Federal Court-wolf hunting ends now

[bigG]

G if you go onto the site DNR and review the plan and also understand the season was mag ament lol proposed by the DNR with input from its Biologists. For you to say otherwise because of some liberal democratic and tree hugger tripe does not make that gospel either.

Again if you guys want wolves to be high in numbers and prosper without management then by all means volunteer your area for placement. This would go along ways towards supporting the reintroduction effort.

HandlesII just so you know it's too freaking late NOT to interfere with Nature that started with Cain and Able....

That was the first place I went. The plan. I was the one that posted, and read most of, the plan. There is nothing about hunting/trapping in the plan that I saw. The Wolf Conservation plan does not yet include hunting/trapping. The hunting/trapping part was put in there by politicians. If the biologists ran the show and agreed it would make sense to manage the wolves by hunting/trapping, I'd think they'd addendum that to their conservation plan. Please show me where I missed something in there. 

The DNR hunting/trapping website sure doesn't outline any scientific evidence one way or the other. The DNR is just doing what their political overlords make them do. Must really cheese some off that they're listened to less than politicians who created such legislation.

Pretend I'm from Missouri and, instead of calling me some childish name, show me.

[bigG]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/outdoors/wisconsin-wolf-hunt-snags-attention-b99376125z1-280140242.html

Sounds like it was going to be in the management Plan addendum of 2015. Too bad politicos had to jump in. Did you vote for nay of those folks?

If you did, then you voted for politics over science.

Ted's lobby v. the Tree Huggers lobby. Sounds like lose/lose. Let the scientists create the plan...win/win.

"The Legislature forced the agency to open a wolf hunting and trapping season before it had updated its wolf management plan. The current plan was written in 1999; it sets the wolf population goal at 350."

I bet they'll make hunting/trapping part of the 2015 addendum. Are you going to be mad if they don't allow dogs or night hunting?

[ramjet]

G if you go onto the site DNR and review the plan and also understand the season was mag ament lol proposed by the DNR with input from its Biologists. For you to say otherwise because of some liberal democratic and tree hugger tripe does not make that gospel either.

Again if you guys want wolves to be high in numbers and prosper without management then by all means volunteer your area for placement. This would go along ways towards supporting the reintroduction effort.

HandlesII just so you know it's too freaking late NOT to interfere with Nature that started with Cain and Able....

That was the first place I went. The plan. I was the one that posted, and read most of, the plan. There is nothing about hunting/trapping in the plan that I saw. The Wolf Conservation plan does not yet include hunting/trapping. The hunting/trapping part was put in there by politicians. If the biologists ran the show and agreed it would make sense to manage the wolves by hunting/trapping, I'd think they'd addendum that to their conservation plan. Please show me where I missed something in there.  

The DNR hunting/trapping website sure doesn't outline any scientific evidence one way or the other. The DNR is just doing what their political overlords make them do. Must really cheese some off that they're listened to less than politicians who created such legislation.

Pretend I'dm from Missouri and, instead of calling me some childish name, show me.

First off I did not call you anything. But I will now stop trying to start something here in you're usual martyr fashion.

So they have Wolf Managment plan but no way to control or manage the population?


http://dnr.wi.gov/files/pdf/pubs/er/er0099.pdf

Page 53 item 2

this is good start and as you see the harvest/hunting was always a consideration for Management especially when the population levels were reached. You will notice even way back then the carring capacity was determined on science and not by the Poltical intervention of Liberal out of Control judges or politicians and ven back in 2009 they need Legilative approval for a hunt.

[ramjet]

G I forgot to answer the one other question about using dogs to hunt wolves.

My answer; We should absolutely allow it in fact I would love tis ee hunters bring back and use some of the original breeds developed for wolf hunting.

a you know some of those breeds are hundreds of years old.

[ramjet]

Nice reply, I expected as much.  

This is an awesome video to show your kids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q#t=231

If you knew the answer why did you ask to try and create controvesy and more hard feelings?

[bigG]

P. 54 contained item 2. A survey question.

That was scientific evidence of anything wolf besides opinion?

Hunting and trapping as a management technique were not part of the plan. Legislation made it happen.

You said I was a treehugger like Handles. Ouch.

So, you'll still be upset if the addendum doesn't allow for dogs?

A survey question in a many-page plan is not scientific evidence. It's popular opinion; a tiny bit of public info. in support of hunt/trap.

Looks like you're the martyr. No evidence, pure conjecture.

Let it happen, bud. This was politicians pushing for the portion of the constituency that got them elected. This was not motivated by the management plan one bit.

Jeez. Let them change the plan before you ramrod stuff. I don't think the lobo will take us over in the meantime. Maybe they should be the ones to write the addendum so it can become a law, cleanly. I'm sure they hired someone who knew what they were doing when they hired them to write the law. Doesn't make the process right.

Either way, wolves are doing fine by me and haven't swept up any pooches in my immediate area (coyotes are great killers). Git out there and knockout some yotes, eh!! The wolves will come. The goofball judge was as weak as those who ran it through. Lose/lose. You don't make laws like that without the considerations of the scientists who really study these things hard? Public opinion should be considered. But to force feed the DNR like that, I think, was poorly thought out.

The outdoorsy types of kids I've helped send to Point, so they can do that work, aren't what you would call tree huggers. Most are really good tree cutters and huntsmen, as the Brit would say.

Let it happen. Many are in the DNR because hunting is what got them outdoors to begin with. When you just rip stuff through; there might be consequences.

Been a fun topic to read up on, a little bit.

Still, I bet I can chug 6 sandhills in one sitting.


P.S. de-feathered and broasted.

[Handles II]

Nice reply, I expected as much.  

This is an awesome video to show your kids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q#t=231

Ever heard of a clean kill?  Never wounded and lost a deer so I don't know what that would be like.  Apparently you have.

You obviously are purposely ignoring the fact that hunters wound deer. Many, many more than wolves do.

P.54 Item 2.  Hahahahahahahahaha! That's your "scientific evidence from biologists in favor of the wolf hunt" Oh, man, my ribs are aching!!! Thanks Ramjet, you gave me the biggest laugh of the day. By all means, keep it coming!

[ramjet]

P. 54 contained item 2. A survey question.

That was scientific evidence of anything wolf besides opinion?

Hunting and trapping as a management technique were not part of the plan. Legislation made it happen.

You said I was a treehugger like Handles. Ouch.

So, you'll still be upset if the addendum doesn't allow for dogs?

A survey question in a many-page plan is not scientific evidence. It's popular opinion; a tiny bit of public info. in support of hunt/trap.

Looks like you're the martyr. No evidence, pure conjecture.

Let it happen, bud. This was politicians pushing for the portion of the constituency that got them elected. This was not motivated by the management plan one bit.

Jeez. Let them change the plan before you ramrod stuff. I don't think the lobo will take us over in the meantime. Maybe they should be the ones to write the addendum so it can become a law, cleanly. I'm sure they hired someone who knew what they were doing when they hired them to write the law. Doesn't make the process right.

Either way, wolves are doing fine by me and haven't swept up any pooches in my immediate area (coyotes are great killers). Git out there and knockout some yotes, eh!! The wolves will come. The goofball judge was as weak as those who ran it through. Lose/lose. You don't make laws like that without the considerations of the scientists who really study these things hard? Public opinion should be considered. But to force feed the DNR like that, I think, was poorly thought out.

The outdoorsy types of kids I've helped send to Point, so they can do that work, aren't what you would call tree huggers. Most are really good tree cutters and huntsmen, as the Brit would say.

Let it happen. Many are in the DNR because hunting is what got them outdoors to begin with. When you just rip stuff through; there might be consequences.

Been a fun topic to read up on, a little bit.

Still, I bet I can chug 6 sandhills in one sitting.


P.S. de-feathered and broasted.

But as the law provides it takes the approval of the legislature so there no way not have them it's called check and balances the bottom line the ONLY way to a manage the population of Wolves to ensure they are within the carring capacity is by hunting or trapping them.

What's interesting is carrying capacity is more than science it's also impact on those where the wolf over population causes issues with safety, livestock, pets and other sporting interests including quality of life for those who have to,live with them. If you do not consider these other things you put the wolf in front of people and quality of life and economic livelihood. So do you and Ha does advocate that these things are put in front of the wolf or consider it more I portabt that we leave the wolf alone or do advocate manage the resource and that hunting is and should be part of the management plan?

As far as the use of dogs as I said I see no issue with it and you have not and HandlesII has not told me why it's bad. I do not think I called you a tree hugger I may have categorized you're behaviour or attitude to be consistent with Tree Huggers.

As I see it HandlesII and you to some extent follow the idealisms of the political party ont his issue as you do with other topics you frankly G lean slightly more OT the middle but the line of thinking follows that Poltical line of thinking.

Thank goodness we have some lawmakers willing to look for the folks and not allow the nuts to put the animals ahead of us because you can find balance but the side HandlesII and you have followed are only interested in the Wolf........sorry that's the same mentality the Human Society uses towards medical research using animals they feel better OT let people die than harm an animal in research.......yikes thank goodness for the lawmakers that stick up for common sense.

[imnofish]

Nice reply, I expected as much.  

This is an awesome video to show your kids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q#t=231

Ever heard of a clean kill?  Never wounded and lost a deer so I don't know what that would be like.  Apparently you have.

Fish, apparently I don't need to clip a fin to catch a fish.

I'm sure you don't, but taking such action makes the minnow easier for predators to catch, so the practice is effective for those without your remarkable skills in all things outdoors. 

[bigG]

LOL!!!

Ram. Let the DNR and Wolf Management team decide that. Not a couple of politicians.

They'll add it to their addendum, it will be the easiest law to pass, if they do. It might come without dogs and night hunting. Little win/little win.

I don't quite get the dog thing. The major complaint is the killing of dogs. Seems to be the greatest damage wolves do. Then, you want to up those numbers by hunting with dogs?

The reason the DNR and Wolf management folks survey people is to address those other things you mention.

I have no stake in this. I have no politics in this. I'm just addressing your line of thinking that it's one political side that messed this up. Obviously, there are two guilty parties. They deserve each other, IMO.

I could care less about the wolves or the hunting and trapping. I care about political overreach and both loser sides have show overreach; including the one you may have voted for.

[ramjet]

I did not vote for the guy who appointed the judge .........did you?

Two seasons with wolves hunted with hounds effective method and allot fun just like bird hunting with a dog. Wolf becomes prey not not the or editor when pursued by a well trained group of dogs.

[bigG]

I neither voted for any federal judge nor any politicians who would take it on themselves to decide if hunting/trapping would be a sound biological terms of wolf management. Clearly a few high-and-mighty politicos thought they knew more than the scientists (or that their constituency was somehow qualified to make the call).

Thus the judge you despise so much. Take your feeling for that judge and imagine the same sentiment the other way to the ignorami that created the bill. There you go. I stand nowhere on wolves. No impact on my world at all (yet). I have no political wolf affiliation. The libertarian in my says charge $5k per permit, issue as many as wolves you want to take, and make some bucks. BUT, I would also like some scientific backing that conservation effort wasn't money wasted, either.

You generally don't vote for federal judges not the head of the DNR. Your point?

[ramjet]

I neither voted for any federal judge nor any politicians who would take it on themselves to decide if hunting/trapping would be a sound biological terms of wolf management. Clearly a few high-and-mighty politicos thought they knew more than the scientists (or that their constituency was somehow qualified to make the call).

Thus the judge you despise so much. Take your feeling for that judge and imagine the same sentiment the other way to the ignorami that created the bill. There you go. I stand nowhere on wolves. No impact on my world at all (yet). I have no political wolf affiliation. The libertarian in my says charge $5k per permit, issue as many as wolves you want to take, and make some bucks. BUT, I would also like some scientific backing that conservation effort wasn't money wasted, either.

You generally don't vote for federal judges not the head of the DNR. Your point?

HandleII would you welcome a wolf pack to be released on You're hunting land?  HANDLESII?

G Weak argument she was appointed to advance a particular political philosophy Obama appointed her.

[bigG]

I don't know what's worse:appointed to advance a political philosophy or elected to advance one. Horse a piece, I guess.

You stated biologists supported our two state politicians. Those politicians took it out of the hands of the experts. Not at all a weak argument. You let experts make those calls, and the new laws will follow. Write the clowns a letter who "wrote" and had this bill passed. they're the ones who sure come across as jumping the gun.

[Handles II]

Ramjet, you have shown ZERO except that wolves actually help deer and elk herds. You have shown no biologists who, as you said over and over, were pushing for a wolf hunt. You have shown no information that details the "carrying capacity" of the state was maxed out as you claimed. The majority of public in wolf areas of the state are for increasing the population based on a DNR survey.
You started this thread because you stated you were against political legislation. All you have shown is that the decision to have a wolf hunt was strictly a political decision of a bumbling few to quench the thirst of another few, and not one based on biological reasons, carrying capacity, nor public need or desire.
In order to reverse the recent non-hunting decision, I suspect all three of the above will need to be shown as it should have been in the first place. As it should be to pass any other type of hunting season or laws.