Post by: wolfbait on January 21, 2015, 03:37:15 PM
http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/wpages/idaho-o.htm (http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/wpages/idaho-o.htm)
In five years 1995-99 Idaho had 10 BP's @ 141 wolves and in 2000 they had 16 BP's with 192 wolves, 2003 was 30 BP's @ 368 wolves and in 2004 they had 44 BP's @ 454 wolves.
In 2008 WDFW confirmed the first wolf pack, and in seven plus years WDFW has a total count of 52 wolves and 5 BP's.
Post by: mfswallace on January 21, 2015, 07:06:24 PM
Can anyone deny and explain how this isn't a lie from WDFW :dunno:
Post by: KFhunter on January 21, 2015, 07:23:11 PM
it's all about that fish, about that fish - no trouble
Post by: idahohuntr on January 21, 2015, 10:33:16 PM
I was just going to comment on this very fact, very unlikely the WDFW is being truthful!!!!WDFW reports MINIMUM counts...which is not a tricky phrase...it literally means the number of wolves they physically observed and thus is the absolute minimum number that exist. It is not the estimate of the total number of wolves WDFW believes occurs in Washington State. They usually peg that number much, much higher.
Can anyone deny and explain how this isn't a lie from WDFW :dunno:
Sadly, some like to spread misinformation and suggest or report that WDFW believes there are only 52 wolves in Washington State right now. I have talked with several senior wildlife staff in WDFW...they will all tell you Wolf numbers in Wa are well into the hundreds. Again, it is unfortunate there are small groups of folks who spread misinformation to fit their agenda of pushing the idea that state game departments are hiding wolf numbers/packs in some sort of weird conspiracy where the motives don't make sense or are not clear.
Post by: fair-chase on January 21, 2015, 10:54:24 PM
WDFW reports MINIMUM counts...which is not a tricky phrase...it literally means the number of wolves they physically observed and thus is the absolute minimum number that exist. It is not the estimate of the total number of wolves WDFW believes occurs in Washington State. They usually peg that number much, much higher.
Sadly, some like to spread misinformation and suggest or report that WDFW believes there are only 52 wolves in Washington State right now. I have talked with several senior wildlife staff in WDFW...they will all tell you Wolf numbers in Wa are well into the hundreds. Again, it is unfortunate there are small groups of folks who spread misinformation to fit their agenda of pushing the idea that state game departments are hiding wolf numbers/packs in some sort of weird conspiracy where the motives don't make sense or are not clear.
I agree. But my only contention would be that WDFW manages all other ungulate populations based on their estimated population. Not on their confirmed population. The wolf seems to be the only exception to this; whereas the wolf must have and maintain a confirmed population in order to begin and maintain management practices.
So why is WDFW satisfied with managing elk, deer, bear and cougar based on estimated populations, of which most estimates are by proxy (voluntary hunter reports). But the wolf must have a confirmed population before and during management???
Post by: idahohuntr on January 21, 2015, 11:14:13 PM
Also, there are exponentially fewer wolves than numbers of any of the other species you mention.
Post by: wolfbait on January 22, 2015, 03:10:52 AM
I was just going to comment on this very fact, very unlikely the WDFW is being truthful!!!!WDFW reports MINIMUM counts...which is not a tricky phrase...it literally means the number of wolves they physically observed and thus is the absolute minimum number that exist. It is not the estimate of the total number of wolves WDFW believes occurs in Washington State. They usually peg that number much, much higher.
Can anyone deny and explain how this isn't a lie from WDFW :dunno:
Sadly, some like to spread misinformation and suggest or report that WDFW believes there are only 52 wolves in Washington State right now. I have talked with several senior wildlife staff in WDFW...they will all tell you Wolf numbers in Wa are well into the hundreds. Again, it is unfortunate there are small groups of folks who spread misinformation to fit their agenda of pushing the idea that state game departments are hiding wolf numbers/packs in some sort of weird conspiracy where the motives don't make sense or are not clear.
Well into the hundreds and yet WDFW only saw one new wolf for 2013?
Post by: wolfbait on January 22, 2015, 03:16:02 AM
Precedence from esa issues.
Also, there are exponentially fewer wolves than numbers of any of the other species you mention.
So when there gets to be fewer deer then wolves, will the "precedence from esa issues" change? :rolleyes:
Post by: idahohuntr on January 22, 2015, 04:34:41 AM
That will never happen. It's ridiculous to even suggest such a scenario. Only if most/all habitat is lost would deer numbers fall into the 'hundreds'.Precedence from esa issues.
Also, there are exponentially fewer wolves than numbers of any of the other species you mention.
So when there gets to be fewer deer then wolves, will the "precedence from esa issues" change? :rolleyes:
Awesome and excellent are how those in the know would describe whitetail and mule deer hunting in North East Washington where most wolves in the state currently reside.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 22, 2015, 04:48:29 AM
Seriously ?? then in the know is not you... Kelly hill GMU is a shadow of it's former self!Precedence from esa issues.
Also, there are exponentially fewer wolves than numbers of any of the other species you mention.
So when there gets to be fewer deer then wolves, will the "precedence from esa issues" change? :rolleyes:
Awesome and excellent are how those in the know would describe whitetail and mule deer hunting in North East Washington where most wolves in the state currently reside.
Post by: wolfbait on January 22, 2015, 04:49:18 AM
WDFW reports MINIMUM counts...which is not a tricky phrase...it literally means the number of wolves they physically observed and thus is the absolute minimum number that exist. It is not the estimate of the total number of wolves WDFW believes occurs in Washington State. They usually peg that number much, much higher.
Sadly, some like to spread misinformation and suggest or report that WDFW believes there are only 52 wolves in Washington State right now. I have talked with several senior wildlife staff in WDFW...they will all tell you Wolf numbers in Wa are well into the hundreds. Again, it is unfortunate there are small groups of folks who spread misinformation to fit their agenda of pushing the idea that state game departments are hiding wolf numbers/packs in some sort of weird conspiracy where the motives don't make sense or are not clear.
I agree. But my only contention would be that WDFW manages all other ungulate populations based on their estimated population. Not on their confirmed population. The wolf seems to be the only exception to this; whereas the wolf must have and maintain a confirmed population in order to begin and maintain management practices.
So why is WDFW satisfied with managing elk, deer, bear and cougar based on estimated populations, of which most estimates are by proxy (voluntary hunter reports). But the wolf must have a confirmed population before and during management???
Precedence from esa issues.
Also, there are exponentially fewer wolves than numbers of any of the other species you mention.
“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 to the 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 day forward 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)
Existence of Many Wolves Ignored
Bangs also explained that it was too difficult to locate individual wolves or small groups of wolves that were not packs and emphasized that the existence of these wolves was not important to recovery. Once the transplanted wolves began pairing and successfully raising young, the Nez Perce and FWS recovery teams declined to investigate sightings of individual wolves or groups of wolves unless they involved livestock killing.
But even then, if the livestock was moved to a different location and/or the wolf predation stopped, any investigation abruptly ceased. In some parts of Idaho where wolf populations are excessive, including the county we live in, local citizens report frustration over the Wolf Teams’ refusal to investigate reports of apparent pack activity unless there is evidence of at least two pups.
The excuse used by the FWS/NezPerce Team for its failure to investigate such activity is that it is too expensive but it also is not interested in recording wolves unless they meet the confirmed wolf criteria agreed upon by Bangs, Ted Koch and Steve Fritts in 1994. The exception is the need to radio-collar one or more wolves to facilitate removal of one or more members of a pack that continues to kill livestock.
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.
In the future the policy of including only the wolves in currently documented packs in the “minimum estimate” could result in wolves being declared below the recovery minimum of 10 breeding pairs in any of the three areas when the actual number of breeding pairs could be 2- 3 times what is estimated. Theoretically this could result in wolves being declared threatened in one or all three states and an end to state wolf management.
Low Estimates Hide Extent of Impact
But regardless of the number of breeding pairs counted, central Idaho is saturated with wolves. Other wolf packs and breeding pairs are constantly forming and dispersing to saturate adjacent areas – yet an unknown number of them are never included in the current year’s minimum estimated wolf population.
It can be argued that most of these undocumented wolves will probably be documented sooner or later if they remain in the area, since 17 new packs were reportedly documented in 2007. But by pretending that the minimum estimate reflects the actual number of wolves, officials and the media downplay their negative impact.
A refreshing exception was a March 16, 2008 Coeur d’ Alene Press article by Sean Garmire in which he stated, “Game managers have produced an estimate of 753 wolves in Idaho and 1,500 in the three-state region. But those figures represent the minimum, and the real number could be closer to 1,000 in Idaho alone.”
Read more@ http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf)
Post by: idahohuntr on January 22, 2015, 04:52:24 AM
Post by: mountainman on January 22, 2015, 05:12:25 AM
yeah, that..I was just going to comment on this very fact, very unlikely the WDFW is being truthful!!!!WDFW reports MINIMUM counts...which is not a tricky phrase...it literally means the number of wolves they physically observed and thus is the absolute minimum number that exist. It is not the estimate of the total number of wolves WDFW believes occurs in Washington State. They usually peg that number much, much higher.
Can anyone deny and explain how this isn't a lie from WDFW :dunno:
Sadly, some like to spread misinformation and suggest or report that WDFW believes there are only 52 wolves in Washington State right now. I have talked with several senior wildlife staff in WDFW...they will all tell you Wolf numbers in Wa are well into the hundreds. Again, it is unfortunate there are small groups of folks who spread misinformation to fit their agenda of pushing the idea that state game departments are hiding wolf numbers/packs in some sort of weird conspiracy where the motives don't make sense or are not clear.
Well into the hundreds and yet WDFW only saw one new wolf for 2013?
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 22, 2015, 05:15:45 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 22, 2015, 05:25:59 AM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 22, 2015, 06:27:22 AM
Post by: mfswallace on January 22, 2015, 06:31:42 AM
yeah, that..I was just going to comment on this very fact, very unlikely the WDFW is being truthful!!!!WDFW reports MINIMUM counts...which is not a tricky phrase...it literally means the number of wolves they physically observed and thus is the absolute minimum number that exist. It is not the estimate of the total number of wolves WDFW believes occurs in Washington State. They usually peg that number much, much higher.
Can anyone deny and explain how this isn't a lie from WDFW :dunno:
Sadly, some like to spread misinformation and suggest or report that WDFW believes there are only 52 wolves in Washington State right now. I have talked with several senior wildlife staff in WDFW...they will all tell you Wolf numbers in Wa are well into the hundreds. Again, it is unfortunate there are small groups of folks who spread misinformation to fit their agenda of pushing the idea that state game departments are hiding wolf numbers/packs in some sort of weird conspiracy where the motives don't make sense or are not clear.
Well into the hundreds and yet WDFW only saw one new wolf for 2013?
if you've talked with several senior wildlife officials who tell you wolves number in the hundreds yet they reported 1 New wolf in 2013 wouldn't that confirm the lie or at the very least Misinformation they feed the public??? Since you seem to be in the know, with the last posted information being over a year ago when can we expect an update?
Post by: huntnnw on January 22, 2015, 06:33:39 AM
Post by: Bean Counter on January 22, 2015, 06:35:11 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 22, 2015, 10:47:30 AM
Really bad winters tend to impact prey much harder than predators. And if there is abundant livestock in an area, the predators don't exactly starve off.That will never happen. It's ridiculous to even suggest such a scenario. Only if most/all habitat is lost would deer numbers fall into the 'hundreds'.Precedence from esa issues.
Also, there are exponentially fewer wolves than numbers of any of the other species you mention.
So when there gets to be fewer deer then wolves, will the "precedence from esa issues" change? :rolleyes:
Awesome and excellent are how those in the know would describe whitetail and mule deer hunting in North East Washington where most wolves in the state currently reside.
Post by: bearpaw on January 22, 2015, 11:11:56 AM
I was just quoting bearpaws website on ne wa deer hunting. I don't hunt up there.
Unfortunately not all areas in NE WA are as good as they used to be since wolves moved in. There are numerous areas that we recommend hunters avoid due to wolf impacts on the herds.
Post by: bearpaw on January 22, 2015, 11:20:06 AM
yeah, that..I was just going to comment on this very fact, very unlikely the WDFW is being truthful!!!!WDFW reports MINIMUM counts...which is not a tricky phrase...it literally means the number of wolves they physically observed and thus is the absolute minimum number that exist. It is not the estimate of the total number of wolves WDFW believes occurs in Washington State. They usually peg that number much, much higher.
Can anyone deny and explain how this isn't a lie from WDFW :dunno:
Sadly, some like to spread misinformation and suggest or report that WDFW believes there are only 52 wolves in Washington State right now. I have talked with several senior wildlife staff in WDFW...they will all tell you Wolf numbers in Wa are well into the hundreds. Again, it is unfortunate there are small groups of folks who spread misinformation to fit their agenda of pushing the idea that state game departments are hiding wolf numbers/packs in some sort of weird conspiracy where the motives don't make sense or are not clear.
Well into the hundreds and yet WDFW only saw one new wolf for 2013?
if you've talked with several senior wildlife officials who tell you wolves number in the hundreds yet they reported 1 New wolf in 2013 wouldn't that confirm the lie or at the very least Misinformation they feed the public??? Since you seem to be in the know, with the last posted information being over a year ago when can we expect an update?
The truth is that all the states report MINIMUN counts on wolves. WA is no different than Idaho on how they report wolf counts, what is much different is that Idaho has done a much better job of documenting wolves. WA only has a 3 or 4 persons who are not really trappers trying to document wolves. It seems to be a WDFW priority to avoid documenting wolves until livestock is killed by wolves and they can no longer ignore the existence of that wolf pack. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on January 22, 2015, 11:30:10 AM
Really bad winters tend to impact prey much harder than predators. And if there is abundant livestock in an area, the predators don't exactly starve off.That will never happen. It's ridiculous to even suggest such a scenario. Only if most/all habitat is lost would deer numbers fall into the 'hundreds'.Precedence from esa issues.
Also, there are exponentially fewer wolves than numbers of any of the other species you mention.
So when there gets to be fewer deer then wolves, will the "precedence from esa issues" change? :rolleyes:
Awesome and excellent are how those in the know would describe whitetail and mule deer hunting in North East Washington where most wolves in the state currently reside.
Yes winters can do more immediate damage to herds than any other factor. However, it is well documented how high numbers of predators can and have played a role in preventing impacted herds from rebounding after winter kills. When predator impacts exceed the ability of a depressed herd to reproduce that is referred to as a "predator pit".
A predator pit can be caused by more than one predator specie such as we see in certain areas where there are excessive numbers of cougar, bear, coyote, bobcat, and wolves.
Post by: KFhunter on January 22, 2015, 11:35:51 AM
Snowmobilers call it hero snow, you can go anywhere on a short track snowmobile. I've passed moose that I could have gotten off the machine walked over to it on top the snow and stuck a spear in it's side. I give those moose a wide birth, wolves would not.
Post by: bearpaw on January 22, 2015, 11:44:20 AM
Post by: KFhunter on January 22, 2015, 11:48:53 AM
Even though IDFG will not admit to it, Idaho is doing everything they can to overcome these "predator pits" and it's working, herds are beginning to rebound in some of these impacted areas. In many game management units there are nearly year long predator seasons and multiple tags are available for cougar, bear, and wolves. Tag fees are even reduced in the worst areas to encourage a greater harvest of predators.
Such a stark contrast to Washington :(
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 22, 2015, 12:19:57 PM
I agree bearpaw, one of the reasons there should be aggressive management plans. The other poster thinks it is 'ridiculous' to think the prey could drop and that it could never happen.Really bad winters tend to impact prey much harder than predators. And if there is abundant livestock in an area, the predators don't exactly starve off.That will never happen. It's ridiculous to even suggest such a scenario. Only if most/all habitat is lost would deer numbers fall into the 'hundreds'.Precedence from esa issues.
Also, there are exponentially fewer wolves than numbers of any of the other species you mention.
So when there gets to be fewer deer then wolves, will the "precedence from esa issues" change? :rolleyes:
Awesome and excellent are how those in the know would describe whitetail and mule deer hunting in North East Washington where most wolves in the state currently reside.
Yes winters can do more immediate damage to herds than any other factor. However, it is well documented how high numbers of predators can and have played a role in preventing impacted herds from rebounding after winter kills. When predator impacts exceed the ability of a depressed herd to reproduce that is referred to as a "predator pit".
A predator pit can be caused by more than one predator specie such as we see in certain areas where there are excessive numbers of cougar, bear, coyote, bobcat, and wolves.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 22, 2015, 05:02:49 PM
mfswallace - I appreciate you respectfully discussing this issue. My view on your question is no, it does not suggest dishonesty by WDFW. Their MINIMUM Count was only one more...they are not saying there is only one more wolf in Washington. I agree the terminology can be confusing...but it is really, really, important not to infer minimum counts as the WDFW estimate of total numbers of wolves...they are definitely not the same thing.yeah, that..I was just going to comment on this very fact, very unlikely the WDFW is being truthful!!!!WDFW reports MINIMUM counts...which is not a tricky phrase...it literally means the number of wolves they physically observed and thus is the absolute minimum number that exist. It is not the estimate of the total number of wolves WDFW believes occurs in Washington State. They usually peg that number much, much higher.
Can anyone deny and explain how this isn't a lie from WDFW :dunno:
Sadly, some like to spread misinformation and suggest or report that WDFW believes there are only 52 wolves in Washington State right now. I have talked with several senior wildlife staff in WDFW...they will all tell you Wolf numbers in Wa are well into the hundreds. Again, it is unfortunate there are small groups of folks who spread misinformation to fit their agenda of pushing the idea that state game departments are hiding wolf numbers/packs in some sort of weird conspiracy where the motives don't make sense or are not clear.
Well into the hundreds and yet WDFW only saw one new wolf for 2013?
if you've talked with several senior wildlife officials who tell you wolves number in the hundreds yet they reported 1 New wolf in 2013 wouldn't that confirm the lie or at the very least Misinformation they feed the public??? Since you seem to be in the know, with the last posted information being over a year ago when can we expect an update?
The truth is that all the states report MINIMUN counts on wolves. WA is no different than Idaho on how they report wolf counts, what is much different is that Idaho has done a much better job of documenting wolves. WA only has a 3 or 4 persons who are not really trappers trying to document wolves. It seems to be a WDFW priority to avoid documenting wolves until livestock is killed by wolves and they can no longer ignore the existence of that wolf pack. :twocents:
Idaho does a pretty good job of reporting total estimated wolf numbers in the state...not MINIMUM counts. For example, below is the first link from a quick google search I pulled up where Jim Hayden (IDFG Panhandle biologist) discusses a statewide estimate of 1,000 wolves. This is not their MINIMUM Count...it is their population estimate statewide and that is what IDFG typically reports.
http://www.dailyastorian.com/idaho-has-22-breeding-wolf-pairs-an-estimated-1000-wolves-da-ap-webfeeds-news-northwest6587c76d344e410aa6246ede32b2b3a9 (http://www.dailyastorian.com/idaho-has-22-breeding-wolf-pairs-an-estimated-1000-wolves-da-ap-webfeeds-news-northwest6587c76d344e410aa6246ede32b2b3a9)
I am unsure why WDFW does not provide total population estimates more regularly...my guess is that uncertainty is high and they are uncomfortable reporting it knowing how litigious and controversial wolf issues are...but that is a guess on my part :dunno:
Post by: mfswallace on January 22, 2015, 07:45:15 PM
mfswallace - I appreciate you respectfully discussing this issue. My view on your question is no, it does not suggest dishonesty by WDFW. Their MINIMUM Count was only one more...they are not saying there is only one more wolf in Washington. I agree the terminology can be confusing...but it is really, really, important not to infer minimum counts as the WDFW estimate of total numbers of wolves...they are definitely not the same thing.yeah, that..I was just going to comment on this very fact, very unlikely the WDFW is being truthful!!!!WDFW reports MINIMUM counts...which is not a tricky phrase...it literally means the number of wolves they physically observed and thus is the absolute minimum number that exist. It is not the estimate of the total number of wolves WDFW believes occurs in Washington State. They usually peg that number much, much higher.
Can anyone deny and explain how this isn't a lie from WDFW :dunno:
Sadly, some like to spread misinformation and suggest or report that WDFW believes there are only 52 wolves in Washington State right now. I have talked with several senior wildlife staff in WDFW...they will all tell you Wolf numbers in Wa are well into the hundreds. Again, it is unfortunate there are small groups of folks who spread misinformation to fit their agenda of pushing the idea that state game departments are hiding wolf numbers/packs in some sort of weird conspiracy where the motives don't make sense or are not clear.
Well into the hundreds and yet WDFW only saw one new wolf for 2013?
if you've talked with several senior wildlife officials who tell you wolves number in the hundreds yet they reported 1 New wolf in 2013 wouldn't that confirm the lie or at the very least Misinformation they feed the public??? Since you seem to be in the know, with the last posted information being over a year ago when can we expect an update?
The truth is that all the states report MINIMUN counts on wolves. WA is no different than Idaho on how they report wolf counts, what is much different is that Idaho has done a much better job of documenting wolves. WA only has a 3 or 4 persons who are not really trappers trying to document wolves. It seems to be a WDFW priority to avoid documenting wolves until livestock is killed by wolves and they can no longer ignore the existence of that wolf pack. :twocents:
bearpaw- I wish you could discuss these topics respectfully without making snide remarks about me personally. Per the topic, you are incorrect. Idaho does a pretty good job of reporting total estimated wolf numbers in the state...not MINIMUM counts. For example, below is the first link from a quick google search I pulled up where Jim Hayden (IDFG Panhandle biologist) discusses a statewide estimate of 1,000 wolves. This is not their MINIMUM Count...it is their population estimate statewide and that is what IDFG typically reports.
http://www.dailyastorian.com/idaho-has-22-breeding-wolf-pairs-an-estimated-1000-wolves-da-ap-webfeeds-news-northwest6587c76d344e410aa6246ede32b2b3a9 (http://www.dailyastorian.com/idaho-has-22-breeding-wolf-pairs-an-estimated-1000-wolves-da-ap-webfeeds-news-northwest6587c76d344e410aa6246ede32b2b3a9)
I am unsure why WDFW does not provide total population estimates more regularly...my guess is that uncertainty is high and they are uncomfortable reporting it knowing how litigious and controversial wolf issues are...but that is a guess on my part :dunno:
Thanks again for the reply. I understand your points and agree this is a very controversial topic.
I have been scouring the wdfw website and just can't decide if they are being
1) deliberately deceptive
2) incompetent
3) overly cautious to a fault making them seem dishonest or incompetent
4) not putting enough of the right kind of resources towards a very BIG issue
5) they don't want to know the truth for plausible deniability reasons
6) they are trying to juggle the pro vs anti wolf crowd by limiting public information
:dunno: :dunno: :dunno: :bash: :bash: :bash:
If idaho and the other states are any kind of example of how fast wolves multiply I hope wdfw get their stuff together fast before some of the negative scenarios come true ...
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 22, 2015, 08:08:40 PM
Post by: mfswallace on January 22, 2015, 08:19:43 PM
My friend killed another wolf in Idaho up near the Woodland Caribou....... :tup: :tup:
Any chance he'd help a Washingtonian get one :hello:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 22, 2015, 08:38:16 PM
My friend killed another wolf in Idaho up near the Woodland Caribou....... :tup: :tup:
Any chance he'd help a Washingtonian get one :hello:
I come first, then you. You'll need snowmachines. I know exactly where he's killing them.
Post by: wolfbait on January 23, 2015, 02:16:30 PM
mfswallace - I appreciate you respectfully discussing this issue. My view on your question is no, it does not suggest dishonesty by WDFW. Their MINIMUM Count was only one more...they are not saying there is only one more wolf in Washington. I agree the terminology can be confusing...but it is really, really, important not to infer minimum counts as the WDFW estimate of total numbers of wolves...they are definitely not the same thing.yeah, that..I was just going to comment on this very fact, very unlikely the WDFW is being truthful!!!!WDFW reports MINIMUM counts...which is not a tricky phrase...it literally means the number of wolves they physically observed and thus is the absolute minimum number that exist. It is not the estimate of the total number of wolves WDFW believes occurs in Washington State. They usually peg that number much, much higher.
Can anyone deny and explain how this isn't a lie from WDFW :dunno:
Sadly, some like to spread misinformation and suggest or report that WDFW believes there are only 52 wolves in Washington State right now. I have talked with several senior wildlife staff in WDFW...they will all tell you Wolf numbers in Wa are well into the hundreds. Again, it is unfortunate there are small groups of folks who spread misinformation to fit their agenda of pushing the idea that state game departments are hiding wolf numbers/packs in some sort of weird conspiracy where the motives don't make sense or are not clear.
Well into the hundreds and yet WDFW only saw one new wolf for 2013?
if you've talked with several senior wildlife officials who tell you wolves number in the hundreds yet they reported 1 New wolf in 2013 wouldn't that confirm the lie or at the very least Misinformation they feed the public??? Since you seem to be in the know, with the last posted information being over a year ago when can we expect an update?
The truth is that all the states report MINIMUN counts on wolves. WA is no different than Idaho on how they report wolf counts, what is much different is that Idaho has done a much better job of documenting wolves. WA only has a 3 or 4 persons who are not really trappers trying to document wolves. It seems to be a WDFW priority to avoid documenting wolves until livestock is killed by wolves and they can no longer ignore the existence of that wolf pack. :twocents:
bearpaw- I wish you could discuss these topics respectfully without making snide remarks about me personally. Per the topic, you are incorrect. Idaho does a pretty good job of reporting total estimated wolf numbers in the state...not MINIMUM counts. For example, below is the first link from a quick google search I pulled up where Jim Hayden (IDFG Panhandle biologist) discusses a statewide estimate of 1,000 wolves. This is not their MINIMUM Count...it is their population estimate statewide and that is what IDFG typically reports.
http://www.dailyastorian.com/idaho-has-22-breeding-wolf-pairs-an-estimated-1000-wolves-da-ap-webfeeds-news-northwest6587c76d344e410aa6246ede32b2b3a9 (http://www.dailyastorian.com/idaho-has-22-breeding-wolf-pairs-an-estimated-1000-wolves-da-ap-webfeeds-news-northwest6587c76d344e410aa6246ede32b2b3a9)
January 22, 2015 8:57PM
I am unsure why WDFW does not provide total population estimates more regularly...my guess is that uncertainty is high and they are uncomfortable reporting it knowing how litigious and controversial wolf issues are...but that is a guess on my part :dunno:
Human Harvest Does Not Halt Wolf Increases
On page 8 of the Jan-March 2008 article, I reported the Alaska study in Denali National Park where biologists found they had been underestimating total wolf numbers by 50% by documenting primarily packs of wolves instead of also documenting dispersing and transient wolves. Yet Idaho biologists continue to ignore the Alaska research and pretend that pups, yearlings and older wolves that emigrate from packs suddenly disappear from the face of the earth just because they are not wearing a radio-tracking collar.
A six-year study of the impact of hunting and trapping on wolf populations in Alaska’s Central Brooks Range by Layne Adams and four other scientists concluded that liberal harvest by hunters and trappers of 29% or less of a wolf population has no impact (yes I said NO impact) on wolf population increases. If you doubt that, I suggest you read more about this study, published in the May 2008 issue of Wildlife Monographs, later in this article.
Simple Math: 1,600 Minus 428 = 1,172
The 29% mortality from hunters and trappers did not include mortality from all other causes yet on May 22, 2008 the Idaho F&G Commission set a new combined death loss goal of 428 wolves “from natural causes, accidents, wolf predation control actions and hunter kills,” and said that will result in its new goal of about 518 wolves on Dec. 31, 2008. Sources including Dr. David Mech, indicate there are ~1,600 wolves in Idaho now, counting this year’s pups, so 428 wolves dying from all causes would result in ~1,172 wolves remaining in Idaho – twice the number claimed by the Commission.
About 1,172 actual wolves – not paper wolves – would represent the minimum number of wolves in Idaho this coming winter and this should trigger loud alarms in the minds of those who are responsible for perpetuating Idaho’s wildlife resource. That is nearly 12 times the number of wolves the public was told would exist in a recovered wolf population and eight times the minimum number agreed to by all parties in the only Idaho Wolf Plan approved by both the Idaho Legislature and the FWS!
Will Wolf Activists Believe Their Idol?
If the wolf preservationists and the doubting Thomases refuse to believe these facts because they didn’t appear in the major media, what source will they consider reliable? The obvious answer is Dr. L. David Mech, the undisputed wolf authority in North America and perhaps in the entire world.
Although Mech eventually refuted the “Balance-of Nature” theory he and his mentor, Durward Allen, foisted off on the world during 1958-1962, he has generally remained silent while similarly inexperienced fledgling wolf biologists supply misinformation about wolf populations to the media. But the April 28, 2008 legal challenge to state wolf control by Defenders of Wildlife and eleven other preservationist groups in a Federal Court in Montana forced Mech to make public some of the facts he and other FWS wolf activists have known all along.
As part of the FWS May 9, 2008 Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (to halt wolf management by the three states) Mech wrote the following in his 22-page “Declaration under penalty of perjury:”
“Every year, most wolf populations almost double in the spring through the birth of pups [Mech 1970]. For example in May 2008, there will not be 1,500 wolves, but 3,000! (Wolf population estimates are usually made in winter when animals are at their nadir*. This approach serves to provide conservative estimates and further insure that management remains conservative).”
(*lowest point)
Read more@ http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.28%20May%202008%20FWS%20Biologist%20Says%20Wolf%20Numbers%20Underestimated%20Mech%20Says%203,000%20Wolves%20Exist%20in%20ID,%20MT%20&%20WY.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.28%20May%202008%20FWS%20Biologist%20Says%20Wolf%20Numbers%20Underestimated%20Mech%20Says%203,000%20Wolves%20Exist%20in%20ID,%20MT%20&%20WY.pdf)
Post by: bearpaw on January 23, 2015, 02:34:41 PM
mfswallace - I appreciate you respectfully discussing this issue. My view on your question is no, it does not suggest dishonesty by WDFW. Their MINIMUM Count was only one more...they are not saying there is only one more wolf in Washington. I agree the terminology can be confusing...but it is really, really, important not to infer minimum counts as the WDFW estimate of total numbers of wolves...they are definitely not the same thing.yeah, that..I was just going to comment on this very fact, very unlikely the WDFW is being truthful!!!!WDFW reports MINIMUM counts...which is not a tricky phrase...it literally means the number of wolves they physically observed and thus is the absolute minimum number that exist. It is not the estimate of the total number of wolves WDFW believes occurs in Washington State. They usually peg that number much, much higher.
Can anyone deny and explain how this isn't a lie from WDFW :dunno:
Sadly, some like to spread misinformation and suggest or report that WDFW believes there are only 52 wolves in Washington State right now. I have talked with several senior wildlife staff in WDFW...they will all tell you Wolf numbers in Wa are well into the hundreds. Again, it is unfortunate there are small groups of folks who spread misinformation to fit their agenda of pushing the idea that state game departments are hiding wolf numbers/packs in some sort of weird conspiracy where the motives don't make sense or are not clear.
Well into the hundreds and yet WDFW only saw one new wolf for 2013?
if you've talked with several senior wildlife officials who tell you wolves number in the hundreds yet they reported 1 New wolf in 2013 wouldn't that confirm the lie or at the very least Misinformation they feed the public??? Since you seem to be in the know, with the last posted information being over a year ago when can we expect an update?
The truth is that all the states report MINIMUN counts on wolves. WA is no different than Idaho on how they report wolf counts, what is much different is that Idaho has done a much better job of documenting wolves. WA only has a 3 or 4 persons who are not really trappers trying to document wolves. It seems to be a WDFW priority to avoid documenting wolves until livestock is killed by wolves and they can no longer ignore the existence of that wolf pack. :twocents:
bearpaw- I wish you could discuss these topics respectfully without making snide remarks about me personally. Per the topic, you are incorrect. Idaho does a pretty good job of reporting total estimated wolf numbers in the state...not MINIMUM counts. For example, below is the first link from a quick google search I pulled up where Jim Hayden (IDFG Panhandle biologist) discusses a statewide estimate of 1,000 wolves. This is not their MINIMUM Count...it is their population estimate statewide and that is what IDFG typically reports.
http://www.dailyastorian.com/idaho-has-22-breeding-wolf-pairs-an-estimated-1000-wolves-da-ap-webfeeds-news-northwest6587c76d344e410aa6246ede32b2b3a9 (http://www.dailyastorian.com/idaho-has-22-breeding-wolf-pairs-an-estimated-1000-wolves-da-ap-webfeeds-news-northwest6587c76d344e410aa6246ede32b2b3a9)
I am unsure why WDFW does not provide total population estimates more regularly...my guess is that uncertainty is high and they are uncomfortable reporting it knowing how litigious and controversial wolf issues are...but that is a guess on my part :dunno:
I would agree. Idaho did the same thing, they stood by their "Minimum BP's" as their baseline for wolf management and rarely talked about the estimated total number of wolves. MT, WY, and the USFWS have managed wolves the same way, by the Minimum # of BP's. To their credit, since delisting, IDFG has been more transparent about the estimated total number of wolves and they are doing studies to better estimate the total wolf population.
Post by: Bob33 on January 23, 2015, 02:37:29 PM
Thanks to all for the exchange of information.
Post by: bearpaw on January 23, 2015, 03:02:15 PM
So then from who's website does your Idaho information come from?? :chuckle: :chuckle:
Bearpaws. :chuckle: What Idaho information? All I can say is I've filled my deer and elk tags for several consecutive years in idaho...still haven't had a shot at a wolf. There are only a very few areas that I would not be too excited to hunt.
FYI - There are no known wolf packs in the Idaho elk units I hunt, that can be verified with IDFG, therefore wolf impacts are very minimal where I hunt in Idaho. It's probably not reasonable to use my hunting area as a baseline to suggest wolves have not affected the elk hunting in the lolo, st joe, or middle fork units!