Free: Contests & Raffles.
KillBilly, do you know if any of the data or anything in the Wolf Plan makes any account for differences between Roosevelt Elk and Rocky Mountain Elk? I didn't see anything that jumped out in the Wolf Plan, but didn't look through their sources.
Well the good news is, we hardly have 17,000 elk in eastern Washington.....In the corner we kill less than a hundred pre year.....closer to 50. One good hit on winter range by the wolves and we will need to have our 72hour season increased to year round just to see an elk.
Hunter Data and IMPACTS•Hunters currently harvest an average of 8,000 elk in all areas of Washington (page 78, page 83 wolf plan).Wolf Data and IMPACTS•Studies have indicated that 1 wolf may eat 17 elk per year (page 73 wolf plan).At that rate the target population of 361 wolves in Washington could eat as many as 6,137 elk in a year.
QuoteHunter Data and IMPACTS•Hunters currently harvest an average of 8,000 elk in all areas of Washington (page 78, page 83 wolf plan).Wolf Data and IMPACTS•Studies have indicated that 1 wolf may eat 17 elk per year (page 73 wolf plan).At that rate the target population of 361 wolves in Washington could eat as many as 6,137 elk in a year. I could see the same logic used with the sealion lawsuits used here. Sea lion kill keeps getting shut down because the argument sealions have less impact than fisherman, or hasen't been proven atleast. OK wolves may kill 6,137 elk per year, but hunters are harvesting 8,000. Simple solution cut the hunting harvest and we have plenty of elk left for the poor poor hungry wolves who have less impact on the herds than the hunters already have, and are just doing what they were born to do.
•Eastern Washington could end up with 1000+ wolves and that many wolves could eat as many as 17,000 elk per year in Washington before the required number of breeding pairs is established so that delisting and subsequent management can occur.
This plain and simple math shows the idiocy of the WDFW.
Muk, they will go home, to Canada where they will be shot.
53,470,080 square acres in the state of Idaho. How many biologists cover that? You feel 843 is an actual number or a guess? I know the answer.
ok so in a perfect wolf world....after the wolves eat all the elk and deer...what are the wolf lovers gonna feed them? dog food? we gonna start farming deer and elk for wolf food? I know the wolves will go after cattle and sheep and goats and if really hungry house pets and possibly children when wolves are hunted by man they fear man when not its a whole new game...I want to know how the wolves will be fed after they decimate the herds...
Quote from: high country on October 01, 2011, 05:06:33 PM53,470,080 square acres in the state of Idaho. How many biologists cover that? You feel 843 is an actual number or a guess? I know the answer.Maybe I didn't explain myself very well.. I am arguing that if our wolf plan calls for 15 breeding pairs before we can start hunting them, then the total number of wolves in Washington is going to be well short of 1000 when we reach 15 breeding pairs. I was citing Idaho's numbers simply to point out the ratio between total number of wolves and number of successful breeding pairs. 843 total wolves to 64 breeding pairs roughly equates to 200 total wolves to 15 breeding pairs. Again, the math is not as simple as I've made it out to be, but my point is that the total wolves associated with 15 breeding pairs is A LOT less than the 'could be 1000' that was cited in the first post of this thread.It's okay to dislike wolves and I'm with you on the management, but we've got to refrain from using obscenely biased, invented numbers.
I sure am glad we don't have wolves here in the Methow Valley just two different sizes of coyotes
Quote from: whuppinstick on October 01, 2011, 05:31:33 PMQuote from: high country on October 01, 2011, 05:06:33 PM53,470,080 square acres in the state of Idaho. How many biologists cover that? You feel 843 is an actual number or a guess? I know the answer.Maybe I didn't explain myself very well.. I am arguing that if our wolf plan calls for 15 breeding pairs before we can start hunting them, then the total number of wolves in Washington is going to be well short of 1000 when we reach 15 breeding pairs. I was citing Idaho's numbers simply to point out the ratio between total number of wolves and number of successful breeding pairs. 843 total wolves to 64 breeding pairs roughly equates to 200 total wolves to 15 breeding pairs. Again, the math is not as simple as I've made it out to be, but my point is that the total wolves associated with 15 breeding pairs is A LOT less than the 'could be 1000' that was cited in the first post of this thread.It's okay to dislike wolves and I'm with you on the management, but we've got to refrain from using obscenely biased, invented numbers.What you are missing is so far they have lied or misrepresented the numbers in WA so if they continue the way they have whose to say that the 15 documented pairs wont be an actual on the ground number closer to 30-40 pairs? here is the other issue many of us knew wolves were here many years ago and they denied their existence until very recently and then they say there are only a handful of packs yet people on the ground are seeing way more wolves than they say are here. We are dealing with liars and thieves and I dont mean all the bio's I mean the politics and purveyors of those politics behind the wolf issue.
What you are missing is so far they have lied or misrepresented the numbers in WA so if they continue the way they have whose to say that the 15 documented pairs wont be an actual on the ground number closer to 30-40 pairs? here is the other issue many of us knew wolves were here many years ago and they denied their existence until very recently and then they say there are only a handful of packs yet people on the ground are seeing way more wolves than they say are here. We are dealing with liars and thieves and I dont mean all the bio's I mean the politics and purveyors of those politics behind the wolf issue.
My numbers are straight from idahos plan, I can post a link if you think I am inflating numbers.
Quote from: runamuk on October 01, 2011, 05:47:10 PMWhat you are missing is so far they have lied or misrepresented the numbers in WA so if they continue the way they have whose to say that the 15 documented pairs wont be an actual on the ground number closer to 30-40 pairs? here is the other issue many of us knew wolves were here many years ago and they denied their existence until very recently and then they say there are only a handful of packs yet people on the ground are seeing way more wolves than they say are here. We are dealing with liars and thieves and I dont mean all the bio's I mean the politics and purveyors of those politics behind the wolf issue.Okay, I see what you are saying. 15-20 counted breeding pairs probably translates to 30-40 actual breeding pairs. Even if that is the case - if there actually double the wolves on the ground as what WDFW is including in their count - that is going to equate to ~400 total wolves (assuming Idaho's ratio). I'm not arguing if that is a sustainable number or not, simply that 400 is a far cry from 1000.
They are are liars, there is no way they really know, They guess. A different Director who manages Game would steer this ship in a different direction. It is all politics.
Quote from: Wenatcheejay on October 01, 2011, 08:03:23 PMThey are are liars, there is no way they really know, They guess. A different Director who manages Game would steer this ship in a different direction. It is all politics.Nobody anywhere believes that Idaho has EXACTLY 843 wolves. Isn't it common knowledge that population counts are estimates?
I am arguing that if our wolf plan calls for 15 breeding pairs before we can start hunting them, then the total number of wolves in Washington is going to be well short of 1000 when we reach 15 breeding pairs.
so who are you? which side of this issue are you on? just kinda curious I'm a girl we are nosey like that....I been around a while you can figure out who I am pretty quick....
Folks it is not outside the realm of possibility of it taking 10-12 years before delisting begins.
id,mo, and wy may have set the trail for delisting but i think if you add all three states population wa would still have 3 times that amount, so the problems that they have faced delisting we would get 3 fold...
Quote from: high country on October 01, 2011, 06:01:49 PMMy numbers are straight from idahos plan, I can post a link if you think I am inflating numbers. Idaho's actual numbers are irrelevant (it's a different state, different number of biologists, different amount of prey base, different terrain, etc.), it's their ratio between breeding pairs and total wolves that I am using to calculate how many wolves we'll have on the ground in Washington when we achieve 15 breeding pairs. The best thing we can do right now is to support WDFW's request to add that wolf-specific biologist/tracker that was noted in the other thread. With that person on the ground collars can start being attached and breeding pairs can begin being tracked and counted. The sooner WDFW can allot resources specifically to counting wolves, the better for all of us.
I understand Idaho's numbers are not exactly the same as ours as they have tons more open land and many more animals to feed on. That is why I used 50% as a common divisor. If you think wa wolves will eat less than 50% as much as Idaho's wolves, than you must be one of the theorists who believe wa transplanted all our wolves........most of our wolves ARE Idaho's wolves.