Survey shows Washington wolf numbers grew by 30% in 2014

[wolfbait]

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?

"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."

Actually it was the USFWS who set the 15 BP's for states managing wolves, my question would be, why did WDFW come out with other wolf plan's when they knew all along they were going to go with 15?

[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.

WASHINGTON GRAY WOLF CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT 2012 ANNUAL REPORT

The minimum estimated wolf population in Washington increased by approximately 31% over 2011 levels to at least 51 known wolves in 9 known packs including at least 5 breeding pairs.

POPULATION MONITORING

Wolf monitoring activities occur year-round. The most common monitoring techniques include direct observational counts either from the ground or the air, howling and track surveys, trail camera surveys, and public wolf reports. These techniques are used by biologists to evaluate pack size and reproductive success, identify pack territories, monitor movements and dispersal events, and mitigate conflicts with livestock.

As with all wildlife, counting the total number of wolves on the landscape can be challenging, if not impossible, so biologists use the above techniques to estimate a minimum number that is known to exist on the landscape at the end of the calendar year. Thus, our estimates of wolf numbers, breeding pairs, and pup production are likely conservative and the actual number may be slightly higher. Lone wolves are accounted for when reliable information is available. Suspected wolf packs are those that could not be verified with confidence and they are not included in the reported minimum known estimates. If evidence collected during the most recent calendar year suggests that packs and/or breeding pairs were present on the landscape the previous year, our estimates of the minimum known number of wolves (i.e., total number, packs, breeding pairs) will be updated to reflect this new information. This means that numbers from past reports are subject to change and may differ from numbers included in the most recent annual report.


http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt12/FINAL_WA-AnnRep_2012.pdf

In 2012 WDFW's Minimum Estimate Wolf Population was 51 wolves and 5 breeding pairs> That 31% sounds good on paper but when you start looking at the numbers it really sucks. WDFW are slow playing WA, and doing a fine job of it, what year was it that WDFW added One Wolf?

Survey? Seems WDFW are just changing the terminology. Maybe it sounds better?

[idahohuntr]

There are a MINIMUM of 68 wolves in WA state as of 31 Dec 2014.  Its not a projection or estimate of the total number of wolves in WA state.  Nobody suggests it represents a total estimate...thats why they insert that tricky little word "Minimum".  Your desire to overcomplicate such a simple subject suggests you are not interested in reporting accurate information...what a shock. 

[mountainman]

Then what's the maximum? If there's a minimum, there should be a maximum also. The term minimum is just to cover themselves.

[mfswallace]

I'm curious why they report the wolf population as a minimum number (i.e., at least 68 as of the end of last year). It seems like the more common method for a wildlife survey is to determine a count in a handful of areas and then assume that density exists in other areas and generate an estimate of the total population based on that. Do they not do something similar in this case because the numbers are small compared to other species, or do they assume they have a bead on every wolf pack there is in the state today?

It was protocol established when wolves were reintroduced and makes sense from a species recovery standpoint when they are at low abundance...what is the minimum we know to exist.  WDFW adopted the existing format in part because its identical to what other states were collecting and understood/accepted by USFWS which still has jurisdiction over wolves in the western 2/3 of the state.  Kind of a "lets not re-invent the wheel" approach.  WDFW is very aware they do not have a bead on every pack.  Based on other states data it is often assumed that around 30% of the packs are not identified...so if we know of 16 right now...that would mean they are thinking there is closer to 21 packs in WA. 

As far as your comment about extrapolating estimates to generate an actual total estimate, instead of just a minimum count, I have heard wdfw staff walk people through the simple math...known packs + estimated unknown packs (30%) x average number of wolves in a pack + some portion of wolves that are singles/loners = number of wolves in WA.  Doing that kind of math puts washingtons wolf numbers well into the hundreds.  I am still uncertain why they don't report a total estimate...however, all de-listing criteria are based on number and location of bp's...not total numbers so I guess it doesn't really matter from a management standpoint 

So if wdfw uses this accepted method why not give the public the real numbers they believe are in the state??

[bearpaw]

I'm curious why they report the wolf population as a minimum number (i.e., at least 68 as of the end of last year). It seems like the more common method for a wildlife survey is to determine a count in a handful of areas and then assume that density exists in other areas and generate an estimate of the total population based on that. Do they not do something similar in this case because the numbers are small compared to other species, or do they assume they have a bead on every wolf pack there is in the state today?

It was protocol established when wolves were reintroduced and makes sense from a species recovery standpoint when they are at low abundance...what is the minimum we know to exist.  WDFW adopted the existing format in part because its identical to what other states were collecting and understood/accepted by USFWS which still has jurisdiction over wolves in the western 2/3 of the state.  Kind of a "lets not re-invent the wheel" approach.  WDFW is very aware they do not have a bead on every pack.  Based on other states data it is often assumed that around 30% of the packs are not identified...so if we know of 16 right now...that would mean they are thinking there is closer to 21 packs in WA. 

As far as your comment about extrapolating estimates to generate an actual total estimate, instead of just a minimum count, I have heard wdfw staff walk people through the simple math...known packs + estimated unknown packs (30%) x average number of wolves in a pack + some portion of wolves that are singles/loners = number of wolves in WA.  Doing that kind of math puts washingtons wolf numbers well into the hundreds.  I am still uncertain why they don't report a total estimate...however, all de-listing criteria are based on number and location of bp's...not total numbers so I guess it doesn't really matter from a management standpoint 

So if wdfw uses this accepted method why not give the public the real numbers they believe are in the state??

Because they don't know how many wolves there are!

The minimum is simply the number they want to acknowledge as being confirmed. Numbers are likely growing substantially every year, but WDFW does not do a very good job of confirming wolves, their wolf trappers weren't trappers, in fact if the wolves didn't kill cattle and sheep WDFW wouldn't know that there are 68 wolves.

Livestock producers and other local citizens are confirming more wolves than WDFW! 

[bobcat]

Of course they don't know how many wolves are in the state, and they freely admit that. I would think that we, as hunters, would know that it's virtually impossible to come up with an accurate count of wolves, or any wild animal for that matter.

[mfswallace]

Of course they don't know how many wolves are in the state, and they freely admit that. I would think that we, as hunters, would know that it's virtually impossible to come up with an accurate count of wolves, or any wild animal for that matter.

You really don't expect the state agency responsible for managing our wildlife to know the populations of said wildlife   

Other agencies are able to do their job very accurately, why not wdfw?

[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.

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

"Martorello said the scarcity of snow made it more difficult to track wolves late last year, complicating the 2014 survey. As a result, the survey likely underestimates the number of wolves, packs, and breeding pairs, he said.

"Martorello noted that the number of confirmed successful breeding pairs in the annual wolf survey has remained the same for the past three years, despite a significant increase in the number of individual wolves. Since 2012, WDFW has documented a total of five breeding pairs between the Eastern Washington and North Cascades recovery regions."

 Since it has been proven that WDFW were estimating in their wolf count, how can anyone say there are 68 wolves now or that WDFW are even close to the Minimum wolf count? Remember Mech stated that wolves double in population each year.



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. Read More @
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf

[mfswallace]

Idhntr and bobct =crickets 

[idahohuntr]

There are a MINIMUM of 68 wolves in WA state as of 31 Dec 2014.  Its not a projection or estimate of the total number of wolves in WA state.  Nobody suggests it represents a total estimate...thats why they insert that tricky little word "Minimum".  Your desire to over complicate such a simple subject suggests you are not interested in reporting accurate information...what a shock.

There you go wallace...in case you missed it the first time.

[bobcat]

Of course they don't know how many wolves are in the state, and they freely admit that. I would think that we, as hunters, would know that it's virtually impossible to come up with an accurate count of wolves, or any wild animal for that matter.

You really don't expect the state agency responsible for managing our wildlife to know the populations of said wildlife   

Other agencies are able to do their job very accurately, why not wdfw?

I don't think the WDFW is any different than other state wildlife agencies when it comes to accurately estimating wildlife populations. And the key word in that is "estimating." Because that's all it ever is. And as I already said, we, as hunters, should understand this better than anyone.
How do you count something that hides in the mountains and doesn't want to be found or seen? Answer: you don't.

That's why the WDFW mostly uses hunter success rates to estimate deer and elk numbers. They don't know the overall numbers, all they can do is try to determine whether the populations are decreasing, increasing, or stable.

[mfswallace]

Idhtr-   Semantics--the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings--

Survey = estimate

And again- As far as your comment about extrapolating estimates to generate an actual total estimate, instead of just a minimum count, I have heard wdfw staff walk people through the simple math...known packs + estimated unknown packs (30%) x average number of wolves in a pack + some portion of wolves that are singles/loners = number of wolves in WA.  Doing that kind of math puts washingtons wolf numbers well into the hundreds.  I am still uncertain why they don't report a total estimate...however, all de-listing criteria are based on number and location of bp's...not total numbers so I guess it doesn't really matter from a management standpoint 


So if wdfw uses this accepted method why not give the public the real numbers they believe are in the state??


Bob-very sad u don't expect more from the agency you gave so much money to when you harvested your sheep. I know they don't use hunter reporting to set number of sheep harvestable!  At least you unlike idhntr admit it is an estimate being used to keep the general public uninformed

[idahohuntr]

There are a MINIMUM of 68 wolves in WA state as of 31 Dec 2014.  Its not a projection or estimate of the total number of wolves in WA state.  Nobody suggests it represents a total estimate...thats why they insert that tricky little word "Minimum".  Your desire to over complicate such a simple subject suggests you are not interested in reporting accurate information...what a shock.

[mfswallace]

There are a MINIMUM of 68 wolves in WA state as of 31 Dec 2014.  Its not a projection or estimate of the total number of wolves in WA state.  Nobody suggests it represents a total estimate...thats why they insert that tricky little word "Minimum".  Your desire to over complicate such a simple subject suggests you are not interested in reporting accurate information...what a shock.

They use "wolf tracks"  in this minimum count, if that is how they got 68 wolves you must admit that is not accurate information....but more of an estimate.