Free: Contests & Raffles.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: bobcat on March 08, 2015, 03:46:03 PMIt'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?
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?
Quote from: WAcoyotehunter on March 10, 2015, 11:34:03 AMWhat? 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? LOLYou 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."
Quote from: mfswallace on March 10, 2015, 01:14:43 PMQuote from: WAcoyotehunter on March 10, 2015, 11:34:03 AMWhat? 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? LOLYou 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
Quote from: mfswallace on March 10, 2015, 01:14:43 PMQuote from: WAcoyotehunter on March 10, 2015, 11:34:03 AMWhat? 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? LOLYou 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."
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.