Shirley,
Don’t you think you’re having a typical knee jerk reaction? It’s no secret that you are opposed to wolf hunting, but don’t you think science should take precedence over emotions.
The most surprising thing about this year’s wolf hunting season was the speed that the quotas were filled. If there were a shortage of wolf’s the season would have ended without the quotas being filled. I think you will find that there are more wolves in the great white north then anyone thinks there are and regulated wolf hunts will not have an effect on the overall population as the years go by.
Folks please don’t support a ban on wolf hunting, in fact support continued wolf hunting and trapping season’s in the future.

How do you get the Wolves to line up for the count. :) How do they get a accurate count? It is almost impossible... there would have to be some kind of model built. Then how do they manipulate the figures or what is the Fuzzy math they use? Hunting and tracking the dead count is usually a great way to keep track by good year or bad year stats.

"DNR's commitment to a responsible, conservative and science-based management strategy that ensures the long-term survival of wolves in Minnesota recognizes the animal's legacy and Minnesotans' collective interest in and concern for this northwoods icon."

From: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/wolves/mgmt.html

So it is in the wolves long-term survival interest that people be allowed to pay for the right to shoot bullets at them?

I don't get it...

Jim’s response is spot on. While the population level had been very conservatively estimated previously, the quota was set based on a significantly lower level as to eliminate any risk of impacting the population. It allowed for the management system to be developed and implemented in a low risk environment, yet begin to provide the actual scientific data so important to make intelligent decisions regarding wolf management.
As also eluded to, it is extremely difficult to determine a precise population of wolves without this type of system. The harvest results do however support that the population is most likely much higher than initial estimates.
What would be the benefit of a 5 year moratorium? There is none. Other than to merely delay the implementation of a much needed management tool. Even if an extremely precise method of counting were available without the hunt, it would not satisfy the opponents of this hunt. This is merely a stall tactic, to delay wolf management based on their emotional reaction or lack of understanding, rather than scientific methods.

Hunting is a tool used to reduce animal populations when they reach or begin to reach unacceptable levels.

The wolf population in MN has been stable for a decade and isn't coming close to unacceptable levels.

Opening up wolf hunting when there is no wolf population problem is irresponsible and can't realistically be called a, "management tool."

It would seem that the wolf population is helping control the deer population better than hunters ever could. This gives the hunters less to shoot at.

The hunters I've spoken to are excited about their newfound ability to shoot bullets at wolves for two reasons.

First, they get to shoot wolves.

Second, they have been blaming the wolves for the reduced deer population and correctly believe that reducing the wolf population will help the deer population grow again.

Allowing the hunting of wolves is not a management tool. It is just a way to give the hunters more to shoot at.

I'll retract all of this if anybody can find evidence that wolf populations in MN were approaching ecologically dangerous levels.

I’m sorry, but the wolf population has NOT been stable for over a decade. It’s been steadily increasing based on sightings, conflicts with livestock, and more recently conflicts with pet owners. Which is why their status was changed in the first place to allow state control. Minnesota has the highest population of wolves in the lower 48 states, and this is contained in just the upper 1/3 of the state.
If you believe hunters only want a hunting season so they can “shoot bullets at wolves”, you are just plain wrong. Once the hunt has taken place for a year or two, you will have all the evidence you need and can retract your statements then. But I won’t hold my breath.

I will try to explain some truths about hunting that many may not know. The first part is the harshest. If am animal has no economic value it will be slaughtered and disposed of. Harsh but true.
Farmers and ranchers don’t raise livestock for fun and entertainment but for the economic value. Look at the skunk, there are no skunk farms because the skunk has no economic value at this point in time. If someone can come up with a use for the skunk someone else will start a skunk farm.
Kenya allows very little hunting and no Dangerous/Big 5 hunting. Kenya has the worst poaching problem in the world. By not allowing hunting the economic value of the animal has been removed and no longer benefits the common person. Since the animal has no value to the people it will be killed and eaten. If an Elephant eats 5% of your crop and tramples another 50% you will not be able to feed your family of village. The government of Kenya will not compensate you for the loss or allow anyone to kill the Elephant so you are out. What would you do? I know what I would do, kill the Elephant and feed my family. Kenya’s Elephant population is low and in trouble

Zimbabwe on the other hand allows hunting in parts of the country. If you were to drive from Bulawayo to Victoria Falls you would see an area over 100 mile long without and wild animals, well you might see a small bird or a snake but that is about it. This is a part of the country that does not allow hunting. When you get to the hunting areas in the country you will see large herds of Buffalo, Sable, Elephants and other plains and forest animals. How can this be? Where there is no hunting there are no animals and where hunting is allowed there are a lot of animals. The local village is well paid for letting people hunt on their land and most of the meat belongs to the village. Hunting benefits the people and the people value and protect the animals in exchange. Zimbabwe is overrun by 50,000 Elephants over the carrying capacity.
Hunting provided value to the animal and it will be protected. Wolf hunting guides will protect the wolf so that wolf hunters will pay them to hunt in an area known to have wolfs.
No hunter will kill the last wolf in Minnesota.

From the Minnesota DNR site.

Hunting and fishing licenses fund 59.5 percent of the Minnesota DNR wild life budget. Donations are .5 percent. 1/2 of one percent. How much did you donate to the DNR Shirley? If it wasn't for people hunting wildlife you wouldn't see any wolves. Put your money where your mouth is and match the funds supplied by hunting and fishing licenses or go find something else to protest.

Well Shawn, if you are indeed a "hunter" (which I question based on your obvious mis statements and lack of understanding) and don't feel there is any reason to buy a license other than to shoot an animal. And if the only hunters you know only want to "shoot bullets at something", I would suggest you quit hunting and find a better crowd to hang with.
Your argument that the only reason for increased wolf encounters in human expansion is as inaccurate as your other posts. The expansion of the wolf population (some estimates exceed 6,000 now) has pushed them into areas that have never supported populations for at least the last two generations.
So now it's humans fault that they own pets in that area, and should know better? : )
Get a grip.
I'm sure you feel the internet article you read makes you more qualified than wildlife experts across the country who actually spend time in the field studying these animals, but it doesn't.

Shawn you have a little math problem.
First 23,500 people applied for licenses and each paid $4.14 for $97,290.00
Of the 3600 early season licenses all were sold and paid for, 2986 before the cutoff date and the remaining 614 in 3 ½ minutes when the licenses were made available to people that had applied but did not get drawn for a total of $108,000.00
All of the second season licenses were sold and that is $72,000.00
So just for licenses the state received $277,290.00 and since there were quite a few out of state hunters the number was higher.
In most cases you would find the on average each hunter spent another $1,000.00 for food, lodging, gas and so on. There is another $6,000,000.00 so the state brought in around $6,277,290.00 for the 399 wolfs that was taken. The state did quite well at an average of $15,732.56 per wolf.
That is what I mean by the wolf has value and local people will protect that kind of value.

Seriously I don't know why a hunt is necessary.

If there are areas where wolves are attacking animals the owners of the animals have the right to shoot those wolves. They also have the right to hire an armed person to guard the farm if they wanted.

In fact, I bet a farm that was being hounded by wolves could pull in a bit of money. If people are that eager to shoot a wolf then farms plagued by wolves could recoup some of their losses by letting hunters pay to guard the farm for a night.

Ranchers in Texas make arrangements like this regularly but usually to take care of wild pigs.