Overview and history of the central Idaho wolf reintroductions

[CAMPMEAT]

A friend of mine trapped and killed a wolf in December 2014 up near the Woodland Caribou in Idaho. 

[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 

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?

[huntnnw]

Mule deer numbers are NO WHERE where they were 20 years ago in NE WA..areas where we use to see herds of muleys and would see them all the time drving around hunting whitetails...to now we are  lucky to see a muley! its sad. One area we hunted about 15 years ago during late buck and saw close to 200+ muleys been up there the last few years and saw 10 muleys or so..pretty sad

[Bean Counter]

tagging for later

[JimmyHoffa]

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.

Really bad winters tend to impact prey much harder than predators.  And if there is abundant livestock in an area, the predators don't exactly starve off.

[bearpaw]

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

Unfortunately not all areas in NE WA are as good as they used to be since wolves moved in. There are numerous areas that we recommend hunters avoid due to wolf impacts on the herds.

[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. 

[bearpaw]

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.

Really bad winters tend to impact prey much harder than predators.  And if there is abundant livestock in an area, the predators don't exactly starve off.

Yes winters can do more immediate damage to herds than any other factor. However, it is well documented how high numbers of predators can and have played a role in preventing impacted herds from rebounding after winter kills. When predator impacts exceed the ability of a depressed herd to reproduce that is referred to as a "predator pit".

A predator pit can be caused by more than one predator specie such as we see in certain areas where there are excessive numbers of cougar, bear, coyote, bobcat, and wolves.

[KFhunter]

one of these years we will get a deep snow with a crusty surface, wolves loping on top effortlessly while hoofed animals cut legs and wallow through it.


Snowmobilers call it hero snow, you can go anywhere on a short track snowmobile.  I've passed moose that I could have gotten off the machine walked over to it on top the snow and stuck a spear in it's side.  I give those moose a wide birth, wolves would not.

[bearpaw]

Even though IDFG will not admit to it, Idaho is doing everything they can to overcome these "predator pits" and it's working, herds are beginning to rebound in some of these impacted areas. In many game management units there are nearly year long predator seasons and multiple tags are available for cougar, bear, and wolves. Tag fees are even reduced in the worst areas to encourage a greater harvest of predators.

[KFhunter]

Even though IDFG will not admit to it, Idaho is doing everything they can to overcome these "predator pits" and it's working, herds are beginning to rebound in some of these impacted areas. In many game management units there are nearly year long predator seasons and multiple tags are available for cougar, bear, and wolves. Tag fees are even reduced in the worst areas to encourage a greater harvest of predators.

Such a stark contrast to Washington 

[JimmyHoffa]

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.

Really bad winters tend to impact prey much harder than predators.  And if there is abundant livestock in an area, the predators don't exactly starve off.

Yes winters can do more immediate damage to herds than any other factor. However, it is well documented how high numbers of predators can and have played a role in preventing impacted herds from rebounding after winter kills. When predator impacts exceed the ability of a depressed herd to reproduce that is referred to as a "predator pit".

A predator pit can be caused by more than one predator specie such as we see in certain areas where there are excessive numbers of cougar, bear, coyote, bobcat, and wolves.

I agree bearpaw, one of the reasons there should be aggressive management plans.  The other poster thinks it is 'ridiculous' to think the prey could drop and that it could never happen.

[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.

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.

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 

[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 

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 

Thanks again for the reply. I understand your points and agree this is a very controversial topic.

I have been scouring the wdfw website and just can't decide if they are being
1) deliberately deceptive
 2) incompetent
3) overly cautious to a fault making them seem dishonest or incompetent
4) not putting enough of the right kind of resources towards a very BIG issue
5) they don't want to know the truth for plausible deniability reasons
6) they are trying to juggle the pro vs anti wolf crowd by limiting public information

 

If idaho and the other states are any kind of example of how fast wolves multiply I hope wdfw get their stuff together fast before some of the negative scenarios come true ...

[CAMPMEAT]

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