| Table 3. Average annual number of wolves and monetary costs per wolf for maintaining wolves in Minnesota for 3 periods during 1979-2005. |
| Factors |
Annual  for period |
| 1979-1989 |
1990-1998 |
2001-2005 |
| No. wolvesa |
1,438 |
2,044 |
3,150 |
| Control costs ($) |
77,000b |
186,333 |
342,830 |
| Compensation ($) |
25,209 |
37,990 |
116,953 |
| Total costs/yr ($) |
102,209 |
224,323 |
460,783 |
| Cost/wolf/yr ($) |
71
(1989);
86 (1997)c |
110 |
146 |
Cost/wolf/yr for wolves
above the 1,438 in wilderness |
|
202 |
197 |
| a |
Based on 5% mean annual rate of increase, 1989-1997
(Berg and Benson 1999). |
| b |
Mean of 1986-1989 (only years for which data
available), courtesy of U.S. Department of Agriculture. |
| c |
Increase in 1997 because of legislative increase in
compensation payments. |
Wolves not only incur costs; they also bring a strong positive value to Minnesota in the form of ecotourism by way of the International Wolf Center, which contributes an estimated $3 million annually to the local economy (Schaller 1996). However, this value would be little impaired if the wolf population were excluded from agricultural land, because the International Wolf Center is located in the heart of the wilderness wolf range. Other positive values of the wolf include the traditional consumptive and nonconsumptive uses, which are difficult to evaluate in monetary terms.
In addition to the monetary costs of extra wolves, the projected number of farms that might be affected annually by 2005 ranged from 94-171; the number of dogs killed by wolves, 8-52 per year; and the number of wolves killed for depredation control per year, 109-438 (Table 2). Although the number of farms affected is a small percentage of the total number in wolf range (Fritts et al. 1992), any increase in number of farms affected greatly increases rural resentment towards the wolf and its supporters.
The Minnesota wolf estimates are considered conservative, and the Roundtable consensus recommends allowing the population to continue to increase for another 5 years. Because deer densities are high in Minnesota agricultural areas, and because wolves have shown considerable adaptability to living around areas of human disturbance, there is reason to believe the wolf population will continue to increase by range expansion during the next several years.
The estimated costs in all currencies for an increased wolf population in agricultural parts of Minnesota should be considered conservative for several reasons: (1) the potential for wolf population increase is much higher than the relatively low rate at which the Minnesota wolf population has been growing; (2) the 1997 estimated wolf population may be lower than the actual population; (3) it will become more difficult and expensive per wolf to further control the wolf population as it expands into a larger area; and (4) the projections for population growth, depredation control, and compensation payments were linear, whereas trends of establishing populations often accelerate, as shown in Wisconsin and Michigan (Wydeven et al. 1995, Wisc. Dep. Nat. Resour. 1998, Mich. Dep. Nat. Resour 1997).
Most of the increase in the Minnesota wolf population has been, and will continue to be, through range expansion. Minnesota wolves are dispersing long distances through and into agricultural areas (Licht and Fritts 1994, Mech et al. 1995), and they are learning to tolerate high human disturbance even around dens and rendezvous sites (Thiel et al. 1998). As the wolf range expands, the cost of killing each depredating wolf becomes higher, because controllers cannot continue to operate from a central headquarters, and a reverse economy of scale results. Thus more headquarters, personnel, vehicles, and equipment are needed.
In most areas of the world, wolf populations are controlled (Mech 1970, 1995; Cluff and Murray 1995) except where their numbers are very low and are being nurtured. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that Minnesota, too, will someday attempt to control its wolf population. If, after 5 years, wolf population
control is implemented, as the Roundtable consensus may allow, it will be very difficult and expensive. To control wolf populations, some 28-53% of the population would have to be taken each year (Mech 1970, Peterson et al. 1984, Fuller 1989, Ballard et al. 1997). In 2005 that would require the removal of 730-1,382 wolves just to limit the population, not to reduce it. Alternatively, when the population reaches 3,000, it would be necessary to kill up to 1,830 wolves per year to reduce it (Table 4).
| Table 4. Estimated number of wolf kills required under various types of control in Minnesota. |
| Wolf Population |
Annual take required |
| Depredation
control |
Population
limitationa |
Population
reductionb |
| 2,500 |
73-293c |
700-1,325 |
1,000-1,525 |
| 3,000 |
100-393c |
840-1,590 |
1,200-1,830 |
| 3,500 |
115-504c |
980-1,855 |
1,400-2,135 |
| a |
Based on the required rates of 28-53% (Fuller 1989,
Ballard et al. 1997). |
| b |
Based on the required rates of 40-61% (Gasaway et al.
1983, Potvin et al. 1992). |
| c |
Based on regression of 1990-1998 control data versus
estimated annual wolf population (r2=0.48;
P=0.04). |
Before wolves were protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Minnesota wolf population of about 650 wolves (Fuller et al. 1992) was controlled with bounties, a year-around open season, snaring, liberal trap-checking regulations, and the existence of several experienced wolf trappers. Most of the traditional wolf trappers have since died, and, except for government trappers, few people could or would catch enough wolves throughout their range to control the population.
Considering the difficulty of capturing wolves (Mech 1974), fur prices and trapping success may be too low to attract many trappers. Furthermore, trappers tend to capture primarily young-of-the-year and yearling wolves, because these animals are the least wary (L. D. Mech, unpubl. data).
There is almost no tradition of deliberate hunting of wolves in Minnesota, and, although there are methods that work, few if any hunters know them. Most wolves that are shot are taken incidental to other activities such as farming and hunting for deer (Odocoileus virginianus) or small-game.
Thus, a serious question exists about whether, without using poison or substantial financial incentives, the Minnesota wolf population would be controllable in 2005, or, for that matter, is controllable even at present. In any case, the sooner control is begun, the easier and less costly it will be.
The above comparisons of the costs of 2 wolf management plans indicate that the wolf population and range recommendations of the Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. 1992) are far less expensive in monetary costs, number of wolves killed for depredation control, and other social costs. In addition, it would be necessary to kill far fewer wolves, both at first and annually, if an attempt to control the wolf population were made as soon as possible rather than if population control is instituted in 5 years.
Previous Section -- Methods
Return to Contents
Next Section -- Acknowledgments
