Free: Contests & Raffles.
Wolfbait, those questions are the MOST important ones to ask and spread around. Common sense dictates that something does not add up. Since many hunters are old enough to remember the Pysaden being closed to coyote hunting in 91 it shows how the timeline is funky.The other question/statement i would ask is why did the wolves in 91 not disperse south? Not only should they have expanded quickly but they should have moved south thought the E cascades .This does not make sense because the influx of wolves came from ID not from N to south.
Quote from: Special T on August 04, 2014, 07:57:42 AMWolfbait, those questions are the MOST important ones to ask and spread around. Common sense dictates that something does not add up. Since many hunters are old enough to remember the Pysaden being closed to coyote hunting in 91 it shows how the timeline is funky.The other question/statement i would ask is why did the wolves in 91 not disperse south? Not only should they have expanded quickly but they should have moved south thought the E cascades .This does not make sense because the influx of wolves came from ID not from N to south.I have a bit more info. Special T, I'm going to put together a little timeline and then compare it with the introduced wolves in WY, MT and Idaho. That way we can see how much the wolves changed when they cross into WA. There should be some questions as to why the wolves that were introduced into Idaho and the Yellowstone dispersed and multiplied at such a rapid rate compared to the wolves that "naturally" migrated into WA in the 1980's through our present time.
In 2008, the State’s first two packs since the 1930’s were confirmed. Setting up their territory in Pend Oreille County in the northeastern part of the State, one pair, named the Diamond Pack, was first documented in 2008 and confirmed to have pups in 2009 and 2010.
Indications are that wolves were naturally recovering in parts of Washington and yet what little money was available for recovery was hauled away and dumped into introduction of wolves into Yellowstone and Central Idaho. Why? Another question everyone should be asking is why at this date when Washington is working on drafting a new wolf management plan, acting as though migration of wolves from Idaho is the first time wolves ever stepped foot there, is there no mention of the wolves that have been breeding and growing there before this apparent migration?In 2002, environmentalists lined up in droves to petition the USFWS to introduce wolves into Washington. There was no mention at this time of existing wolves in Washington.What becomes obvious is the lack of transparency and honesty when it comes to dealing with the general public such as in Washington’s effort to draft a new wolf management plan. What’s to hide? Is pretending that this is the first time wolves have made a presence in Washington somehow going to ensure the recovery of wolves? Is there somehow a need to lie in order to achieve the goals of wolf recovery? Don’t the people of Washington and every other state in the this great Union, deserve to know the truth about the history of wolves? In Washington, isn’t it still important to tell the people that wolves recovered on their own as early as 1991 and yet all efforts to recover this species was abandoned in favor of introduction into Yellowstone? Is denying the facts in the best interest of drafting a wolf management plan?And the biggest question of all: Has there EVER been any honesty and transparency about wolf recovery?Tom Remington- See more at: http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/#sthash.sfMLe60D.dpuf
Wolves in WA during the 80-90s are skipped over because they do not match the narrative that is being sold us. I Think asking those inconvient questions (and demanding answers) is more useful than focusing on if and how the USFS or WDFW transplanted wolves in WA.
