WOLF - UNGULATE INTERACTION DATA

[high country]

Also not figured are kills resulting from fatigue. When a pack of wolves runs a herd and takes one animal, all lose critical calories that carry them through winter.

[whuppinstick]

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.

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.

[KillBilly]

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...

Actually the Wolf population will probably decline somewhat in proportion.

We all know that science dictates there are thresholds at which predation is additive, simply put, excessive predator populations will reduce prey populations.  Allowing prey populations to decline will result in fewer predators which is counterproductive. The department should focus on productive strategies for maintaining our prey species.

[runamuk]

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.

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.

[high country]

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.

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.

My numbers are straight from idahos plan, I can post a link if you think I am inflating numbers. So if you are good with only 200 wolves, then we are fine tjat is only 3000-5000 kills per year excluding sport kills, exhaustion, and such. We can spare that.....just not in the corner. The blues, yakima, st hellens....they could support it for at least 10 years.......the corner is screwed. Look at the Sullivan feeding station sheep......sad story. And that was just a couple cats.

[Jingles]

I sure am glad we don't have wolves here in the Methow Valley just two different sizes of coyotes

[KillBilly]

 

I sure am glad we don't have wolves here in the Methow Valley just two different sizes of coyotes

[Wenatcheejay]

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.

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.

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.

[whuppinstick]

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.

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.

[whuppinstick]

My 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.

[runamuk]

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.

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.

yes these still are very different numbers but as was stated if the majority of these pairs are found to be in the NE the elk and even worse in my mind...the endangered caribou will be decimated.  Its not entirely a numbers game wolf diversity in Canadian timber wolves is not even a concern there is plenty of genetic diversity so they can toss that bullcrap reason out the window.  The cheetah is a perfect example of how an extremely tightly inbred population can continue to exist and even grow....all cheetahs are related ... they are genetically the same... the conservationists go to great lengths to breed them from least close relatives but it is still all inbreeding if you really scrutinize it.  Wolves not even close there are lots of wolves in alaska and canada that were never in the states and actually belong here about as much as a pirahana ...hey all lets introduce alligator gars into our lakes imaging the exciting fishing and how they would benefit the local fish by balancing them....

I actually like wolves and defend their place in the environment nd without wolves no one would have a bird dog or hound or any other canine so to me wolves are pretty special creatures but modern society requires we manage our wildlife or we lose it all...the curren method of dealing with wolf issues is leading to the lose it all scenario...and I am not saying this to protect my right to harvest hell I suck i may never kill anything bigger than a spider ever but I still believe in nature man has a place as an apex predator and to take that away from us is to strip us of our very gene's....we are predators we are part of nature we just happen to have a big smart brain and opposable thumbs giving us a little edge over some other critters 

[asl20bball]

1 wolf= 17 elk p/yr or 44 deer p/yr or a combination of the two. One statistic all these pro-wolf folks like to throw out there about Idaho is that 23 of 29 regions are at or above the elk mgmt goals. The prob w/this stat is that I doubt all 29 regions have measurable and consistent wolf  concentrations...rather, they should be reporting the # of regions at or above elk mgmt that contain wolves...i guaranteed that number w/b closer to 50% (and dropping...). 

[whuppinstick]

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.

Nobody anywhere believes that Idaho has EXACTLY 843 wolves.  Isn't it common knowledge that population counts are estimates? 

[runamuk]

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.

Nobody anywhere believes that Idaho has EXACTLY 843 wolves.  Isn't it common knowledge that population counts are estimates?

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....

the problem is since we are using estimates if the elk estimate is high and the wolf low and in any given area it could be even further out of whack we need someone who knows how to manage stock and prey .....

flat out first of all we need to be able to protect our homes and land....this does not mean hunt down a wolf but if a wolf is on my land chewing on my sheep, cows, hounds I have the right to shoot the damn thing just like a coyote or cougar or bear or feral dog etc .... that must be done first it will begin the process of teaching wolves to fear man and things related to man which will help some....then each area needs a better count of actual wolves...not breeding pairs or packs with cute names but actual animals on the ground to compare to numbers of game animals and population density of humans and livestock and then each area needs to be managed for that area knowing wolves will move around vast expanses if pushed ....

[KillBilly]

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.

The above statement misses the mark by a long shot. The current plan is that when it has been substantiated that 15 BPs exist, then the 3 year waiting period begins. During this 3 years if the BPs drop below 15, then they wait until 15 BPs is again substantiated and the 3 years starts over again. The delisting won't begin until they have maintained 15 BPs for 3 consecutive years. Now let's suppose that we maintain 15 BPs for 2 years and the it drops to 14 BPs. 2 years have gone by and we now have to wait another 3 years after they identify 15 BPs again. Suppose we lose a BP after 1 year this time. Here we go again more waiting again. Folks it is not outside the realm of possibility of it taking 10-12 years before delisting begins. Delisting is a process, it also takes time. Now guess what. Right now the WDFW does not what the delisting process is or how long it will take. Delisting might take an unknown amount of time in court battles. Have any of you a real idea how many Wolves might be in this State before delisting takes place? Last but not least, WDFW states that delisting does not mean that they can be hunted right away... maybe more court battles...

This is scarey folks, some of you need to read the wolf plan. It may take a week but it will be worth it. We are up against the wall on this, time is short. Nothing short of massive numbers in support of the Commission Rejecting the current Wolf Plan will stop the mayhem we will have to endure.

On the brighter side of this... I can't wait to get an opportunity to hug one of those Cuddly Furry Wolfies and put it in a headlock and choke the chit out of it in front of a bunch of antis.