Free: Contests & Raffles.
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.
Quote from: X-Force on March 17, 2018, 08:14:32 AMI dont see how there is all this negativity when we havent seen the report yet. Minimum populations are just that minimum. The actual population is probably substantially higher... But its 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 $$$ payed to the "conflict manager" is a waste of money. The whole wolf introduction into WA is a waste of $, unless you work for WDFW or the fake environmentalists concerning wolves.
I dont see how there is all this negativity when we havent seen the report yet. Minimum populations are just that minimum. The actual population is probably substantially higher... But its not the job of biologists to give you assumed or possible populations. The $400k wdfw is spending on a conflict manager could really pay dividends in wolf documentation and monitoring.
Quote from: wolfbait on March 17, 2018, 02:28:37 PMQuote from: X-Force on March 17, 2018, 08:14:32 AMI don’t see how there is all this negativity when we haven’t seen the report yet. Minimum populations are just that minimum. The actual population is probably substantially higher... But it’s not the job of biologists to give you assumed or possible populations. The $400k wdfw is spending on a conflict manager could really pay dividends in wolf documentation and monitoring.Biologist down play the impact on game herds, refuse to confirm wolf predation on livestock and have a lot of input on wolf recovery, much of the disinformation on wolves comes from biologists. According to fitkin the lookout pack was the only pack in the Okanogan for several years, even though he knew of other packs in the Okanogan.The $$$ 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.Once again, wolves were not introduced into WA.
Quote from: X-Force on March 17, 2018, 08:14:32 AMI 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.
If no one knows for sure then no one should be saying it happened.... Right?
I'm puzzled how WDFW can manage wolf populations and make them grow, but they can't manage deer/elk.
By "at least 122" they really mean 400?