Overview and history of the central Idaho wolf reintroductions

[wolfbait]

Overview and history of the central Idaho wolf reintroductions

http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/wpages/idaho-o.htm

In five years 1995-99 Idaho had 10 BP's @ 141 wolves and in 2000  they had 16 BP's with 192 wolves,  2003 was 30 BP's @ 368 wolves and in 2004 they had 44 BP's @ 454 wolves.


In 2008 WDFW confirmed the first wolf pack, and in seven plus years WDFW has a total count of 52 wolves and 5 BP's.

[mfswallace]

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 

[KFhunter]

I wouldn't expect WA wolves to populate as fast as Idaho did,  we've never had much for Elk compared to Idaho.  WDFW hasn't ever managed for robust herds of Elk.





it's all about that fish, about that fish - no trouble

[idahohuntr]

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.

[fair-chase]

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.

I agree. But my only contention would be that WDFW manages all other ungulate populations based on their estimated population. Not on their confirmed population. The wolf seems to be the only exception to this; whereas the wolf must have and maintain a confirmed population in order to begin and maintain management practices.

So why is WDFW satisfied with managing elk, deer, bear and cougar based on estimated populations, of which most estimates are by proxy (voluntary hunter reports). But the wolf must have a confirmed population before and during management???

[idahohuntr]

Precedence from esa issues. 

Also, there are exponentially fewer wolves than numbers of any of the other species you mention. 

[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?

[wolfbait]

Precedence from esa issues. 

Also, there are exponentially fewer wolves than numbers of any of the other species you mention.

So when there gets to be fewer deer then wolves, will the "precedence from esa issues" change?

[idahohuntr]

Precedence from esa issues. 

Also, there are exponentially fewer wolves than numbers of any of the other species you mention.

So when there gets to be fewer deer then wolves, will the "precedence from esa issues" change?

That will never happen.  It's ridiculous to even suggest such a scenario.  Only if most/all habitat is lost would deer numbers fall into the 'hundreds'.

Awesome and excellent are how those in the know would describe whitetail and mule deer hunting in North East Washington where most wolves in the state currently reside.

[Elkaholic daWg]

Precedence from esa issues. 

Also, there are exponentially fewer wolves than numbers of any of the other species you mention.

So when there gets to be fewer deer then wolves, will the "precedence from esa issues" change?

Awesome and excellent are how those in the know would describe whitetail and mule deer hunting in North East Washington where most wolves in the state currently reside.

Seriously ?? then in the know is not you... Kelly hill GMU is a shadow of it's former self!

[wolfbait]

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.

I agree. But my only contention would be that WDFW manages all other ungulate populations based on their estimated population. Not on their confirmed population. The wolf seems to be the only exception to this; whereas the wolf must have and maintain a confirmed population in order to begin and maintain management practices.

So why is WDFW satisfied with managing elk, deer, bear and cougar based on estimated populations, of which most estimates are by proxy (voluntary hunter reports). But the wolf must have a confirmed population before and during management???

Precedence from esa issues. 

Also, there are exponentially fewer wolves than numbers of any of the other species you mention. 

“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.

Low Estimates Hide Extent of Impact

But regardless of the number of breeding pairs counted, central Idaho is saturated with wolves. Other wolf packs and breeding pairs are constantly forming and dispersing to saturate adjacent areas – yet an unknown number of them are never included in the current year’s minimum estimated wolf population.

It can be argued that most of these undocumented wolves will probably be documented sooner or later if they remain in the area, since 17 new packs were reportedly documented in 2007. But by pretending that the minimum estimate reflects the actual number of wolves, officials and the media downplay their negative impact.

A refreshing exception was a March 16, 2008 Coeur d’ Alene Press article by Sean Garmire in which he stated, “Game managers have produced an estimate of 753 wolves in Idaho and 1,500 in the three-state region. But those figures represent the minimum, and the real number could be closer to 1,000 in Idaho alone.”

Read more@ http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf

[idahohuntr]

I was just quoting bearpaws website on ne wa deer hunting. I don't hunt up there.

[mountainman]

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..

[Elkaholic daWg]

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

[idahohuntr]

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.