Federal Court-wolf hunting ends now

[bigG]

I live right by Ft. McCoy. Maybe someday my wolves will meet yours. 

I just can't find the biologist consensus to make this make sense. Written by two politicians, this bill sure wasn't the culmination of the conservation plan. There are DNR guys who back the hunt. This bill set the hunt/trap back by not including the stakeholders.

[bigG]

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/sports/outdoors/hunting/2014/12/27/wolf-endangered-species-ruling-defies-biology/20946265/

Good article. But, by replacing biologist expertise with politics in the state, you create another political federal monster. I know people here get a tad nervous about the wolves, as we have much more livestock than the northern zones. No major issues yet.

I would think the DNR might be frustrated at the lack of respect from politicians on the state and federal levels.

[Handles II]

I think they should release huge numbers of wolves in the city parks and on HandlesII hunting land then 5 years ask what they think about wolves management plans.

Pretty typical of you ramjet, wanting your (percieved) problems to go onto others. Not the first time you've wished bad onto others on this forum. FYI, my cabin is in Barnes. Every hear of it? Two major wolf packs have been living in the area for years.

There are wolf haters ramjet, it isn't a liberal saying no matter how much you would love it to be so. It's a wolf hater saying, they readily admit hating wolves and wanting to eliminate them. Many are loud and proud. If you don't believe me, either head to a local watering hole and ask a show of hands who hates wolves, or perhaps you could look in the mirror?

7 pages ramjet, and all you've shown is ZERO. Bumbling lawmakers trying to rush through poorly written bill for a very small demographic of wolf haters, trappers, and trophy hunters and lobbyists is what made it happen. And that's what made it get reversed. Blame yours for not doing their homework.

[ramjet]

I think they should release huge numbers of wolves in the city parks and on HandlesII hunting land then 5 years ask what they think about wolves management plans.

Pretty typical of you ramjet, wanting your (percieved) problems to go onto others. Not the first time you've wished bad onto others on this forum. FYI, my cabin is in Barnes. Every hear of it? Two major wolf packs have been living in the area for years.

There are wolf haters ramjet, it isn't a liberal saying no matter how much you would love it to be so. It's a wolf hater saying, they readily admit hating wolves and wanting to eliminate them. Many are loud and proud. If you don't believe me, either head to a local watering hole and ask a show of hands who hates wolves, or perhaps you could look in the mirror?

7 pages ramjet, and all you've shown is ZERO. Bumbling lawmakers trying to rush through poorly written bill for a very small demographic of wolf haters, trappers, and trophy hunters and lobbyists is what made it happen. And that's what made it get reversed. Blame yours for not doing their homework.

Yes there are wolf haters just as there are wolf zealots and tree Huggers.

So now what do you propose for management government sharp shooters? Wolfy birth control? just move them to southwest part of the state? Just let numbers continue to climb and ignore it?

Come on HandlesII I would likemf Rahoi to volunteer the placement of a Pack in the area you deer hunt they will not hurt the deer herd or other animals as you have stated so why not?

[bigG]

The problem is not with hunting/trapping. It's with two state politicians making the call, instead of our experts on the matter. Even Thiel must believe we'll be hunting /trapping them. Can't replace real biologists with politicians. Just like Dick Thiel predicted. Now, the law suits will drag this on.

I agree with you on the federal politics intruding being crap. But you don't seem to want to accept the fact that the whole reason this happened was with state political pencil necks making the call over the actual scientists.

If you voted for one of those geniuses who took it on themselves to do this, than your best move would be to adios them.

I'd like to hear from Hound, because it seems the biggest issue is predation of hunting dogs. Deer and livestock fatalities are down from 2013 to 2014; but I bet they're real tough on the dogs. I'm sure Hound puts a lot of time and $ into his pooches.

Hound is the only one I know on here whose livelihood could be afflicted by wolves. I'm sure the bear hunters rightly lobbied for the bill to pass. I also understand politicians have to listen to their constituencies.

Not a ton of bear hunters in my area; but we do have some black bears floating around. One thing I do know is that the deer population hasn't gone down since the wolves came to the Fort; and they haven't snapped up much livestock in the Ft. McCoy area. They're only three roads away from me. 

If they do, I hear llamas are the best way to protect from wolves. Spit right on 'em!!

[littleguy301]

To be honest, the only area I hear about some real problems with Wolves is in the area Hound lives though I could be not hearing about other areas and that is my fault.

In the price county area I have heard of wolves disrupting cattle and livestock in general. But like I said, I do not have any conections to that area any more so maybe it has been curbed.

[Handles II]

I think they should release huge numbers of wolves in the city parks and on HandlesII hunting land then 5 years ask what they think about wolves management plans.

Pretty typical of you ramjet, wanting your (percieved) problems to go onto others. Not the first time you've wished bad onto others on this forum. FYI, my cabin is in Barnes. Every hear of it? Two major wolf packs have been living in the area for years.

There are wolf haters ramjet, it isn't a liberal saying no matter how much you would love it to be so. It's a wolf hater saying, they readily admit hating wolves and wanting to eliminate them. Many are loud and proud. If you don't believe me, either head to a local watering hole and ask a show of hands who hates wolves, or perhaps you could look in the mirror?

7 pages ramjet, and all you've shown is ZERO. Bumbling lawmakers trying to rush through poorly written bill for a very small demographic of wolf haters, trappers, and trophy hunters and lobbyists is what made it happen. And that's what made it get reversed. Blame yours for not doing their homework.

Yes there are wolf haters just as there are wolf zealots and tree Huggers.

So now what do you propose for management government sharp shooters? Wolfy birth control? just move them to southwest part of the state? Just let numbers continue to climb and ignore it?

Come on HandlesII I would likemf Rahoi to volunteer the placement of a Pack in the area you deer hunt they will not hurt the deer herd or other animals as you have stated so why not?

So you need me to say it a 4th time ramjet? I will only if you will actually listen and learn. I am in FAVOR of hunting and trapping wolves and/or other animals if it is warranted and justified, not just a political agenda. 5th time:I am in FAVOR of hunting and trapping wolves and/or other animals if it is warranted and justified, not just a political agenda. 6th time:I am in FAVOR of hunting and trapping wolves and/or other animals if it is warranted and justified, not just a political agenda.7th time:I am in FAVOR of hunting and trapping wolves and/or other animals if it is warranted and justified, not just a political agenda.

Need I say it again??? I should hope not.
You lost the debate many pages ago ramjet. Just like those who created the wolf hunting season, you claimed science was on your side, but in reality it wasn't.

[bigG]

I'm glad all you guys debated this. I'm sure it will rage on; but it sort of forced me to get to know a subject I which I was previously impervious. Now I'm pervious.

Happy hunting, either way.

[imnofish]

I'm glad all you guys debated this. I'm sure it will rage on; but it sort of forced me to get to know a subject I which I was previously impervious. Now I'm pervious.

Happy hunting, either way.

Never admit to being pervious.  The DOJ might require you to register.    

[bigG]

Perviously, I respected your opinion.

As young kids, sickies are preverts.



Reed yer dikshunairie, four krine aut laud.

[imnofish]

Perviously, I respected your opinion.

As young kids, sickies are preverts.



Reed yer dikshunairie, four krine aut laud.

Shirley you didn't think I was Sirius.  That would indicate naivete of astronomical proportions...   or, with improper diet, it might be gastronomical.   Woof!   

[ramjet]

So HandlesII there is no debate therefore I cannot or did not loose anything.

DNR biologists supported the wolf hunt and supported delisting them so they could manage the packs locally.

On one hand you say you support it but on the other hand you supported the Poltical decision by a known liberal Obama appointee that has NO background in biology and is just another puppet.

So we agree, no debate, hunt on I will apply for another tag as soon as the ruling is overturned and it will be.

[imnofish]

We need more bear hunters.  One of them attacked a miniature horse near here and one of my friends lost a pig.  I am tired of them eating all of my blackberries and pooping in my yard (I live in town.).   

[bigG]

So HandlesII there is no debate therefore I cannot or did not loose anything.

DNR biologists supported the wolf hunt and supported delisting them so they could manage the packs locally.

On one hand you say you support it but on the other hand you supported the Poltical decision by a known liberal Obama appointee that has NO background in biology and is just another puppet.

So we agree, no debate, hunt on I will apply for another tag as soon as the ruling is overturned and it will be.

The problem, at least from my perspective, is that , from what I've read, ONE DNR biologist favored the hunt/trap, and the main proponents were politicians; not biologists. You've shown no proof of these biologists. I'm sure many will be okay in the near future.

It will be overturned as long as the packs keep thriving. Win/win!!

Maybe next time we really have some biological consensus from the DNR; so we don't have to have politicians pushing things through with no science to back them.

[imnofish]

So HandlesII there is no debate therefore I cannot or did not loose anything.

DNR biologists supported the wolf hunt and supported delisting them so they could manage the packs locally.

On one hand you say you support it but on the other hand you supported the Poltical decision by a known liberal Obama appointee that has NO background in biology and is just another puppet.

So we agree, no debate, hunt on I will apply for another tag as soon as the ruling is overturned and it will be.

The problem, at least from my perspective, is that , from what I've read, ONE DNR biologist favored the hunt/trap, and the main proponents were politicians; not biologists. You've shown no proof of these biologists. I'm sure many will be okay in the near future.

It will be overturned as long as the packs keep thriving. Win/win!!

Maybe next time we really have some biological consensus from the DNR; so we don't have to have politicians pushing things through with no science to back them.

...which will result in the ultimate win/win - no arguments about it online.