Hey Phil,

Thanks for the feedback. Have you had the opportunity to photograph any Wolves in their natural habitat? I understand that most often photographs of wolves are 'canned' from preserves.

James

I think I'm too loud, I have heard wolves close by, but the only wild wolf I have seen was at about 100 yards, and he was moving quikly to the cover of the brush, I'll have to keep my camera at the ready when traveling through the woods.

I still wonder why there are so many wolves in such a small area. . . it looks like, based on the data, that there is no other place recorded with such a high wolf density, and there's very little ingress and egress with that Wisconsin population, so there's likely inbreeding . . .

There are places with equal pray, but more remote that do not support those numbers like that. Do you know whose model they used to come up with those numbers? I believe those numbers are based on models that predict based on a number of factors, and also may include some field truthing by scat samples, howling, or observation. Have you looked into the numbers or are you taking what the wolf program publishes as THE number?

I don’t have a good reason to dispute their numbers, (other than the fact that they are guess, like most mammal surveys that "count" animals that are hard to spot) but they are NOT counts of actual wolves, but rather statistical regression using models that predict populations based on inputs - all of which are critical to an accurate output.

You may want to find out their level of confidence, and the range, + or - to get a better idea of the numbers. . . I just am skeptical of those wolf numbers. I monitor deer, elk, and grizzly bears in this area of northern Montana and the numbers, in some cases have a 50% + or - confidence level which means that if there are estimated 500 bears, then there could be as many as 750 or as few as 250, to me that’s a huge issue and one that science just now is beginning to deal with.

In this area the national park service is conducting the larges DNA survey of its type ever. They are recording the DNA of every bear in the region. By the time the data is all input, they will know how many bears there are based on DNA samples. I know this is getting off the wolf topic, but the point is that it’s very difficult to put real numbers on secluded and very secretive animals without going to very great lengths to be sure of their numbers. . . I cant imagine counting and confidence is any different for wolves than it is for bears. . .

here's a link to the research project,

http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/beardna.htm

good discussion, thanks.

These are not my numbers, these are the numbers from the international wolf center. I'm sure they would be the first ones to admit that the numbers are not exact, but good estimations. Northern Minnesota is very sparsely populated especially the northeast, and it is not that small, It would be about 35,000 Square Miles of wolf territory, with each packs territory being between 25-150 Square miles.I promise you there is plenty of ungulates and other game for the wolves to eat. Skepticism is good, so your best bet would be to contact the Wolf Center in Ely, and ask them how they come up with those numbers.

I'm not so much interested in the quality checking the numbers as much as I am trying to make a point about predator population estimates. I want to make sure that when people post "facts" on the internet, that they know how those facts were derived, especially when it comes to wildlife populations and educated guesses, which is what those wolf numbers represent.

I'm not saying they wrong, but I am saying they are guesses based on statistical models. They are facts only in as much as the inputs into the model are correct, and in so much as the model is designed for the system in which it is being used.

Good discussion.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply’s. . .