Post by: stocmamu on March 16, 2018, 02:09:10 PM
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/
March 16, 2018
Contact: Donny Martorello, (360) 902-2521
Ben Maletzke, (509) 592-7324
Bruce Botka, (360) 902-2262
Washington's wolf population increases for 9th straight year
OLYMPIA – Washington's wolf population continued to grow in 2017 for the ninth straight year, according to the results of an annual survey conducted by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
The state was home to at least 122 wolves, 22 packs, and 14 successful breeding pairs, based on field surveys conducted over the winter by state, tribal, and federal wildlife managers.
Survey findings reflect information from aerial surveys, remote cameras, wolf tracks, and signals from radio-collared wolves.
Ben Maletzke, WDFW statewide wolf specialist, said today that all of those totals were the highest recorded since the department began conducting the surveys in 2008. Last year's survey documented 115 wolves, 20 packs, and 10 breeding pairs.
Maletzke emphasized the surveys represent "minimum counts" of wolves in Washington state, due to the difficulty of accounting for every animal – especially lone wolves without a pack.
"Here and in other states, wolf demographics are highly dynamic from year to year," Maletzke said. "The real value of these surveys is the information they provide about long-term trends, which show that our state's wolf population has grown by an annual average of 31 percent over the past decade."
Maletzke said the study documented four new packs – the Frosty, Grouse Flats, Leadpoint, and Togo packs – all located east of the Cascade Mountains. Two previously identified packs – the Skookum and Sherman packs – were not included in the pack totals for last year because the first could not be located and the second now appears to have only one member.
Wildlife managers have also been tracking the movements of a wolf in the North Cascades in Skagit County that was captured and fitted with a radio-collar last June, but so far no other wolves have been confirmed in the area, Maletzke said.
All but eliminated from western states in the last century, Washington's wolf population has rebounded since 2008, when wildlife managers documented a resident pack in Okanogan County. According the 2017 survey, 15 of the 22 known packs are located in Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Oreille counties in the northeast corner of the state.
Since 1980, gray wolves have been listed under state law as endangered throughout Washington. In the western two-thirds of the state, they are also listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act.
As the state's wolf population has continued to grow, WDFW has expanded its efforts to collaborate with livestock producers, conservation groups, and local residents to prevent conflict between wolves and domestic animals, Maletzke said.
WDFW employed an array of non-lethal strategies last year to reduce conflicts, including cost-sharing agreements with 37 ranchers who took proactive steps to protect their livestock. State assistance included range riders to check on livestock, guard dogs, lighting, flagging for fences, and data on certain packs' movements.
Maletzke said five of the 22 known packs that existed in Washington at some point during 2017 were involved in at least one livestock mortality. After conducting investigations, WDFW confirmed that wolves killed at least eight cattle and injured five others last year. WDFW processed two claims totaling $3,700 to compensate livestock producers for their losses in 2017.
"We know that some level of conflict is inevitable between wolves and livestock sharing the landscape," Maletzke said. "Our goal is to minimize that conflict as the gray wolf population continues to recover."
State management of wolves is guided by the Wolf Conservation and Management Plan of 2011, along with a protocol approved by WDFW to reduce those conflicts.
Consistent with the management plan and protocol, the department used lethal action to address repeated predation on livestock by two wolf packs after non-lethal measures failed. WDFW euthanized one member of the Sherman pack, which killed four cattle and injured another during last year's summer grazing season. The department also removed two wolves from the Smackout pack, which had a history of preying on livestock in 2016 and killed two cattle and injured another during the 2017 grazing season.
The survey also documented 11 wolf mortalities in 2017 attributed to legal tribal harvest (3), legal "caught-in-the-act" shootings (2), vehicle collisions (2), and four (4) other incidents involving humans that are still under investigation.
Contributors to WDFW's annual survey include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services program, the Confederated Colville Tribes and the Spokane Tribe of Indians.
The results will be reviewed with the State Fish and Wildlife Commission on March 17 in Wenatchee. Complete survey results will be posted on WDFW's website by March 30 at https://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/.
Post by: bearpaw on March 16, 2018, 04:53:54 PM
What's interesting, if the wolves come close to where one of the feed bales is placed, the cattle and the horses seem to avoid that bale for a day or two. They seem to know their names are backstrap, sirloin, and tenderloin to those wolves! :chuckle:
Wolves are being seen by all kinds of people anymore.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on March 16, 2018, 05:55:23 PM
Post by: mfswallace on March 16, 2018, 06:29:35 PM
Post by: Taco280AI on March 16, 2018, 06:55:07 PM
Post by: northwesthunter84 on March 16, 2018, 08:25:44 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 16, 2018, 08:45:07 PM
By "at least 122" they really mean 400?
1400 you mean
Post by: Turner89 on March 16, 2018, 08:51:39 PM
What about the new pack the tribe documented. Wasn’t there just a press release on that one. I know I saw a thread. I don’t see that one listed.:yeah:
Hard to believe with as many sightings as there seems to be, that there's only 122+-.
That's a lot of country for that small of #, and that many sightings :dunno:
Post by: KFhunter on March 16, 2018, 08:52:49 PM
Post by: banishd on March 16, 2018, 09:20:38 PM
Post by: stocmamu on March 16, 2018, 10:05:36 PM
https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2018/03/mar_1518_27_presentation.pdf
Post by: wolfbait on March 16, 2018, 10:12:23 PM
What about the new pack the tribe documented. Wasn’t there just a press release on that one. I know I saw a thread. I don’t see that one listed.:yeah:
Hard to believe with as many sightings as there seems to be, that there's only 122+-.
That's a lot of country for that small of #, and that many sightings :dunno:
You have to go to a special school to learn how to count like WDF&wolves do.
Remember the "lookout pack with four of five wolves? For several years WDF&wolves claimed that every wolf sighted in the Okanogan was just part of the lookout pack. They ignored a pack up Bridge Cr, that was sighted the same day a pack was seen by Carlton in 2011. then there was/is a pack in McFarland Cr-Black Canyon country that they have ignored for several years and the WDF&wolves BS lies continue. Welcome to the fraud and corruption of the wolf introduction.
122 wolves in 16 years, most of WA's wolves must be gay.
Post by: Seahawk12 on March 16, 2018, 10:17:00 PM
An apex predator with no check or balance is gaining in numbers?
Well, color me shocked.
Why do they continue to lie about the #s?
Post by: fowl smacker on March 16, 2018, 10:20:09 PM
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on March 17, 2018, 12:29:51 AM
Post by: X-Force on March 17, 2018, 08:14:32 AM
The $400k wdfw is spending on a conflict manager could really pay dividends in wolf documentation and monitoring.
Post by: Ridgeratt on March 17, 2018, 08:25:59 AM
Post by: wolfbait on March 17, 2018, 02:28:37 PM
I don’t see how there is all this negativity when we haven’t seen the report yet. Minimum populations are just that minimum. The actual population is probably substantially higher... But it’s not the job of biologists to give you assumed or possible populations.
The $400k wdfw is spending on a conflict manager could really pay dividends in wolf documentation and monitoring.
Biologist down play the impact on game herds, refuse to confirm wolf predation on livestock and have a lot of input on wolf recovery, much of the disinformation on wolves comes from biologists.
According to fitkin the lookout pack was the only pack in the Okanogan for several years, even though he knew of other packs in the Okanogan.
The $$$ payed to the "conflict manager" is a waste of money. The whole wolf introduction into WA is a waste of $, unless you work for WDFW or the fake environmentalists concerning wolves.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 17, 2018, 07:46:16 PM
Once again, wolves were not introduced into WA.I don’t see how there is all this negativity when we haven’t seen the report yet. Minimum populations are just that minimum. The actual population is probably substantially higher... But it’s not the job of biologists to give you assumed or possible populations.
The $400k wdfw is spending on a conflict manager could really pay dividends in wolf documentation and monitoring.
Biologist down play the impact on game herds, refuse to confirm wolf predation on livestock and have a lot of input on wolf recovery, much of the disinformation on wolves comes from biologists.
According to fitkin the lookout pack was the only pack in the Okanogan for several years, even though he knew of other packs in the Okanogan.
The $$$ payed to the "conflict manager" is a waste of money. The whole wolf introduction into WA is a waste of $, unless you work for WDFW or the fake environmentalists concerning wolves.
Post by: bigmacc on March 17, 2018, 08:24:38 PM
Once again, wolves were not introduced into WA.I don’t see how there is all this negativity when we haven’t seen the report yet. Minimum populations are just that minimum. The actual population is probably substantially higher... But it’s not the job of biologists to give you assumed or possible populations.
The $400k wdfw is spending on a conflict manager could really pay dividends in wolf documentation and monitoring.
Biologist down play the impact on game herds, refuse to confirm wolf predation on livestock and have a lot of input on wolf recovery, much of the disinformation on wolves comes from biologists.
According to fitkin the lookout pack was the only pack in the Okanogan for several years, even though he knew of other packs in the Okanogan.
The $$$ payed to the "conflict manager" is a waste of money. The whole wolf introduction into WA is a waste of $, unless you work for WDFW or the fake environmentalists concerning wolves.
With all do respect WAcoyotehunter, no one really knows for sure, but one thing that is for sure, they are here and are being well taken care of, something just isn't right......as always, my :twocents:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 18, 2018, 05:56:37 AM
Post by: X-Force on March 18, 2018, 07:35:43 AM
If no one knows for sure then no one should be saying it happened.... Right?
:chuckle:
When discussing wolves if no one knows for sure it probably happened.
Post by: Cougartail on March 18, 2018, 09:01:08 AM
Post by: wheels on March 18, 2018, 11:36:20 AM
Post by: STARVATION on March 18, 2018, 06:22:42 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 18, 2018, 09:37:10 PM
I'm puzzled how WDFW can manage wolf populations and make them grow, but they can't manage deer/elk. :dunno:
For the last couple decades they've had a love affair with predators, I've thought most game animals persist in spite of WDFW, not because of WDFW. :dunno:
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 19, 2018, 05:00:50 AM
Post by: nwwanderer on March 19, 2018, 07:41:57 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 19, 2018, 08:36:56 AM
By "at least 122" they really mean 400?
:yeah: I believe they're outright lying to the public. :bash:
Post by: Curly on March 19, 2018, 09:03:18 AM
Seems like people kind of look past that word "minimum" and freak out claiming lies by WDFW, when they maybe aren't really lying........
:dunno:
Also, why not mangage based on an estimate? They know the counts aren't right and are minimum. Maybe they should revise the wolf plan and delist knowing that they likely have met the objective? :dunno:
Post by: wolfbait on March 19, 2018, 09:22:45 AM
By "at least 122" they really mean 400?
:yeah: I believe they're outright lying to the public. :bash:
Look at the history of the illegal wolf introduction into ID, MT, and Wyoming, WDFW have and are following in their footsteps. One lie after another while pretending to do all they can.
Existence of Many Wolves Ignored
"Bangs also explained that it was too difficult to locate individual wolves or small groups of wolves that were not packs and emphasized that the existence of these wolves was not important to recovery. Once the transplanted wolves began pairing and successfully raising young, the Nez Perce and FWS recovery teams declined to investigate sightings of individual wolves or groups of wolves unless they involved livestock killing.”
Page 7@
http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. s: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Why can't they simply give an estimated population? Couldn't they simply state "we know for sure there are X amount of wolves, but realistically there are probably Y amount".
Seems like people kind of look past that word "minimum" and freak out claiming lies by WDFW, when they maybe aren't really lying........
:dunno:
Also, why not mangage based on an estimate? They know the counts aren't right and are minimum. Maybe they should revise the wolf plan and delist knowing that they likely have met the objective? :dunno:
"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 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 under estimating 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.
Page 7@
http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. s: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Post by: bearpaw on March 19, 2018, 09:43:16 AM
Why can't they simply give an estimated population? Couldn't they simply state "we know for sure there are X amount of wolves, but realistically there are probably Y amount".
Seems like people kind of look past that word "minimum" and freak out claiming lies by WDFW, when they maybe aren't really lying........
:dunno:
Also, why not mangage based on an estimate? They know the counts aren't right and are minimum. Maybe they should revise the wolf plan and delist knowing that they likely have met the objective? :dunno:
I think this minimum represents the number they can verify in case they have to go to court.
Post by: Ridgeratt on March 19, 2018, 09:46:44 AM
Why can't they simply give an estimated population? Couldn't they simply state "we know for sure there are X amount of wolves, but realistically there are probably Y amount".
Seems like people kind of look past that word "minimum" and freak out claiming lies by WDFW, when they maybe aren't really lying........
:dunno:
Also, why not mangage based on an estimate? They know the counts aren't right and are minimum. Maybe they should revise the wolf plan and delist knowing that they likely have met the objective? :dunno:
I think this minimum represents the number they can verify in case they have to go to court.
I think this is pretty close.
Post by: bearpaw on March 19, 2018, 09:53:05 AM
Post by: wolfbait on March 19, 2018, 02:08:51 PM
That would put wolf recovery at 4 to 5 years, while WDF&wolves have had 16 plus years, everyone wonders what the actual wolf numbers really are in WA. It's anyones guess at this point one thing for sure it isn't the piddling 122 wolves that WDFW estimate.
Will they ever be held accountable for the decimation of WA's wildlife?