"In our studies, deer populations seemed to be at least as high in areas where livestock were produced as in more remote forested areas. Reliable estimates of deer populations have been available for the wolf-inhabited areas of Minnesota since 1982, and they showed no substantial changes during 1982-86. However, decreases of 8 to 24% were indicated in some deer management subunits in the southern and southwestern part of the wolf range where several of the farms are located (Joselyn et al. 1988)."(4)

"Wolves occasionally prey an Minnesota livestock wherever the two coexist, but most depredations occur in the north-central and northwestern counties where farm density and livestock production is highest within the wolf’s range."(4)

"In winter, cattle, sheep, and other large livestock are in or near farm buildings where they are fed; movements elsewhere are discouraged by snow and lack of forage. In late April or May, most are released to graze in open and wooded pastures where they remain until about October (Fritts 1982). Within this period they are vulnerable to depredation by wolves."(5)

"Methods of nonlethal control of wolf depredations were attempted to a limited degree. Aside from trapping, we placed flashing highway lights and strobe light-siren devices (Linhart 1984; Linhart et al. 1984) at some farms to frighten wolves from the immediate vicinity; assessment of the efficacy of those devices was subjective. An experiment with taste aversion was conducted in 1979 and 1980 (Gustavson 1982). Also, in 1982 we began a cooperative project with the New England Farm Center to test the feasibility of using Old World livestock guarding dogs to protect livestock from wolves (Coppinger 1987)."(7)

"Verified complaints (of livestock depredation by wolves) averaged 30 per year, and the number of farms where depredations were verified averaged 21 (from 1975-1986)…. About 0.33% of the farms within the range of the wolf in Minnesota were affected annually, assuming a total of 7,200 farms."(8)

"An average of 23 cattle, 49 sheep, and 173 turkeys were verified as lost to wolves per year from 1979 through 1986…. The average number of individuals killed or wounded per verified complaint was clearly related to size (vulnerability) and abundance, ranging from 1.2 for cattle to 53.5 for turkeys."(8)

"Calves constituted 87% of the cattle claimed (to be killed by wolves) and 82% of the cattle verified lost, indicating a clear selection by wolves for calves over adult cattle, which are more difficult to kill."(10)

"The explanation proposed was that vulnerability of whit-tailed deer fawns in summer was directly related to previous winter severity, and wolf depredations on domestic animals were inversely related to fawn vulnerability. That is, when fawns were difficult to capture, wolves turned to domestic prey…. Generally, the winters of lowest WSI (winter severity index) values (i.e., mild) were followed by summers of highest verified complaints and vice-versa."(10)

"Depredations generally occurred in remote parts of farms, but sites included distant pastures to within a few meters of farm buildings. Losses near buildings were usually in early spring when wolves were visiting livestock carrion that had been disposed of outside the farmyard during winter…. Aside from totally wooded pastures, areas with a mosaic of fields and forests seemed to present the greatest opportunity for depredations. Wolves were reluctant to cross large open spaces."(14)

"Leaving livestock carcasses near farmyards or in pastures during winter and spring centered wolf activity there at calving time. Allowing calving on pastureland also drew wolves to easy prey. And allowing livestock access to large wooded areas prevented them from being easily monitored."(15)

"In British Columbia, wolf control is denied and improved husbandry recommended if faulty husbandry practices are directly responsible for wolf conflicts (Tompa 1983a, 1983b)."(16)

"Effectiveness of (guard) dogs seems to be reduced in wooded or brushy pastures where livestock are dispersed, and in situations close to neighboring residences or other farm operations."(21)

"we observed that payment for losses did not encourage operators to correct management practices or try nonlethal methods. We consider the Minnesota compensation program successful and well worth its cost, but suggest that payment be reduced or withheld when correctable husbandry practices seem responsible for depredations."(21)

"A small fraction of the farms in wolf range were affected annually, and the effect on livestock production as a whole continued to be negligible."(21)