Post by: LDennis24 on July 14, 2024, 12:46:53 AM
Post by: HUNTIN4SIX on July 14, 2024, 06:56:10 AM
Total politics in play on this subject....
I remember before I was fired they claimed 206 wolves and 33 packs. Do the math at 4-6 viable pups per female and tell me their not snow balling the public. Their deception even worse on cats.... Ask the deer and elk bio out of colville why she has predator track tats up and down her arms.
Post by: jackelope on July 14, 2024, 09:07:09 AM
They always seem to say “at least”
Post by: jstone on July 14, 2024, 12:13:13 PM
Post by: Feathernfurr on July 14, 2024, 12:34:23 PM
Post by: jackelope on July 14, 2024, 12:40:14 PM
Stop believing all that they say
Great.
If you’re talking to me, do you have any significant input related to my question?
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 14, 2024, 12:50:56 PM
Is it expected that they would know exactly how many wolves are in WA?
They always seem to say “at least”
Wolf numbers are far easier to estimate than cougar, for example, especially because most, if not all packs, have a least one or more tracking collars. And yes, accurate accounting is quite necessary and possible (if anyone believes that management will happen if specific metrics are met). Saying "at least" is a great way to either cover your butt or purposely mislead. If, for example, the President came out and said that "at least 500,000 undocumented immigrants have entered the US since January 20th, 2021", that would be true...and purposely misleading. It's not a big stretch to believe the same thing is happening with wolf numbers.
Post by: jackelope on July 14, 2024, 01:36:06 PM
Post by: jackelope on July 14, 2024, 01:39:20 PM
(I pulled numbers out of my arse)
Post by: Jake Dogfish on July 14, 2024, 01:44:40 PM
Post by: chukarchaser on July 14, 2024, 05:24:24 PM
It doesn’t matter how many there are, the same groups will want more.
The winning comment right here.
Post by: ckr on July 14, 2024, 09:13:03 PM
Post by: addicted1 on July 14, 2024, 11:07:30 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 15, 2024, 08:30:02 AM
P-man- Are you saying you are of the opinion that they should know exactly how many wolves are in the state?
I'm saying they're the most monitored animals in the state, besides grizzlies. Their estimates should be close to exact. I don't believe they are anywhere near it.
Post by: high country on July 15, 2024, 06:26:28 PM
Always have been since the start. We have/had the most biased group of Bio's and decision makers ever known. I have personally sat at behind close doors Region 1. Disrtict 1 meetings and witnessed it. All the way back when the Bio's were concealing den site location from the law enforcement who were responding to calls. Most of that agency is one deceptive chit show. I saw 24 years of it. I've attended employee "regional meetings" in Region 5,6 and 1. They were always brain washing and heavy petting events for the upper management. The buzz word at every one of them was "constituents".
Total politics in play on this subject....
I remember before I was fired they claimed 206 wolves and 33 packs. Do the math at 4-6 viable pups per female and tell me their not snow balling the public. Their deception even worse on cats.... Ask the deer and elk bio out of colville why she has predator track tats up and down her arms.
You do know they're married. The conflict woman and the wolf bio....
Post by: HUNTIN4SIX on July 15, 2024, 08:42:35 PM
Always have been since the start. We have/had the most biased group of Bio's and decision makers ever known. I have personally sat at behind close doors Region 1. Disrtict 1 meetings and witnessed it. All the way back when the Bio's were concealing den site location from the law enforcement who were responding to calls. Most of that agency is one deceptive chit show. I saw 24 years of it. I've attended employee "regional meetings" in Region 5,6 and 1. They were always brain washing and heavy petting events for the upper management. The buzz word at every one of them was "constituents".
Total politics in play on this subject....
I remember before I was fired they claimed 206 wolves and 33 packs. Do the math at 4-6 viable pups per female and tell me their not snow balling the public. Their deception even worse on cats.... Ask the deer and elk bio out of colville why she has predator track tats up and down her arms.
You do know they're married. The conflict woman and the wolf bio....
SSSHHHHHH! yer lettin the cat outta the bag....no one knows that secret because she doesn't share his name. :chuckle:
This is just one little data point on the WDFW corruption.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on September 12, 2024, 11:16:36 AM
"Maintain healthy and robust ungulate populations in the state that provide abundant prey for wolves and other predators as well as ample harvest opportunities for hunters."
Post by: Pathfinder101 on September 12, 2024, 12:30:27 PM
Post by: TylerMulie on January 03, 2025, 08:46:40 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 03, 2025, 08:52:14 AM
Post by: boneaddict on January 03, 2025, 08:55:15 AM
Post by: hunter399 on January 03, 2025, 09:31:27 AM
So ya , plenty that the state doesn't know about.
Post by: BUTTER on January 03, 2025, 09:51:39 AM
Post by: avidnwoutdoorsman on January 03, 2025, 10:00:06 AM
Id think so, I had a 85yd encounter with a pack of 13 wolves this deer season, really cool experience. no collars on any of the wolves.
If you find wolves without a Collar you need to report it... getting Collars on wolves is actually a really good thing. I was a skeptic myself. I had wolves finally show up on my property in late '23. Last spring I got a cam picture of a wolf with meat in its mouth indicating likely a den site near by. Was confirmed and a collar was on at least one of the wolves a couple months later. The collars helps because it shows distribution. It also helps prove depredation. How many "unconfirmed" depredations have you heard about. Pretty easy to confirm a depredation when the collar shows the wolf over the carcass. I know there maybe some skepticism about this but its better to get collars on them. There is now another pack/breeding pair on the books which aids recovery goals to delist, shows more distribution, and tracks them for depredation.
Post by: chukardogs on January 03, 2025, 11:18:18 AM
I'm no wolf expert or animal biologist and had never gave any thought to the health or hierarchy of a wolf pack but, just as an older male, I can totally understand the emotional state that would drive me to say, done, I want you all gone. Wish I'd actually known that was a...........nevermind.
If this is something that happens with wolves, it doesn't take a brain surgeon with a PHD in math, to see what could happen to wolf population numbers in a hurry. Over the years, I've read with wolves, when a male gets to adulthood, he has to make a decision. Either he's willing to take a back seat to the alpha or he's not. If he thinks he's a tough guy, he takes on the alpha and then afterwards, either he or the alpha has to take their satchel and hit the road. I've read that the same basic thing happens with the females and I'll leave it at that.
If you look at the most recent wolf pack data on the WDFW, the Strawberry pack is still intact and based on the country they're holding, another alpha male must have taken over and thrived.
If the Wolf population can be that volatile and constantly fluctuating, how is it anyone believes the WDFW or the tribe can actually have an accurate population number? It makes no sense to believe that the number of wolves they have on their charts is up to date or accurate. The best anyone can hope for is the numbers are their best guess, based on the data they have. Or, if you believe they're just out right lying for their own biases, then the numbers have no useful value whatsoever.
Just based on how mother nature works, if the wolf packs have enough food (animals, wild or domesticated) to fulfill their nutritional needs, their numbers keep growing. If they don't have the nutrition needed, the pack will start to dwindle in numbers by smaller litter sizes and the dispersal of members as needed. We've all read about wolves that decide to go on walkabouts, traveling insane miles to find their new home. Example; the female that started somewhere in Northeast Oregon and settled in Northern California a few years back.
Someone please explain to me how the monitors know a pack is non-breeding? What is the criteria that would determine whether it's a breeding pack or non-breeding pack? Are we supposed to believe that the alpha, just isn't in the mood?
Post by: HighGrouseHunt on January 03, 2025, 03:21:26 PM
- WDFW counts packs once each year, in the winter when packs are the most cohesive, and when most of the pup mortality that might occur prior to the next breeding season has already occurred. This is the time of year when the wolf population is at its annual minimum (all undocumented mortality or dispersal for the prior year is encompassed in those numbers). This is also the time of year when most of the events like the “breeders getting kicked out” has already occurred, if it is going to occur.
- breeding pairs are defined as 2 adult wolves and 2 pups surviving until December 31. As you point out, nearly all packs “breed”, but there can be a variety of reasons for litter failure. These emphasis on “breeding pairs” recognizes that packs that successfully raise pups are essentially the biological drivers of population growth.
Post by: chukardogs on January 03, 2025, 05:19:10 PM
All of it still leaves a lot of room for the numbers to be skewed. If there's wolves, male or female that have been kicked out or left the pack on their own that aren't collared, they may not be accounted for in the year end tally. 42 packs equalling 260 animals means each pack has approx 6 dogs. 6 dogs seems low considering we hear stories of packs being seen with a dozen dogs in them. If these stories are even close to accurate, the total number of wolves could be considerably more than 260.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 03, 2025, 08:26:33 PM
Post by: HUNTIN4SIX on January 04, 2025, 06:35:37 AM
Whether its population numbers or depredations, i don't trust these folks. After my 24 years working for them I have seen it all. Getting rid of the commission is a great start, but there is still alot of bias imbedded deep within....
In my opinion these population have more than double in 4 years. These things have dispersed to a point that WDFW has no idea how many they have.
Post by: chukarchaser on January 04, 2025, 01:27:04 PM
Post by: nwwanderer on January 07, 2025, 06:13:25 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 07, 2025, 07:17:38 AM
Post by: HillHound on January 07, 2025, 08:00:53 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 07, 2025, 10:14:21 AM
The commission and WAG will never believe that the numbers are as high as they are. Pushing the goal posts anyhow.
They know exactly how high the numbers are and where the packs are, and are hiding it from the public.
Post by: TeacherMan on January 07, 2025, 12:29:15 PM
Post by: jrebel on January 07, 2025, 12:40:43 PM
Maybe they will open a trapping season for you guys, I'd love to see someone try and get one in a box trap :chuckle: sorry not funny... But reality do you think you guys could see them creating a draw hunt for wolves giving out just a couple tags a year?
Not given the current climate of hunting in this state, especially with the way the commission is stacked right now. WA hunting is in serious trouble.
Post by: hunter399 on January 07, 2025, 01:46:10 PM
I don't think they hide it from the public.The commission and WAG will never believe that the numbers are as high as they are. Pushing the goal posts anyhow.
They know exactly how high the numbers are and where the packs are, and are hiding it from the public.
It's more like look the other way,do not acknowledge it.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 07, 2025, 02:23:51 PM
I don't think they hide it from the public.The commission and WAG will never believe that the numbers are as high as they are. Pushing the goal posts anyhow.
They know exactly how high the numbers are and where the packs are, and are hiding it from the public.
It's more like look the other way,do not acknowledge it.
All due respects, but if you think they've been truthful about our cuddly wolves' population numbers, you're pretty gullible.
Post by: JDHasty on January 07, 2025, 02:36:29 PM
Post by: CarbonHunter on January 07, 2025, 03:10:25 PM
Sounds to me the like the population is plenty strong enough to support a hunting season.
Post by: jrebel on January 07, 2025, 03:32:12 PM
I head last night that they are offering rewards for information on the killing of 3 wolves. 2 in klikitat county and 1 in okanogan county. Something like 22 wolves have been killed illegally that they know about in the last few years.
Sounds to me the like the population is plenty strong enough to support a hunting season.
20-25K which is big money for most folks. I hope people keep their mouths shut!!
Post by: JJJ on January 07, 2025, 04:23:51 PM
I head last night that they are offering rewards for information on the killing of 3 wolves. 2 in klikitat county and 1 in okanogan county. Something like 22 wolves have been killed illegally that they know about in the last few years.
Sounds to me the like the population is plenty strong enough to support a hunting season.
But I thought we were told they were big coyotes?... No wolves in the area?!... I'm sooo confused..... :dunno:
Post by: hunter399 on January 07, 2025, 04:33:45 PM
No I don't believe they are truthful.I don't think they hide it from the public.The commission and WAG will never believe that the numbers are as high as they are. Pushing the goal posts anyhow.
They know exactly how high the numbers are and where the packs are, and are hiding it from the public.
It's more like look the other way,do not acknowledge it.
All due respects, but if you think they've been truthful about our cuddly wolves' population numbers, you're pretty gullible.
I don't think they look hard for them.
Is what I meant.
Post by: CarbonHunter on January 07, 2025, 05:25:32 PM
I head last night that they are offering rewards for information on the killing of 3 wolves. 2 in klikitat county and 1 in okanogan county. Something like 22 wolves have been killed illegally that they know about in the last few years.
Sounds to me the like the population is plenty strong enough to support a hunting season.
But I thought we were told they were big coyotes?... No wolves in the area?!... I'm sooo confused..... :dunno:
I would have to agree. I thought there were no wolves in the western wolf management area that includes Klickitat county. Just like the one that got hit on i90 and the pack up in marblemount that they claim don’t count towards the recovery goals. :dunno:
Post by: jstone on January 07, 2025, 07:35:12 PM
Post by: Loup Loup on January 07, 2025, 07:53:50 PM
Or were they successful in deflecting the killing toward someone else.
Post by: hunter399 on January 07, 2025, 08:12:59 PM
Wonder if the the two WDFW “scientists” that killed the wolf while collaring it by overdosing it in the Okanogan last winter got a just reward for their incompetency’s.Ya poor job performance was basically what I was trying to point out in this topic earlier today.
Or were they successful in deflecting the killing toward someone else.
Post by: Tbar on January 07, 2025, 09:41:46 PM
Wonder if the the two WDFW “scientists” that killed the wolf while collaring it by overdosing it in the Okanogan last winter got a just reward for their incompetency’s.Anytime you go hands on a wild animal you run the risk of it dieing. This is/ was very unfortunate, regardless of species.
Or were they successful in deflecting the killing toward someone else.
Post by: huntnnw on January 07, 2025, 11:03:37 PM