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....

[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.   

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

SSSHHHHHH!  yer lettin the cat outta the bag....no one knows that secret because she doesn't share his name.   

This is just one little data point on the WDFW corruption.

[Skyvalhunter]

Seems WDFW has their priorities in the wrong order per their WOLF CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN.
"Maintain healthy and robust ungulate populations in the state that provide abundant prey for wolves and other predators as well as ample harvest opportunities for hunters."

[Pathfinder101]

Are you guys reading the same link I did?  What I read was about wolf groups questioning the Colville Tribe's wolf numbers (saying they are too high) and WDFW backing the tribe up....

[TylerMulie]

Id think so, I had a 85yd encounter with a pack of 13 wolves this deer season, really cool experience. no collars on any of the wolves.

[Skyvalhunter]

How many of those 13 are still alive? 

[boneaddict]

Didn't read the article. But to the title of the thread they have been lying and underestimating since day one, why should it be any different now?   This has been one giant scam since the beginning. 

[hunter399]

Never had a wolf on camera that has a collar.
So ya , plenty that the state doesn't know about.

[BUTTER]

Wdfw can't do anything about the wolves. They can't even get a spring bear season. Buckle up wolves will eat all the elk and it won't be stopped

[avidnwoutdoorsman]

Id think so, I had a 85yd encounter with a pack of 13 wolves this deer season, really cool experience. no collars on any of the wolves.

If you find wolves without a Collar you need to report it... getting Collars on wolves is actually a really good thing. I was a skeptic myself. I had wolves finally show up on my property in late '23. Last spring I got a cam picture of a wolf with meat in its mouth indicating likely a den site near by. Was confirmed and a collar was on at least one of the wolves a couple months later. The collars helps because it shows distribution. It also helps prove depredation. How many "unconfirmed" depredations have you heard about. Pretty easy to confirm a depredation when the collar shows the wolf over the carcass. I know there maybe some skepticism about this but its better to get collars on them. There is now another pack/breeding pair on the books which aids recovery goals to delist, shows more distribution, and tracks them for depredation.

[chukardogs]

 After having an interaction with several wolves a few years ago while hunting, I was told by a FS official that the tribe, who was monitoring the Strawberry pack had told him that the alpha male of the Strawberry pack had disbanded the pack and then moved North to an area around Frosty Creek. The FS official was told this wasn't an abnormal situation with wolf packs.
 I'm no wolf expert or animal biologist and had never gave any thought to the health or hierarchy of a wolf pack but, just as an older male, I can totally understand the emotional state that would drive me to say, done, I want you all gone. Wish I'd actually known that was a...........nevermind.
 If this is something that happens with wolves, it doesn't take a brain surgeon with a PHD in math, to see what could happen to wolf population numbers in a hurry. Over the years, I've read with wolves, when a male gets to adulthood, he has to make a decision. Either he's willing to take a back seat to the alpha or he's not. If he thinks he's a tough guy, he takes on the alpha and then afterwards, either he or the alpha has to take their satchel and hit the road. I've read that the same basic thing happens with the females and I'll leave it at that.
 If you look at the most recent wolf pack data on the WDFW, the Strawberry pack is still intact and based on the country they're holding, another alpha male must have taken over and thrived.
 If the Wolf population can be that volatile and constantly fluctuating, how is it anyone believes the WDFW or the tribe can actually have an accurate population number? It makes no sense to believe that the number of wolves they have on their charts is up to date or accurate. The best anyone can hope for is the numbers are their best guess, based on the data they have. Or, if you believe they're just out right lying for their own biases, then the numbers have no useful value whatsoever. 
 Just based on how mother nature works, if the wolf packs have enough food (animals, wild or domesticated) to fulfill their nutritional needs, their numbers keep growing. If they don't have the nutrition needed, the pack will start to dwindle in numbers by smaller litter sizes and the dispersal of members as needed. We've all read about wolves that decide to go on walkabouts, traveling insane miles to find their new home. Example; the female that started somewhere in Northeast Oregon and settled in Northern California a few years back. 
 Someone please explain to me how the monitors know a pack is non-breeding? What is the criteria that would determine whether it's a breeding pack or non-breeding pack? Are we supposed to believe that the alpha, just isn't in the mood?   

[HighGrouseHunt]

To the last post:

- WDFW counts packs once each year, in the winter when packs are the most cohesive, and when most of the pup mortality that might occur prior to the next breeding season has already occurred. This is the time of year when the wolf population is at its annual minimum (all undocumented mortality or dispersal for the prior year is encompassed in those numbers).  This is also the time of year when most of the events like the “breeders getting kicked out” has already occurred, if it is going to occur.

- breeding pairs are defined as 2 adult wolves  and 2 pups surviving until December 31. As you point out, nearly all packs “breed”, but there can be a variety of reasons for litter failure. These emphasis on “breeding pairs” recognizes that packs that successfully raise pups are essentially the biological drivers of population growth.

[chukardogs]

 Thank you! That makes far more sense than the male just wasn't that into her.
 All of it still leaves a lot of room for the numbers to be skewed. If there's wolves, male or female that have been kicked out or left the pack on their own that aren't collared, they may not be accounted for in the year end tally. 42 packs equalling 260 animals means each pack has approx 6 dogs. 6 dogs seems low considering we hear stories of packs being seen with a dozen dogs in them. If these stories are even close to accurate, the total number of wolves could be considerably more than 260. 

[Skyvalhunter]

I am not so sure I will ever see the pack distribution across the state before any delisting occurs. They always seem to move the goal posts to prevent this from happening. The next step is to tie any attempt up in the courts and find loop hole to stop it.

[HUNTIN4SIX]

Like any science, it can be a numbers game.  However WDFW wants to spin it, its all smoke and mirrors.  So in 2019 we had 108 wolves and 21 packs.  2023 numbers indicate 260 wolves and 42 packs.  So in 4 years WDFW has double the population?  Great job...now why not do that with our deer population?  I have also noticed with the doubling in population depredations have stayed the same hmmmm...I guess its all in how they call the kill and how much money in the budget they have to pay the rancher.  I have personally been on cat kills where they told the home owners they are calling it a coyote kill because the depredation money ran out.  If it was deemed a cat kill they would have to pay.  Its always a fight at a wolf kill to call it one, ask the ranchers in the NE.   
Whether its population numbers or depredations, i don't trust these folks.  After my 24 years working for them I have seen it all.  Getting rid of the commission is a great start, but there is still alot of bias imbedded deep within....
In my opinion these population have more than double in 4 years.  These things have dispersed to a point that WDFW has no idea how many they have.   

[chukarchaser]

 

[nwwanderer]

Not only are the numbers cooked the budget is nuts, $1.6 million in 2023 for a wolf budget, less than $30,000 paid out in livestock loss compensation, that is way less than 2%.  Getting the numbers right is more than counting wolves.

[Skyvalhunter]

The commission and WAG will never believe that the numbers are as high as they are. Pushing the goal posts anyhow.

[HillHound]

.

[pianoman9701]

The commission and WAG will never believe that the numbers are as high as they are. Pushing the goal posts anyhow.

They know exactly how high the numbers are and where the packs are, and are hiding it from the public.

[TeacherMan]

Maybe they will open a trapping season for you guys, I'd love to see someone try and get one in a box trap  sorry not funny... But reality do you think you guys could see them creating a draw hunt for wolves giving out just a couple tags a year?

[jrebel]

Maybe they will open a trapping season for you guys, I'd love to see someone try and get one in a box trap  sorry not funny... But reality do you think you guys could see them creating a draw hunt for wolves giving out just a couple tags a year?

Not given the current climate of hunting in this state, especially with the way the commission is stacked right now. WA hunting is in serious trouble. 

[hunter399]

The commission and WAG will never believe that the numbers are as high as they are. Pushing the goal posts anyhow.

They know exactly how high the numbers are and where the packs are, and are hiding it from the public.

I don't think they hide it from the public.
It's more like look the other way,do not acknowledge it.

[pianoman9701]

The commission and WAG will never believe that the numbers are as high as they are. Pushing the goal posts anyhow.

They know exactly how high the numbers are and where the packs are, and are hiding it from the public.

I don't think they hide it from the public.
It's more like look the other way,do not acknowledge it.

All due respects, but if you think they've been truthful about our cuddly wolves' population numbers, you're pretty gullible.

[JDHasty]

Sounds like sportsmen are seeing their donations, auction and raffle tag money’s worth… paid out in wolves.  If you are in any way surprised by this, you gotta be pretty slow on the uptake regarding how Washington State operates. 

[CarbonHunter]

I head last night that they are offering rewards for information on the killing of 3 wolves. 2 in klikitat county and 1 in okanogan county. Something like 22 wolves have been killed illegally that they know about in the last few years.

Sounds to me the like the population is plenty strong enough to support a hunting season.

[jrebel]

I head last night that they are offering rewards for information on the killing of 3 wolves. 2 in klikitat county and 1 in okanogan county. Something like 22 wolves have been killed illegally that they know about in the last few years.

Sounds to me the like the population is plenty strong enough to support a hunting season.

20-25K which is big money for most folks.  I hope people keep their mouths shut!!

[JJJ]

I head last night that they are offering rewards for information on the killing of 3 wolves. 2 in klikitat county and 1 in okanogan county. Something like 22 wolves have been killed illegally that they know about in the last few years.

Sounds to me the like the population is plenty strong enough to support a hunting season.

But I thought we were told they were big coyotes?... No wolves in the area?!... I'm sooo confused.....

[hunter399]

The commission and WAG will never believe that the numbers are as high as they are. Pushing the goal posts anyhow.

They know exactly how high the numbers are and where the packs are, and are hiding it from the public.

I don't think they hide it from the public.
It's more like look the other way,do not acknowledge it.

All due respects, but if you think they've been truthful about our cuddly wolves' population numbers, you're pretty gullible.

No I don't believe they are truthful.
I don't think they look hard for them.
Is what I meant.

[CarbonHunter]

I head last night that they are offering rewards for information on the killing of 3 wolves. 2 in klikitat county and 1 in okanogan county. Something like 22 wolves have been killed illegally that they know about in the last few years.

Sounds to me the like the population is plenty strong enough to support a hunting season.

But I thought we were told they were big coyotes?... No wolves in the area?!... I'm sooo confused.....

I would have to agree. I thought there were no wolves in the western wolf management area that includes Klickitat county. Just like the one that got hit on i90 and the pack up in marblemount that they claim don’t count towards the recovery goals. 

[jstone]

Did they ticket the driver

[Loup Loup]

Wonder if the the two WDFW “scientists” that killed the wolf while collaring it by overdosing it in the Okanogan last winter got a just reward for their incompetency’s.
Or were they successful in deflecting the killing toward someone else.

[hunter399]

Wonder if the the two WDFW “scientists” that killed the wolf while collaring it by overdosing it in the Okanogan last winter got a just reward for their incompetency’s.
Or were they successful in deflecting the killing toward someone else.

Ya poor job performance was basically what I was trying to point out in this topic earlier today.

[Tbar]

Wonder if the the two WDFW “scientists” that killed the wolf while collaring it by overdosing it in the Okanogan last winter got a just reward for their incompetency’s.
Or were they successful in deflecting the killing toward someone else.

Anytime you go hands on a wild animal you run the risk of it dieing.  This is/ was very unfortunate, regardless of species.

[huntnnw]

You could apply this to every predator specie in WA. And then with every prey specie in this state you could also apply the same logic telling us there is way more deer and elk than we all know.Nothing that comes out from WDFW is truthful and is garbage. The criteria to actually recognize a pack is ridiculous