Big Game Hunting > Wolves
Survey shows Washington wolf numbers grew by 30% in 2014
idahohuntr:
--- Quote from: idahohuntr on March 09, 2015, 10:46:41 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
There you go wallace...in case you missed it the first time.
bobcat:
--- Quote from: mfswallace on March 09, 2015, 11:53:08 AM ---
--- 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?
--- End quote ---
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 :dunno:
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:
--- Quote from: idahohuntr on March 09, 2015, 08:15:09 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version