Wolf numbers higher than state will admit

[LDennis24]

https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2024/07/12/why-washingtons-wolf-count-is-under-scrutiny/

[HUNTIN4SIX]

Always have been since the start.  We have/had the most biased group of Bio's and decision makers ever known.  I have personally sat at behind close doors Region 1. Disrtict 1 meetings and witnessed it.  All the way back when the Bio's were concealing den site location from the law enforcement  who were responding to calls.  Most of that agency is one deceptive chit show.  I saw 24 years of it.  I've attended employee "regional meetings" in Region 5,6 and 1.  They were always brain washing and heavy petting events for the upper management.  The buzz word at every one of them was "constituents". 
Total politics in play on this subject....

I remember before I was fired they claimed 206 wolves and 33 packs.  Do the math at 4-6 viable pups per female and tell me their not snow balling the public.  Their deception even worse on cats.... Ask the deer and elk bio out of colville why she has predator track tats up and down her arms.   

[jackelope]

Is it expected that they would know exactly how many wolves are in WA?
They always seem to say “at least”

[jstone]

Stop believing all that they say

[Feathernfurr]

I mean I read this as fish and wildlife saying the numbers are high, and the commission/private groups saying WDFW is lying and that they’re lower. So who are we mad at here, the commission and wolf groups, or the agency? I know you all know better but I feel like we see a lot of discourse here that doesn’t acknowledge the separation of the commission that controls the laws and regs from the agency that does the biology and enforcement, which regularly disagree with one another.

[jackelope]

Stop believing all that they say

Great.
If you’re talking to me, do you have any significant input related to my question?

[pianoman9701]

Is it expected that they would know exactly how many wolves are in WA?
They always seem to say “at least”

Wolf numbers are far easier to estimate than cougar, for example, especially because most, if not all packs, have a least one or more tracking collars. And yes, accurate accounting is quite necessary and possible (if anyone believes that management will happen if specific metrics are met). Saying "at least" is a great way to either cover your butt or purposely mislead. If, for example, the President came out and said that "at least 500,000 undocumented immigrants have entered the US since January 20th, 2021", that would be true...and purposely misleading. It's not a big stretch to believe the same thing is happening with wolf numbers.

[jackelope]

P-man- Are you saying you are of the opinion that they should know exactly how many wolves are in the state?

[jackelope]

I’m kind of thinking that they’re having to report to the public. They may know there 2,764 wolves in the state but when they count them, however they count them, they can only verify 2,391 of them. In order to not get called out for BS, they’ll say there are at least 2,391 of them. There may be 2,764 but we could only verify 2,391 of them.

(I pulled numbers out of my arse)

[Jake Dogfish]

It doesn’t matter how many there are, the same groups will want more.

[chukarchaser]

It doesn’t matter how many there are, the same groups will want more.

The winning comment right here. 

[ckr]

I know of at least 6 just outside of Conconully.  They chased my daughter and I back to the truck during turkey season this year

[addicted1]

I guess if the wolves are so numerous they can verify xxx number, and they extrapolate the actual numbers then they should be delisted once they hit that magic number? Whatever that number is, there has to be one. Seems to me that they have hit the number, who cares if they can actually verify all the wolves. That seems like an impossible task, but I suppose if we dumped enough money into it then that is possible.

[pianoman9701]

P-man- Are you saying you are of the opinion that they should know exactly how many wolves are in the state?

I'm saying they're the most monitored animals in the state, besides grizzlies. Their estimates should be close to exact. I don't believe they are anywhere near it.

[high country]

Always have been since the start.  We have/had the most biased group of Bio's and decision makers ever known.  I have personally sat at behind close doors Region 1. Disrtict 1 meetings and witnessed it.  All the way back when the Bio's were concealing den site location from the law enforcement  who were responding to calls.  Most of that agency is one deceptive chit show.  I saw 24 years of it.  I've attended employee "regional meetings" in Region 5,6 and 1.  They were always brain washing and heavy petting events for the upper management.  The buzz word at every one of them was "constituents". 
Total politics in play on this subject....

I remember before I was fired they claimed 206 wolves and 33 packs.  Do the math at 4-6 viable pups per female and tell me their not snow balling the public.  Their deception even worse on cats.... Ask the deer and elk bio out of colville why she has predator track tats up and down her arms.   

You do know they're married. The conflict woman and the wolf bio....