Survey shows Washington wolf numbers grew by 30% in 2014

[Special T]

I find it interesting that Picture & tracks are NOT proof of wolves when we submitt them... they are likely coyotes, huskies and dogs...

HOWEVER when the WDFW uses them THEY area allowed to use them to estimate numbers....

We are just trying to get them to investigate and document them with our findings....

[WAcoyotehunter]

It is stupid to ESTIMATE the number of wolves.  The WDFW needs to defend (clearly...) the CUNSUS of wolves.  They can't pull a number from a dark place. 

The count is the number of wolves that they KNOW TO EXIST.  I'm not sure how anyone can make it more clear.  It's not a matter of semantics or trickery.

Wallace... Survey is not synonymous with estimate.   

[wolfbait]

It is stupid to ESTIMATE the number of wolves.  The WDFW needs to defend (clearly...) the CUNSUS of wolves.  They can't pull a number from a dark place. 

The count is the number of wolves that they KNOW TO EXIST.  I'm not sure how anyone can make it more clear.  It's not a matter of semantics or trickery.

Wallace... Survey is not synonymous with estimate.

So basically WDFW look at all the tracks and cam pictures etc. and then project their estimate of wolves to come up with their "official"  count.

[WAcoyotehunter]

no.  They look at collar data and fly to do a visual COUNT of wolves in packs that they can get eyes on.  In packs/known ranges that they don't have collared or know much about, they look at tracks and cam pictures to confirm individuals.

So, if there is an area with a cluster of sightings reported the WDFW will set cameras and do some track surveys.  If they find multiple animals on camera or by howling/tracks they can document the number OF KNOWN ANIMALS...not an estimate, a count.

[wolfbait]

no.  They look at collar data and fly to do a visual COUNT of wolves in packs that they can get eyes on.  In packs/known ranges that they don't have collared or know much about, they look at tracks and cam pictures to confirm individuals.

So, if there is an area with a cluster of sightings reported the WDFW will set cameras and do some track surveys.  If they find multiple animals on camera or by howling/tracks they can document the number OF KNOWN ANIMALS...not an estimate, a count.

So WDFW are lying when they talk about their wolf estimations?

"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."

[wolfbait]

no.  They look at collar data and fly to do a visual COUNT of wolves in packs that they can get eyes on.  In packs/known ranges that they don't have collared or know much about, they look at tracks and cam pictures to confirm individuals.

So, if there is an area with a cluster of sightings reported the WDFW will set cameras and do some track surveys.  If they find multiple animals on camera or by howling/tracks they can document the number OF KNOWN ANIMALS...not an estimate, a count.

So WDFW can look at a cam picture and tell which wolf made which track? That's a pretty unique trick. 

[WAcoyotehunter]

What? No.  They can tell that there is a wolf on camera, and if there are two sets of distinct tracks they can tell there are two wolves.  It's not a fancy trick. It's very common sense. 

[mfswallace]

What? No.  They can tell that there is a wolf on camera, and if there are two sets of distinct tracks they can tell there are two wolves.  It's not a fancy trick. It's very common sense.

Your saying in a pack of 4-20 wolves they can distinguish all individuals? LOL


You can keep using semantics but in this case it's not my words putting estimate and survey together-- Martollo-- As a result, the survey likely underestimates the number of wolves, packs, and breeding pairs, he said."

[Special T]

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?

This is a common practice in Government. Pick an number that you want offer a higher number and lower number... you seem reasonable because you pick the middle one... Even if the lowest number is still way to high...

[WAcoyotehunter]

What? No.  They can tell that there is a wolf on camera, and if there are two sets of distinct tracks they can tell there are two wolves.  It's not a fancy trick. It's very common sense.

Your saying in a pack of 4-20 wolves they can distinguish all individuals? LOL


You can keep using semantics but in this case it's not my words putting estimate and survey together-- Martollo-- As a result, the survey likely underestimates the number of wolves, packs, and breeding pairs, he said."

Are you guys for real right now?  Re-read the posts explaining a SURVEY from an ESTIMATE....

Good grief, no wonder your reports to the WDFW get tossed out the windows.  Are you seriously unable to tell the difference?  I will try to be very clear and use very small words to make sure you get it.....

THE SURVEY (Census, number of wolves actually documented and defensible) does not include every animal in the state.  They admit that.  They could estimate the number, but you're ilk would say its a gross underestimation and the rabid pro wolfers would say it's an over estimation.


Martollo-- "As a result, the survey likely underestimates the number of wolves, packs, and breeding pairs, he said."


Seriously, you guys should join.  http://www.theflatearthsociety.org

[wolfbait]

What? No.  They can tell that there is a wolf on camera, and if there are two sets of distinct tracks they can tell there are two wolves.  It's not a fancy trick. It's very common sense.

Your saying in a pack of 4-20 wolves they can distinguish all individuals? LOL


You can keep using semantics but in this case it's not my words putting estimate and survey together-- Martollo-- As a result, the survey likely underestimates the number of wolves, packs, and breeding pairs, he said."

Are you guys for real right now?  Re-read the posts explaining a SURVEY from an ESTIMATE....

Good grief, no wonder your reports to the WDFW get tossed out the windows.  Are you seriously unable to tell the difference?  I will try to be very clear and use very small words to make sure you get it.....

THE SURVEY (Census, number of wolves actually documented and defensible) does not include every animal in the state.  They admit that.  They could estimate the number, but you're ilk would say its a gross underestimation and the rabid pro wolfers would say it's an over estimation.


Martollo-- "As a result, the survey likely underestimates the number of wolves, packs, and breeding pairs, he said."


Seriously, you guys should join.  http://www.theflatearthsociety.org

"THE SURVEY (Census, number of wolves actually documented and defensible) does not include every animal in the state.  They admit that.  They could estimate the number, but you're ilk would say its a gross underestimation and the rabid pro wolfers would say it's an over estimation."

No one is suggesting that WDFW are including every wolf in the state, that's just poor reading on your part, or maybe lack of understanding. This started out with whether WDFW were estimating wolves in their "minimum" counts, and the answer is yes.

Looking at WDFW's history at confirming wolf packs or BP's, and adding one wolf for 2013 as the years increase, does give people doubts as to WDFW's honesty. And then there is the lack of interest in confirming known wolf packs, WDFW claiming they don't have the funding?

Folks in Idaho have stated the best way to tell if you have a wolf problem is to watch your game herds plummet.

[wolfbait]

F&G Ignores Legislative Wolf Plan

By allowing wolves to multiply without interference, except for the few dozen that are killed each year after attacking livestock, a growing number of uncollared wolves will be overlooked. With admittedly inadequate resources to continue to document, count and radio-collar 1 or 2 wolves each in the rapidly increasing number of packs, accurate estimates of total wolf numbers will be impossible to obtain. (see admission in Appendix A that the actual number of wolves is likely more than the 732 estimated due to failure to include the [seven] suspected packs in the estimator.)

“Appendix B” describes how FWS will allow all three states to estimate rather than continue to document the number of breeding pairs as they assume management. With the requirement for accurate wolf counts waived, it becomes increasingly important for state wildlife managers to admit the impact of excessive wolf populations and reduce wolf numbers dramatically where it is indicated.

Instead, on March 6, 2008 the Idaho F&G Commission ignored the wolf plan approved by the Idaho Legislature and FWS to manage for 15 breeding pairs, and unanimously endorsed a plan to maintain at least 500 wolves – the equivalent of 50 breeding pairs!

Excuses For Not Controlling Wolves

In January 2008, FWS Wolf Project Leader Ed Bangs told the media, “Wolves are never the primary cause (of failure to achieve elk population objectives). The primary cause is always habitat."

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

[mfswallace]

What? No.  They can tell that there is a wolf on camera, and if there are two sets of distinct tracks they can tell there are two wolves.  It's not a fancy trick. It's very common sense.

Your saying in a pack of 4-20 wolves they can distinguish all individuals? LOL


You can keep using semantics but in this case it's not my words putting estimate and survey together-- Martollo-- As a result, the survey likely underestimates the number of wolves, packs, and breeding pairs, he said."

THE SURVEY (Census, number of wolves actually documented and defensible) does not include every animal in the state.  They admit that.  They could estimate the number, but you're ilk would say its a gross underestimation and the rabid pro wolfers would say it's an over estimation.


Martollo-- "As a result, the survey likely underestimates the number of wolves, packs, and breeding pairs, he said."

you must have missed it so I put in bold for you and I'm not interest in joining your club but thanks and keep recruiting I'm sure there are more like u here 

idhuntr has been kind enough to share wdfw's accepted formula for estimating wolves and says it is common practic, so why not tell the public what they really believe the wolf population to be?? I'm sure if they admitted there were actually a few hundred perception would be different

[idahohuntr]

There is no accepted formula.  I just shared what Martorello has discussed in public meetings.  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.

[mfswallace]

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