Survey shows Washington wolf numbers grew by 30% in 2014

[idahohuntr]

There is no accepted formula.  I just shared what Martorello has discussed in public meetings. I would call it Accepted if WDFW employees use it and tell people at public meetings, why not at least put it in there yearly report and be consistent?  WDFW does not provide estimates of total wolf populations to my knowledge.  As WaCoyotehunter notes, its probably because too many people who can't even grasp minimum counts would twist those numbers all sorts of ways.  Also, total numbers play no part in de-listing and recovery goals...so its not really a useful management number.

I can can grasp minimum counts it's just an estimated minimum and you aren't grasping that,
I guess I don't understand why you don't see the word estimates in Martorello's quote, is it because it has under before it 

Hopefully not for long

I don't understand why anyone would think knowing total numbers of animals isn't meaningful/useful, if not from a management standpoint at the very least a scientific standpoint to know just what wolves are capable of doing to ungulate populations.  You can't say there isn't a difference in knowing if 68 wolves in the state kill a prodigious amount or negligible amount compared to what a few hundred wolves would do...

Your clearly not going to see why I feel it is important that we don't go down the road of every other wolf reintroduction area that has seen vast amounts of ungulates Murdered (sorry just taking a page from the anti's to give myself a chuckle).  "Let's just see what happens" isn't something Washington needs to do as we have plenty of scientific data that shows the upcoming decimation of ungulate herds  I know you want management but to simply let the issue go unchallenged because we have the wolf plan the we have is silly imo

If you want to get really technical here...Martorello was not actually quoted in that press release.  I work with a ton of PR folks and reporters...it would not surprise me in the least if they erred in their press release in how he characterized the minimum counts.

There's a ton of information that would be nice to know...but information costs money.  If the management goals and recovery are not based on total numbers...its not a priority.

My bigger issue in this thread is those who are trying to suggest wdfw is lying about wolf numbers or hiding something.  They are not.  They are very clear what they put out are minimums...meaning there are at least that many with 100% certainty...but likely many more.  During a species recovery effort focusing on what the lowest/most conservative population might be is common and reasonable.  WDFW does report growth rates annually, which is probably the most useful number...wolves increased 30% last year...thats a number irrespective of the minimum or total estimate...whatever we had for wolves in 2013, they increased 30% last year. 

[wolfbait]

There is no accepted formula.  I just shared what Martorello has discussed in public meetings. I would call it Accepted if WDFW employees use it and tell people at public meetings, why not at least put it in there yearly report and be consistent?  WDFW does not provide estimates of total wolf populations to my knowledge.  As WaCoyotehunter notes, its probably because too many people who can't even grasp minimum counts would twist those numbers all sorts of ways.  Also, total numbers play no part in de-listing and recovery goals...so its not really a useful management number.

I can can grasp minimum counts it's just an estimated minimum and you aren't grasping that,
I guess I don't understand why you don't see the word estimates in Martorello's quote, is it because it has under before it 

Hopefully not for long

I don't understand why anyone would think knowing total numbers of animals isn't meaningful/useful, if not from a management standpoint at the very least a scientific standpoint to know just what wolves are capable of doing to ungulate populations.  You can't say there isn't a difference in knowing if 68 wolves in the state kill a prodigious amount or negligible amount compared to what a few hundred wolves would do...

Your clearly not going to see why I feel it is important that we don't go down the road of every other wolf reintroduction area that has seen vast amounts of ungulates Murdered (sorry just taking a page from the anti's to give myself a chuckle).  "Let's just see what happens" isn't something Washington needs to do as we have plenty of scientific data that shows the upcoming decimation of ungulate herds  I know you want management but to simply let the issue go unchallenged because we have the wolf plan the we have is silly imo

If you want to get really technical here...Martorello was not actually quoted in that press release.  I work with a ton of PR folks and reporters...it would not surprise me in the least if they erred in their press release in how he characterized the minimum counts.>>>> Maybe Mortorello misspoke now that "estimating" after the "survey" isn't turning out to well for the  "minimum" argument?

There's a ton of information that would be nice to know...but information costs money.  If the management goals and recovery are not based on total numbers...its not a priority.

My bigger issue in this thread is those who are trying to suggest wdfw is lying about wolf numbers or hiding something.  They are not.  They are very clear what they put out are minimums...meaning there are at least that many with 100% certainty...but likely many more.  During a species recovery effort focusing on what the lowest/most conservative population might be is common and reasonable.  WDFW does report growth rates annually, which is probably the most useful number...wolves increased 30% last year...thats a number irrespective of the minimum or total estimate...whatever we had for wolves in 2013, they increased 30% last year.

"There's a ton of information that would be nice to know...but information costs money.  If the management goals and recovery are not based on total numbers...its not a priority."

The excuse for not confirming wolf packs and BP's is lack of funding. your statement pretty much sums up the wolf introduction, it isn't about a recovered population, it's about filling states with as many wolves as possible. WA has had 5 BP's for how many years now? At the rate WDFW are confirming BP's WA will have way too many wolves by the time there is any wolf control/management.

What's the growth rate for One Wolf per year?  Yep, WDFW are doing their level best.

[wolfbait]

There is no accepted formula.  I just shared what Martorello has discussed in public meetings. I would call it Accepted if WDFW employees use it and tell people at public meetings, why not at least put it in there yearly report and be consistent?  WDFW does not provide estimates of total wolf populations to my knowledge.  As WaCoyotehunter notes, its probably because too many people who can't even grasp minimum counts would twist those numbers all sorts of ways.  Also, total numbers play no part in de-listing and recovery goals...so its not really a useful management number.

I can can grasp minimum counts it's just an estimated minimum and you aren't grasping that,
I guess I don't understand why you don't see the word estimates in Martorello's quote, is it because it has under before it 

Hopefully not for long

I don't understand why anyone would think knowing total numbers of animals isn't meaningful/useful, if not from a management standpoint at the very least a scientific standpoint to know just what wolves are capable of doing to ungulate populations.  You can't say there isn't a difference in knowing if 68 wolves in the state kill a prodigious amount or negligible amount compared to what a few hundred wolves would do...

Your clearly not going to see why I feel it is important that we don't go down the road of every other wolf reintroduction area that has seen vast amounts of ungulates Murdered (sorry just taking a page from the anti's to give myself a chuckle).  "Let's just see what happens" isn't something Washington needs to do as we have plenty of scientific data that shows the upcoming decimation of ungulate herds  I know you want management but to simply let the issue go unchallenged because we have the wolf plan the we have is silly imo

 

[WAcoyotehunter]

I can can grasp minimum counts it's just an estimated minimum and you aren't grasping that,

No, you're not grasping it.  IT IS AN ACTUAL COUNT... not an estimated minimum.  THEY KNOW THE MINUMUM NUMBER, the maximum would be an estimation.  That's actually what HuntWa has done.

I agree that it would be nice to know every wolf in the woods.  The WA wolf bios would love to have that information too.  It's a tough project and they are not getting much help from either side of the pro/anti wolf contingent.  So, until we can push for more collars and data we will have to estimate the population.  I would not count on the WDFW generating a decent population estimate any time soon.  It's a fool's errand and will only lead to a bunch of drama from the fringes.

[wolfbait]

I can can grasp minimum counts it's just an estimated minimum and you aren't grasping that,

No, you're not grasping it.  IT IS AN ACTUAL COUNT... not an estimated minimum.  THEY KNOW THE MINUMUM NUMBER, the maximum would be an estimation.  That's actually what HuntWa has done.

I agree that it would be nice to know every wolf in the woods.  The WA wolf bios would love to have that information too.  It's a tough project and they are not getting much help from either side of the pro/anti wolf contingent.  So, until we can push for more collars and data we will have to estimate the population.  I would not count on the WDFW generating a decent population estimate any time soon.  It's a fool's errand and will only lead to a bunch of drama from the fringes.

Before WDFW came out with their "survey" they were estimating wolves, and estimation is not an accurate count, so they don't actually know the "minimum" count, unless they counted 68 wolves this spring.

No one has suggested that every wolf in the woods needs to be confirmed, but refusing to estimate the true number of wolves, only shows that WDFW do not want people to get an idea as to the impact, many more wolves are having on WA. The USFWS did the very same thing with wolf introduction into the Yellowstone and Idaho.

Don't you think WDFW should be getting counts on the game herds and studying the impact from wolves, instead of predicting the weather and killing off more breeding stock. Not enough funding for that either?

[WAcoyotehunter]

Yes, I think WDFW should be doing more.  I wish they were counting every deer, elk, moose, lion and wolf in the woods.  But the reality of that survey is too daunting. 

I suspect that trying to model wolves as they expand range and distribution is nearly impossible.  I think they could shoot a number out for a "Statewide Estimate" but it would likely be about as accurate as our statewide cougar population estimate... 

[mfswallace]

Yes, I think WDFW should be doing more.  I wish they were counting every deer, elk, moose, lion and wolf in the woods.  But the reality of that survey is too daunting. 

I suspect that trying to model wolves as they expand range and distribution is nearly impossible.  I think they could shoot a number out for a "Statewide Estimate" but it would likely be about as accurate as our statewide cougar population estimate... 

  Except the part of just accepting it is to daunting and therefore should not be attempted