Post by: jasnt on March 06, 2015, 05:07:18 PM
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/)
March 6, 2015
Contact: WDFW Wildlife Program, (360) 902-2515
Survey shows Washington wolf numbers grew by 30% in 2014
OLYMPIA - Washington state's wolf population grew by more than 30 percent and formed four new packs last year, according to an annual survey conducted by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
The survey shows the presence of at least 68 gray wolves in the state through Dec. 31, 2014, up from a minimum of 52 wolves counted in 2013. It also documents 16 wolf packs and at least five successful breeding pairs last year.
Donny Martorello, WDFW carnivore specialist, said the latest findings point to continued growth in the state's wolf population under the state's recovery plan.
"While we can't count every wolf in the state, the formation of four new packs is clear evidence that wolves are recovering in Washington," he said. "Since 2011, the number of confirmed wolf packs has more than tripled in our state."
Gray wolves, all but eliminated from western states in the last century, are now recovering under legal protections in several states. Wolves are protected under Washington law throughout the state and under federal law in the western two-thirds of the state.
Martorello said WDFW conducted the survey by using a combination of aerial surveys, remote cameras, wolf tracks, and signals from seven wolves fitted with radio-collars.
The four new packs - Goodman Meadows, Profanity Peak, Tucannon, and Whitestone - were discovered east of the Cascades, where all of the state's other wolf packs are located. The state's Wolf Conservation and Management Plan defines a pack as two or more wolves traveling together in winter.
Martorello said the number of packs would have been even higher if not for the loss of the Ruby Creek pack last spring. One of its two members was struck and killed by a vehicle. The other was accepted for care by Wolf Haven International in Tenino after it was found living among domestic dogs in a small town in Pend Oreille County.
At least nine other wolves also died in 2014. Three were killed by poachers, three died of natural causes, two died of unknown causes, and a breeding female was killed last summer during an effort by WDFW to stop members of the Huckleberry pack from preying on a rancher's sheep in Stevens County.
Attacks on sheep by the Huckleberry pack also pushed the number of livestock killed by wolves to a new record. Martorello said the pack accounted for 33 of the 35 sheep killed or injured by wolves and documented by WDFW in 2014. The department, which recognizes that actual losses were higher than verified to date, also documented four cows and a dog that were attacked by wolves from other packs last year.
Jim Unsworth, WDFW's new director, said wolf recovery in Washington is progressing much as it did in Idaho, where he spent much of his career in wildlife management before taking his new position in February.
"I've been involved in wolf management for more than a decade, and the issues are much the same from state to state," Unsworth said. "Conflicts with livestock are bound to rise as the state's wolf population increases, and we have to do everything we can to manage that situation. So far, wolf predation on livestock has been well below levels experienced in most other states with wolves."
Stephanie Simek, WDFW wildlife conflict manager, said WDFW continues to emphasize the importance of preventive actions in minimizing wolf attacks on livestock. She said WDFW is:
Expanding partnerships with ranchers to avoid conflicts with wolves. The department has stationed wildlife conflict specialists in communities where wolves are recovering to work with individual producers.
Expanding its "range rider" program, where ranchers can turn for help if they need assistance guarding their livestock. Range riders have been used by several producers, and the state program will provide an increased human presence in grazing areas.
Informing livestock owners of the availability of a new carcass pit in Ferry County where they can dispose of dead livestock and other attractants.
Continuing to offer cost-sharing agreements for ranchers who seek help in funding preventive measures to protect their animals.
Martorello said the scarcity of snow made it more difficult to track wolves late last year, complicating the 2014 survey. As a result, the survey likely underestimates the number of wolves, packs, and breeding pairs, he said.
Martorello noted that the number of confirmed successful breeding pairs in the annual wolf survey has remained the same for the past three years, despite a significant increase in the number of individual wolves. Since 2012, WDFW has documented a total of five breeding pairs between the Eastern Washington and North Cascades recovery regions.
"Given the continued growth of the state's wolf population, there's a good chance that we have breeding pairs east of the Cascade Range we haven't found yet," he said.
No wolf packs or breeding pairs have yet been documented in the South Cascades/Northwest Coast recovery region.
Under the state's Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, wolves can be removed from the state's endangered species list once 15 successful breeding pairs are documented for three consecutive years among the three designated wolf-recovery regions.
WDFW's wolf survey for 2014 will be available on the department's website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/) by April 3.
This message has been sent to the Gray Wolf Pack Updates and Information mailing list.
Visit the WDFW News Release Archive at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/)
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 06, 2015, 05:23:19 PM
Post by: jasnt on March 06, 2015, 06:04:53 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on March 06, 2015, 06:16:09 PM
Post by: jackelope on March 06, 2015, 06:41:11 PM
Sounds about right.
Sounds about a lot light.
It's funny the 4 new packs never made the news. Maybe they did, but I can't recall. I'd remember the Tucannon pack had I seen that.
:(
Post by: jackelope on March 06, 2015, 06:51:55 PM
http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=9616ea20ef9f40d2be12e9af48406644 (http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=9616ea20ef9f40d2be12e9af48406644)
Post by: CAMPMEAT on March 06, 2015, 07:38:34 PM
Post by: 2labs on March 06, 2015, 07:44:53 PM
Post by: dontgetcrabs on March 06, 2015, 08:18:57 PM
I'd remember the Tucannon pack had I seen that.
Co-worker saw two near Patit Rd last Spring. I asked a Bio about them and was told collared wolves have been tracked in the area.
Post by: AspenBud on March 06, 2015, 08:25:13 PM
Absolute total Bullpoop....they don't live in the hardest hit areas where the wolves are not reported anymore because the ranchers I know, hate lip service. Another thing is, if a rancher takes monies from the corrupt WDFW, they are in the backpockets of the state and Communist Northwest type of groups. :bash:
They didn't really deny the possibility of higher numbers...
"Given the continued growth of the state's wolf population, there's a good chance that we have breeding pairs east of the Cascade Range we haven't found yet,"
Post by: Dan-o on March 06, 2015, 08:43:10 PM
Post by: Special T on March 06, 2015, 08:46:40 PM
When the WDFW starts bragging that they have brought in experienced trappers from AK or Canada to help out THEN I will give them the benifit of the doubt...
Post by: Bob33 on March 06, 2015, 08:48:41 PM
From January 2014: nwsportsmanmag.com/headlines/elk-visit-chesaw-wolves-roam-the-tucannon/I'd remember the Tucannon pack had I seen that.
Co-worker saw two near Patit Rd last Spring. I asked a Bio about them and was told collared wolves have been tracked in the area.
"Meanwhile, well to the south, ODFW informed its counterparts at WDFW that at least a pair of Wenaha wolves had been roaming the Tucannon River basin, which is well inside Washington, but also apparently part of the pack’s territory. Last winter a large group of wolves was observed in the area. Oregon’s 2012 year-end wolf report said the pack spent 2 percent of its time in Washington."
Post by: Special T on March 06, 2015, 08:57:35 PM
Post by: 2labs on March 06, 2015, 09:02:41 PM
Bob examples like that make me the forever skeptic... Either it is willful or incompetence. Not good...
I agree, I bet they don't know where ther kids are 30% of the time and know the wolfs spend 2% of ther time in W.A.
This whole Wolf thing is crap!
Post by: jackelope on March 06, 2015, 09:13:33 PM
From January 2014: nwsportsmanmag.com/headlines/elk-visit-chesaw-wolves-roam-the-tucannon/I'd remember the Tucannon pack had I seen that.
Co-worker saw two near Patit Rd last Spring. I asked a Bio about them and was told collared wolves have been tracked in the area.
"Meanwhile, well to the south, ODFW informed its counterparts at WDFW that at least a pair of Wenaha wolves had been roaming the Tucannon River basin, which is well inside Washington, but also apparently part of the pack’s territory. Last winter a large group of wolves was observed in the area. Oregon’s 2012 year-end wolf report said the pack spent 2 percent of its time in Washington."
I was aware of the wolves the Washington bios were tracking. Pretty sure the Oregon wenaha pack has been cruising through the Tucannon for at least a couple years now. I'm not surprised that there is a confirmed pack now, just surprised I missed all the news releases on these new packs.
Post by: jasnt on March 06, 2015, 09:14:41 PM
i was talking about Jimmy's math It's also exactly the type of numbers I'd expect from wdfw. Bare minimumSounds about right.
Sounds about a lot light.
It's funny the 4 new packs never made the news. Maybe they did, but I can't recall. I'd remember the Tucannon pack had I seen that.
:(
Post by: jackelope on March 06, 2015, 09:17:57 PM
i was talking about Jimmy's math It's also exactly the type of numbers I'd expect from wdfw. Bare minimumSounds about right.
Sounds about a lot light.
It's funny the 4 new packs never made the news. Maybe they did, but I can't recall. I'd remember the Tucannon pack had I seen that.
:(
10-4
Post by: CAMPMEAT on March 06, 2015, 09:54:27 PM
Absolute total Bullpoop....they don't live in the hardest hit areas where the wolves are not reported anymore because the ranchers I know, hate lip service. Another thing is, if a rancher takes monies from the corrupt WDFW, they are in the backpockets of the state and Communist Northwest type of groups. :bash:
They didn't really deny the possibility of higher numbers...
"Given the continued growth of the state's wolf population, there's a good chance that we have breeding pairs east of the Cascade Range we haven't found yet,"
They have confirmed the Profanity Pack and suspect another pack on Boulder Pass. Can there possibly be 2 packs within a couple miles, literally, of each other....??
Post by: Jingles on March 06, 2015, 10:35:00 PM
Sure would be nice if a couple found their way over there in a pick up bed especially uncollared ones
Post by: jasnt on March 07, 2015, 01:35:48 AM
there are packs in the NE that touch and even over lapAbsolute total Bullpoop....they don't live in the hardest hit areas where the wolves are not reported anymore because the ranchers I know, hate lip service. Another thing is, if a rancher takes monies from the corrupt WDFW, they are in the backpockets of the state and Communist Northwest type of groups. :bash:
They didn't really deny the possibility of higher numbers...
"Given the continued growth of the state's wolf population, there's a good chance that we have breeding pairs east of the Cascade Range we haven't found yet,"
They have confirmed the Profanity Pack and suspect another pack on Boulder Pass. Can there possibly be 2 packs within a couple miles, literally, of each other....??
Post by: TommyH on March 07, 2015, 08:14:55 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 07, 2015, 08:23:17 AM
Post by: TommyH on March 07, 2015, 08:29:06 AM
Post by: jasnt on March 07, 2015, 08:33:30 AM
Post by: Bob33 on March 07, 2015, 08:40:00 AM
That map is outdated, it's missing the profanity pack too."Wolf Packs in Washington (as of March 2014)"
Post by: wolfbait on March 07, 2015, 08:46:12 AM
WA must have a lot of sterile wolves.
Unfortunately wolf numbers don't matter, it is the number of BP's that decide when any wolf control will take place. According to WDFW wolves started "officially migrating" to WA in 2002, it took WDFW 13 years to come up with five BP's. Where will WA be in another 26 years?
Wolf populations double each year according to Mech. In 2013 WA's wolves grew by ONE wolf, and WDFW stated there were at least 53 wolves. Now WDFW say there are at least 68 wolves in WA, that's an increase of 15 wolves. I wonder what magical number they will pull out of the hat next year?
WDFW is a joke, the wildlife, livestock and people of WA are the ones who are and will suffer because of a corrupt agency.
Post by: jasnt on March 07, 2015, 08:47:42 AM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on March 07, 2015, 08:27:58 PM
Post by: buglebrush on March 07, 2015, 09:04:45 PM
Behold the future gentlemen. :yike:
Post by: Sumpnneedskillin on March 07, 2015, 09:43:53 PM
From January 2014: nwsportsmanmag.com/headlines/elk-visit-chesaw-wolves-roam-the-tucannon/I'd remember the Tucannon pack had I seen that.
Co-worker saw two near Patit Rd last Spring. I asked a Bio about them and was told collared wolves have been tracked in the area.
"Meanwhile, well to the south, ODFW informed its counterparts at WDFW that at least a pair of Wenaha wolves had been roaming the Tucannon River basin, which is well inside Washington, but also apparently part of the pack’s territory. Last winter a large group of wolves was observed in the area. Oregon’s 2012 year-end wolf report said the pack spent 2 percent of its time in Washington."
I was aware of the wolves the Washington bios were tracking. Pretty sure the Oregon wenaha pack has been cruising through the Tucannon for at least a couple years now. I'm not surprised that there is a confirmed pack now, just surprised I missed all the news releases on these new packs.
It was discussed in the Lewiston paper. Word is one of the wolves is a collared OR wolf running with 1-3 other wolves.
If I remember correctly the paper said the wolves were being seen in the Cloverland/Anatone area. WDFW downplayed it. Lots of uproar by the locals and a day or so later there was another story with WDFW saying sorry there was some confusion, some crossed lines in communications etc. You guys are right about the number of wolves seen, where seen etc.
Post by: darren on March 08, 2015, 06:17:31 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on March 08, 2015, 07:49:52 AM
I'm curious why they report the wolf population as a minimum number (i.e., at least 68 as of the end of last year). It seems like the more common method for a wildlife survey is to determine a count in a handful of areas and then assume that density exists in other areas and generate an estimate of the total population based on that. Do they not do something similar in this case because the numbers are small compared to other species, or do they assume they have a bead on every wolf pack there is in the state today?It was protocol established when wolves were reintroduced and makes sense from a species recovery standpoint when they are at low abundance...what is the minimum we know to exist. WDFW adopted the existing format in part because its identical to what other states were collecting and understood/accepted by USFWS which still has jurisdiction over wolves in the western 2/3 of the state. Kind of a "lets not re-invent the wheel" approach. WDFW is very aware they do not have a bead on every pack. Based on other states data it is often assumed that around 30% of the packs are not identified...so if we know of 16 right now...that would mean they are thinking there is closer to 21 packs in WA.
As far as your comment about extrapolating estimates to generate an actual total estimate, instead of just a minimum count, I have heard wdfw staff walk people through the simple math...known packs + estimated unknown packs (30%) x average number of wolves in a pack + some portion of wolves that are singles/loners = number of wolves in WA. Doing that kind of math puts washingtons wolf numbers well into the hundreds. I am still uncertain why they don't report a total estimate...however, all de-listing criteria are based on number and location of bp's...not total numbers so I guess it doesn't really matter from a management standpoint :dunno:
Post by: fowl smacker on March 08, 2015, 07:59:17 AM
Post by: mfswallace on March 08, 2015, 08:10:37 AM
I'm curious what % the deer and elk populations have dropped in those areas where wolf populations have risen. Does WDFW do a study for that?
Hopefully the legislation being discussed gets that ball rolling :bash: Seems pretty ridiculous that this wasn't part of the plan from the beginning :bash:
Post by: wolfbait on March 08, 2015, 08:25:25 AM
I'm curious why they report the wolf population as a minimum number (i.e., at least 68 as of the end of last year). It seems like the more common method for a wildlife survey is to determine a count in a handful of areas and then assume that density exists in other areas and generate an estimate of the total population based on that. Do they not do something similar in this case because the numbers are small compared to other species, or do they assume they have a bead on every wolf pack there is in the state today?It was protocol established when wolves were reintroduced and makes sense from a species recovery standpoint when they are at low abundance...what is the minimum we know to exist. WDFW adopted the existing format in part because its identical to what other states were collecting and understood/accepted by USFWS which still has jurisdiction over wolves in the western 2/3 of the state. Kind of a "lets not re-invent the wheel" approach. WDFW is very aware they do not have a bead on every pack. Based on other states data it is often assumed that around 30% of the packs are not identified...so if we know of 16 right now...that would mean they are thinking there is closer to 21 packs in WA.
As far as your comment about extrapolating estimates to generate an actual total estimate, instead of just a minimum count, I have heard wdfw staff walk people through the simple math...known packs + estimated unknown packs (30%) x average number of wolves in a pack + some portion of wolves that are singles/loners = number of wolves in WA. Doing that kind of math puts washingtons wolf numbers well into the hundreds. I am still uncertain why they don't report a total estimate...however, all de-listing criteria are based on number and location of bp's...not total numbers so I guess it doesn't really matter from a management standpoint :dunno:
If the public had an idea of the actual number of wolves in WA, it would give folks a better idea as to the impact on the ungulates. If you look at the USFWS history it will show they purposely underestimated wolf numbers, WDFW is doing the same.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 08, 2015, 08:30:47 AM
Post by: wolfbait on March 08, 2015, 08:46:16 AM
WDFW isn't providing estimates...so your allegation they underestimate is bogus.
So according to you and WDFW there are only 68 wolves in WA?
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.
The Real FWS Wolf Recovery Agenda
That agenda has been promoted in “Society for Conservation Biology” publications by federal biologists involved in wolf recovery since Canadian wolves were first transplanted. David Mech’s “The Challenge and Opportunity of Recovering Wolf Populations” appeared in the 1995 Volume. 9(2) issue of “Conservation Biology.”
In 2001, environmental groups, including The Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife Fund, joined with the National Park Service in creating a more sophisticated magazine called “Conservation Magazine” designed to sell the wildlands/biodiversity agenda to academia. In 2004 FWS Wolf Team Leader Ed Bangs praised a BS thesis by a biology student concerning non- lethal wolf “control” (later published in Conservation) and announced he had hired her as a wolf “specialist”.
Wildlife biologists in all three recovery states knew about the numbers deception but only Wyoming G&F, under pressure from its Governor, attempted to hold FWS to the original de-listing criteria. IDFG Director Groen’s Jan. 14th News Release declared the Department’s intention only to “stabilize” (halt the dramatic annual increase in) existing wolf populations in Idaho.
Because IDFG estimates Idaho had a minimum population of 732 wolves in the fall of 2007 that means F&G intended to maintain a minimum of at least seven times as many wolves in Idaho as we were told would exist after recovery. But pretending that the biologists’ estimated minimum fall wolf population is near the actual wolf population is simply another deception misleading Idahoans and their elected officials as will be illustrated later in this article. Read more@ http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdfExistence (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdfExistence) 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.
http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf)
Post by: idahohuntr on March 08, 2015, 09:25:17 AM
No. That is a common lie that you like to spread in your campaign of misinformation and deceit. WDFW nor I believe there are only 68 wolves in Washington. Nobody except you has ever made such a ridiculous claim. Distorting minimum counts are a common tactic of fringe groups grasping at straws. It's pathetic.WDFW isn't providing estimates...so your allegation they underestimate is bogus.
So according to you and WDFW there are only 68 wolves in WA?
Post by: Special T on March 08, 2015, 10:51:02 AM
The whole premise of the wolf plan was designed to be slow played. The different Zones, High burden of proof to document, the high numbers are all designed to give ample room to delay.
Insufficient funds are a claimed culprit for not getting more packs and BPs documented... Offers of financial help are turned down because of Optics. (Cattlemen Association, RMEF) Yet they accept $, Help and resources from anti hunting groups. (DoW, CNW...) None of these organizations put $ or time into documenting, just protecting... Prevention of coming off the protection lists...
Post by: bobcat on March 08, 2015, 10:57:14 AM
Post by: mfswallace on March 08, 2015, 10:59:11 AM
No. That is a common lie that you like to spread in your campaign of misinformation and deceit. WDFW nor I believe there are only 68 wolves in Washington. Nobody except you has ever made such a ridiculous claim. Distorting minimum counts are a common tactic of fringe groups grasping at straws. It's pathetic.WDFW isn't providing estimates...so your allegation they underestimate is bogus.
So according to you and WDFW there are only 68 wolves in WA?
Sounds like an Obama ism idhuntr
U can't have it both ways and since your not part of wdfw I'll leave you out of this but it doesn't take a genius to figure out they aren't telling the full truth! Even a soccer player can figure it out--" If you don't give education to people, it is easy to manipulate them"- Pele
Post by: mfswallace on March 08, 2015, 11:00:50 AM
Wolfbait, do you honestly believe the things that you write on here? :o :dunno:
U don't agree with anything he puts up?
Post by: Special T on March 08, 2015, 11:05:17 AM
If you just look at the overall trend of actions taken by the WDFW AND the USFS its not hard to see that the BOTH are are interested in doing everything in thier power to saturate wolves across the landscape. While Many of us think this is a bad idea Healthy skepticism of their actions does not make us crazy or :tinfoil:
The WDFW and the USFS hs done nothing to EARN the trust of sportsmen on this issue. If anything they have proven otherwise.
Post by: mfswallace on March 08, 2015, 11:12:32 AM
I dont agree with everything WB asserts, BUT it is not hard to see how he has those opinions considering all the 3rd party documentation he has provided.
If you just look at the overall trend of actions taken by the WDFW AND the USFS its not hard to see that the BOTH are are interested in doing everything in thier power to saturate wolves across the landscape. While Many of us think this is a bad idea Healthy skepticism of their actions does not make us crazy or :tinfoil:
The WDFW and the USFS hs done nothing to EARN the trust of sportsmen on this issue. If anything they have proven otherwise.
I use WB's posts and other sources to form my opinion but Bobcat's post seems to outright dismiss his info. Why else would he use the emoticons he did...
Post by: Special T on March 08, 2015, 11:19:18 AM
To me its not a surprise that people have taken the matter into thier own hands. When the agencies HAD the opportunity to turn those affected into allies they failed... Everything since seems to be a back peddle, and it is ALWAYS harder to regain trust once burned than to earn it the right way in the first place...
Post by: bobcat on March 08, 2015, 11:25:23 AM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on March 08, 2015, 11:52:27 AM
Post by: bobcat on March 08, 2015, 12:02:10 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on March 08, 2015, 12:11:29 PM
It's simple- they don't have the money or the personnel to locate and keep track of every single wolf in this state. Isn't that obvious? Even if they had unlimited funds, it still would not be possible to know about every wolf in the state. I don't understand why some people would think that's even possible. And, the thing is, I don't want them wasting any more money than has already been wasted on wolves.
Then they should open the season on them and manage them correctly. You and I both know, especially me, since I've been to Idaho a handful of times hunting them, that 99% of hunters will never see one. That's what I don't understand about our WDFW. Oh, Communist Northwest is the real threat to WDFW, not the wolves.. :tup:
Post by: bobcat on March 08, 2015, 12:15:04 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on March 08, 2015, 12:43:57 PM
I think most people on this forum would be good with a year around season on wolves, same as coyotes. The problem is trying to convince all the non-hunters that that's a good idea.
I agree. The main problem is the enviros, who aren't afraid and are given millions of dollars to sue, for there own agendas, only and not the good of all. Kinda like my way, or the highway.
Post by: wolfbait on March 08, 2015, 02:56:18 PM
No. That is a common lie that you like to spread in your campaign of misinformation and deceit. WDFW nor I believe there are only 68 wolves in Washington. Nobody except you has ever made such a ridiculous claim. Distorting minimum counts are a common tactic of fringe groups grasping at straws. It's pathetic.WDFW isn't providing estimates...so your allegation they underestimate is bogus.
So according to you and WDFW there are only 68 wolves in WA?
"The survey shows the presence of at least 68 gray wolves in the state through Dec. 31, 2014"
Martorello said WDFW conducted the survey by using a combination of aerial surveys, remote cameras, wolf tracks, and signals from seven wolves fitted with radio-collars.
Survey? Sounds more like an estimate or an opinion. Why beat around the bush as to the amount of wolves WDFW have counted?
I-h, I kind of think you and Bobcat don't like the USFWS past wolf history, and you sure don't seem to like it when it matches up with what WDFW are doing.
Post by: denali on March 08, 2015, 03:23:12 PM
I think most people on this forum would be good with a year around season on wolves, same as coyotes. The problem is trying to convince all the non-hunters that that's a good idea.
I have a hard time seeing any wolf hunting in WA, years of litigation fallowed by a voter initiative. will the WDFW publicly go before lawmakers and voters and say we NEED wolf hunting as part of wildlife management ? doubtful. and trapping is a non-starter.
The only mention of hunting I remember in the wolf plan was a comparison to the moose hunt, and a referance that other states will/may hunt wolves.
Post by: Special T on March 08, 2015, 03:24:22 PM
It's simple- they don't have the money or the personnel to locate and keep track of every single wolf in this state. Isn't that obvious? Even if they had unlimited funds, it still would not be possible to know about every wolf in the state. I don't understand why some people would think that's even possible. And, the thing is, I don't want them wasting any more money than has already been wasted on wolves.
Since we ALL knew this to be the case,before this whole fiasco started, why did the WDFW agree to such a High number of BP to be delisted?
I think most people on this forum would be good with a year around season on wolves, same as coyotes. The problem is trying to convince all the non-hunters that that's a good idea.
Once again History of ID and Mt and even WY has shown thar year round hunting and trapping cannot stop wolves.... We only have hunting, not real trapping.... Just goes to show that the WDFW does not use SCIENCE to run the department.
Since you BC and others find WB posts questionable is at least 1 example of a third source that IS reputable... The University of Alaska study cited, several times, that 50-70% of wolves must be harvested to MAINTAIN populations... If you think the University of AK is un-reputable then Im not sure who is...
One of the things I dislike about WB posts is the fact that he doesn't make the ORIGINAL source stand out... Like the Univ of AK... I just happen to remember that one because i have cited it in the past... I know that some here think that Dr Meck and Beers are not reputable but even THEY cite actual science in several of thier documents...
Its fun to get down in the weeds and debate, but the simple fact is that the simple solution is the actual one... The WDFW ACTIONS (or inaction) tells us what we need to know. They cozy up to Anti hunting goups and stick it to hunters and ranchers... Mostly because we/they have limited options...
Post by: bobcat on March 08, 2015, 03:46:03 PM
The number of breeding pairs of wolves was probably the least they could get the wolf loving groups to agree with, and maybe the USFWS as well. I don't know why that's the number they came up with, but I'm sure they have their reasons. I do know that the one WDFW meeting I attended in Olympia just before the wolf plan was officially adopted, there was a wolf lover who spoke, and he was extremely critical of the minimum being 15 breeding pairs. He said 30 should be the absolute minimum.
So maybe we should be happy it's 15 and not 30?
Post by: Special T on March 08, 2015, 03:54:16 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on March 08, 2015, 03:56:34 PM
Post by: Bob33 on March 08, 2015, 04:10:23 PM
I think we all have some valid points, it's just that we cannot get a straight, truthfull answer from a government agency that works for us. It's not the other way around. We pay high salaries, per diems, etc for these workers and we should demand an honest, reliable answer. If not, get rid of them.What dishonest answer are you referring to?
Post by: CAMPMEAT on March 08, 2015, 04:16:40 PM
I think we all have some valid points, it's just that we cannot get a straight, truthfull answer from a government agency that works for us. It's not the other way around. We pay high salaries, per diems, etc for these workers and we should demand an honest, reliable answer. If not, get rid of them.What dishonest answer are you referring to?
The amount of wolves in the state. I don't know if you agree with WDFW or not, but with all the sightings reported to this site alone makes me believe they're not forthright. I reported and had pictures of tracks near Republic 5-6 years ago and the WDFW didn't care. The government will never give an honest answer to anything, ever.
Post by: Bob33 on March 08, 2015, 04:28:17 PM
Which of these answers is dishonest?I think we all have some valid points, it's just that we cannot get a straight, truthfull answer from a government agency that works for us. It's not the other way around. We pay high salaries, per diems, etc for these workers and we should demand an honest, reliable answer. If not, get rid of them.What dishonest answer are you referring to?
The amount of wolves in the state. I don't know if you agree with WDFW or not, but with all the sightings reported to this sight alone makes me believe they're not forthright. I reported and had pictures of tracks near Republic 5-6 years ago and the WDFW didn't care. The government will never give an honest answer to anything, ever.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/packs/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/packs/)
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/news/mar0615a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/mar0615a/)
"While we can't count every wolf in the state, the formation of four new packs is clear evidence that wolves are recovering in Washington," he said. "Since 2011, the number of confirmed wolf packs has more than tripled in our state."
Post by: CAMPMEAT on March 08, 2015, 04:41:28 PM
Which of these answers is dishonest?I think we all have some valid points, it's just that we cannot get a straight, truthfull answer from a government agency that works for us. It's not the other way around. We pay high salaries, per diems, etc for these workers and we should demand an honest, reliable answer. If not, get rid of them.What dishonest answer are you referring to?
The amount of wolves in the state. I don't know if you agree with WDFW or not, but with all the sightings reported to this sight alone makes me believe they're not forthright. I reported and had pictures of tracks near Republic 5-6 years ago and the WDFW didn't care. The government will never give an honest answer to anything, ever.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/packs/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/packs/)
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/news/mar0615a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/mar0615a/)
"While we can't count every wolf in the state, the formation of four new packs is clear evidence that wolves are recovering in Washington," he said. "Since 2011, the number of confirmed wolf packs has more than tripled in our state."
Bob,
How do you expect anybody to give you answer, YOU'RE fishing for, for argument sakes, when we're lied to all the time ? I do not believe any government agency that is afraid of any group like Communist Northwest and others like it. I don't know how old you are, but come on. We have wolves running around here and I never see any WDFW even attempting to do their job here. I can tell you, it's not very easy to keep a secret in this county.
Post by: Ironhead on March 08, 2015, 05:46:14 PM
Post by: wolfbait on March 08, 2015, 06:01:33 PM
I wonder how it is that they know exactly how many Wolves died last year but have no idea how many Wolves are alive.
Good Question :tup: The answer comes out of which magic hat they pull the number from.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 08, 2015, 06:06:03 PM
The one from Conservation NWI wonder how it is that they know exactly how many Wolves died last year but have no idea how many Wolves are alive.
Good Question :tup: The answer comes out of which magic hat they pull the number from.
Post by: bobcat on March 08, 2015, 06:13:33 PM
I wonder how it is that they know exactly how many Wolves died last year but have no idea how many Wolves are alive.
They don't. Where did you see that?
Post by: wolfbait on March 08, 2015, 06:21:12 PM
Which of these answers is dishonest?I think we all have some valid points, it's just that we cannot get a straight, truthfull answer from a government agency that works for us. It's not the other way around. We pay high salaries, per diems, etc for these workers and we should demand an honest, reliable answer. If not, get rid of them.What dishonest answer are you referring to?
The amount of wolves in the state. I don't know if you agree with WDFW or not, but with all the sightings reported to this sight alone makes me believe they're not forthright. I reported and had pictures of tracks near Republic 5-6 years ago and the WDFW didn't care. The government will never give an honest answer to anything, ever.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/packs/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/packs/)
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/news/mar0615a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/mar0615a/)
"While we can't count every wolf in the state, the formation of four new packs is clear evidence that wolves are recovering in Washington," he said. "Since 2011, the number of confirmed wolf packs has more than tripled in our state."
These statements remind me of WDFW's effort at confirming wolf packs/breeding pairs, using the Okanogan county as an example: In 2008 WDFW confirmed the "first wolf pack in Seventy years", and use that one pack to blame all wolf problems and sightings on. They refuse to confirm any other packs in the county even though they know without a doubt there are more packs. They use the excuse that there is not enough funding to document wolves and confirm them.
WDFW doesn't mention in their survey that they don't have enough funding to do an honest count, the pro-wolf groups and WDFW will use the new number to down play the true number of wolves, just like they did with the old numbers last year.
Survey?
Welcome to WDF&Wolves
Post by: wolfbait on March 08, 2015, 06:43:37 PM
I think most people on this forum would be good with a year around season on wolves, same as coyotes. The problem is trying to convince all the non-hunters that that's a good idea.
I have a hard time seeing any wolf hunting in WA, years of litigation fallowed by a voter initiative. will the WDFW publicly go before lawmakers and voters and say we NEED wolf hunting as part of wildlife management ? doubtful. and trapping is a non-starter.
The only mention of hunting I remember in the wolf plan was a comparison to the moose hunt, and a referance that other states will/may hunt wolves.
I think thats what the pro-wolfers and WDFW are hoping for, but when things really start to go bad, perhaps the pressure will change some minds. At any rate the wolf recipes will be in use full time so there will be some management.
Post by: mfswallace on March 08, 2015, 08:47:47 PM
Honestly I don't read 99% of what a Wolfbait posts. None of the information comes from credible sources and it's nothing but exaggerations meant to make the WDFW look bad. I think the majority of the people on this forum are smart enough to understand that the WDFW is not some sinister, rogue, governmental agency intent on allowing wolves to multiply to the point that there will be no deer and elk left in the state. Most of us would prefer not to have any wolves in the state, but we need to remember, the WDFW didn't bring them here in the first place.
The worst kind of stupidity is willful ignorance :o
These kinds of hyperbolic absolutes used so glibly are comical
No need for WB to try and make WDFW look bad they do that well enough themselves :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on March 08, 2015, 09:00:53 PM
Yep...some people never choose to seek information from credible, educated sources and so they lead a life of ignorance.
The worst kind of stupidity is willful ignorance
Post by: jasnt on March 08, 2015, 09:23:13 PM
I'd love to hear what sources are deemed credible and which are not and why?
Post by: SkookumHntr on March 08, 2015, 09:34:24 PM
Post by: mfswallace on March 08, 2015, 10:06:57 PM
Yep...some people never choose to seek information from credible, educated sources and so they lead a life of ignorance.
The worst kind of stupidity is willful ignorance
I agree, poor Bobcat
Post by: buglebrush on March 08, 2015, 11:32:16 PM
Post by: Special T on March 09, 2015, 07:24:57 AM
Post by: wolfbait on March 09, 2015, 09:00:54 AM
It's impossible for the WDFW to base all wildlife management on science. That's just unrealistic. Even deer and elk are not managed by science. If they were, we'd have deer and elk populations at whatever the maximum carrying capacity is determined to be. Instead, populations are managed according to how much damage private landowners are willing to tolerate.
The number of breeding pairs of wolves was probably the least they could get the wolf loving groups to agree with, and maybe the USFWS as well. I don't know why that's the number they came up with, but I'm sure they have their reasons. I do know that the one WDFW meeting I attended in Olympia just before the wolf plan was officially adopted, there was a wolf lover who spoke, and he was extremely critical of the minimum being 15 breeding pairs. He said 30 should be the absolute minimum.
So maybe we should be happy it's 15 and not 30?
"The number of breeding pairs of wolves was probably the least they could get the wolf loving groups to agree with, and maybe the USFWS as well."
Actually it was the USFWS who set the 15 BP's for states managing wolves, my question would be, why did WDFW come out with other wolf plan's when they knew all along they were going to go with 15?
Post by: wolfbait on March 09, 2015, 10:20:31 AM
No. That is a common lie that you like to spread in your campaign of misinformation and deceit. WDFW nor I believe there are only 68 wolves in Washington. Nobody except you has ever made such a ridiculous claim. Distorting minimum counts are a common tactic of fringe groups grasping at straws. It's pathetic.WDFW isn't providing estimates...so your allegation they underestimate is bogus.
So according to you and WDFW there are only 68 wolves in WA?
"The survey shows the presence of at least 68 gray wolves in the state through Dec. 31, 2014"
Martorello said WDFW conducted the survey by using a combination of aerial surveys, remote cameras, wolf tracks, and signals from seven wolves fitted with radio-collars.
Survey? Sounds more like an estimate or an opinion. Why beat around the bush as to the amount of wolves WDFW have counted?
I-h, I kind of think you and Bobcat don't like the USFWS past wolf history, and you sure don't seem to like it when it matches up with what WDFW are doing.
WASHINGTON GRAY WOLF CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT 2012 ANNUAL REPORT
The minimum estimated wolf population in Washington increased by approximately 31% over 2011 levels to at least 51 known wolves in 9 known packs including at least 5 breeding pairs.
POPULATION MONITORING
Wolf monitoring activities occur year-round. The most common monitoring techniques include direct observational counts either from the ground or the air, howling and track surveys, trail camera surveys, and public wolf reports. These techniques are used by biologists to evaluate pack size and reproductive success, identify pack territories, monitor movements and dispersal events, and mitigate conflicts with livestock.
As with all wildlife, counting the total number of wolves on the landscape can be challenging, if not impossible, so biologists use the above techniques to estimate a minimum number that is known to exist on the landscape at the end of the calendar year. Thus, our estimates of wolf numbers, breeding pairs, and pup production are likely conservative and the actual number may be slightly higher. Lone wolves are accounted for when reliable information is available. Suspected wolf packs are those that could not be verified with confidence and they are not included in the reported minimum known estimates. If evidence collected during the most recent calendar year suggests that packs and/or breeding pairs were present on the landscape the previous year, our estimates of the minimum known number of wolves (i.e., total number, packs, breeding pairs) will be updated to reflect this new information. This means that numbers from past reports are subject to change and may differ from numbers included in the most recent annual report.
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt12/FINAL_WA-AnnRep_2012.pdf (http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt12/FINAL_WA-AnnRep_2012.pdf)
In 2012 WDFW's Minimum Estimate Wolf Population was 51 wolves and 5 breeding pairs> That 31% sounds good on paper but when you start looking at the numbers it really sucks. WDFW are slow playing WA, and doing a fine job of it, what year was it that WDFW added One Wolf?
Survey? Seems WDFW are just changing the terminology. Maybe it sounds better?
Post by: idahohuntr on March 09, 2015, 10:46:41 AM
Post by: mountainman on March 09, 2015, 10:53:21 AM
Post by: mfswallace on March 09, 2015, 10:56:23 AM
I'm curious why they report the wolf population as a minimum number (i.e., at least 68 as of the end of last year). It seems like the more common method for a wildlife survey is to determine a count in a handful of areas and then assume that density exists in other areas and generate an estimate of the total population based on that. Do they not do something similar in this case because the numbers are small compared to other species, or do they assume they have a bead on every wolf pack there is in the state today?It was protocol established when wolves were reintroduced and makes sense from a species recovery standpoint when they are at low abundance...what is the minimum we know to exist. WDFW adopted the existing format in part because its identical to what other states were collecting and understood/accepted by USFWS which still has jurisdiction over wolves in the western 2/3 of the state. Kind of a "lets not re-invent the wheel" approach. WDFW is very aware they do not have a bead on every pack. Based on other states data it is often assumed that around 30% of the packs are not identified...so if we know of 16 right now...that would mean they are thinking there is closer to 21 packs in WA.
As far as your comment about extrapolating estimates to generate an actual total estimate, instead of just a minimum count, I have heard wdfw staff walk people through the simple math...known packs + estimated unknown packs (30%) x average number of wolves in a pack + some portion of wolves that are singles/loners = number of wolves in WA. Doing that kind of math puts washingtons wolf numbers well into the hundreds. I am still uncertain why they don't report a total estimate...however, all de-listing criteria are based on number and location of bp's...not total numbers so I guess it doesn't really matter from a management standpoint :dunno:
So if wdfw uses this accepted method why not give the public the real numbers they believe are in the state??
Post by: bearpaw on March 09, 2015, 11:34:38 AM
I'm curious why they report the wolf population as a minimum number (i.e., at least 68 as of the end of last year). It seems like the more common method for a wildlife survey is to determine a count in a handful of areas and then assume that density exists in other areas and generate an estimate of the total population based on that. Do they not do something similar in this case because the numbers are small compared to other species, or do they assume they have a bead on every wolf pack there is in the state today?It was protocol established when wolves were reintroduced and makes sense from a species recovery standpoint when they are at low abundance...what is the minimum we know to exist. WDFW adopted the existing format in part because its identical to what other states were collecting and understood/accepted by USFWS which still has jurisdiction over wolves in the western 2/3 of the state. Kind of a "lets not re-invent the wheel" approach. WDFW is very aware they do not have a bead on every pack. Based on other states data it is often assumed that around 30% of the packs are not identified...so if we know of 16 right now...that would mean they are thinking there is closer to 21 packs in WA.
As far as your comment about extrapolating estimates to generate an actual total estimate, instead of just a minimum count, I have heard wdfw staff walk people through the simple math...known packs + estimated unknown packs (30%) x average number of wolves in a pack + some portion of wolves that are singles/loners = number of wolves in WA. Doing that kind of math puts washingtons wolf numbers well into the hundreds. I am still uncertain why they don't report a total estimate...however, all de-listing criteria are based on number and location of bp's...not total numbers so I guess it doesn't really matter from a management standpoint :dunno:
So if wdfw uses this accepted method why not give the public the real numbers they believe are in the state??
Because they don't know how many wolves there are!
The minimum is simply the number they want to acknowledge as being confirmed. Numbers are likely growing substantially every year, but WDFW does not do a very good job of confirming wolves, their wolf trappers weren't trappers, in fact if the wolves didn't kill cattle and sheep WDFW wouldn't know that there are 68 wolves.
Livestock producers and other local citizens are confirming more wolves than WDFW! :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on March 09, 2015, 11:40:38 AM
Post by: mfswallace on March 09, 2015, 11:53:08 AM
Of course they don't know how many wolves are in the state, and they freely admit that. I would think that we, as hunters, would know that it's virtually impossible to come up with an accurate count of wolves, or any wild animal for that matter.
You really don't expect the state agency responsible for managing our wildlife to know the populations of said wildlife :yike:
Other agencies are able to do their job very accurately, why not wdfw?
Post by: wolfbait on March 09, 2015, 01:32:00 PM
No. That is a common lie that you like to spread in your campaign of misinformation and deceit. WDFW nor I believe there are only 68 wolves in Washington. Nobody except you has ever made such a ridiculous claim. Distorting minimum counts are a common tactic of fringe groups grasping at straws. It's pathetic.WDFW isn't providing estimates...so your allegation they underestimate is bogus.
So according to you and WDFW there are only 68 wolves in WA?
"WDFW isn't providing estimates...so your allegation they underestimate is bogus."
"Martorello said the scarcity of snow made it more difficult to track wolves late last year, complicating the 2014 survey. As a result, the survey likely underestimates the number of wolves, packs, and breeding pairs, he said.
"Martorello noted that the number of confirmed successful breeding pairs in the annual wolf survey has remained the same for the past three years, despite a significant increase in the number of individual wolves. Since 2012, WDFW has documented a total of five breeding pairs between the Eastern Washington and North Cascades recovery regions."
Since it has been proven that WDFW were estimating in their wolf count, how can anyone say there are 68 wolves now or that WDFW are even close to the Minimum wolf count? Remember Mech stated that wolves double in population each year.
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. Read More @
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf)
Post by: mfswallace on March 09, 2015, 05:55:32 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on March 09, 2015, 06:40:34 PM
There are a MINIMUM of 68 wolves in WA state as of 31 Dec 2014. Its not a projection or estimate of the total number of wolves in WA state. Nobody suggests it represents a total estimate...thats why they insert that tricky little word "Minimum". Your desire to over complicate such a simple subject suggests you are not interested in reporting accurate information...what a shock.There you go wallace...in case you missed it the first time.
Post by: bobcat on March 09, 2015, 06:52:26 PM
Of course they don't know how many wolves are in the state, and they freely admit that. I would think that we, as hunters, would know that it's virtually impossible to come up with an accurate count of wolves, or any wild animal for that matter.
You really don't expect the state agency responsible for managing our wildlife to know the populations of said wildlife :yike:
Other agencies are able to do their job very accurately, why not wdfw?
I don't think the WDFW is any different than other state wildlife agencies when it comes to accurately estimating wildlife populations. And the key word in that is "estimating." Because that's all it ever is. And as I already said, we, as hunters, should understand this better than anyone.
How do you count something that hides in the mountains and doesn't want to be found or seen? Answer: you don't.
That's why the WDFW mostly uses hunter success rates to estimate deer and elk numbers. They don't know the overall numbers, all they can do is try to determine whether the populations are decreasing, increasing, or stable.
Post by: mfswallace on March 09, 2015, 08:08:24 PM
Survey = estimate
And again- As far as your comment about extrapolating estimates to generate an actual total estimate, instead of just a minimum count, I have heard wdfw staff walk people through the simple math...known packs + estimated unknown packs (30%) x average number of wolves in a pack + some portion of wolves that are singles/loners = number of wolves in WA. Doing that kind of math puts washingtons wolf numbers well into the hundreds. I am still uncertain why they don't report a total estimate...however, all de-listing criteria are based on number and location of bp's...not total numbers so I guess it doesn't really matter from a management standpoint :dunno:
So if wdfw uses this accepted method why not give the public the real numbers they believe are in the state??
Bob-very sad u don't expect more from the agency you gave so much money to when you harvested your sheep. I know they don't use hunter reporting to set number of sheep harvestable! At least you unlike idhntr admit it is an estimate being used to keep the general public uninformed
Post by: idahohuntr on March 09, 2015, 08:15:09 PM
Post by: mfswallace on March 09, 2015, 09:06:57 PM
There are a MINIMUM of 68 wolves in WA state as of 31 Dec 2014. Its not a projection or estimate of the total number of wolves in WA state. Nobody suggests it represents a total estimate...thats why they insert that tricky little word "Minimum". Your desire to over complicate such a simple subject suggests you are not interested in reporting accurate information...what a shock.
They use "wolf tracks" in this minimum count, if that is how they got 68 wolves you must admit that is not accurate information....but more of an estimate.
Post by: Special T on March 09, 2015, 09:16:40 PM
HOWEVER when the WDFW uses them THEY area allowed to use them to estimate numbers....
We are just trying to get them to investigate and document them with our findings....
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 10, 2015, 07:23:20 AM
The count is the number of wolves that they KNOW TO EXIST. I'm not sure how anyone can make it more clear. It's not a matter of semantics or trickery.
Wallace... Survey is not synonymous with estimate.
Post by: wolfbait on March 10, 2015, 07:43:53 AM
It is stupid to ESTIMATE the number of wolves. The WDFW needs to defend (clearly...) the CUNSUS of wolves. They can't pull a number from a dark place.
The count is the number of wolves that they KNOW TO EXIST. I'm not sure how anyone can make it more clear. It's not a matter of semantics or trickery.
Wallace... Survey is not synonymous with estimate.
So basically WDFW look at all the tracks and cam pictures etc. and then project their estimate of wolves to come up with their "official" count.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 10, 2015, 07:56:08 AM
So, if there is an area with a cluster of sightings reported the WDFW will set cameras and do some track surveys. If they find multiple animals on camera or by howling/tracks they can document the number OF KNOWN ANIMALS...not an estimate, a count.
Post by: wolfbait on March 10, 2015, 09:17:23 AM
no. They look at collar data and fly to do a visual COUNT of wolves in packs that they can get eyes on. In packs/known ranges that they don't have collared or know much about, they look at tracks and cam pictures to confirm individuals.
So, if there is an area with a cluster of sightings reported the WDFW will set cameras and do some track surveys. If they find multiple animals on camera or by howling/tracks they can document the number OF KNOWN ANIMALS...not an estimate, a count.
So WDFW are lying when they talk about their wolf estimations?
"Martorello said the scarcity of snow made it more difficult to track wolves late last year, complicating the 2014 survey. As a result, the survey likely underestimates the number of wolves, packs, and breeding pairs, he said."
Post by: wolfbait on March 10, 2015, 09:22:04 AM
no. They look at collar data and fly to do a visual COUNT of wolves in packs that they can get eyes on. In packs/known ranges that they don't have collared or know much about, they look at tracks and cam pictures to confirm individuals.
So, if there is an area with a cluster of sightings reported the WDFW will set cameras and do some track surveys. If they find multiple animals on camera or by howling/tracks they can document the number OF KNOWN ANIMALS...not an estimate, a count.
So WDFW can look at a cam picture and tell which wolf made which track? That's a pretty unique trick. :yike:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 10, 2015, 11:34:03 AM
Post by: mfswallace on March 10, 2015, 01:14:43 PM
What? No. They can tell that there is a wolf on camera, and if there are two sets of distinct tracks they can tell there are two wolves. It's not a fancy trick. It's very common sense.
Your saying in a pack of 4-20 wolves they can distinguish all individuals? LOL
You can keep using semantics but in this case it's not my words putting estimate and survey together-- Martollo-- As a result, the survey likely underestimates the number of wolves, packs, and breeding pairs, he said."
Post by: Special T on March 10, 2015, 03:41:50 PM
It's impossible for the WDFW to base all wildlife management on science. That's just unrealistic. Even deer and elk are not managed by science. If they were, we'd have deer and elk populations at whatever the maximum carrying capacity is determined to be. Instead, populations are managed according to how much damage private landowners are willing to tolerate.
The number of breeding pairs of wolves was probably the least they could get the wolf loving groups to agree with, and maybe the USFWS as well. I don't know why that's the number they came up with, but I'm sure they have their reasons. I do know that the one WDFW meeting I attended in Olympia just before the wolf plan was officially adopted, there was a wolf lover who spoke, and he was extremely critical of the minimum being 15 breeding pairs. He said 30 should be the absolute minimum.
So maybe we should be happy it's 15 and not 30?
"The number of breeding pairs of wolves was probably the least they could get the wolf loving groups to agree with, and maybe the USFWS as well."
Actually it was the USFWS who set the 15 BP's for states managing wolves, my question would be, why did WDFW come out with other wolf plan's when they knew all along they were going to go with 15?
This is a common practice in Government. Pick an number that you want offer a higher number and lower number... you seem reasonable because you pick the middle one... Even if the lowest number is still way to high...
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 10, 2015, 04:26:44 PM
Are you guys for real right now? Re-read the posts explaining a SURVEY from an ESTIMATE....What? No. They can tell that there is a wolf on camera, and if there are two sets of distinct tracks they can tell there are two wolves. It's not a fancy trick. It's very common sense.
Your saying in a pack of 4-20 wolves they can distinguish all individuals? LOL
You can keep using semantics but in this case it's not my words putting estimate and survey together-- Martollo-- As a result, the survey likely underestimates the number of wolves, packs, and breeding pairs, he said."
Good grief, no wonder your reports to the WDFW get tossed out the windows. Are you seriously unable to tell the difference? I will try to be very clear and use very small words to make sure you get it.....
THE SURVEY (Census, number of wolves actually documented and defensible) does not include every animal in the state. They admit that. They could estimate the number, but you're ilk would say its a gross underestimation and the rabid pro wolfers would say it's an over estimation.
Martollo-- "As a result, the survey likely underestimates the number of wolves, packs, and breeding pairs, he said."
Seriously, you guys should join. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org)
Post by: wolfbait on March 10, 2015, 05:02:37 PM
Are you guys for real right now? Re-read the posts explaining a SURVEY from an ESTIMATE....What? No. They can tell that there is a wolf on camera, and if there are two sets of distinct tracks they can tell there are two wolves. It's not a fancy trick. It's very common sense.
Your saying in a pack of 4-20 wolves they can distinguish all individuals? LOL
You can keep using semantics but in this case it's not my words putting estimate and survey together-- Martollo-- As a result, the survey likely underestimates the number of wolves, packs, and breeding pairs, he said."
Good grief, no wonder your reports to the WDFW get tossed out the windows. Are you seriously unable to tell the difference? I will try to be very clear and use very small words to make sure you get it.....
THE SURVEY (Census, number of wolves actually documented and defensible) does not include every animal in the state. They admit that. They could estimate the number, but you're ilk would say its a gross underestimation and the rabid pro wolfers would say it's an over estimation.
Martollo-- "As a result, the survey likely underestimates the number of wolves, packs, and breeding pairs, he said."
Seriously, you guys should join. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org)
"THE SURVEY (Census, number of wolves actually documented and defensible) does not include every animal in the state. They admit that. They could estimate the number, but you're ilk would say its a gross underestimation and the rabid pro wolfers would say it's an over estimation."
No one is suggesting that WDFW are including every wolf in the state, that's just poor reading on your part, or maybe lack of understanding. This started out with whether WDFW were estimating wolves in their "minimum" counts, and the answer is yes.
Looking at WDFW's history at confirming wolf packs or BP's, and adding one wolf for 2013 as the years increase, does give people doubts as to WDFW's honesty. And then there is the lack of interest in confirming known wolf packs, WDFW claiming they don't have the funding?
Folks in Idaho have stated the best way to tell if you have a wolf problem is to watch your game herds plummet.
Post by: wolfbait on March 10, 2015, 07:14:18 PM
By allowing wolves to multiply without interference, except for the few dozen that are killed each year after attacking livestock, a growing number of uncollared wolves will be overlooked. With admittedly inadequate resources to continue to document, count and radio-collar 1 or 2 wolves each in the rapidly increasing number of packs, accurate estimates of total wolf numbers will be impossible to obtain. (see admission in Appendix A that the actual number of wolves is likely more than the 732 estimated due to failure to include the [seven] suspected packs in the estimator.)
“Appendix B” describes how FWS will allow all three states to estimate rather than continue to document the number of breeding pairs as they assume management. With the requirement for accurate wolf counts waived, it becomes increasingly important for state wildlife managers to admit the impact of excessive wolf populations and reduce wolf numbers dramatically where it is indicated.
Instead, on March 6, 2008 the Idaho F&G Commission ignored the wolf plan approved by the Idaho Legislature and FWS to manage for 15 breeding pairs, and unanimously endorsed a plan to maintain at least 500 wolves – the equivalent of 50 breeding pairs!
Excuses For Not Controlling Wolves
In January 2008, FWS Wolf Project Leader Ed Bangs told the media, “Wolves are never the primary cause (of failure to achieve elk population objectives). The primary cause is always habitat."
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf)
Post by: mfswallace on March 10, 2015, 07:21:26 PM
you must have missed it so I put in bold for you and I'm not interest in joining your club but thanks and keep recruiting I'm sure there are more like u here :chuckle:What? No. They can tell that there is a wolf on camera, and if there are two sets of distinct tracks they can tell there are two wolves. It's not a fancy trick. It's very common sense.
Your saying in a pack of 4-20 wolves they can distinguish all individuals? LOL
You can keep using semantics but in this case it's not my words putting estimate and survey together-- Martollo-- As a result, the survey likely underestimates the number of wolves, packs, and breeding pairs, he said."
THE SURVEY (Census, number of wolves actually documented and defensible) does not include every animal in the state. They admit that. They could estimate the number, but you're ilk would say its a gross underestimation and the rabid pro wolfers would say it's an over estimation.
Martollo-- "As a result, the survey likely underestimates the number of wolves, packs, and breeding pairs, he said."
idhuntr has been kind enough to share wdfw's accepted formula for estimating wolves and says it is common practic, so why not tell the public what they really believe the wolf population to be?? I'm sure if they admitted there were actually a few hundred perception would be different
Post by: idahohuntr on March 10, 2015, 09:58:52 PM
Post by: mfswallace on March 10, 2015, 11:50:48 PM
There is no accepted formula. I just shared what Martorello has discussed in public meetings. I would call it Accepted if WDFW employees use it and tell people at public meetings, why not at least put it in there yearly report and be consistent? WDFW does not provide estimates of total wolf populations to my knowledge. As WaCoyotehunter notes, its probably because too many people who can't even grasp minimum counts would twist those numbers all sorts of ways. Also, total numbers play no part in de-listing and recovery goals...so its not really a useful management number.
I can can grasp minimum counts it's just an estimated minimum and you aren't grasping that,
I guess I don't understand why you don't see the word estimates in Martorello's quote, is it because it has under before it :dunno:
Hopefully not for long
I don't understand why anyone would think knowing total numbers of animals isn't meaningful/useful, if not from a management standpoint at the very least a scientific standpoint to know just what wolves are capable of doing to ungulate populations. You can't say there isn't a difference in knowing if 68 wolves in the state kill a prodigious amount or negligible amount compared to what a few hundred wolves would do...
Your clearly not going to see why I feel it is important that we don't go down the road of every other wolf reintroduction area that has seen vast amounts of ungulates Murdered :chuckle:(sorry just taking a page from the anti's to give myself a chuckle). "Let's just see what happens" isn't something Washington needs to do as we have plenty of scientific data that shows the upcoming decimation of ungulate herds :bash: I know you want management but to simply let the issue go unchallenged because we have the wolf plan the we have is silly imo
Post by: idahohuntr on March 11, 2015, 08:00:28 AM
If you want to get really technical here...Martorello was not actually quoted in that press release. I work with a ton of PR folks and reporters...it would not surprise me in the least if they erred in their press release in how he characterized the minimum counts.There is no accepted formula. I just shared what Martorello has discussed in public meetings. I would call it Accepted if WDFW employees use it and tell people at public meetings, why not at least put it in there yearly report and be consistent? WDFW does not provide estimates of total wolf populations to my knowledge. As WaCoyotehunter notes, its probably because too many people who can't even grasp minimum counts would twist those numbers all sorts of ways. Also, total numbers play no part in de-listing and recovery goals...so its not really a useful management number.
I can can grasp minimum counts it's just an estimated minimum and you aren't grasping that,
I guess I don't understand why you don't see the word estimates in Martorello's quote, is it because it has under before it :dunno:
Hopefully not for long
I don't understand why anyone would think knowing total numbers of animals isn't meaningful/useful, if not from a management standpoint at the very least a scientific standpoint to know just what wolves are capable of doing to ungulate populations. You can't say there isn't a difference in knowing if 68 wolves in the state kill a prodigious amount or negligible amount compared to what a few hundred wolves would do...
Your clearly not going to see why I feel it is important that we don't go down the road of every other wolf reintroduction area that has seen vast amounts of ungulates Murdered :chuckle:(sorry just taking a page from the anti's to give myself a chuckle). "Let's just see what happens" isn't something Washington needs to do as we have plenty of scientific data that shows the upcoming decimation of ungulate herds :bash: I know you want management but to simply let the issue go unchallenged because we have the wolf plan the we have is silly imo
There's a ton of information that would be nice to know...but information costs money. If the management goals and recovery are not based on total numbers...its not a priority.
My bigger issue in this thread is those who are trying to suggest wdfw is lying about wolf numbers or hiding something. They are not. They are very clear what they put out are minimums...meaning there are at least that many with 100% certainty...but likely many more. During a species recovery effort focusing on what the lowest/most conservative population might be is common and reasonable. WDFW does report growth rates annually, which is probably the most useful number...wolves increased 30% last year...thats a number irrespective of the minimum or total estimate...whatever we had for wolves in 2013, they increased 30% last year.
Post by: wolfbait on March 11, 2015, 08:36:28 AM
If you want to get really technical here...Martorello was not actually quoted in that press release. I work with a ton of PR folks and reporters...it would not surprise me in the least if they erred in their press release in how he characterized the minimum counts.>>>> :yike: Maybe Mortorello misspoke now that "estimating" after the "survey" isn't turning out to well for the "minimum" argument?There is no accepted formula. I just shared what Martorello has discussed in public meetings. I would call it Accepted if WDFW employees use it and tell people at public meetings, why not at least put it in there yearly report and be consistent? WDFW does not provide estimates of total wolf populations to my knowledge. As WaCoyotehunter notes, its probably because too many people who can't even grasp minimum counts would twist those numbers all sorts of ways. Also, total numbers play no part in de-listing and recovery goals...so its not really a useful management number.
I can can grasp minimum counts it's just an estimated minimum and you aren't grasping that,
I guess I don't understand why you don't see the word estimates in Martorello's quote, is it because it has under before it :dunno:
Hopefully not for long
I don't understand why anyone would think knowing total numbers of animals isn't meaningful/useful, if not from a management standpoint at the very least a scientific standpoint to know just what wolves are capable of doing to ungulate populations. You can't say there isn't a difference in knowing if 68 wolves in the state kill a prodigious amount or negligible amount compared to what a few hundred wolves would do...
Your clearly not going to see why I feel it is important that we don't go down the road of every other wolf reintroduction area that has seen vast amounts of ungulates Murdered :chuckle:(sorry just taking a page from the anti's to give myself a chuckle). "Let's just see what happens" isn't something Washington needs to do as we have plenty of scientific data that shows the upcoming decimation of ungulate herds :bash: I know you want management but to simply let the issue go unchallenged because we have the wolf plan the we have is silly imo
There's a ton of information that would be nice to know...but information costs money. If the management goals and recovery are not based on total numbers...its not a priority.
My bigger issue in this thread is those who are trying to suggest wdfw is lying about wolf numbers or hiding something. They are not. They are very clear what they put out are minimums...meaning there are at least that many with 100% certainty...but likely many more. During a species recovery effort focusing on what the lowest/most conservative population might be is common and reasonable. WDFW does report growth rates annually, which is probably the most useful number...wolves increased 30% last year...thats a number irrespective of the minimum or total estimate...whatever we had for wolves in 2013, they increased 30% last year.
"There's a ton of information that would be nice to know...but information costs money. If the management goals and recovery are not based on total numbers...its not a priority."
The excuse for not confirming wolf packs and BP's is lack of funding. your statement pretty much sums up the wolf introduction, it isn't about a recovered population, it's about filling states with as many wolves as possible. WA has had 5 BP's for how many years now? At the rate WDFW are confirming BP's WA will have way too many wolves by the time there is any wolf control/management.
What's the growth rate for One Wolf per year? Yep, WDFW are doing their level best.
Post by: wolfbait on March 11, 2015, 08:38:29 AM
There is no accepted formula. I just shared what Martorello has discussed in public meetings. I would call it Accepted if WDFW employees use it and tell people at public meetings, why not at least put it in there yearly report and be consistent? WDFW does not provide estimates of total wolf populations to my knowledge. As WaCoyotehunter notes, its probably because too many people who can't even grasp minimum counts would twist those numbers all sorts of ways. Also, total numbers play no part in de-listing and recovery goals...so its not really a useful management number.
I can can grasp minimum counts it's just an estimated minimum and you aren't grasping that,
I guess I don't understand why you don't see the word estimates in Martorello's quote, is it because it has under before it :dunno:
Hopefully not for long
I don't understand why anyone would think knowing total numbers of animals isn't meaningful/useful, if not from a management standpoint at the very least a scientific standpoint to know just what wolves are capable of doing to ungulate populations. You can't say there isn't a difference in knowing if 68 wolves in the state kill a prodigious amount or negligible amount compared to what a few hundred wolves would do...
Your clearly not going to see why I feel it is important that we don't go down the road of every other wolf reintroduction area that has seen vast amounts of ungulates Murdered :chuckle:(sorry just taking a page from the anti's to give myself a chuckle). "Let's just see what happens" isn't something Washington needs to do as we have plenty of scientific data that shows the upcoming decimation of ungulate herds :bash: I know you want management but to simply let the issue go unchallenged because we have the wolf plan the we have is silly imo
:yeah: :tup:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 11, 2015, 09:15:37 AM
I can can grasp minimum counts it's just an estimated minimum and you aren't grasping that,
No, you're not grasping it. IT IS AN ACTUAL COUNT... not an estimated minimum. THEY KNOW THE MINUMUM NUMBER, the maximum would be an estimation. That's actually what HuntWa has done.
I agree that it would be nice to know every wolf in the woods. The WA wolf bios would love to have that information too. It's a tough project and they are not getting much help from either side of the pro/anti wolf contingent. So, until we can push for more collars and data we will have to estimate the population. I would not count on the WDFW generating a decent population estimate any time soon. It's a fool's errand and will only lead to a bunch of drama from the fringes.
Post by: wolfbait on March 11, 2015, 09:40:57 AM
I can can grasp minimum counts it's just an estimated minimum and you aren't grasping that,
No, you're not grasping it. IT IS AN ACTUAL COUNT... not an estimated minimum. THEY KNOW THE MINUMUM NUMBER, the maximum would be an estimation. That's actually what HuntWa has done.
I agree that it would be nice to know every wolf in the woods. The WA wolf bios would love to have that information too. It's a tough project and they are not getting much help from either side of the pro/anti wolf contingent. So, until we can push for more collars and data we will have to estimate the population. I would not count on the WDFW generating a decent population estimate any time soon. It's a fool's errand and will only lead to a bunch of drama from the fringes.
Before WDFW came out with their "survey" they were estimating wolves, and estimation is not an accurate count, so they don't actually know the "minimum" count, unless they counted 68 wolves this spring.
No one has suggested that every wolf in the woods needs to be confirmed, but refusing to estimate the true number of wolves, only shows that WDFW do not want people to get an idea as to the impact, many more wolves are having on WA. The USFWS did the very same thing with wolf introduction into the Yellowstone and Idaho.
Don't you think WDFW should be getting counts on the game herds and studying the impact from wolves, instead of predicting the weather and killing off more breeding stock. Not enough funding for that either?
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 11, 2015, 09:53:06 AM
I suspect that trying to model wolves as they expand range and distribution is nearly impossible. I think they could shoot a number out for a "Statewide Estimate" but it would likely be about as accurate as our statewide cougar population estimate... :rolleyes:
Post by: mfswallace on March 11, 2015, 10:05:11 AM
Yes, I think WDFW should be doing more. I wish they were counting every deer, elk, moose, lion and wolf in the woods. But the reality of that survey is too daunting.
I suspect that trying to model wolves as they expand range and distribution is nearly impossible. I think they could shoot a number out for a "Statewide Estimate" but it would likely be about as accurate as our statewide cougar population estimate... :rolleyes:
:tup: Except the part of just accepting it is to daunting and therefore should not be attempted