Survey shows Washington wolf numbers grew by 30% in 2014

[Special T]

WB has posted REEMS of articles that no one else has AND he has state his opinion. That is more than 90+% of people on here have done... Including myself. While I dont live with wolves i Have friends in N ID and  areas in WA that do... None of them seem to trust the USFS or the WDFW/IDFW when it comes to wolves...

To me its not a surprise that people have taken the matter into thier own hands. When the agencies HAD the opportunity to turn those affected into allies they failed... Everything since seems to be a back peddle, and it is ALWAYS harder to regain trust once burned than to earn it the right way in the first place...

[bobcat]

Honestly I don't read 99% of what a Wolfbait posts. None of the information comes from credible sources and it's nothing but exaggerations meant to make the WDFW look bad. I think the majority of the people on this forum are smart enough to understand that the WDFW is not some sinister, rogue, governmental agency intent on allowing wolves to multiply to the point that there will be no deer and elk left in the state. Most of us would prefer not to have any wolves in the state, but we need to remember, the WDFW didn't bring them here in the first place.

[CAMPMEAT]

Bobcat, you need to expand your reader groups, besides this site. What I've seen about wolfbait is, he has more credible facts, than the people on here, that want to cut him down for everything he posts. There are ALOT of experts on here that don't know squat about wolves. I've seen 6 in this state and I bet it's a lot more than most, and that's not counting poop or hair. I ain't no expert, but I do keep up on other sites for their knowledge about their states and who that state took actions against the wolf. Why was it that I've heard of 15 wolves since last October, just around my house and only 1 pack has been publicly confirmed and investigated. You tell who is either lying or with holding info from the public. It's not me, you or wolfbait, it's the WDFW. I know I got wolf track pictures sent to the bio in Colville about 5-6 years ago and the WDFW could of cared less, not look at what they aren't doing about wolves here. They have the Profanity Pack that was confirmed last year, haven't heard a word about them. We have the unconfirmed Boulder Pack, never, ever a word about that pack.....

[bobcat]

It's simple- they don't have the money or the personnel to locate and keep track of every single wolf in this state. Isn't that obvious? Even if they had unlimited funds, it still would not be possible to know about every wolf in the state. I don't understand why some people would think that's even possible. And, the thing is, I don't want them wasting any more money than has already been wasted on wolves.

[CAMPMEAT]

It's simple- they don't have the money or the personnel to locate and keep track of every single wolf in this state. Isn't that obvious? Even if they had unlimited funds, it still would not be possible to know about every wolf in the state. I don't understand why some people would think that's even possible. And, the thing is, I don't want them wasting any more money than has already been wasted on wolves.

Then they should open the season on them and manage them correctly. You and I both know, especially me, since I've been to Idaho a handful of times hunting them, that 99% of hunters will never see one. That's what I don't understand about our WDFW. Oh, Communist Northwest is the real threat to WDFW, not the wolves..

[bobcat]

I think most people on this forum would be good with a year around season on wolves, same as coyotes. The problem is trying to convince all the non-hunters that that's a good idea.

[CAMPMEAT]

I think most people on this forum would be good with a year around season on wolves, same as coyotes. The problem is trying to convince all the non-hunters that that's a good idea.

I agree. The main problem is the enviros, who aren't afraid and are given millions of dollars to sue, for there own agendas, only and not the good of all. Kinda like my way, or the highway.

[wolfbait]

WDFW isn't providing estimates...so your allegation they underestimate is bogus.

So according to you and WDFW there are only 68 wolves in WA?

No. That is a common lie that you like to spread in your campaign of misinformation and deceit. WDFW nor I believe there are only 68 wolves in Washington. Nobody except you has ever made such a ridiculous claim.  Distorting minimum counts are a common tactic of fringe groups grasping at straws.  It's pathetic.

"The survey shows the presence of at least 68 gray wolves in the state through Dec. 31, 2014"

Martorello said WDFW conducted the survey by using a combination of aerial surveys, remote cameras, wolf tracks, and signals from seven wolves fitted with radio-collars.

Survey? Sounds more like an estimate or an opinion. Why beat around the bush as to the amount of wolves WDFW have counted?

I-h, I kind of think you and Bobcat don't like the USFWS past wolf history, and you sure don't seem to like it when it matches up with what WDFW are doing. 

[denali]

I think most people on this forum would be good with a year around season on wolves, same as coyotes. The problem is trying to convince all the non-hunters that that's a good idea.

I have a hard time seeing any wolf hunting in WA, years of litigation fallowed by a voter initiative.  will the WDFW publicly go before lawmakers and voters and say we NEED wolf hunting as part of wildlife management ?  doubtful.  and trapping is a non-starter.

The only mention of hunting I remember in the wolf plan was a comparison to the moose hunt, and a referance that other states will/may hunt wolves.

[Special T]

It's simple- they don't have the money or the personnel to locate and keep track of every single wolf in this state. Isn't that obvious? Even if they had unlimited funds, it still would not be possible to know about every wolf in the state. I don't understand why some people would think that's even possible. And, the thing is, I don't want them wasting any more money than has already been wasted on wolves.

Since we ALL knew this to be the case,before this whole fiasco started, why did the WDFW agree to such a High number of BP to be delisted?

I think most people on this forum would be good with a year around season on wolves, same as coyotes. The problem is trying to convince all the non-hunters that that's a good idea.

Once again History of ID and Mt and even WY has shown thar year round hunting and trapping cannot stop wolves.... We only have hunting, not real trapping.... Just goes to show that the WDFW does not use SCIENCE to run the department.

Since you BC and others find WB  posts questionable is at least 1 example of  a third source that IS reputable... The University of Alaska study cited, several times, that 50-70% of wolves must be harvested to MAINTAIN populations... If you think the University of AK is un-reputable then Im not sure who is...

One of the things I dislike about WB posts is the fact that he doesn't make the ORIGINAL source stand out... Like the Univ of AK... I just happen to remember that one because i have cited it in the past... I know that some here think that Dr Meck and Beers are not reputable but even THEY cite actual science in several of thier documents...

Its fun to get down in the weeds and debate, but the simple fact is that the simple solution is the actual one... The WDFW ACTIONS (or inaction) tells us what we need to know. They cozy up to Anti hunting goups and stick it to hunters and ranchers... Mostly because we/they have limited options...

[bobcat]

It's impossible for the WDFW to base all wildlife management on science. That's just unrealistic. Even deer and elk are not managed by science. If they were, we'd have deer and elk populations at whatever the maximum carrying capacity is determined to be. Instead, populations are managed according to how much damage private landowners are willing to tolerate.

The number of breeding pairs of wolves was probably the least they could get the wolf loving groups to agree with, and maybe  the USFWS as well. I don't know why that's the number they came up with, but I'm sure they have their reasons. I do know that the one WDFW meeting I attended in Olympia just before the wolf plan was officially adopted, there was a wolf lover who spoke, and he was extremely critical of the minimum being 15 breeding pairs. He said 30 should be the absolute minimum.

So maybe we should be happy it's 15 and not 30?

[Special T]

It doesn't help that sportsmen aren't more organized... that is for sure... It also shows that the general feeling of Anti Sportsmen is more important than US who pay the bills.

[CAMPMEAT]

I think we all have some valid points, it's just that we cannot get a straight, truthfull answer from a government agency that works for us. It's not the other way around. We pay high salaries, per diems, etc for these workers and we should demand an honest, reliable answer. If not, get rid of them.

[Bob33]

I think we all have some valid points, it's just that we cannot get a straight, truthfull answer from a government agency that works for us. It's not the other way around. We pay high salaries, per diems, etc for these workers and we should demand an honest, reliable answer. If not, get rid of them.

What dishonest answer are you referring to?

[CAMPMEAT]

I think we all have some valid points, it's just that we cannot get a straight, truthfull answer from a government agency that works for us. It's not the other way around. We pay high salaries, per diems, etc for these workers and we should demand an honest, reliable answer. If not, get rid of them.

What dishonest answer are you referring to?

The amount of wolves in the state. I don't know if you agree with WDFW or not, but with all the sightings reported to this site alone makes me believe they're not forthright. I reported and had pictures of tracks near Republic 5-6 years ago and the WDFW didn't care. The government will never give an honest answer to anything, ever.