February 1, 2023

Washington Wolf Debate Following Same Footsteps as Idaho, Montana, Wyoming

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

On January 18, 2013, I posted a copy of a letter written to the Washington fish and game commissioner Phil Anderson from Lynn Stuter. A person who uses the online identity of “Immer Treue” opted to rebut what Ms. Stuter wrote and posted that opinion piece on another website found here. (You will have to scroll down through the article and many other comments to find it.)

Stuter, out of concern her rebuttal to the rebuttal might not get posted on the other website, decided to send her rebuttal, via email, to various recipients, one of which ended up in my mail box. It is posted below.

Looking at what Immer Treue wrote above, his supposed critique of my letter to Phil Anderson, I’ve come to conclude that the problem with the pro-wolfer crowd is an inability to think logically or rationally, and reasoning is totally out of the question. Not uncommon of people easily used. They are called sheeple for a reason.

Interesting what Immer Treue chose to pick at. He carefully avoided the pro-wolfers contention that wolves are the precursor to your dog, that non-lethal tools are ineffective and the Range Rider program has to be paid for at the ranchers expense. He also carefully avoided the fact that hunting wolves as game animals will not hold numbers in check; that aerial gunning will be required. Even at that, wolves will not be wiped out as the pro-wolfers continually whine.

His claim that the Canadian Grey is indigenous to the Pacific Northwest shows his ignorance, not his knowledge. The designation of Canis lupis irremotus was changed to Canis lupis because the USFWS wanted to import wolves from Canada; they could not do so as long as Canis lupis irremotus was recognized as the native wolf by the Endangered Species Act. Even a modicum of research, on his part, would divulge the path the process took. Old timers remember the Timber Wolf well; it was an entirely different animal than the Canadian Grey.

Immer Treue’s rundown of the Lolo Zone elk herd is interesting. What he wrote is tantamount to saying that your sick animal, killed by a bear, died because it was sick, not because it was killed by a bear! The fact that your sick animal might have survived, if the bear hadn’t killed it, is obviously outside Treue’s ability to comprehend. And yes, IDFG did finally acknowledge that wolves had decimated the Lolo herd.

I also liked when he made this statement, “The Canadian Wolf eats 10 to 20 pounds of meat per day! Well, wolves can down over twenty pounds in a day, but per day? The insinuation wolves eat that much daily is disingenuous.” I have to laugh. It was the WDFW forum panelist who made the claim that the Canadian Grey eats 10 to 20 pounds of meat per day. Quite obviously, had Immer Treue figured that out, before he flipped out, he would have said nothing. But since he thought I was making that claim, he decided that it was disingenuous. Conclusion – Immer Treue’s critique of my letter to Phil Anderson is, you guessed it, disingenuous, start to finish.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with how many elk one wolf kills in one year – about 50/wolf. And while that was also in my letter, he makes no mention of that. Quite obviously, talking about how many elk a wolf kills in one year versus how many they actually eat does not serve the pro-wolfer agenda.

And I just love the “voodoo math” thing. In the end, he makes no reference to the crux of the matter – that percentage loss is being used, deliberately, to minimize the far greater economic loss that percentage represents; a fact that the pro-wolfer crowd definitely does not want brought into the equation of wolf management. Of course, it’s not the livelihood of the pro-wolfer crowd that is being adversely affected.

You people really need to stop and look at yourselves. You are so rabidly pro-wolf that logical thinking and reasoning totally escapes you. In reading some of your posts, you worship wolves like they were some kind of god; but, in the end, that worship seems to emanate from a need to adversely affect other people’s lives. So when someone speaks of the reality of living with wolves, you go off the beam – just like Immer Treue did in his supposed critique of my letter to Phil Anderson.

As for Bob Ferris’ off-the-wall claim that “Nothing in here demonstrates that she has any qualifications to comment on wolf issues” – what you know and what you assume are quite obviously miles apart. And what you assume is also obviously what you act on, ergo all the assumptions in your rant!

One last thing, ladies and gents, you know you are having the desired effect when people like you start squealing!