Estimated Costs of Maintaining a Recovered Wolf Population in Agricultural Regions of Minnesota
![JPG-Photo of wolves crossing Minnesota](images/wolves.jpg)
by L. David Mech
Gray wolf (Canis lupus) populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan have increased and expanded their range considerably during the past 2 decades (Fuller et al. 1992, Wydeven et al. 1995, Mich. Dep. Nat. Resour. 1997, Wis. Dep. Nat. Resour. 1998) and are about to meet the recovery criteria of the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan (hereafter, Recovery Plan; U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. 1992). Consequently, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is developing a state wolf management plan to present to the 1999 State Legislature for approval. The Wisconsin and Michigan Departments of Natural Resources also have developed state plans. When the federal government is assured that the state plans are adequate to ensure wolf population survival in these states at or above recovery levels, it will propose de-listing the wolf from the endangered species list in these 3 states plus an undetermined number of adjacent states, and de-listing will probably occur by 2001 (R. Refsnider, U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., pers. commun.).
As states prepare to manage wolf populations, they must contend with a public that has been conditioned to view the wolf as an endangered animal (Mech 1970, 1995; Van Ballenberghe 1974) and a symbol of the wilderness (Theberge 1975). In addition, the animal rights movement has utilized this attitude to capitalize on public sentiment for the wolf (Mech 1995, Mech et al. 1998).
Concurrently, wolf recovery has resulted in increased wolf depredations on livestock in Minnesota (Fritts 1982, Fritts et al. 1992), and research has documented that, under certain circumstances when wolves begin losing fear of humans, they may be dangerous to people, especially children (Jhala and Sharma 1997; Mech 1998; R. D. Strickland, Algonquin Provincial Park, pers. commun.). Thus, wolf management has developed a sociopolitical dimension that extends beyond the primary biological concerns.
This resource is based on the following source (Northern Prairie Publication 1052):
Mech, L. David. 1999. Estimated Costs of Maintaining a Recovered Wolf Population in Agricultural Regions of Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26(4):817-822. 6 pages.This resource should be cited as:
Mech, L. David. 1999. Estimated Costs of Maintaining a Recovered Wolf Population in Agricultural Regions of Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26(4):817-822. 6 pages. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/mammals/wpop/index.htm (Version 16SEP99).
Table of Contents
Tables
![JPG-Photograph of L. David Mech](images/mech.jpg)
Author's address during this research: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey, 8711 37th St. SE, Jamestown, ND 58401-7317, USA. Author's mailing address: North Central Forest Experiment Station, 1992 Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA.
Downloading Instructions -- Instructions on downloading and extracting files from this site.
wpop.zip
( 67K) -- Estimated Costs of Maintaining a Recovered Wolf Population
in Agricultural Regions of Minnesota
Installation: Extract all files and open index.htm in a web browser.