| Human Density |
 |
| Road Density |
 |
| Elk Density |
 |
| Deer Density |
 |
| Public Land Availability |
 |
| Land Cover Type |
 |
| Final Habitat Suitability |
 |
| Overlay of "prime habitat" with the percentage of residents who are accepting
of WDFW moving wolves from one portion of the state where they have become
established to another area in the state to build populations |
 |
| Overlay of "prime habitat" with the percentage of residents who are accepting
of a recreational hunting season of wolves once wolves have exceeded population
recovery goals |
 |
Overall, our results indicated that Washington state has ample habitat suitable for wolves.
Furthermore, we found that translocation of wolves from one area of the state to another area to help build populations
was acceptable in some counties. When used in conjunction with an overlay of "prime" wolf habitat, or habitat of highest
suitability in our analyses, we can begin to see the utility of such an approach. For instance, habitat
east of Seattle and Olympia may be an ideal location for moving wolves to help build populations due to the
relatively high level of support from residents than it would be to move wolves to the more northeast or far southeast
portions of the state. Additionally, we found that residents from eastern counties were
more tolerant of a recreational hunt of wolves once they have reached certain recovery goals
than residents from counties in the northwest. This type of information can be useful in understanding differences
of opinions about wolves recolonizing the states. Results may also indcate areas where greater chances of human-wildlife
conflict are likely to occur, whether due to a lack of human tolerance or because of a higher likelihood
that wolves will live in a particular area because of its suitability.
NOTE: Results, while aimed at determining suitable habitat for wolves in Washington, are highly subjective and may be quite different than what would occur on the ground. For instance, we obtained data from the state agency on deer and elk populations; however, deer and elk populations were not estimated inside of National Park boundaries or on Native American land. Our results indicate that suitability, while still relatively high, drops inside these human-made boundaries; however, it is highly unlikely that any wolf would stop at the boundary or circumvent protected areas.
Additionally, we ran a series of analyses that are likely to have propogated error due to inaccuracies in the
original data measurements or through our own processes. We also should inform the public that we are mere
beginners working with GIS and have likely made some very simple assumptions throughout our analyses that would
further decrease the validity of our results.
Visit our Conclusion page for a more thorough discussion of results
