WDFW- More Wolves, Fewer Livestock Deaths in Washington

[TriggerMike]

Anyone seen this yet...?

http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20140310/ARTICLE/140319987/

[snowpack]

fewer confirmed livestock deaths.

[wolfbait]

fewer confirmed livestock deaths.

  I bet Donny came up with that one. See now, if WDFW biologists blame everything except wolves for livestock killed by wolves, well sure.

 David Mech said wolves multiply by two every year, meaning they double their population.  WDFW's wolves only add on wolf per year, how long will it take before WDFW figure there are enough wolves or cougars?

How long before the mule deer etc. will be on the ESA?

[j_h_nimrod]

I remember an article in the Wenatchee World last year when there was finally confirmed wolf sightings south of Wenatchee. A rancher found them (eating, around, in the vicinity of; I can't remember for sure) a dead cow. WDFW would not confirm the wolves were the culprit, I think they said it had died otherwise and the wolves were just eating on it.

[wolfbait]

Wolf Activists Dispute, but Fail to Refute, Facts

On April 18, 2008, part of that article was published on a popular wolf activist blog operated by Idaho State University Political Science Professor Emeritus Ralph Maughan “because it is a good example of what the more sophisticated of the anti-wolf restoration people read.” Maughan also wrote, “It is full of incorrect facts, bad assumptions and rests on conspiracy theory” but added, “I don’t want to take the time to go through it and point out all the errors.”

None of Maughan’s readers accepted his invitation to point out the alleged errors either and one volunteered that the statistics were correct but said he disagreed with the conclusions. Stanley wolf activist Lynne Stone and another respondent resorted to name-calling but failed to refute – or even challenge – any specific fact published in the article.

Wolf Recovery Based on Deception

If Maughan and his blog participants had been exposed to the entire article, those with the ability to think

and reason might have realized that the article illustrated two things: 1) that FWS wolf recovery in the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) has involved deception from day one using misinformation, half truths and deliberate lies to sell the program to Congress and the American public; and 2) since August of 1994, that deception has included deliberately underestimating the total number of wolves in the three states with disastrous consequences.

Human Harvest Does Not Halt Wolf Increases

On page 8 of the Jan-March 2008 article, I reported the Alaska study in Denali National Park where biologists found they had been underestimating total wolf numbers by 50% by documenting primarily packs of wolves instead of also documenting dispersing and transient wolves. Yet Idaho biologists continue to ignore the Alaska research and pretend that pups, yearlings and older wolves that emigrate from packs suddenly disappear from the face of the earth just because they are not wearing a radio-tracking collar.

A six-year study of the impact of hunting and trapping on wolf populations in Alaska’s Central Brooks Range by Layne Adams and four other scientists concluded that liberal harvest by hunters and trappers of 29% or less of a wolf population has no impact (yes I said NO impact) on wolf population increases. If you doubt that, I suggest you read more about this study, published in the May 2008 issue of Wildlife Monographs, later in this article.

Simple Math: 1,600 Minus 428 = 1,172

The 29% mortality from hunters and trappers did not include mortality from all other causes yet on May 22, 2008 the Idaho F&G Commission set a new combined death loss goal of 428 wolves “from natural causes, accidents, wolf predation control actions and hunter kills,” and said that will result in its new goal of about 518 wolves on Dec. 31, 2008. Sources including Dr. David Mech, indicate there are ~1,600 wolves in Idaho now, counting this year’s pups, so 428 wolves dying from all causes would result in ~1,172 wolves remaining in Idaho – twice the number claimed by the Commission.

continued on page 2

Page 2 THE OUTDOORSMAN May 2008


3,000 Wolves in ID, MT, WY - continued from page 1 About 1,172 actual wolves – not paper wolves – would represent the minimum number of wolves in Idaho this coming winter and this should trigger loud alarms in the minds of those who are responsible for perpetuating Idaho’s wildlife resource. That is nearly 12 times the number of wolves the public was told would exist in a recovered wolf population and eight times the minimum number agreed to by all parties in the only Idaho Wolf Plan

approved by both the Idaho Legislature and the FWS!

Will Wolf Activists Believe Their Idol?

If the wolf preservationists and the doubting Thomases refuse to believe these facts because they didn’t appear in the major media, what source will they consider reliable? The obvious answer is Dr. L. David Mech, the undisputed wolf authority in North America and perhaps in the entire world.

Although Mech eventually refuted the “Balance-of Nature” theory he and his mentor, Durward Allen, foisted off on the world during 1958-1962, he has generally remained silent while similarly inexperienced fledgling wolf biologists supply misinformation about wolf populations to the media. But the April 28, 2008 legal challenge to state wolf control by Defenders of Wildlife and eleven other preservationist groups in a Federal Court in Montana forced Mech to make public some of the facts he and other FWS wolf activists have known all along.

As part of the FWS May 9, 2008 Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (to halt wolf management by the three states) Mech wrote the following in his 22-page “Declaration under penalty of perjury:”

“Every year, most wolf populations almost double in the spring through the birth of pups [Mech 1970]. For example in May 2008, there will not be 1,500 wolves, but 3,000! (Wolf population estimates are usually made in winter when animals are at their nadir*. This approach serves to provide conservative estimates and further insure that management remains conservative).”

(*lowest point)

“70% Kill Needed to Reduce Wolf Population”

Mech continued, “As indicated above, 28-50% of a wolf population must be killed by humans per year (on top of natural mortality) to even hold a wolf population stationery. Indeed, the agencies outside the NRM which are seeking to reduce wolf populations try to kill 70% per year (Fuller et al. 2003).” (emphasis added)

“Such extreme taking of the kind necessary to effectively reduce wolf populations is done via concerted and expensive government agency (Alaska, Y ukon Territories for example) programs using helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. Normal regulated public harvest such as is contemplated in the NRM is usually unable to reduce wolf populations (Mech 2001).

http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.28%20May%202008%20FWS%20Biologist%20Says%20Wolf%20Numbers%20Underestimated%20Mech%20Says%203,000%20Wolves%20Exist%20in%20ID,%20MT%20&%20WY.pdf

[wolfbait]

Scott Fitkin was WDFW's head BS'er but now he mostly just hides out, I guess they replaced him with Donny   How long before Donny goes into hiding from the public? At some point in time the truth always catches up! 18 years of it Donny!

“Every year, most wolf populations almost double in the spring through the birth of pups [Mech 1970]. For example in May 2008, there will not be 1,500 wolves, but 3,000! (Wolf population estimates are usually made in winter when animals are at their nadir*. This approach serves to provide conservative estimates and further insure that management remains conservative).”
(*lowest point)

“By the time we got to the carcass it was too old for me to say yay or nay if it was killed by a wolf,” said Scott Fitkin, wildlife biologist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. “It was clearly fed on by something, but not much was left but a lot of maggots.” Fitkin and a USDA Wildlife Services agent inspected the carcass on Friday (May 22).
http://www.conservationnw.org/pressroom/press-clips/proof-of-wolf-kill-may-elude-investigators

[idahohuntr]

Scott Fitkin was WDFW's head BS'er but now he mostly just hides out, I guess they replaced him with Donny   How long before Donny goes into hiding from the public? At some point in time the truth always catches up! 18 years of it Donny!

My best guess is that WDFW staff have to do rotations on who gets to respond to crackpots like you.  See, its not fair that only one guy gets to laugh his @ss off all day at your stupid bs and therefore they are forced to rotate the position out of fairness.    

[wolfbait]

Scott Fitkin was WDFW's head BS'er but now he mostly just hides out, I guess they replaced him with Donny   How long before Donny goes into hiding from the public? At some point in time the truth always catches up! 18 years of it Donny!

My best guess is that WDFW staff have to do rotations on who gets to respond to crackpots like you.  See, its not fair that only one guy gets to laugh his @ss off all day at your stupid bs and therefore they are forced to rotate the position out of fairness.   

Are you one of those rotations? Aw don't worry WDFW are mostly the laughing stock of anyone who has seen their management practices. They are becoming just another joke that cross through conversations where wolves and Washington are concerned. And yet it is good to see there are people who still defend a corrupt agency, impregnated with environmental $$$ and staff.

[wolfbait]

More wolves, fewer livestock deaths in Washington

There are two claims in this report that should give everyone a clue where the "wolf recovery" project in Washington State is headed:
1.  Last year, the department estimated 51 to 101 wolves were in the state. This year, the minimum increased to 52, based on the number of wolves seen by department staff.
“I do believe the number is higher, but we don’t know exactly by how much,” Martorello said. “We had good production this last year in a number of packs.”
2.  However, wolves will continue to be protected under the state Endangered Species law until there are 15 successful breeding pairs for three consecutive years, evenly distributed throughout three recovery regions in the state, or 18 successful breeding pairs evenly distributed for one year.
A successful breeding pair is a male and female pair that raises two pups that survive to the end of the year. There are presently five successful breeding pairs residing in two recovery regions.
If the state does not know how many wolves there actually are, how is the state going to know when there are 15 successful breeding pairs?  This is the same formula that has wrought disaster in Idaho and Montana.  Right now, Washington estimates there are 13 packs but only 5 breeding pairs.  One can readily see that this discrepancy is set up to overrun the state with wolves.

Lynn Stuter


http://www.capitalpress.com/article/201 … 140319987/
With One More Wolf WDFW Says-------

More wolves, fewer livestock deaths in Washington
Matthew Weaver
Published: March 10. 2014 10:41AM
Last changed: March 10. 2014 11:06AM
Matthew Weaver/Capital Press Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife conflict program manager Stephanie Simek watches as carnivore section manager Donny Martorello shares an update on the state's wolf population numbers with the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission March 8 in Moses Lake, Wash.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife says the number of wolves in the state has increased to at least 52 in 13 packs. At the same time, the number of livestock deaths attributed to wolves has decreased.
MOSES LAKE, Wash. — While Washington’s wolf population increased by at least one last year, officials of the state Department of Fish and Wildlife say the number of cattle that were killed decreased.
Department carnivore section manager Donny Martorello told the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission on Saturday the estimated number of wolves and wolf packs has increased. Last year, the department estimated 51 to 101 wolves were in the state. This year, the minimum increased to 52, based on the number of wolves seen by department staff.
“I do believe the number is higher, but we don’t know exactly by how much,” Martorello said. “We had good production this last year in a number of packs.”
The department estimates there were 13 wolf packs in 2013, up from nine in 2012. Wolves from the Smackout Pack in northeastern Stevens County split into four separate packs, including the Ruby Creek, the Dirty Shirt and the Carpenter-Ridge packs.
Packs are defined as two or more wolves traveling together.
The department investigated 20 livestock depredations in 2013, said conflict program manager Stephanie Simek. Of those, four were caused by wolves, one by an undetermined predator and five were undetermined causes.
The confirmed wolf attacks in 2013 left one calf dead and three dogs injured, according to the department. In 2012, wolves killed seven calves and one sheep, and six calves and two sheep were injured, according to the department. Most of those attacks were attributed to the Wedge Pack. The department killed seven wolves in that pack to stop the attacks. Two remaining members are traveling as a pack in the same area, according to the department.
Of the 10 non-wolf deaths, five were caused by wild carnivores such as cougars and coyotes and five were attributed to other causes, including domestic dogs, falling, drowning and ravens or eagles.
Simek said one calf death was caused by ravens and one by eagles and ravens. Bird attacks are not common in Washington but are more frequent in other states, Simek said.
The department supports a proposal to remove the wolf from the endangered species list under the federal Endangered Species Act, Martorello said. Wolves are considered endangered in the western two-thirds of the state but have been delisted in the eastern one-third of the state.
However, wolves will continue to be protected under the state Endangered Species law until there are 15 successful breeding pairs for three consecutive years, evenly distributed throughout three recovery regions in the state, or 18 successful breeding pairs evenly distributed for one year.
A successful breeding pair is a male and female pair that raises two pups that survive to the end of the year. There are presently five successful breeding pairs residing in two recovery regions.
In other wolf-related topics:
• An investigation into the Feb. 9 shooting death of a female wolf in northern Stevens County is continuing, Martorello said. It was once part of the Smackout Pack.
• Simek said the department plans to research wolf and livestock interaction with Washington State University’s Large Carnivore Conservation Laboratory, continue working with a wolf advisory group and sharing outreach information with conservation districts and WSU Extension.
• The department is developing a pilot carcass removal program with Conservation Northwest and Washington conservation districts. The project will consider ways to help ranchers remove bones and compost carcasses, Simek said.
She believes ranchers are recognizing that they will need to make some adjustments to minimize conflict. Most livestock producers are already performing the necessary tasks, Simek said.
“The last thing we want is someone’s livelihood to be impacted,” she said. “There’s no silver bullet, we’re still going to have conflict. The idea is to hopefully minimize it so it’s not so devastating to everyone. People realize this is the lifestyle now, the landscape now.”
Online
An overview of the wolf report is available online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/
A full report will be available by April 4.
- See more at: http://www.capitalpress.com/article/201 … 140319987/

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.  s:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

[CAMPMEAT]

What cattleman, in his right mind, would call an inept department, to report a " wolf kill ", to become part of the lies ?

[Axle]

Wolf Recovery Based on Deception

If Maughan and his blog participants had been exposed to the entire article, those with the ability to think and reason might have realized that the article illustrated two things: 1) that FWS wolf recovery in the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) has involved deception from day one using misinformation, half truths and deliberate lies to sell the program to Congress and the American public; and 2) since August of 1994, that deception has included deliberately underestimating the total number of wolves in the three states with disastrous consequences.

And the very 'beginning' of this deceptive lie was using the word 'recovery' while introducing a non-native species.
It would be like introducing the African lion in an effort to boost cougar numbers.

[bearpaw]

Wolf Recovery Based on Deception

If Maughan and his blog participants had been exposed to the entire article, those with the ability to think and reason might have realized that the article illustrated two things: 1) that FWS wolf recovery in the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) has involved deception from day one using misinformation, half truths and deliberate lies to sell the program to Congress and the American public; and 2) since August of 1994, that deception has included deliberately underestimating the total number of wolves in the three states with disastrous consequences.

And the very 'beginning' of this deceptive lie was using the word 'recovery' while introducing a non-native species.
It would be like introducing the African lion in an effort to boost cougar numbers.

To add to the deception is the term "endangered", these were Canadian wolves that were planted, population estimates at the time suggested there were 60,000 wolves in Canada and Alaska.

[pianoman9701]

The population increased by at least one, eh? What a huge stinking load that is.

[snowpack]

Wolf Recovery Based on Deception

If Maughan and his blog participants had been exposed to the entire article, those with the ability to think and reason might have realized that the article illustrated two things: 1) that FWS wolf recovery in the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) has involved deception from day one using misinformation, half truths and deliberate lies to sell the program to Congress and the American public; and 2) since August of 1994, that deception has included deliberately underestimating the total number of wolves in the three states with disastrous consequences.

And the very 'beginning' of this deceptive lie was using the word 'recovery' while introducing a non-native species.
It would be like introducing the African lion in an effort to boost cougar numbers.

To add to the deception is the term "endangered", these were Canadian wolves that were planted, population estimates at the time suggested there were 60,000 wolves in Canada and Alaska.

Also interesting to think about the difference in how it was necessary for wolves, but considered evil if for fish.
Native wolves exist in small numbers, nearly extinct.....solution transplant different wolves from far away.  Same species, but a little different...meh, it's fine.
Native fish exist in small numbers, some places nearly extinct....solution prohibit transplant of fish from far away.  Same species, but a little different....AHHH, not fine--horrible!

[bearpaw]

The caribou situation in WA with wolves now here to eat them is an even greater irony....