Up to 59% of Idaho wolves killed in one year
Ken Cole of The Wildlife News has the full story:
The Wildlife News has finally obtained all of the records of documented mortality for wolves from April 1, 2011 up to April 1, 2012. This information tells a grim story about what the toll of handing over management to the State of Idaho has been on the Idaho wolf population. All told, based on some estimates made using the data, under state management, 721 wolves, or 59% of the wolves, were killed in the year running from April, 2011 – April, 2012. Even if you use only documented mortality, without estimating additional, unreported illegal take or other causes of mortality, then 492 wolves, or 48% of the wolves, in Idaho were killed.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Benedict’s Corner
Recommended Comment Considerations
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
- Dialogue in an Era of Divisiveness: ACR 2013 Conference
- Wisconsin wildfire started by logging operations destroys 17 homes
- Kissing the Past Gently Good-bye
- Buffalo Nightmare: 3 Days of Taxpayer-Funded Yellowstone Helicopter Hazing
- How Feminism Wrecked the US Forest Service
- US boom transforming global oil trade
- Colorado: Green Industries With Wood
- Court Upholds Forest Plan for Black Hills
- Lawsuit filed against Kootenai National Forest logging project
- Oregon Laws Proposed to Punish Logging Protesters
Contacts
Purpose
Disclaimer
Top Views
Archives
Science Policy Quote of the Month
"In the real world, many risks we face present neither the great certainties we would need to use cost-benefit analysis effectively nor the almost complete uncertainties that would justify radical precautionary approaches. Moreover, neither the precautionary principle nor cost-benefit analysis tell us anything about the role of democracy in making policy decisions.
I am currently working to develop new approaches rooted in deliberative democracy which might move beyond both strict cost-benefit and knee-jerk precaution toward processes that could achieve better public participation and greater political legitimacy on the major environmental threats to our future."
Jonathan Gilligan, Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences on his website here.
On Learning Through Blogging
Tags
Blogroll
Forest Service Miscellany
References
Science Policy
Species Diversity/Viability
The West
Post Categories
- 2012 Planning Rule
- 21st Century Problems
- Access
- Accountability
- adaptive management
- Advice for Administration
- Agency Efficiencies
- Alaska Issues
- All Lands
- Appeals and Objections
- Bark Beetles
- Best available science
- Biomass
- Blog -Workin' It
- Budget
- Building Trust
- Business of Land Management
- Certification
- climate change
- collaboration and public involvement
- Communication
- Community Forest Management
- conflict resolution
- Congress
- Cool Technologies
- CREATE
- District of the Week
- Diversity and species conservation
- Economics and Economic Recovery
- Ecosystem Services
- Energy
- Environmental Organizations
- ESA
- Fire and Fuels
- Forest Products
- Forest Service: Culture, History, Morale, Organization, Future
- Future (Imagining our Mutual)
- GE Trees
- Good Things
- Grasslands
- Grazing
- History
- Humans and the Environment
- Interior West
- Invasives
- Jobs
- Lands
- Landscape Scale
- Law Enforcement
- Law Review
- Litigation
- Meetings of Interest
- Monitoring
- National Reserve Conservation Assocation
- Natural Resources
- Naturalist Interest
- NEPA
- Objections
- Old Growth
- Partizanizing Issues
- People's Database
- Photos
- Place-Based Bills & Agreements
- Planning
- Planning Rule Development Process
- Politics
- Press
- Privatization
- Projects of Interest
- Proposed Rule
- Recreation
- Reform and Enhance Litigation and Appeals
- Renewable energy- wind and solar
- Research
- Responses to NOI
- Restoration
- Roadless
- Role of local and state governments
- Role of science
- Sacred Sites
- Science Process Redesign
- Science- The Business of
- special forest products
- State and Federal Forests
- Stewardship
- Sustainable Rural Economies
- timber
- Travel Management
- Tree diseases and insects
- Trust Managaement
- Uncategorized
- Water
- What Should Plans Do?
- Wilderness
- Wood
- workforce
Thanks for posting Matt. I tried to comment on this story on the Wildlife News site but was censored.
Ken is quick to use “estimates” made from “undocumented” mortaility but fails to acknowledge that the wolf population is (according to the biologists) likely far higher than what his numbers show because of the “undocumented” and or “suspected” packs where counts are incomplete.
Ken’s own admission:
“Because I don’t have all of the information available to me, this exercise is only an educated guess based totally on publicly available information.”
From the 2010 Nez Perce Tribe’s Wolf Conservation and Management in Idaho Progress Report (pg. 89):
http://www.nezperce.org/Official/PDF/WOLFConservation20101report.pdf
“It is important to recognize this estimate represents only the minimum number of wolves
estimated to be present in Idaho. The actual number of wolves in Idaho is likely more than
the ‘estimated minimum number,’ as we did not include suspected packs…”
In 2011 their methodology for making minimum count “estimations” changed but is still incomplete at therir own admission with no CI included. Scroll thru the document and look at the various pack summaries…you’ll notice the words “minimum”, “pack count incomplete” and “no estimate” used a lot.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/reportAnnual11.pdf
I had the opportunity this winter to provide biologists with absolute data that was in excess of their own pack size estimations. The minimum number is known and legally defensible…what about the maximum?
Ken’s stories are clearly an attemp to incite emotional reaction and not present a balanced arguement. Interestingly, if an agency were to use the kind of stats and “science” that is being presented in his posts I’d venture that Western Watersheds would have a field day.