WOLVES: Ph.D.s considered 'experts'

Where in the world do these pro-wolf elitist environmentalists come up with these “experts” on wolves? The last one that came to talk to them was nothing short of a quack and had no clue about what is going on with the wolf.

Dr. Feher-Eiston fits the same mold. From the picture I saw in the paper, she must have lots of wolf management expertise (or not). I would bet she hasn’t left the pavement in the last 30 years. I also bet that she’s never seen a wolf in its natural state (not penned).

I know people in North Idaho who have had nose to nose experience with the real wolf for the last 15 years. I can tell you about that real wolf and it’s not a real pretty picture. But no one wants to see the gory evidence. Especially the doctorates/Ph.D.s I am going to talk about.

In the same paper another Ph.D. talks about “killing the myths” on the subject of wolves. I guess he read someplace that elk herds are 33 percent larger than they were in 1984. (What a testimony to elk management.) One small problem with that statement. Since 2009 the elk herds have decreased by as much as 53 percent on an average. He also quotes a radical environmentalist journal and states, “Wolves are of great value in keeping healthy balance.” Let me see, we have lost 53 percent of the elk herds, especially in North Idaho, and that is supposed to be balance? About the only thing that is unbalanced here is the Ph.D. who made that statement.

It has been my experience that most Ph.D.s couldn’t pour water out of a boot with the instructions on the heel. Common sense and the term Ph.D. can’t be put in the same sentence, let alone book.

As far as I’m concerned Ph.D. stands for “piled higher and deeper.” Without a lot of boots on the ground experience it would be impossible to be an expert in wolves. Next time the enviros have a meeting, maybe they should hire a real expert.

MILT TURLEY, Ed.S.

Avery