A follow-up on the Hunters 4 Hunters “documentary”

Last week’s column on the “documentary” Hunters 4 Hunters released earlier this month drew some thoughtful pushback, and a few points deserve a follow-up. A longtime friend who appears in the film, pointed out that my citation of state law may have left the impression that it’s currently legal to take wolves that threaten livestock or pets in Minnesota.
In fact, Minnesota law does allow it, but it also defers, as it must, to the wolf’s current federal protection. That clarification actually strengthens the argument I made last week. It isn’t St. Paul that’s keeping northern Minnesota residents from protecting their livestock and pets. It’s Washington, D.C., which is currently under full Republican control.
Last month, President Trump directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to begin the process of delisting the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes region. That’s newsworthy, but he could have started that process more than a year and a half ago. Had he done so, the state laws that let residents protect themselves and their property might well be in effect by now. State lawmakers have no say over the federal protections that maintain a status quo many northern Minnesotans find unacceptable. Yet Hunters 4 Hunters points the blame in their direction anyway. That’s misleading.
I’d hesitate to weigh in on delisting in other states, but here in Minnesota it’s certainly justified. We have by far the largest gray wolf population in the Lower 48, and Minnesota is the one state outside Alaska where wolves were never extirpated, despite more than a century of trying. The wolf’s future here looks secure, and continued listing is unnecessary. Once protections are lifted, state law would take effect, and northern Minnesota residents could take wolves threatening their livestock or pets, with or without a permit.
The documentary features interviews with pet and livestock owners recalling grisly, heart-wrenching wolf attacks, and those stories deserve to be heard. But the film uses these sympathetic stories to push a purely partisan agenda and a call for a wolf hunt that would do little or nothing to address the problems raised in the film.
It prominently features Republican Andrea Zupancich, the challenger in Senate District Three, advocating for a wolf season, while glossing over the fact that Sen. Grant Hauschild, the DFLer who holds the seat, appears to share that position based on his voting record. It takes comments by U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar out of context to suggest she opposes a wolf season, even though she’s on record supporting one, then highlights similar support from Lisa Demuth, her opponent in the governor’s race. Released just a month before the general election, the film’s timing only adds to the sense that its motivation is partisan.
The film’s push for a wolf hunting and trapping season is revealing, too. The idea will be popular with plenty of folks up here, but there’s precious little evidence that a season would reduce wolf depredation on livestock or pets. Numerous studies have looked at that question, including one accepted for publication as recently as August in the Journal of Wildlife Management.
The study looked at the effects of wolf hunting and trapping seasons in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and found that wolf hunting had no detectable impact on rates of livestock depredation, nor did a season have any significant impact on wolf populations. Several other studies, either from our region or western states, have reached similar conclusions.
It’s also worth remembering that wolves in Minnesota aren’t unmanaged, as the film suggests. Federal trappers take about 200 wolves a year on average, targeting areas where depredation has been reported. On some ranches, dozens of wolves have been removed over the years, and the ranchers there still have problems.
If even sustained and targeted removals don’t solve the problem, it’s hard to see how a general season, which takes wolves at random anywhere in their range, would make much difference. It’s perfectly reasonable to advocate for a season because people want the opportunity. But presenting it as a fix for wolf depredation on livestock or pets (or deer, for that matter) just isn’t supported by the evidence.
So what would a constructive agenda look like, if that’s truly the goal? First, it would skip the partisan attacks, since any success in St. Paul will almost certainly depend on support from both parties.
For livestock producers, that means pushing for faster, easier compensation when they suffer losses. I suspect that would find support on both sides of the aisle once lawmakers understood how hard it can be for producers to get reimbursed. And rather than relying solely on trappers for chronic problems on certain ranches, Hunters 4 Hunters could push for state and federal funding to help ranchers install appropriate fencing, which has been shown to be one of the most effective ways to reduce wolf depredation. Indeed, it is far more effective than targeted trapping.
For pet owners, the answer is more complicated. If the wolf is federally delisted, people could use existing state law to kill wolves that are threatening their pets. Still, anyone with pets in wolf country faces some risk, and it’s just one of many risks pets face up here. In our region, I’m sure far more dogs die from blastomycosis or from being hit by cars than from wolf attacks. Losing a beloved pet is heartbreaking, whatever the cause. Unfortunately, a wolf season would do little or nothing to reduce the risks that come with living in wolf country.
That’s my biggest concern with this documentary. It takes legitimate worries and uses them for partisan purposes, which likely hurts the chances of getting the very solutions its makers say they want.
If Hunters 4 Hunters wants a wolf season, it should make the case that it’s another hunting opportunity the DNR ought to support. That’s an honest argument, and plenty of people would agree with it. Just don’t sell it with the promise that it will reduce wolf depredation on livestock or pets, because there’s no evidence it will make a meaningful difference.