Interview with Yellowstone wolf bio

[Spurs]

It should also be noted that they are "Documented" packs which means you have a bunch more than the requirement. There are many ways to skin a cat the documentation game can be slowed by hiring people with little experience, don't provide adequate funding, make the conditions so tight that it makes it really difficult to prove.

Hhhmmm, exactly, sounds like WDFW trapper hiring requirements, no wonder they have documented so few of our wolves, they've got some trappers with degrees but with little or no actual trapping experience. 

What They Didn’t Tell You About Wolf Recovery

Wolf Numbers Underestimated
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 three more 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 underestimating 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.


"Ignore All But Known Breeding Pairs and Packs"
In his 1984 letter to Lobdell, Bangs listed the "key recovery issues that will be consistently presented to the public." Issue number 6 stated, "Only breeding pairs of wolves that have successfully raised young are important tothe recovery of viable wolf populations. "At this time there is no such thing as a truly ‘confirmed’ wolf’ until it has been determined to have successfully raised young in the wild or has been captured, examined, and monitored with radio telemetry. (F)rom this dayforward we (will) use the strictest definition of confirmed wolf activity (i.e. individual wolves or members of packs that have been examined, radiocollared and monitored in the wild). "We should be comfortable with this definition in all phases of wolf recovery such as when discussing the criteria for use of an experimental rule or for delisting the species because the population viability criteria have been reached." (emphasis added)
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website … report.pdf

Lookout wolves: Wildlife officials say pack is up to five members
by ADMIN on Jan 16, 2014 • 1:49 pmNo Comments
By Ann McCreary

Wildlife officials have confirmed that five gray wolves, believed to be a breeding pair and their offspring, are living in the Lookout Pack territory in the mountains southwest of Twisp.

“As of late December … snow trackers were able to confirm five animals traveling together,” said Scott Fitkin, a biologist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). “We’ve been able to document that the Lookout Pack is a breeding pair for 2013. We’ve been able to document at least two surviving pups.”

Decimated by poaching after the pack was confirmed in 2008, Lookout Pack wolves once numbered as many as 10 animals. For the past couple of years wildlife officials have been aware of two wolves in territory used by the pack, which was the first gray wolf pack seen in the state in more than 70 years.

A trapper working for WDFW will make another attempt, probably beginning later this month, to collar at least one member of the pack. The Lookout Pack wolves have proved “elusive” in past efforts to collar them, said Scott Becker, WDFW wolf biologist.

The Lookout Pack is one of 10 confirmed packs in Washington as of December 2013. Becker said wildlife officials have managed to collar wolves in eight of the packs.

Wildlife officials will be attempting to count the number of wolves in the state during the winter, to prepare an annual report in March.

“We’re probably more than likely to have a few additional packs, but can’t confirm until we get a better count,” Becker said.

State wildlife managers want to collar wolves in order to monitor them to prevent conflicts with humans and livestock, and to assess the recovery of wolves in Washington.

Becker said wildlife officials will traverse the Lookout Pack territory on snowmobiles in search of tracks to try to determine where the wolves are most likely to be found.

Then they will fly over the area in a helicopter and attempt to capture a wolf using a tranquilizer dart or a net.

“We’ll hit it hard [on snowmobiles] the week before we know when the helicopter is going to be in the area, so when we get up in the air it increases our potential of finding them,” Becker said.

He said the minimal snowpack in the mountains this winter makes the job of capturing and collaring wolves more difficult.

“In a lot of cases it’s easier to capture in winter because … deep snow restricts their movements,” Becker said. “If we don’t have snow there’s nothing to slow them down.”

In addition to the 10 confirmed wolf packs in the state, WDFW officials said in December there are two more suspected packs and two packs in areas bordering Washington.

Wolves are protected as an endangered species under state law throughout Washington, and under federal law in the western two-thirds of the state. The federal Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed removing wolves from the endangered species list around the country, and recently closed a comment period on the proposal.

Under the state’s Wolf Management Plan, wolves will be considered recovered when there are 15 successful breeding pairs for three consecutive years. The state is divided into three recovery areas and each area must have four pairs, with an additional three pairs located anywhere in the state.

While wolves remain endangered under state law, they are protected from killing and harassment. Once wolves are deemed recovered, they can be removed from state protection.

http://methowvalleynews.com/2014/01/16/lookout-wolves-wildlife-officials-say-pack-is-up-to-five-members/

[Spurs]

"Ignore All But Known Breeding Pairs and Packs"

[Spurs]

IMO Wyoming understood the problem and delt with the feds correctly from the start, and it has take 10+ years for MT and ID to figure it out...

I think you have it backwards...ID and MT figured it out way before WY.

I think SpecialT has it right. Wyoming has by far the most reasonable wolf plan that puts the fewest wolves in their state. Washington has the worst plan. That is what you get when the citizens are willing to roll over to appease the wolf groups. 

Wyoming folks were the ones that prevented us from hunting wolves in 2010 in Idaho and Montana because they would not submit a reasonable wolf plan to USFWS.  MT and ID were way ahead of the curve in realizing that you can sit on the sidelines and cry and whine about how unfair it is or you can submit a reasonable plan and start managing/hunting wolves.  So, No, Wyoming was not ahead of ID and MT...I'd say they were a couple years late to helping do anything to harvest them.

A Concise Clarification On Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan Approval Process
November 23, 2010

As I am reading through and studying State of Wyoming v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, already it appears a breath of legal fresh air to see the skills put forth from a private law agency as compared to that of the federal government, i.e. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, when they do cowardly battle in the court of law. In the many court battles dealing with gray wolves and the Endangered Species Act, one’s frustration level grows as legal representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)/Department of Interior, appear inept, unprepared and unwilling to make the strong representation for which it is their jobs to do.
The Wyoming Wolf Coalition, represented in court by Harriet Hageman of Hageman and Brighton Law Office, did a masterful job in many ways to notch a victory for the Coalition.
The 104-page court ruling takes awhile to get through and contains information that can and will be used in potential appeals and future court cases concerning the gray wolf and Endangered Species Act; as surely there will be.
Obviously the opening statement by Hageman got through to Judge Alan Johnson as the ruling clarifies for all of us that which has been lied about for so long; that Wyoming was right to stand up to USFWS. The ruling’s explanation of what took place in attempts to delist gray wolves in Wyoming is clear and concise.
“In this case, the petitioners assert that the FWS has chosen to ignore the prior history of this case, has caved in to political pressures, ignoring the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and has relied oninformation other that the best scientific and commercial data available in making its decision not to approve Wyoming’s wolf management plan providing for a dual classification (trophy and predator) within certain areas of the state of Wyoming. The petitioners contend that the FWS allowed political and public relationsconsiderations and speculative concerns about post-delisting lawsuits to influence its decision, even though the FWS’s own biologists and an independent panel of peer review biologists believed that classifying wolves as predators throughout most of Wyoming would not threaten the viability of the gray wolf population in the Northern Rocky Mountain region, as long as the state classified wolves as trophy game in Northwestern Wyoming.
On December 12, 2007, FWS approved a Wyoming wolf management scheme. On February 27, 2008, FWS issued a final rule recognizing NRM DPS and delisting the NRM wolf population in all of the DPS. 73 Fed. Reg. 10514 (2008 rule).
Wyoming’s then-approved wolf management scheme classified wolves as trophy game in a designated area of northwestern Wyoming and as predators throughout the remainder of Wyoming. After the delisting decision, the United States District Court for the District of Montana issued a preliminary injunction which relisted the NRM wolf population pending final resolution in that matter. Petitioners state that the Montana District Court chastised FWS for not explaining why this dual classification in Wyoming was approved in 2007 when it had been rejected in 2004 and 2006. The petitioners state: ‘This rebuke from the court left the Service with only one option if it wanted to save the delisting rule — the Service had to admit that it was wrong to demand the statewide trophy game classification in 2004 and 2006. Rather than admit this, the Service instead rescinded the delisting rule and eventually revoked it’s previous approval of the state’s wolf management scheme.’ State/Park County Brief, Docket entry 26 at 2. FWS ‘now again refuses to delist wolves in Wyoming unless the state adopts a statewide trophy game classification for wolves’ and has ‘chosen pride over its legal obligation to follow the unambiguous requirements of the ESA[.] Id.”
At this point in time during the background information of Johnson’s ruling, the judge explains Defenders of Wildlife v. Hall and how it pertains to Wyoming’s attempts at getting approval of a wolf management plan and being reject after pressure from environmentalists to do so.
Judge Johnson finishes his explanation:
“Thereafter, FWS met with Wyoming representatives, notified them of shortcomings in the Wyoming scheme and requested revisions. Wyoming declined to do so. At FWS request, on October 14, 2008, the 2008 rule was vacated and remanded to the agency for further consideration. Docket Entry 31 at 7-8; Exhibit B, Docket Entry 27 at 15125.
After this ruling on the preliminary injunction in Montana, Wyoming prepared emergency regulations and a draft revised wolf management plan on October 27, 2008. Attachment C to Document 26 (Emergency Chapter 21 Rule) and Attachment D to Docket Entry 26 (Chapter 21 Rule). The FWS notified the governor on January 15, 2009 that Wyoming no longer had an FWS approved wolf management plan.”
And there you have it. For months news media and environmentalists, along with the uninformed spouted off that Wyoming was the problem with the delisting effort of wolves. They also stated that Wyoming refused to draft a wolf plan that the USFWS would approve. The information contained in this court ruling clearly lays out the events and time line of how Wyoming did have an approved plan that for no explained reason was rejected.
This of course was the basis of the case, that the USFWS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in yanking out from under Wyoming its approved wolf plan.
I believe there is some crow eating going on.
Tom Remington
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/1 … l-process/

[idahohuntr]

"Ignore All But Known Breeding Pairs and Packs"

Not sure what you are getting at here.

For population viability analyses (PVA) scientists are concerned with reproduction...and given the structure of wolf packs (alphas do most of the breeding)...from a recovery (or "viability") sense, you would only be concerned with breeding pairs.

Your post seems to insinuate the government intentionally under reports wolves...I do not believe this is the case.  Every official in Idaho or Washington I have heard discuss wolf numbers is very explicit in stating that their estimates are the MINIMUM number of wolves in the state...not an estimate of the total number of wolves.

[idahohuntr]

And there you have it. For months news media and environmentalists, along with the uninformed spouted off that Wyoming was the problem with the delisting effort of wolves. They also stated that Wyoming refused to draft a wolf plan that the USFWS would approve. The information contained in this court ruling clearly lays out the events and time line of how Wyoming did have an approved plan that for no explained reason was rejected.
This of course was the basis of the case, that the USFWS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in yanking out from under Wyoming its approved wolf plan.
I believe there is some crow eating going on.
Tom Remington

  So on the crow eating...which state had to go back and do what USFWS told them to in the first place? Oh, thats right, Wyoming...so that they could also get to hunt wolves like their better behaved neighbors Idaho and Montana.    This is a nice piece of revisionist history though. 

[Spurs]

You can cherry-pick forever but:
The 104-page court ruling takes awhile to get through and contains information that can and will be used in potential appeals and future court cases concerning the gray wolf and Endangered Species Act; as surely there will be.
Obviously the opening statement by Hageman got through to Judge Alan Johnson as the ruling clarifies for all of us that which has been lied about for so long; that Wyoming was right to stand up to USFWS. The ruling’s explanation of what took place in attempts to delist gray wolves in Wyoming is clear and concise.
“In this case, the petitioners assert that the FWS has chosen to ignore the prior history of this case, has caved in to political pressures, ignoring the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and has relied oninformation other that the best scientific and commercial data available in making its decision not to approve Wyoming’s wolf management plan providing for a dual classification (trophy and predator) within certain areas of the state of Wyoming. The petitioners contend that the FWS allowed political and public relationsconsiderations and speculative concerns about post-delisting lawsuits to influence its decision, even though the FWS’s own biologists and an independent panel of peer review biologists believed that classifying wolves as predators throughout most of Wyoming would not threaten the viability of the gray wolf population in the Northern Rocky Mountain region, as long as the state classified wolves as trophy game in Northwestern Wyoming.

 Wyoming is shooting wolves as a predator, where is ID, MT, WA, and OR?

[Special T]

Spurs, I think its a poker term... Being Slow Played

I know from friends in WY that hunters in WY are happier than hunters in WA, ID or MT with thier state and/or game dept Idahoehunter. PERHAPS in the end they didn't fair any better than any other state, BUT at least WY still has hunter support.

If you operate from a position of power you HAVE to be dealt with. IF you act like a submissive female dog you will be treated like one. IMO WY acted like the former, not the  latter.

[JLS]

Spurs, I think its a poker term... Being Slow Played

I know from friends in WY that hunters in WY are happier than hunters in WA, ID or MT with thier state and/or game dept Idahoehunter. PERHAPS in the end they didn't fair any better than any other state, BUT at least WY still has hunter support.

If you operate from a position of power you HAVE to be dealt with. IF you act like a submissive female dog you will be treated like one. IMO WY acted like the former, not the  latter.

I saw how much support Wyoming Game and Fish had last legislative session when their budget got completely axed.

[Special T]

Compared to whom?

Which western state do you think is doing the best job of managaing the resources for sportmen?

[bearpaw]

Spurs, I think its a poker term... Being Slow Played

I know from friends in WY that hunters in WY are happier than hunters in WA, ID or MT with thier state and/or game dept Idahoehunter. PERHAPS in the end they didn't fair any better than any other state, BUT at least WY still has hunter support.

If you operate from a position of power you HAVE to be dealt with. IF you act like a submissive female dog you will be treated like one. IMO WY acted like the former, not the  latter.

I know people who have moved from WA to WY and are much happier with the F&G there.  (especially regarding wolf management)