Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Canada Timber Wolves

Just a question to the residents to my North. In the last 15-20 years the timber wolves have done quite the number on our deer and moose herd, up here in NE Minnesota. They try to blame it on the weather but anyone with any brains knows that to be not the real problem. They have turned what once was great deer hunting into probably the worst hunting in North America!
Does your country have trapping/ hunting on the wolves? We have little hope for improving our hunting. I was just wondering why hunting is so much better even just North of here in Ontario? Are Does allowed to be shot?

Kirk

Does are available on a draw basis. Some WMUs have additional doe only tags available, but not for non residents.

As far as wolves go, we can purchase tags for two wolves. I have noticed that the wolves are doing quite well, and the deer are suffering a bit.

Where I live you can trap and shoot wolves....no season or bag limits. We shoot them on site....all year round.

Just as a side, how do bears compare to wolves killing game?

I too have wondered about the moose decline in Minnesota. As I understand it that decrease in population extends north of the border to Thunder Bay also, hence the decrease in moose tags allocated for area WMU13.

I have also heard of a corresponding decrease in the moose herd in Northwestern Minnesota and that extends north thru Kenora.

In WMU 15b just to the North of 13 I believe the moose population is stable if not increasing. I work in the logging Industry on the west side of Lake Nipigon--lots of moose in that area as well as wolves--very few whitetails but they increase in number the closer you get to Thunder Bay. I personally saw a lot of cow calf units with several cows accompanied by twins--in spite of the terrible winter we had last year.

I am told the moose population on the east side of Lake Nipigon is doing well also. WMU 21a had a large increase in moose tags in that area but it was a rather poor hunt from reports I'm gettin--access isn't what it used to be. That area hasn't seen much logging in several years--no logging = no access.

I live on the east side of Lake Nipigon and there was a major forest fire in '98 just to the north of my house. Fire was 12 miles wide and 35 miles long--catistrophic fire burned to bald rock. It took awhile but that area has come back nicely--you can't see 10ft thru it. I have a buddy who flies over my house twice a week this time of year to adjust the control dam for hydro up at Ogoki Falls--he tells me that burn is full of moose.

Are you saying habitat is the most important factor?

Bears no doubt predate some on moose but I don't feel that is a significant problem. I used to guide a lot of bear hunters and we always had a good population in this area. I don't buy into the media hype about a big increase in the bear population after the cancellation of the Spring Hunt. What I have noticed over the last few years is the bears I do see have gotten a lot larger.

We have always had a sizeable wolf population in this area also. They were shot on site by most hunters on their small game liscense--.gov screwed that up too.
Trappers snared the majority and most guys took a significant number.

I set up a bait pile on the ice in my front yard --shoot wolves from the front deck. I've gotten as many as 6 one winter and get a couple most winters. Last winter I did not see even one--doesn't mean wolves aren't around--just means they didn't hit my bait last winter--they'll be back.

What suprizes me is how stable the moose and wolf populations have remained over the last 40 years. You have good years and you have bad years but I don't pretend to understand why. An old Indian told me once that this land breaths in a rythum--plenty and scarce. I think he was right.

This is a very interesting topic. Around northern WIs. in 20 yrs they have had a steady increase in wolf numbers. The deer numbers took a dive. Most blame the wolves, bears and coyotes. Many blame the DNR for giving out too many doe tags. We did have 2 bad winters in a row too. I honestly believe the deer numbers will rise despite wolves. It happened in Canada from what I have read, at least in some areas. I believe the reason is, if deer numbers are reduced 50-60 % like in northern WIsconsin the habitiat improves to the point it can improve deer numbers and the deer can handle hard winters every so often with more food in the woods. The wolves are here to stay and deer need to be hunted much different in wolf country than land without wolves. Most hunters have not cought on to that yet.

I agree--hookem
I deer hunted for several years between Iron River and Washburn in the early 2000's--you had a ton of deer--but an awful lot of small ones.
They had a fair number of wolves in that area too and those wolves were absolutely fearless.

Along the North shore of Lake Superior all thru the 90's and 2000's we had an increasing deer population east of Thunder Bay towards Nipigon and Schieber. Always plenty of wolves there also--2 bad winters and the deer are all almost gone.

We have always been able to shoot either sex whitetail deer and always had wolves in our Saskatchewan forests. Wolves are not usually shot by hunters but they may be if the hunter has a trappers licence and is hunting in the farmland region, not the forest reserve. Trappers have the "rights" to our wolves on their registered traplines. Since wolves have always been here, and numbers fluctuate with prey numbers, we don't think about them much. If there is too many in your forests, I hope you get to kill a few, but trapping is far more effective than shooting. I have hunted in wolf country for 40 years, have " assistant trapper " status that gives me the right to shoot wolves, but have seen wolves only 5 times while hunting, missed two and killed one. That's about average. A good trapper can take a dozen or more in a season.
Since other posters brought it up, bears can be a significant limitation to moose reproduction. Moose reproduction success in one area studied in Saskatchewan was only 26% because of heavy bear predation on the calving grounds. Replacement rate should be closer to 80% annually. We like both bears and wolves in our big game hunting areas, but if there are too many a few need to be taken out.

Well where our hunting shack is located in a huge public land/forest area there has been continual logging for 35 years. The woods are in the best shape for deer that we have ever seen. Our family has had this spot since 1936. So we have the journal/log books for a lot of years. We have noticed that the wolves have eaten our deer to a pathetic level about 20 years ago. The 60's were the best deer hunting we ever had up here. The bounty came off of the wolves and they became protected in 1971. That was the beginning of the end for us. Our non wolf areas in Minnesota provide tremendous deer hunting. In the wolf populated areas just seeing a deer is a big deal. I'm not sure what to do as far as hunting goes. We have a great deer camp with tons of great woods to hunt, with very little deer sign. We have always had wolves around us but when they were allowed to repopulate at will very bad things have happened.
I gave you all this information to explain why I asked the original question.
Thank you for the answers. I am very frustrated with how our DNR has handled our wolf population. If the readers of this forum could see the beautiful woods that I have to hunt with no deer in it they would be astonished.

Here in New Brunswick we are currently experiencing really poor deer population being both severely unbalanced in a buck to doe ratio as well as extremely sparse deer population in traditional deer woods. There are a number of factors but foremost among them Is the fact that the logging and farming practices have changed and many areas of formerly prime habit have logged and lost the deer wintering yards.

As far as how unbalanced the buck to doe ratio is, I am fortunate to live and hunt in part of the province that has higher deer populations but inspite of seeing 5 plus deer a day on average this season I have not seen a single buck with visible antlers.

What I have here so far this season ( and we are at the half way point of a two week season) is zero deer seen again. I have not found a single rub or scrape yet this fall. I havnt seen a deer with a rifle in my hands, since 2009. I hunt most of the season, with many many hours sitting in well placed stands. The ten closest deer shacks, with an average of 6-8 hunters per shack, have shot a total of zero deer.
I wanted to leave this part out, but had to tell you how bad it is here. We did have two very bad winters that were very hard on the deer. But the wolves have terrorized our deer herd for a couple decades leading up to this.

Bears, both black and grizz prey heavily on young calves and fawns. I have seen black bears stalking calf moose on several hunting trips in the last few seasons. U Tube had some clips of black bears taking down moose calves.

Wolves are far worse in my opinion, they hunt in packs and they don't hibernate. So when packs of 20 or 30 wolves go up a valley they pretty much eat everything that doesn't run fast enough. It a sad sight to see a moose with it's butt end all chewed out and a pack of wolves laying around waiting for the moose to weaken.

I think it's time to find a new deer hunting spot.

Kapt Kirk, I have seen the same thing already but it was close to the Menominee Indian Reservation in Wisconsin. It was from the indians shooting them. I have heard of good woods being void of deer sign. I hate to say it but you need to use your cabin as a post and hop in the truck and driver 20 or 30 miles away and see if it is any better. Myabe you already have, I don't know. Just a thought.

I've never given those 'the indians did it' stories much respect, really the indians have been there for thousands of years and now, just recently, they started to shoot all the deer??? Really. It's kind of funny, but, in northern BC the indians are saying the non indian hunters are shooting off all the moose. ;-)

Habitat makes a big difference, for example a loss of a water source or food source. Heavy predation makes a difference, including increased hunting pressure or more liberal seasons.

It would seem anything, or anybody that kills game results in less game. That would include parasites, and diseases.

This sounds a bit like trying to farm wildlife while still keeping the wildlife wild.

My little two cents worth, and I'll stand corrected if I need correcting.

Indians have been there for thousands of years during which they moved when they had depleted the game to the extent that they had to move. In some cases, it would be several generations before another tribe moved back in to an area. In northern BC the Indians do claim it is the white men killing all the moose and it is only co-incidence that the moose are mostly missing from within snowmobile range of the villages. GD

It must be Mr. Harper's fault. He gets blamed for everything else, so . . . . . .