Big Game Hunting > Wolves
Survey shows Washington wolf numbers grew by 30% in 2014
bearpaw:
--- Quote from: mfswallace on March 09, 2015, 10:56:23 AM ---
--- Quote from: idahohuntr on March 08, 2015, 07:49:52 AM ---
--- Quote from: darren on March 08, 2015, 06:17:31 AM ---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?
--- End quote ---
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 :dunno:
--- End quote ---
So if wdfw uses this accepted method why not give the public the real numbers they believe are in the state??
--- End quote ---
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! :twocents:
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:
--- Quote from: bobcat on March 09, 2015, 11:40:38 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
You really don't expect the state agency responsible for managing our wildlife to know the populations of said wildlife :yike:
Other agencies are able to do their job very accurately, why not wdfw?
wolfbait:
--- Quote from: idahohuntr on March 08, 2015, 09:25:17 AM ---
--- Quote from: wolfbait on March 08, 2015, 08:46:16 AM ---
--- Quote from: idahohuntr on March 08, 2015, 08:30:47 AM ---WDFW isn't providing estimates...so your allegation they underestimate is bogus.
--- End quote ---
So according to you and WDFW there are only 68 wolves in WA?
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
"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 :chuckle:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version