed federal protections), accounted for 53% of all human-caused mortality for wolves from national parks during hunting and trapping seasons.

“Wildlife populations that cross hard boundaries from federal to state ownership are a challenge to manage. Wolves don’t know the park boundary lines,” said Joseph Bump, an associate professor in the University of Minnesota’s College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences.

“Like other national parks, Voyageurs National Park is managed to minimize impacts on natural ecosystems and natural processes, and wolves are part and parcel of the natural fabric of the park. We will use this information about human-caused mortality of wolves to better inform future management decisions in the park in fulfillment of the NPS mission,’’ said Steve Windels, National Park Service biologist at Voyageurs and a co-author in the study. “More than 50 years of research on wolves in North America has shown wolves to be pretty resilient at the population level. Where this study differs is that we looked at how human-caused mortality affects individual packs of wolves that live mostly in parks. Wolf packs experiencing human-caused mortalities were less likely to persist and reproduce. However, our results show that wolf packs can be resilient to human-caused mortalities even at the pack-level, especially if the pack is large.”

Researchers said they hoped the findings might lead to better cooperation between federal agencies in charge of protecting wolves in parks and those state and federal agencies inclined or required to allow wolf killing just outside the parks at the behest of farmers, ranchers and politicians.

“Rather than viewing this result as a failing, we hope this work encourages a renewed interest in interagency collaboration, where management of gray wolves is defined by compromise and based on science, including weighted space-use and cause-specific mortality data,” researchers noted in the study’s conclusion. “If efforts are made toward this goal, these protected areas and the partners involved can serve as a model for successful transboundary issues worldwide.”

Wolves are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act across the western Great Lakes. In Minnesota they are listed as threatened, which allows limited trapping and killing by government trappers but no general public hunting or trapping seasons.

]]>