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.

In Minnesota, these factors have translated into an approach to wolf management that has included public involvement. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources held a series of public meetings followed by 8-day-long stakeholders' (Minnesota Wolf Management Roundtable) discussions that led to a consensus on wolf management recommendations. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources had agreed to follow these recommendations as it develops a wolf management plan to present to the state legislature. There are no federal restrictions on state wolf management plans except that they must ensure the survival of the wolf at or above recovery levels.

The Roundtable consensus recommended, for the first 5 years of the Minnesota Wolf Management Plan, that no further wolf population control occur other than the wolf-depredation control program that has been in effect since 1978, when the wolf in Minnesota was downlisted to threatened (Fritts 1982, Fritts et al. 1992). Despite this depredation-control program, the Minnesota wolf population has increased, mostly by range expansion into agricultural areas, from an estimated 1,235 in 1979 to 1,500-1,750 in 1989, an average annual increase of 3% (Fuller et al. 1992). The winter 1997-1998 estimate was 2,445 (Berg and Benson 1999). At this level, the average annual increase from 1989 to 1998 would be 5%. Recent average annual increases in Wisconsin were 40% per year (Wisc. Dep. Nat. Resour. 1998) and in Michigan, 38% per year (Mich. Dep. Nat. Resour. 1997).

The Minnesota Wolf Management Roundtable consensus recommendations contrast sharply with those of the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. 1992), which recommended an optimal population of 1,250-1,400 wolves inhabiting primarily wilderness and semi-wilderness. The rationale for that recommendation was to maintain a viable wolf population that would continue to produce a large number of dispersers to help repopulate adjacent states, but at the same time minimize wolf-human conflicts.

Since 1989, when the Minnesota wolf population began increasing above the estimated 1,500-1,750 that inhabited primarily wilderness and semi-wilderness (Fuller et al. 1992) and proliferating into regions with more agriculture, wolf depredations on livestock have increased considerably (Table 1). This increase reflects the increased colonization of agricultural land. Wolves inhabiting wilderness cost little to society except for the dispersers they generate that pass through or colonize agricultural land.