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.
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.