What? I’m practicing the same kind of reporting that takes place online at the Wenatchee World. The web site has a report making all kinds of claims while attaching no names to those making the claims about wolves. The article reads:
Two of three scientists asked to review a draft plan for recovering the endangered gray wolf in Washington say the state should require higher numbers before taking them off the endangered list.
No solid numbers were proposed, although one scientist suggested that twice as many wolves — or about 30 breeding packs instead of the state’s proposal of 15 — is closer to the number needed to ensure a viable population. Each breeding pack typically has between 5 and 10 wolves.
A “third scientist” supposedly made some benign comment about being a reasonable plan. I figured it would be just as effective to say a pack of wolves robbed a bank or that 538 scientist think all wolves should be gathered up and funneled into both Houses of Congress when in full session. For that I would support wolf protection.
Regardless of whether you think I’m nitpicking or not, this is all about how to manage gray wolves in Washington State. A proposed plan calls for 15 breeding pairs minimum and these two “scientists” (probably Naomi Judd and Pamela Anderson) think it ought to be doubled.
A couple of readers of this blog were arguing the other day about whether science was fact or theory. I think this is a good argument for neither the side. Looks more of a matter of opinion based on what must feel good or whose paying the bills.
Tom Remington
