WDFW verses The USFWS wolf introduction

[wolfbait]

 WDFW verses The USFWS wolf introduction



Since last year, Eastern Washington has gained as estimated two more wolf packs but WDFW only counts 5 breeding pairs in the entire state. A total of 15 breeding pairs are needed for three years before the state will consider removing protections for the wolves in the eastern third of the state.

However, as WDFW admits, “Wildlife managers emphasize that the actual number of wolves in the state is likely higher than those confirmed by the survey. The survey is not designed to account for every wolf within the state, but rather to monitor the species’ progress toward recovery.”

With that knowledge, SCCA has always advocated that the 15 breeding pair goal is not well suited to determining when wolves are “recovered” in Washington.

 http://stevenscountycattlemen.wordpress.com

13 wolf packs in 6 years, with only 5 breeding pairs!  At this rate how many wolves will Washington have in 12 more years?


Washington's wolf population has continued to grow, according to a statewide survey conducted by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in 2013.  The survey confirmed the presence of at least 52 wolves in 13 wolf packs with a total of 5 successful breeding pairs by the end of the year.  Wildlife managers emphasize that the actual number of wolves in the state is likely higher than those confirmed by the survey. The survey is not designed to account for every wolf within the state, but rather to monitor the species' progress toward recovery.

Recovery Region   Pack   Pack Status   Minimum Count   Successful
Breeding Pairs
Eastern Washington   Carpenter Ridge   Confirmed   2   No
Dirty Shirt   Confirmed   2   No
Diamond   Confirmed   9   Yes
Huckleberry   Confirmed   6   Yes
Nc'icn   Confirmed   5   No
Ruby Creek   Confirmed   2   No
Salmo   Confirmed   4   Yes
Smackout   Confirmed   2   No
Strawberry   Confirmed   3   No
Wedge   Confirmed   2   No
Misc/Loners       1   
Northern Cascades   Lookout   Confirmed   5   Yes
Teanaway   Confirmed   6   Yes
Wenatchee   Confirmed   2   No
Misc/Loners       1   
S Cascades & NW Coast   None   None   0   None
Statewide Total   13   52   5
 


 http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/packs/



“Ignore All But Known Breeding Pairs and Packs”

In his 1984 letter to Lobdell, Bangs listed the “key recovery issues that will be consistently presented to the public.” Issue number 6 stated, “Only breeding pairs of wolves that have successfully raised young are important to the recovery of viable wolf populations.

“At this time there is no such thing as a truly ‘confirmed’ wolf’ until it has been determined to have successfully raised young in the wild or has been captured, examined, and monitored with radio telemetry. (F)rom this day forward we (will) use the strictest definition of confirmed wolf activity (i.e. individual wolves or members of packs that have been examined, radiocollared and monitored in the wild).

“We should be comfortable with this definition in all phases of wolf recovery such as when discussing the criteria for use of an experimental rule or for delisting the species because the population viability criteria have been reached.” (emphasis added)



Existence of Many Wolves Ignored

Bangs also explained that it was too difficult to locate individual wolves or small groups of wolves that were not packs and emphasized that the existence of these wolves was not important to recovery. Once the transplanted wolves began pairing and successfully raising young, the Nez Perce and FWS recovery teams declined to investigate sightings of individual wolves or groups of wolves unless they involved livestock killing.

But even then, if the livestock was moved to a different location and/or the wolf predation stopped, any investigation abruptly ceased. In some parts of Idaho where wolf populations are excessive, including the county we live in, local citizens report frustration over the Wolf Teams’ refusal to investigate reports of apparent pack activity unless there is evidence of at least two pups.

The excuse used by the FWS/NezPerce Team for its failure to investigate such activity is that it is too expensive but it also is not interested in recording wolves unless they meet the confirmed wolf criteria agreed upon by Bangs, Ted Koch and Steve Fritts in 1994. The exception is the need to radio-collar one or more wolves to facilitate removal of one or more members of a pack that continues to kill livestock.


Wolf Numbers Underestimated

There are so many variables involved in attempting to estimate the total number of wolves in a state that any such estimate is prone to large errors even with the best information available. But when the existence of every wolf that has not been part of a “collared” pack is ignored, any such estimate is suspect.

For example, local residents reported several wolf packs in Boise County yet FWS had documented only two. When the Team finally documented the existence of three more packs there were 2-1/2 times as many wolf packs as had been recorded and a similar increase in the number of breeding pairs – indicated both by pups and by yearlings that were born in the prior year and survived.

Although FWS goes back and adjusts the number of breeding pairs for the prior year when this evidence is documented, this system always results in initially underestimating both total wolves and breeding pairs. Recovery goals in all three states were met at least 2-3 years before then current FWS estimates said they were, yet the actual number of breeding pairs was not admitted and recorded until after the fact.

In the future the policy of including only the wolves in currently documented packs in the “minimum estimate” could result in wolves being declared below the recovery minimum of 10 breeding pairs in any of the three areas when the actual number of breeding pairs could be 2- 3 times what is estimated. Theoretically this could result in wolves being declared threatened in one or all three states and an end to state wolf management.


Alaska Underestimated Wolf Numbers By 50%

In Denali Park an intensive two-year study was conducted to determine how accurate their wolf population estimates had been for nearly two decades. The National Park Service/FWS researchers found that despite recording all of the known wolf packs and sightings, they had been underestimating total wolf numbers by about 50%.

[Special T]

 Its so sad the we have this strict definition AND such large BP requirements compared to other states.

The devil is in the details and the process can be slow played. Plenty of "Neutral" excuses can be made that prevent good documentation. Money, Time, Trapping sucess.... Never mind the fact that those aspects were not taken into account when we were sold this bill of goods.

[bearpaw]

I know many of the local outfitters and guides north of Boise. They had to tell the wolf researchers exactly where the wolves were, the researchers were only capable of finding a fraction of the wolves. My son and other guides in the area told the wolf researchers which drainages to look for the wolves.

One day my son found where wolves had attacked an elk in the road and fought it down into a creek bottom where they killed the elk. On his way back out of that drainage he met the wolf researchers close to the kill site who told him they had not found the wolves in that drainage. My son explained that they had just drove past where wolves had attacked an elk in the middle of the road and the wolves had killed the elk in the creek bottom. About that time my son looks across the canyon and exclaims "there's one of the wolves packing part of a leg bone in it's mouth" or something to that effect.

There is a topic here on this forum where I told this story several years ago right after it happened. The point is that the wolf researchers that were hired were very lacking in woods savvy and ability. I suspect the exact same scenario is true here in Washington, I think that explains why 1 wolf was trapped last year. The trapper that was catching wolves took a job on a polar bear study. Please remember, when WDFW was looking for more trappers they were more interested in college degrees than woods savvy and trapping experience. (nothing against a college degree, but the priority in the job description should have been "ability to catch wolves")