New Wolf Numbers

[wolfbait]

By "at least 122" they really mean 400?

  I believe they're outright lying to the public. 

Look at the history of the illegal wolf introduction into ID, MT, and Wyoming, WDFW have and are following in their footsteps. One lie after another while pretending to do all they can.

Existence of Many Wolves Ignored

"Bangs also explained that it was too difficult to locate individual wolves or small groups of wolves that were not packs and emphasized that the existence of these wolves was not important to recovery. Once the transplanted wolves began pairing and successfully raising young, the Nez Perce and FWS recovery teams declined to investigate sightings of individual wolves or groups of wolves unless they involved livestock killing.”


Page 7@

http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf


 
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.  s:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Why can't they simply give an estimated population?  Couldn't they simply state "we know for sure there are X amount of wolves, but realistically there are probably Y amount".

Seems like people kind of look past that word "minimum" and freak out claiming lies by WDFW, when they maybe aren't really lying........

 

Also, why not mangage based on an estimate?  They know the counts aren't right and are minimum.  Maybe they should revise the wolf plan and delist knowing that they likely have met the objective? 

"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 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 under estimating 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.

Page 7@

http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf


 
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.  s:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

[bearpaw]

Why can't they simply give an estimated population?  Couldn't they simply state "we know for sure there are X amount of wolves, but realistically there are probably Y amount".

Seems like people kind of look past that word "minimum" and freak out claiming lies by WDFW, when they maybe aren't really lying........

 

Also, why not mangage based on an estimate?  They know the counts aren't right and are minimum.  Maybe they should revise the wolf plan and delist knowing that they likely have met the objective? 

I think this minimum represents the number they can verify in case they have to go to court.

[Ridgeratt]

Why can't they simply give an estimated population?  Couldn't they simply state "we know for sure there are X amount of wolves, but realistically there are probably Y amount".

Seems like people kind of look past that word "minimum" and freak out claiming lies by WDFW, when they maybe aren't really lying........

 

Also, why not mangage based on an estimate?  They know the counts aren't right and are minimum.  Maybe they should revise the wolf plan and delist knowing that they likely have met the objective? 

I think this minimum represents the number they can verify in case they have to go to court.

I think this is pretty close.

[bearpaw]

 

[wolfbait]

"recovery goals in all three states were met at least 2-3 years before then current FWS estimates said"


That would put wolf recovery at 4 to 5 years, while WDF&wolves have had 16 plus years, everyone wonders what the actual wolf numbers really are in WA. It's anyones guess at this point one thing for sure it isn't the piddling 122 wolves that WDFW estimate.

Will they ever be held accountable for the decimation of WA's wildlife?