Post by: wolfbait on January 24, 2015, 07:48:18 PM
by ADMIN on Jan 16, 2014 • 1:49 pm
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/ (http://methowvalleynews.com/2014/01/16/lookout-wolves-wildlife-officials-say-pack-is-up-to-five-members/)
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)
Post by: mkcj on January 24, 2015, 08:01:16 PM
Post by: Curly on January 24, 2015, 08:07:40 PM
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.
Why do they continue to claim that the pack was the fist seen in over 70 years? And they wonder why we don't believe everything they tell us?
Post by: wolfbait on January 24, 2015, 08:35:21 PM
At the end of May 2014 wolves attack a dog down in McFarland Cr, WDFW set some traps and caught a female wolf, which they said was part of the Lookout pack. I have heard from a reliable source that this female headed into the Pasayten W. this winter, where it stopped and hasn't move since, I wonder why this wolf hasn't been confirmed dead or?
Post by: timberfaller on January 27, 2015, 08:07:03 PM
Two get shot on private property and the pack is "Decimated" :yike: stupid reporter :o
Post by: bigmacc on January 28, 2015, 12:32:28 PM
I wonder why WDFW won't confirm the wolves in the Spring Coulee area or Buzzard Lk? A couple of weeks ago there were wolves down in Smith Canyon, and there have been reports of seven wolves running up Texas Cr. Wolves have been seen up Beaver Cr. I guess it's easier to just concentrate on one pack.
At the end of May 2014 wolves attack a dog down in McFarland Cr, WDFW set some traps and caught a female wolf, which they said was part of the Lookout pack. I have heard from a reliable source that this female headed into the Pasayten W. this winter, where it stopped and hasn't move since, I wonder why this wolf hasn't been confirmed dead or?
Or the ones roaming around up Boulder and Tiffany :dunno:
Post by: Idabooner on January 28, 2015, 05:29:22 PM
Post by: wolfbait on January 28, 2015, 05:51:24 PM
Watched one in the lower end of Texas Creek the other day.
About two weeks ago we saw one eating on a road kill right below Duey H. house, we watched it for about 5 minutes, it stood off the road a little ways waiting for us to leave. We had an appointment in Wenatchee or I would have went back an got the camera.
Last week some one saw two more by the beaver ponds.
Post by: mountainman on January 28, 2015, 08:15:20 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 28, 2015, 08:26:36 PM
I wonder why WDFW won't confirm the wolves in the Spring Coulee area or Buzzard Lk? A couple of weeks ago there were wolves down in Smith Canyon, and there have been reports of seven wolves running up Texas Cr. Wolves have been seen up Beaver Cr. I guess it's easier to just concentrate on one pack.
At the end of May 2014 wolves attack a dog down in McFarland Cr, WDFW set some traps and caught a female wolf, which they said was part of the Lookout pack. I have heard from a reliable source that this female headed into the Pasayten W. this winter, where it stopped and hasn't move since, I wonder why this wolf hasn't been confirmed dead or?
You and I saw 4 wolves, bear hunting up Beaver Creek 2 years ago. We can confirm those.
Post by: wolfbait on January 28, 2015, 08:57:51 PM
I wonder why WDFW won't confirm the wolves in the Spring Coulee area or Buzzard Lk? A couple of weeks ago there were wolves down in Smith Canyon, and there have been reports of seven wolves running up Texas Cr. Wolves have been seen up Beaver Cr. I guess it's easier to just concentrate on one pack.
At the end of May 2014 wolves attack a dog down in McFarland Cr, WDFW set some traps and caught a female wolf, which they said was part of the Lookout pack. I have heard from a reliable source that this female headed into the Pasayten W. this winter, where it stopped and hasn't move since, I wonder why this wolf hasn't been confirmed dead or?
You and I saw 4 wolves, bear hunting up Beaver Creek 2 years ago. We can confirm those.
That would be about the time WDFW were claiming the lookout pack had two maybe three wolves? Those wolves were right in around Boesel's cattle that were coming off the range. He said he knows he lost a calf to wolves one night, the next morning all they found was the head.
Post by: Alchase on February 02, 2015, 10:05:51 AM
Post by: huntnphool on February 02, 2015, 10:13:44 AM
Post by: HUNT-HARD on February 02, 2015, 12:09:16 PM
Post by: JackOfAllTrades on February 02, 2015, 12:48:11 PM
At the end of May 2014 wolves attack a dog down in McFarland Cr, WDFW set some traps and caught a female wolf, which they said was part of the Lookout pack. I have heard from a reliable source that this female headed into the Pasayten W. this winter, where it stopped and hasn't move since, I wonder why this wolf hasn't been confirmed dead or?
I'll suspect, weather, budget for manpower. -And no suspects? Define, not moved? If there's a den with another male, could we have another breeding pair spawned from Lookout? As long as there's food near, they don't need to range much. But, other than a female being kicked out of a pack, why would a female all the sudden distance herself from the pack?
-Steve
Post by: wolfbait on February 02, 2015, 02:24:35 PM
At the end of May 2014 wolves attack a dog down in McFarland Cr, WDFW set some traps and caught a female wolf, which they said was part of the Lookout pack. I have heard from a reliable source that this female headed into the Pasayten W. this winter, where it stopped and hasn't move since, I wonder why this wolf hasn't been confirmed dead or?
I'll suspect, weather, budget for manpower. -And no suspects? Define, not moved? If there's a den with another male, could we have another breeding pair spawned from Lookout? As long as there's food near, they don't need to range much. But, other than a female being kicked out of a pack, why would a female all the sudden distance herself from the pack?
-Steve
What's also interesting is at the time these wolves attacked the dog in McFarland Cr, another pack was being seen on a regular basis in Poorman Cr and Alder Cr.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 02, 2015, 06:01:07 PM
Did anyone notice this is from last January????:yeah:
Post by: wolfbait on February 02, 2015, 06:04:27 PM
Did anyone notice this is from last January????:yeah:
The lookout pack is one of those packs that never grows, it really doesn't matter what year it is. ;)
Post by: jasnt on February 02, 2015, 07:19:19 PM
Did anyone notice this is from last January????with all that effort being put forth you'd think we have gotten some updated info on the pack
Post by: mountainman on February 02, 2015, 07:56:29 PM
Post by: zwickeyman on February 02, 2015, 07:57:42 PM
Post by: JackOfAllTrades on February 03, 2015, 11:21:34 PM
Did anyone notice this is from last January????:yeah:
The article is historical reference. The point is, people that live in that area are seeing more wolves..
-Steve
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 04, 2015, 05:50:30 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 04, 2015, 06:50:34 AM
Post by: jasnt on February 04, 2015, 09:10:02 AM
Packs don't always stay together. We see singles, doubles, 3's all the time up here. They are often seperated by ten or more miles. That doesn't mean they are not a pack....dosent mean they are either.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 04, 2015, 09:35:14 AM
So what are they?Packs don't always stay together. We see singles, doubles, 3's all the time up here. They are often seperated by ten or more miles. That doesn't mean they are not a pack....dosent mean they are either.
Packs are not as cohesive as some of you seem to think. Reproductive activity is really the deciding factor. Since there are soooo many folks here that see wolves all over the place and know so much about them, perhaps they should think about taking a picture, or figuring out a denning location if there is another pack. It's not terribly hard. Wolves are not much good at hiding.
If there is a wolf hiding behind every tree in the Methow, it should be pretty easy to find denning sites if there are other packs that the state is failing to document (which I am not saying is out of the question).
Post by: jasnt on February 04, 2015, 09:56:24 AM
Wolves aren't very good at hiding ??? I'd bet our hw wolf hunters would disagree, camp meat, Hersey, ect.
Post by: wolfbait on February 04, 2015, 10:02:11 AM
So what are they?Packs don't always stay together. We see singles, doubles, 3's all the time up here. They are often seperated by ten or more miles. That doesn't mean they are not a pack....dosent mean they are either.
Packs are not as cohesive as some of you seem to think. Reproductive activity is really the deciding factor. Since there are soooo many folks here that see wolves all over the place and know so much about them, perhaps they should think about taking a picture, or figuring out a denning location if there is another pack. It's not terribly hard. Wolves are not much good at hiding.
If there is a wolf hiding behind every tree in the Methow, it should be pretty easy to find denning sites if there are other packs that the state is failing to document (which I am not saying is out of the question).
If what you say is true why does it take WDFW so long to confirm? Report after report in the Methow Valley and they had to be reported to the WSP before WDFW would finally confirm a pack in the Methow. I think it was 2009-2010 the lookout pack and a pack up in War Cr were seen the same day. According to WDFW every wolf sighting in the Okanogan is a part of the lookout pack.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 04, 2015, 10:02:58 AM
Wolves are no good at hiding insofar as they are noisy and leave tracks/sign absolutely everywhere. I didn't intend to say they were easy to hunt :) My ID tag is still unnotched too...
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 04, 2015, 10:06:59 AM
Because they have been dragging their feet, and they are still trying to learn how to get into the wolf business. I'm not familiar with War cr, if there was a wolf or two spotted it would be meaningless.... Animals from the same pack can be separated by ~10 (or more) miles sometimes. We see that up in NE Washington. Singles, pairs and even 3-4 wolves are always moving through the range away from the rest of the pack. They don't always stay together.So what are they?Packs don't always stay together. We see singles, doubles, 3's all the time up here. They are often seperated by ten or more miles. That doesn't mean they are not a pack....dosent mean they are either.
Packs are not as cohesive as some of you seem to think. Reproductive activity is really the deciding factor. Since there are soooo many folks here that see wolves all over the place and know so much about them, perhaps they should think about taking a picture, or figuring out a denning location if there is another pack. It's not terribly hard. Wolves are not much good at hiding.
If there is a wolf hiding behind every tree in the Methow, it should be pretty easy to find denning sites if there are other packs that the state is failing to document (which I am not saying is out of the question).
If what you say is true why does it take WDFW so long to confirm? Report after report in the Methow Valley and they had to be reported to the WSP before WDFW would finally confirm a pack in the Methow. I think it was 2009-2010 the lookout pack and a pack up in War Cr were seen the same day. According to WDFW every wolf sighting in the Okanogan is a part of the lookout pack.
Post by: jasnt on February 04, 2015, 10:11:38 AM
10 miles doesn't mean anything to a wolf. They cover that in no time flat and are very regularly moving way further distances.yes I agree with that but it dosent make sense that a pack will split up and 10 miles apart often like you said. Look at how close together many of the packs are in NE corner. It's pretty hard to believe that the lookout pack is the only one there!
Wolves are no good at hiding insofar as they are noisy and leave tracks/sign absolutely everywhere. I didn't intend to say they were easy to hunt :) My ID tag is still unnotched too...
Post by: wolfbait on February 04, 2015, 10:15:09 AM
Because they have been dragging their feet, and they are still trying to learn how to get into the wolf business. I'm not familiar with War cr, if there was a wolf or two spotted it would be meaningless.... Animals from the same pack can be separated by ~10 (or more) miles sometimes. We see that up in NE Washington. Singles, pairs and even 3-4 wolves are always moving through the range away from the rest of the pack. They don't always stay together.So what are they?Packs don't always stay together. We see singles, doubles, 3's all the time up here. They are often seperated by ten or more miles. That doesn't mean they are not a pack....dosent mean they are either.
Packs are not as cohesive as some of you seem to think. Reproductive activity is really the deciding factor. Since there are soooo many folks here that see wolves all over the place and know so much about them, perhaps they should think about taking a picture, or figuring out a denning location if there is another pack. It's not terribly hard. Wolves are not much good at hiding.
If there is a wolf hiding behind every tree in the Methow, it should be pretty easy to find denning sites if there are other packs that the state is failing to document (which I am not saying is out of the question).
If what you say is true why does it take WDFW so long to confirm? Report after report in the Methow Valley and they had to be reported to the WSP before WDFW would finally confirm a pack in the Methow. I think it was 2009-2010 the lookout pack and a pack up in War Cr were seen the same day. According to WDFW every wolf sighting in the Okanogan is a part of the lookout pack.
"Because they have been dragging their feet, and they are still trying to learn how to get into the wolf business."
That's kind of hard to believe when we include WDFW's history, they didn't seem to have trouble confirming wolves etc. before their money left for the wolf introduction into ID, MT, and Wyoming.
In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/ (http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/)
In 2010, Jasmine of CNW was asked why Scott Fitkin didn't confirm the wolf pack in War Cr? She said Scott Knew of the wolf pack but that it was too expensive to confirm.
December 1998 - Twenty-four of the original 35 wolves are known to be alive and are still being monitored. The estimated population in Idaho is 115 wolves. This is the first year that one component of recovery (10 breeding pairs) is attained.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/wolves/?getPage=161 (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/wolves/?getPage=161)
In three years IDFG had 10 BP's and a estimation wolf count of 115 wolves. In 6 + years WDFW has 5 BP's and 52 wolves.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 04, 2015, 12:55:30 PM
In three years IDFG had 10 BP's and a estimation wolf count of 115 wolves. In 6 + years WDFW has 5 BP's and 52 wolves.And whats your point? Wolves unsurprisingly are not growing to the same numbers as Idaho?
Post by: jasnt on February 04, 2015, 01:53:11 PM
are you implying wdfw has done a good job verifying BP's? That there is not more wolves than they say?In three years IDFG had 10 BP's and a estimation wolf count of 115 wolves. In 6 + years WDFW has 5 BP's and 52 wolves.And whats your point? Wolves unsurprisingly are not growing to the same numbers as Idaho?
Post by: mfswallace on February 04, 2015, 02:04:21 PM
In three years IDFG had 10 BP's and a estimation wolf count of 115 wolves. In 6 + years WDFW has 5 BP's and 52 wolves.And whats your point? Wolves unsurprisingly are not growing to the same numbers as Idaho?
Why? Again seems like common sense is being thrown out the window :dunno: Double the timeline and under half the confirmed number of wolves as neighboring state that is significantly smaller in terms of acreage hard for me to believe.
Add to that that Oregon reached there milestone of 7 breeding pairs just seven years after wolves introduced in the Northern Rockies started moving into Oregon from Idaho...
Post by: wolfbait on February 04, 2015, 04:30:42 PM
In three years IDFG had 10 BP's and a estimation wolf count of 115 wolves. In 6 + years WDFW has 5 BP's and 52 wolves.And whats your point? Wolves unsurprisingly are not growing to the same numbers as Idaho?
Why? Again seems like common sense is being thrown out the window :dunno: Double the timeline and under half the confirmed number of wolves as neighboring state that is significantly smaller in terms of acreage hard for me to believe.
Add to that that Oregon reached there milestone of 7 breeding pairs just seven years after wolves introduced in the Northern Rockies started moving into Oregon from Idaho...
WDFW and ODFG came out with first wolf pack in seventy years the very same day.
Post by: wolfbait on February 04, 2015, 04:56:17 PM
Because they have been dragging their feet, and they are still trying to learn how to get into the wolf business. I'm not familiar with War cr, if there was a wolf or two spotted it would be meaningless.... Animals from the same pack can be separated by ~10 (or more) miles sometimes. We see that up in NE Washington. Singles, pairs and even 3-4 wolves are always moving through the range away from the rest of the pack. They don't always stay together.So what are they?Packs don't always stay together. We see singles, doubles, 3's all the time up here. They are often seperated by ten or more miles. That doesn't mean they are not a pack....dosent mean they are either.
Packs are not as cohesive as some of you seem to think. Reproductive activity is really the deciding factor. Since there are soooo many folks here that see wolves all over the place and know so much about them, perhaps they should think about taking a picture, or figuring out a denning location if there is another pack. It's not terribly hard. Wolves are not much good at hiding.
If there is a wolf hiding behind every tree in the Methow, it should be pretty easy to find denning sites if there are other packs that the state is failing to document (which I am not saying is out of the question).
If what you say is true why does it take WDFW so long to confirm? Report after report in the Methow Valley and they had to be reported to the WSP before WDFW would finally confirm a pack in the Methow. I think it was 2009-2010 the lookout pack and a pack up in War Cr were seen the same day. According to WDFW every wolf sighting in the Okanogan is a part of the lookout pack.
"Because they have been dragging their feet, and they are still trying to learn how to get into the wolf business."
That's kind of hard to believe when we include WDFW's history, they didn't seem to have trouble confirming wolves etc. before their money left for the wolf introduction into ID, MT, and Wyoming.
In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/ (http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/)
In 2010, Jasmine of CNW was asked why Scott Fitkin didn't confirm the wolf pack in War Cr? She said Scott Knew of the wolf pack but that it was too expensive to confirm.
December 1998 - Twenty-four of the original 35 wolves are known to be alive and are still being monitored. The estimated population in Idaho is 115 wolves. This is the first year that one component of recovery (10 breeding pairs) is attained.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/wolves/?getPage=161 (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/wolves/?getPage=161)
In three years IDFG had 10 BP's and a estimation wolf count of 115 wolves. In 6 + years WDFW has 5 BP's and 52 wolves.
In three years IDFG had 10 BP's and a estimation wolf count of 115 wolves. In 6 + years WDFW has 5 BP's and 52 wolves.And whats your point? Wolves unsurprisingly are not growing to the same numbers as Idaho?
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)
“70% Kill Needed to Reduce Wolf Population”
Mech continued, “As indicated above, 28-50% of a wolf population must be killed by humans per year (on top of natural mortality) to even hold a wolf population stationery. Indeed, the agencies outside the NRM which are seeking to reduce wolf populations try to kill 70% per year (Fuller et al. 2003).” (emphasis added)
“Such extreme taking of the kind necessary to effectively reduce wolf populations is done via concerted and expensive government agency (Alaska, Y ukon Territories for example) programs using helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. Normal regulated public harvest such as is contemplated in the NRM is usually unable to reduce wolf populations (Mech 2001).” (emphasis added)
In his Declaration, Mech also refuted the 1,500 NRM (three-state) minimum wolf estimate as follows:
“Starting with a base population of 1,545 wolves in late 2007 (Final Rule) and adding the average 24% annual increase shown from 1995 through 2006 yields 1,916 wolves expected to be present in fall 2008. (Here I should note that the estimate of 1,545 wolves is a minimum estimate, i.e. there were supposedly a minimum of 1,545 wolves. As wolf populations increase, it becomes increasingly harder to count them accurately and the minimal counts become increasingly lower than actual. Thus a better estimate of the actual population could be about 1,700, and thus the 2008 estimate would be 2,108.) Assuming the minimum figure and that ID actually takes 328 wolves which is its limit” (was its limit until May 22,).
In other words, Mech is saying that if the three states had a total of 1,700 wolves after hunting season last fall, they will have approximately 2,108 wolves after hunting season this fall regardless of the take by hunters (1,700 wolves multiplied by 1.24 [a 24% increase after all death losses] equals 2,108 wolves this fall). Multiplying the 2,108 wolves by another 1.24 would leave 2,614 remaining wolves at the end of 2009.
Viewed from just the Idaho perspective, the “minimum” wolf estimate reported in Idaho late in 2007 was 732 (47.4% of the 1,545 wolves in the three states). If we correct that 1,545 to 1,700 as Mech suggests, double it to 3,400 to equal the present population with pups as Mech suggests, and then multiply the 3,400 by 47.4% we calculate that Idaho presently has about 1,612 wolves.
Then if we subtract the 438 wolves that will die from all causes according to IDFG biologists, that would leave a total of 1,174 wolves in Idaho in December 2008. If you prefer using Mech’s other formula, multiply the 1,700 by 47.4% and multiply the 806 wolves by 1.24 which projects a Dec, 31, 2008 population of 999 wolves.
In either scenario many of the single wolves and groups of 2-3 are still not included in Mech’s calculation. In my rural county and throughout much of Idaho, outdoorsmen report encountering far more evidence of single wolves and small groups than they do of packs so the total number of actual wolves remains a mystery.
“Wolf populations can maintain themselves despite annual human-caused mortality rates of 30% to 50% (Brainerd et al. 2008; Fuller et al. 2003). Wolf populations below habitat carry-capacity can quickly expand, sometimes nearly doubling within one or two years, following sharp declines caused by temporarily high rates of human-caused mortality or other causes.”
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)
Washington's wolves have never been hunted and yet WDFW claim the wolves grew by one in 2013 @ an estimate of 52 wolves for the state.
Just more fraud and corruption in WDFW's wolf introduction.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 04, 2015, 06:44:23 PM
Washington's wolves have never been hunted and yet WDFW claim the wolves grew by one in 2013 @ an estimate of 52 wolves for the state.Your statements are false, fraudulent, and corrupt.
Just more fraud and corruption in WDFW's wolf introduction.
1. WDFW does not claim "wolves grew by 1" and 52 wolves is not an "estimate"...and you know this...I used to give you the benefit of the doubt about what a "minimum count" was...but its obvious you are just intentionally spreading false information.
2. WDFW did not introduce wolves.
While we are on the subject...Here is a press release by RMEF blasting a group for distorting minimum wolf counts/Breeding Pair information. Both extreme sides use the same tactic...one to say there are hardly any wolves and the other to say the State managers are hiding/distorting all the wolf numbers. Both extremist fringe sides need to be called on their BS. I'm very happy to see RMEF and IDFG taking on these radicals!
http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFCallsOutCenterforBiologicalDiversity.aspx (http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFCallsOutCenterforBiologicalDiversity.aspx)
Post by: wolfbait on February 04, 2015, 10:26:05 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/packs/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/packs/)
Gray wolves are a native species of Washington and have been state listed since as "endangered" under the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 232-12-014 since 1980. However, breeding populations (i.e. packs) of wolves have been absent from Washington since the 1930s. Not surprisingly, reports of wolf activity in Washington notably increased starting in 2002 following the rapid expansion of wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment (NRM DPS) between 1996 and 2002. In 2008, the first wolf pack with confirmed breeding activity was documented in north-central Washington.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/director/ltr_natural_resource_committees_12-18-13.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/director/ltr_natural_resource_committees_12-18-13.pdf)
According to WDFW wolves were dispersing into WA in 2002, that would put us at 13 years worth of wolves.
In 12 years IDFG had 83 documented packs, a minimum of 59 produced litters and 43 qualified as breeding pairs (Table 1). A minimum of 200 wolf pups was documented in 2007
Why does WDFW continue to lie about the wolves of the 1970's-1990's? In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/ (http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/)
Wolf Population Status
The Idaho wolf population has continued to expand in both numbers and packs since initial reintroductions in 1995 (Figures 3 and 4). By the end of 2007, 83 documented wolf packs remained extant in Idaho, including 17 newly documented packs, and a minimum of 489 wolves was observed or monitored by wolf program personnel. The minimum population estimate was 732 (Appendix A).
Distribution, Reproduction, and Population Growth
Wolves were well distributed in the state from the Canadian border, south to the Snake River Plain, and east to the Montana and Wyoming borders (Figure 5). Of the 83 documented packs during 2007, territories of all were predominantly on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) public lands.
Of 83 documented packs, a minimum of 59 produced litters and 43 qualified as breeding pairs (Table 1). A minimum of 200 wolf pups was documented in 2007. Wolf pup counts were conservative estimates because not all pups were observed from packs that were monitored, and some documented packs were not visited. Minimum documented litter sizes ranged from 1-8 pups. Average minimum litter size for those packs where counts were believed complete (n = 35) was 4.1 pups per litter. Ten new breeding pairs were documented and the reproductive status of 24 documented packs was either not verified or believed to be non-reproductive during 2007. Many areas typically visited to count pups were not available to field crews due to extensive forest fires and subsequent area closures this year.
The estimated wolf population increased 9% between 2006 (n = 673) and 2007 (n = 732) (Fig. 3). The social carrying capacity for wolves will likely be below the biological carrying capacity as wolves are managed in concert with other wildlife values, livestock concerns, and management objectives. Ultimately the citizens of Idaho, not habitat, will determine the number of wolves that will persist in the state.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/reportAnnual07.pdf (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/reportAnnual07.pdf)
Post by: wolfbait on February 04, 2015, 11:15:01 PM
Washington's wolves have never been hunted and yet WDFW claim the wolves grew by one in 2013 @ an estimate of 52 wolves for the state.Your statements are false, fraudulent, and corrupt.
Just more fraud and corruption in WDFW's wolf introduction.
1. WDFW does not claim "wolves grew by 1" and 52 wolves is not an "estimate"...and you know this...I used to give you the benefit of the doubt about what a "minimum count" was...but its obvious you are just intentionally spreading false information.
2. WDFW did not introduce wolves.
While we are on the subject...Here is a press release by RMEF blasting a group for distorting minimum wolf counts/Breeding Pair information. Both extreme sides use the same tactic...one to say there are hardly any wolves and the other to say the State managers are hiding/distorting all the wolf numbers. Both extremist fringe sides need to be called on their BS. I'm very happy to see RMEF and IDFG taking on these radicals!
http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFCallsOutCenterforBiologicalDiversity.aspx (http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFCallsOutCenterforBiologicalDiversity.aspx)
WDFW Game Division Manager Dave Ware said wildlife managers have not seen a decline in deer and elk populations in northeast Washington, where the state’s 52 wolves are concentrated. http://www.capitalpress.com/Washington/20141031/washington-peeks-ahead-to-life-after-wolves-recover (http://www.capitalpress.com/Washington/20141031/washington-peeks-ahead-to-life-after-wolves-recover)
That assessment was based on an annual survey by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) that confirmed the presence of 13 wolf packs, five successful breeding pairs and at least 52 individual wolves in 2013.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/mar0814a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/mar0814a/)
The Teanaway Pack, based in the Teanaway area of western Kittitas County, north and northeast of Cle Elum, is one of 13 packs in the state, based on the WDFW’s annual survey released 10 days ago. While that number counts four new packs, though, the state has only verified five successful breeding pairs and the total number of individual wolves in the survey, 52, constitutes an increase of just one wolf over the previous year’s count.
http://www.yakimaherald.com/sports/outdoorandrecreation/2023875-8/wolf-pack-could-be-coming-to-the-area (http://www.yakimaherald.com/sports/outdoorandrecreation/2023875-8/wolf-pack-could-be-coming-to-the-area)
Washington's wolf population has continued to grow, according to a statewide survey conducted by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in 2013. The survey confirmed the presence of at least 52 wolves in 13 wolf packs with a total of 5 successful breeding pairs by the end of the year. Wildlife managers emphasize that the actual number of wolves in the state is likely higher than those confirmed by the survey. The survey is not designed to account for every wolf within the state, but rather to monitor the species' progress toward recovery.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/packs/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/packs/)
Minimum or estimation it's still very poor performance by WDFW of confirming wolves, wolf packs/breeding pairs, unless the intent is to drag out wolf delisting as long as possible.
RMEF Calls Out Center for Biological Diversity: Stick to the Facts
MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is calling on the environmentalist group Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) to stick to the facts when making presumptions about wildlife populations.
CBD recently claimed that Idaho’s wolf population is on the verge of endangered status when, in reality, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) stated that preliminary counts indicate Idaho has more than 100 documented wolf packs and 600-plus wolves. IDFG also reported it has a minimum of 22 documented breeding pairs after counting only 30 packs. IDFG biologists have yet to examine the status of 77 additional packs.
“A few advocacy groups chose to take the breeding pair metric out of context to make claims that Idaho wolves are ‘teetering on the brink of endangered status once again.’ That’s hogwash,” said Virgil Moore, IDFG director. “And it’s the kind of polarizing misinformation that undermines responsible wildlife conservation and management in Idaho.”
http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFCallsOutCenterforBiologicalDiversity.aspx (http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFCallsOutCenterforBiologicalDiversity.aspx)
Post by: jasnt on February 05, 2015, 02:41:44 PM
well maybe you can educate us??? How is WB's post false, fraudulent, or corrupt?Washington's wolves have never been hunted and yet WDFW claim the wolves grew by one in 2013 @ an estimate of 52 wolves for the state.Your statements are false, fraudulent, and corrupt.
Just more fraud and corruption in WDFW's wolf introduction.
1. WDFW does not claim "wolves grew by 1" and 52 wolves is not an "estimate"...and you know this...I used to give you the benefit of the doubt about what a "minimum count" was...but its obvious you are just intentionally spreading false information.
2. WDFW did not introduce wolves.
While we are on the subject...Here is a press release by RMEF blasting a group for distorting minimum wolf counts/Breeding Pair information. Both extreme sides use the same tactic...one to say there are hardly any wolves and the other to say the State managers are hiding/distorting all the wolf numbers. Both extremist fringe sides need to be called on their BS. I'm very happy to see RMEF and IDFG taking on these radicals!
http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFCallsOutCenterforBiologicalDiversity.aspx (http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFCallsOutCenterforBiologicalDiversity.aspx)
Are you just intentionally spreading false information?
Post by: idahohuntr on February 05, 2015, 04:55:32 PM
Jasnt- re-read points 1 and 2 listed in my response.well maybe you can educate us??? How is WB's post false, fraudulent, or corrupt?Washington's wolves have never been hunted and yet WDFW claim the wolves grew by one in 2013 @ an estimate of 52 wolves for the state.Your statements are false, fraudulent, and corrupt.
Just more fraud and corruption in WDFW's wolf introduction.
1. WDFW does not claim "wolves grew by 1" and 52 wolves is not an "estimate"...and you know this...I used to give you the benefit of the doubt about what a "minimum count" was...but its obvious you are just intentionally spreading false information.
2. WDFW did not introduce wolves.
While we are on the subject...Here is a press release by RMEF blasting a group for distorting minimum wolf counts/Breeding Pair information. Both extreme sides use the same tactic...one to say there are hardly any wolves and the other to say the State managers are hiding/distorting all the wolf numbers. Both extremist fringe sides need to be called on their BS. I'm very happy to see RMEF and IDFG taking on these radicals!
http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFCallsOutCenterforBiologicalDiversity.aspx (http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFCallsOutCenterforBiologicalDiversity.aspx)
Post by: jasnt on February 05, 2015, 05:11:10 PM
Point#2 I will not comment on I do not know the facts on that issue
Post by: jasnt on February 05, 2015, 06:26:57 PM
Originally planned as part of a recovery program for the northern Rockies, where wolves were brought in, the effort could become unique to Washington because of the apparently burgeoning population.
For example, 100 sightings were reported in 1981, and last year there were 200, ranging as far south as Mount St. Helens, Almak said.
Note: Is it puzzling that an article written in 1992 mentions that “wolves were brought in” to recover wolves in the Northern Rockies?
Again in 1992 a gray wolf was captured and collared in Washington. What was the chatter all about concerning this wolf and others?
Pierce said the animals probably are migrating south from Canada, where wolves still are hunted.
“It appears we’re in the early stages of re-colonization of the former range in Washington,” he said. There’s evidence the animals are breeding as far south as the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area just north of Stevens Pass, Pierce added.
- See more at: http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/#.dpuf (http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/#.dpuf)
Very interesting points. What ever happened to those wolves? Why are they talking about wolves brought in in 1992???????
Post by: idahohuntr on February 05, 2015, 06:41:14 PM
Now, there can also be sampling (observation) issues that affect what a minimum count might be from year to year. Many times in wildlife surveys, biologists develop or use sightability models. As you can imagine, if you go fly to conduct an elk herd count in the Blue Mountains in a low snow pack year where elk are more spread out and more difficult to spot, your count will be lower...the elk are harder to spot and find and you just see less of them. Go back a year later and lets pretend we have a huge winter that concentrates animals and provides a completely white backdrop...and your count shoots way up. Its not necessarily that the elk population increased, its just you counted more because conditions were more favorable for viewing...so, without any sort of sightability model (a correction factor for observation conditions, if you will) your counts are going to move around irrespective of changes in animal abundance. I have no clue if this kind of issue was in play regarding the minimum wolf counts, but it is certainly something to consider in how you interpret what a "minimum count" represents.
Post by: jasnt on February 05, 2015, 07:16:29 PM
Estimate or minimum count. Doesn't matter how you word it IMO. The whole point is wdfw is not doing a good job of verifying wolves, not counting packs till forced to, not admitting to the wolves already here post introduction of the nrm. Which according to the seatletimes one was even collard? Where is the transparency??? Why are wdfw not putting forth the effort where it's most needed?
Post by: mfswallace on February 05, 2015, 09:59:55 PM
Post by: jasnt on February 06, 2015, 12:30:12 AM
This minimum count does make it seem like wdfw is either slow playing the issue or are incompetent... with something this important I would hope they would do all they could to get the count of wolves and especially ungulates correct!!!!absolutely ! This wolf issue is huge with passions very strong on both sides of the issue. Most everyone has a strong option on wolves and both sides are looking deep in to these issues. You would think wdfw would want to be right on top this issue and focusing on the future of wa game animals ( deer, elk, cougar, bear, and wolves) trying hard to keep most accurate counts possible. If I did the bare minimum at my job I'd be replaced. Why are they not trying to document these new packs and if they are why don't we know. If $ is really the issue take advantage of your volunteers. There are plenty of us with the ambition to help. A camera can't lie
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 06, 2015, 05:15:45 AM
Post by: jasnt on February 06, 2015, 08:37:45 AM