Washington wolf population continues to grow

[bigtex]

When you add the pitman roberts funds and dingle johnson funds those numbers arnt right. Im sure you will correctme if im wrong but arnt the dispersal of those funds tied to lic sales?

If you look at the funding source that isn't in the fund allocated to WDFW from the wildlife account. That is a portion of the federal funding to WDFW. WA gets about $20M from Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson which accounts to about 17% of the federal funding to WDFW (WDFW gets about $113M from federal sources). The Pittman/Dingell funding allocation is based on a formula of overall state land size, state population, and finally license purchases. And of course you can always say that non-hunters pay into the Pittman-Robertson account by non-hunters purchasing, firearms, ammo, etc.

So even if you add WDFW license revenue plus Pittman & Dingell you are still looking at just over a third of WDFW's budget comes from fees somehow associated with hunting and fishing. WDFW gets nearly 4x the amount in state taxes (general fund) then they do from Pittman & Dingell.

So they erred in the Hunter Ed handbook by saying that about 50% of their funding comes from hunters and fishers license and tag purchases?

Definitely, unless they were talking simply funding in the wildlife account.

[JimmyHoffa]

When the state sees they are loosing revenues from hunters not buying licenses then they will address the issue.

And that's not happening. I just checked the current fiscal reports for the wildlife fund for revenue simply from hunting and fishing license fees, they are exceeding their projections for this point by nearly $300,000 for the current budget.

For the 2013-15 budget WDFW exceeded their license revenue projection by $5.5 Million.

A lot of people say they will quit hunting and fishing to decrease funds to WDFW, but in reality WDFW is bringing in more revenue from licenses then they projected.

Now before some of you ask "why if WDFW exceeds license revenue projection do they ask for increased fees?" The reason is because every budget year the legislature is sending less general tax money to WDFW. The legislature is slowly making WDFW a user funded agency rather than a tax funded agency. Who is the biggest funding source for WDFW?? The federal government.

so if they are exceeding projections, what was the survey just sent out about--how hunters/fishermen would like their additional fees/price hikes...phased in or all up front.

[bigtex]

When the state sees they are loosing revenues from hunters not buying licenses then they will address the issue.

And that's not happening. I just checked the current fiscal reports for the wildlife fund for revenue simply from hunting and fishing license fees, they are exceeding their projections for this point by nearly $300,000 for the current budget.

For the 2013-15 budget WDFW exceeded their license revenue projection by $5.5 Million.

A lot of people say they will quit hunting and fishing to decrease funds to WDFW, but in reality WDFW is bringing in more revenue from licenses then they projected.

Now before some of you ask "why if WDFW exceeds license revenue projection do they ask for increased fees?" The reason is because every budget year the legislature is sending less general tax money to WDFW. The legislature is slowly making WDFW a user funded agency rather than a tax funded agency. Who is the biggest funding source for WDFW?? The federal government.

so if they are exceeding projections, what was the survey just sent out about--how hunters/fishermen would like their additional fees/price hikes...phased in or all up front.

Overall state tax funding given to WDFW will continue to decline meaning hunters/fishermen will have to make up for that loss. One of the big reasons is the McCleary Decision which said WA needs to put more $ into education. The legislature is sucking money out of agencies and putting it towards education.

Like I also said, the wildlife account has several different funding sources including license fees, some small specific taxes, discover pass, etc. While currently WDFW is exceeding estimates in the license fees category, they aren't meeting estimates in the discover pass, commercial fishing privilege tax, motor vehicle license fee, etc.

[bigtex]

When you add the pitman roberts funds and dingle johnson funds those numbers arnt right. Im sure you will correctme if im wrong but arnt the dispersal of those funds tied to lic sales?

If you look at the funding source that isn't in the fund allocated to WDFW from the wildlife account. That is a portion of the federal funding to WDFW. WA gets about $20M from Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson which accounts to about 17% of the federal funding to WDFW (WDFW gets about $113M from federal sources). The Pittman/Dingell funding allocation is based on a formula of overall state land size, state population, and finally license purchases. And of course you can always say that non-hunters pay into the Pittman-Robertson account by non-hunters purchasing, firearms, ammo, etc.

So even if you add WDFW license revenue plus Pittman & Dingell you are still looking at just over a third of WDFW's budget comes from fees somehow associated with hunting and fishing. WDFW gets nearly 4x the amount in state taxes (general fund) then they do from Pittman & Dingell.

That is a problem in WA, WDFW is not dependent enough on license sales.

The few states that have their DFW solely or largely funded by license fees tend to be smaller, less populated, and a smaller number of manageable species. Idaho is largely funded by fees, obviously am incredibly smaller population base but also less species to manage (no saltwater species, commercial fisheries, etc). Even Idaho's agency is pitifully funded and as a result their employees have low salaries and turnover is high. Hunting/fishing fees make up about 40% of Idaho Fish & Game's budget.

Would I like WDFW to be more funded by license fees so that hunter/fisherman had a bigger voice? Sure, but I also don't want to pay for a $200 fishing license just so I can say I have a bigger voice in the dept.

[bearpaw]

Idaho Resident
Combination - Sportsman's Package   $ 124.25

RESIDENTS ONLY - The Sportsman's Package includes all rights and privileges associated with a Resident Adult Combination License plus tags for deer, elk, bear, mountain lion, wolf, turkey, salmon and steelhead. Archery and muzzleloader are validated on the license. Receipts will be given if tags are unavailable at time of purchase.


What does all that cost in WA?
Fishing, Salmon, Steelhead, Big game, Small Game, Deer, Elk, Bear, Mountain Lion, Wolf, Turkey, Archery & Muzzleloader seasons too. Just a multi season tag for one specie in WA costs more. Washington residents pay more and we have less say in wildlife! Just sayin!

Idaho is proposing a slight $1 to $6 dollar increase with a price lock so that if you buy a license every you keep the same old price!
https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/licenses/pricelock/PriceLockProposal.pdf

[jasnt]

I did a good bit of snowmobiling in moose country, seen a good amount of moose and not one calf with a cow.   Not one.  Also every moose track I came across was large and heavy, full grown.


Used to see cow's with calves, not anymore.   Seen a lot of wolf poo

i will second that. I've seen 3 calves in the last 4 years. One had been eaten another couldn't have been a week old.

[Utah]

The Diamond Pack pulled up roots and is conducting business only in Idaho now..

Umm, bu{cough}{cough}it.  OMG lol  what a joke.

[buckfvr]

SO as for calf elk and moose......either you find them already eaten or they are going to be eaten........thats the two phases of elk and moose calves.

[wolfbait]

More of the same WDFW wolf scat……..

Loup Loup pack, one of newest identified, has at least 6 wolves
http://methowvalleynews.com/2016/03/16/statewide-survey-finds-four-new-wolf-packs-more-breeding-pairs/

[wolfbait]

WDFW claim they first started seeing wolves "migrating" into WA in 2002, now 14 years later WDFW claim there are only 90 wolves. Compare the chart below at the 14 year mark with WDFW's claim.

http://www.saveelk.com/facts/

[REHJWA]

WDFW claim they first started seeing wolves "migrating" into WA in 2002, now 14 years later WDFW claim there are only 90 wolves. Compare the chart below at the 14 year mark with WDFW's claim.

http://www.saveelk.com/facts/

If I look at your chart for MT from 1985- 1998 then 90 seems to be right in line???
Looking at WY and Idaho they start tracking them in 1995 but there population is already above 75....

What am I missing?

[wolfbait]

WDFW claim they first started seeing wolves "migrating" into WA in 2002, now 14 years later WDFW claim there are only 90 wolves. Compare the chart below at the 14 year mark with WDFW's claim.

http://www.saveelk.com/facts/

If I look at your chart for MT from 1985- 1998 then 90 seems to be right in line???
Looking at WY and Idaho they start tracking them in 1995 but there population is already above 75....

What am I missing?

Wolves were introduced into the Yellowstone and Idaho in 1995-96, By 2002, "7 years" later all three states were eligible for delisting, WA at 14 years later only has 90 wolves???

If we go back before 2002 when WDFW claim they started seeing the first wolves moving into WA,  how many wolves did WA already have?

In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery  http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/

[REHJWA]

Still based on you #s and the state's claim of 2002 MT#s are in line with WA numbers.... Correct?

ID and WY has fewer people, more open areas and from what I gather on this web site better game.....makes sense their numbers would grow faster?

In WA the major areas for growth seem to be the more remote mountionous areas....and WA is considerably more populated and smaller....

Yes 90 is the Minimum which is a crock, and until they get hunters on board I bet the shooters will never allow the population to reach "target" numbers for delisting.

[wolfbait]

Still based on you #s and the state's claim of 2002 MT#s are in line with WA numbers.... Correct?

ID and WY has fewer people, more open areas and from what I gather on this web site better game.....makes sense their numbers would grow faster?

In WA the major areas for growth seem to be the more remote mountionous areas....and WA is considerably more populated and smaller....

Yes 90 is the Minimum which is a crock, and until they get hunters on board I bet the shooters will never allow the population to reach "target" numbers for delisting.

Starting out in 1995 or 96 to 2009 would be 14-15 years, MT had 600 wolves. As stated above WDFW claimed wolves started "migrating" into WA in 2002, now 14 years later WA has 90 wolves.

In WA the only wolves that have been confirmed except for one (lookout pack), were confirmed for livestock kills> it's very hard to say where wolves are multiplying, if they have to kill livestock in order to be confirmed.

You could have open season on wolves today, and WA would still be above delisting numbers. 

[AKBowman]

I would like to see the remaining breeding pairs in King county. Just think of the great tourism it would create, you could ride the ducks then go see the wolves after spotting them from the space Needle! 

This was recorded in King County ~5 months ago. Turn the volume all the way up.


Not a valid vimeo URL

What part of King County?