Overview and history of the central Idaho wolf reintroductions

[mfswallace]

My friend killed another wolf in Idaho up near the Woodland Caribou.......

Any chance he'd help a Washingtonian get one 

[CAMPMEAT]

My friend killed another wolf in Idaho up near the Woodland Caribou.......

Any chance he'd help a Washingtonian get one 

I come first, then you. You'll need snowmachines. I know exactly where he's killing them.

[wolfbait]

I was just going to comment on this very fact, very unlikely the WDFW is being truthful!!!!

Can anyone deny and explain how this isn't a lie from WDFW 

WDFW reports MINIMUM counts...which is not a tricky phrase...it literally means the number of wolves they physically observed and thus is the absolute minimum number that exist.  It is not the estimate of the total number of wolves WDFW believes occurs in Washington State.  They usually peg that number much, much higher.

Sadly, some like to spread misinformation and suggest or report that WDFW believes there are only 52 wolves in Washington State right now.  I have talked with several senior wildlife staff in WDFW...they will all tell you Wolf numbers in Wa are well into the hundreds. Again, it is unfortunate there are small groups of folks who spread misinformation to fit their agenda of pushing the idea that state game departments are hiding wolf numbers/packs in some sort of weird conspiracy where the motives don't make sense or are not clear.

Well into the hundreds and yet WDFW only saw one new wolf for 2013?

yeah, that..

 if you've talked with several senior wildlife officials who tell you wolves number in the hundreds yet they reported 1 New wolf in 2013 wouldn't that confirm the lie or at the very least Misinformation they feed the public??? Since you seem to be in the know, with the last posted information being over a year ago when can we expect an update?

The truth is that all the states report MINIMUN counts on wolves. WA is no different than Idaho on how they report wolf counts, what is much different is that Idaho has done a much better job of documenting wolves. WA only has a 3 or 4 persons who are not really trappers trying to document wolves. It seems to be a WDFW priority to avoid documenting wolves until livestock is killed by wolves and they can no longer ignore the existence of that wolf pack. 

mfswallace - I appreciate you respectfully discussing this issue.  My view on your question is no, it does not suggest dishonesty by WDFW.  Their MINIMUM Count was only one more...they are not saying there is only one more wolf in Washington.  I agree the terminology can be confusing...but it is really, really, important not to infer minimum counts as the WDFW estimate of total numbers of wolves...they are definitely not the same thing.

bearpaw- I wish you could discuss these topics respectfully without making snide remarks about me personally.  Per the topic, you are incorrect.  Idaho does a pretty good job of reporting total estimated wolf numbers in the state...not MINIMUM counts.  For example, below is the first link from a quick google search I pulled up where Jim Hayden (IDFG Panhandle biologist) discusses a statewide estimate of 1,000 wolves.  This is not their MINIMUM Count...it is their population estimate statewide and that is what IDFG typically reports.


http://www.dailyastorian.com/idaho-has-22-breeding-wolf-pairs-an-estimated-1000-wolves-da-ap-webfeeds-news-northwest6587c76d344e410aa6246ede32b2b3a9
January 22, 2015 8:57PM


I am unsure why WDFW does not provide total population estimates more regularly...my guess is that uncertainty is high and they are uncomfortable reporting it knowing how litigious and controversial wolf issues are...but that is a guess on my part 

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.

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)


Read more@ 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

[bearpaw]

I was just going to comment on this very fact, very unlikely the WDFW is being truthful!!!!

Can anyone deny and explain how this isn't a lie from WDFW 

WDFW reports MINIMUM counts...which is not a tricky phrase...it literally means the number of wolves they physically observed and thus is the absolute minimum number that exist.  It is not the estimate of the total number of wolves WDFW believes occurs in Washington State.  They usually peg that number much, much higher.

Sadly, some like to spread misinformation and suggest or report that WDFW believes there are only 52 wolves in Washington State right now.  I have talked with several senior wildlife staff in WDFW...they will all tell you Wolf numbers in Wa are well into the hundreds. Again, it is unfortunate there are small groups of folks who spread misinformation to fit their agenda of pushing the idea that state game departments are hiding wolf numbers/packs in some sort of weird conspiracy where the motives don't make sense or are not clear.

Well into the hundreds and yet WDFW only saw one new wolf for 2013?

yeah, that..

 if you've talked with several senior wildlife officials who tell you wolves number in the hundreds yet they reported 1 New wolf in 2013 wouldn't that confirm the lie or at the very least Misinformation they feed the public??? Since you seem to be in the know, with the last posted information being over a year ago when can we expect an update?

The truth is that all the states report MINIMUN counts on wolves. WA is no different than Idaho on how they report wolf counts, what is much different is that Idaho has done a much better job of documenting wolves. WA only has a 3 or 4 persons who are not really trappers trying to document wolves. It seems to be a WDFW priority to avoid documenting wolves until livestock is killed by wolves and they can no longer ignore the existence of that wolf pack. 

mfswallace - I appreciate you respectfully discussing this issue.  My view on your question is no, it does not suggest dishonesty by WDFW.  Their MINIMUM Count was only one more...they are not saying there is only one more wolf in Washington.  I agree the terminology can be confusing...but it is really, really, important not to infer minimum counts as the WDFW estimate of total numbers of wolves...they are definitely not the same thing.

bearpaw- I wish you could discuss these topics respectfully without making snide remarks about me personally.  Per the topic, you are incorrect.  Idaho does a pretty good job of reporting total estimated wolf numbers in the state...not MINIMUM counts.  For example, below is the first link from a quick google search I pulled up where Jim Hayden (IDFG Panhandle biologist) discusses a statewide estimate of 1,000 wolves.  This is not their MINIMUM Count...it is their population estimate statewide and that is what IDFG typically reports.
http://www.dailyastorian.com/idaho-has-22-breeding-wolf-pairs-an-estimated-1000-wolves-da-ap-webfeeds-news-northwest6587c76d344e410aa6246ede32b2b3a9

I am unsure why WDFW does not provide total population estimates more regularly...my guess is that uncertainty is high and they are uncomfortable reporting it knowing how litigious and controversial wolf issues are...but that is a guess on my part 

I would agree. Idaho did the same thing, they stood by their "Minimum BP's" as their baseline for wolf management and rarely talked about the estimated total number of wolves. MT, WY, and the USFWS have managed wolves the same way, by the Minimum # of BP's. To their credit, since delisting, IDFG has been more transparent about the estimated total number of wolves and they are doing studies to better estimate the total wolf population.

[Bob33]

FWIW: this has been one of the more helpful wolf topics I've seen on here recently. It's good to see differing points of view discussed intelligently and respectfully.

Thanks to all for the exchange of information.

[bearpaw]

So then from who's website does your Idaho information come from??

Bearpaws. What Idaho information?  All I can say is I've filled my deer and elk tags for several consecutive years in idaho...still haven't had a shot at a wolf. There are only a very few areas that I would not be too excited to hunt.

FYI - There are no known wolf packs in the Idaho elk units I hunt, that can be verified with IDFG, therefore wolf impacts are very minimal where I hunt in Idaho. It's probably not reasonable to use my hunting area as a baseline to suggest wolves have not affected the elk hunting in the lolo, st joe, or middle fork units!