Federal Court-wolf hunting ends now

[ramjet]

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.

I am sure people in Milwaukee and Madison want more wolves that makes sense.......

Answer my question if you support more wolves then how do you feel about a release of 5 of them on you're hunting land?

[maggie]

BOTTOM LINE, YOU PUT YOUR HOUNDS IN HARMS WAY AND SET THEM AFTER BEAR's or WOLF's...don't expect a red cent from the taxpayers of Wis to help fund your dead hounds...

[dman]

A little late to the party, but do have a question, why would it be appropriate for a scientist to recommend wolf hunting?  Isn't it the scientist/biologist's job to understand the ecology of wolf survival, breeding habits, carrying capacity, population health, predator/prey relationships, etc......which means aren't they only responsible for the "what" and the DNR/Legislation responsible for the "how" i.e., to hunt or not?

[ramjet]

BOTTOM LINE, YOU PUT YOUR HOUNDS IN HARMS WAY AND SET THEM AFTER BEAR's or WOLF's...don't expect a red cent from the taxpayers of Wis to help fund your dead hounds...

Well to help you out here Maggie they do not ask if they use them for hunting that animal.....maybe they have bounty on them dogs.......

[imnofish]

A little late to the party, but do have a question, why would it be appropriate for a scientist to recommend wolf hunting?  Isn't it the scientist/biologist's job to understand the ecology of wolf survival, breeding habits, carrying capacity, population health, predator/prey relationships, etc......which means aren't they only responsible for the "what" and the DNR/Legislation responsible for the "how" i.e., to hunt or not?

All of those considerations speak to achieving and sustaining the broader ecological balance of communities, so I can't see how any of these disqualifies them from the discussion.  Rather, it should further validate their place at the table, IMO. 

[dman]

I agree the scientist should be at the table; however, to me it is more about decision making and responsibilities.  Chosing to hunt wolves is more than just a scientific decision in my book.  Again to me hunting is a "how" decision that doesn't, and shouldn't just come from a biologist.

[imnofish]

I agree the scientist should be at the table; however, to me it is more about decision making and responsibilities.  Chosing to hunt wolves is more than just a scientific decision in my book.  Again to me hunting is a "how" decision that doesn't, and shouldn't just come from a biologist.

It's a management tool, so why would we want to manage without their expert input?  ...for any species? 

[dman]

I agree the scientist should be at the table; however, to me it is more about decision making and responsibilities.  Chosing to hunt wolves is more than just a scientific decision in my book.  Again to me hunting is a "how" decision that doesn't, and shouldn't just come from a biologist.

It's a management tool, so why would we want to manage without their expert input?  ...for any species? 

I haven't seen anything that says the biologist weren't involved in the management of the population and the "what"....sounds to me they weren't involved in the "how" (hunting decision)....I may be wrong however....eitherway, I am okay if the scientist weren't the ones who decided to hunt or not....I would be concerned if the scientists said that there isn't a need to control the packs at this point, and yet the DNR/Legislators decided to do it anyway.

[dman]

Bottom line is, from what I have heard from farmers and those living in the areas in which wolves are present....they are causing problems already so hunt away in my book.  Not that I would ever hunt them but I see no problem with it.

[dman]

Bottom line is, from what I have heard from farmers and those living in the areas in which wolves are present....they are causing problems already so hunt away in my book.  Not that I would ever hunt them but I see no problem with it.

+1

Hound hunts them with his bare hands (kind of like Larry "The Axe" Henning used to hunt bears with a switch).

LOL

[bigG]

I agree the scientist should be at the table; however, to me it is more about decision making and responsibilities.  Chosing to hunt wolves is more than just a scientific decision in my book.  Again to me hunting is a "how" decision that doesn't, and shouldn't just come from a biologist.

It's a management tool, so why would we want to manage without their expert input?  ...for any species?  

I haven't seen anything that says the biologist weren't involved in the management of the population and the "what"....sounds to me they weren't involved in the "how" (hunting decision)....I may be wrong however....eitherway, I am okay if the scientist weren't the ones who decided to hunt or not....I would be concerned if the scientists said that there isn't a need to control the packs at this point, and yet the DNR/Legislators decided to do it anyway.

DNR and Wolf Management were out of the legislative loop. This was two politicians passing legislation for their constituents. Wouldn't be a big deal had they allowed the addendum to the management plan.

I live in an area with wolves. Not a whole lotta destruction.

I can respect what you may have heard, Dman; but I don't think that's impetus for legislation. Biologists where taken out of the loop and a whole bunch of "what I heard"s took their place.

[dman]

I agree the scientist should be at the table; however, to me it is more about decision making and responsibilities.  Chosing to hunt wolves is more than just a scientific decision in my book.  Again to me hunting is a "how" decision that doesn't, and shouldn't just come from a biologist.

It's a management tool, so why would we want to manage without their expert input?  ...for any species?  

I haven't seen anything that says the biologist weren't involved in the management of the population and the "what"....sounds to me they weren't involved in the "how" (hunting decision)....I may be wrong however....eitherway, I am okay if the scientist weren't the ones who decided to hunt or not....I would be concerned if the scientists said that there isn't a need to control the packs at this point, and yet the DNR/Legislators decided to do it anyway.

DNR and Wolf Management were out of the legislative loop. This was two politicians passing legislation for their constituents. Wouldn't be a big deal had they allowed the addendum to the management plan.

I live in an area with wolves. Not a whole lotta destruction.

I can respect what you may have heard, Dman; but I don't think that's impetus for legislation. Biologists where taken out of the loop and a whole bunch of "what I heard"s took their place.

How are "hunting" laws passed normally?  Is it a politicians responsibility?  I truly don't know....guess I should read up on that.  Eitherway, I still don't think we should be letting Biologist's making hunting decisions....they should make the decisions on if the heards/packs need to be controlled.  Again, there is a lot more that goes into the decision of whether or not to hunt and animal than just what the biologists says....and this is coming from a guy with a biology degree. 

But like I said....hunting them wolves is all good with me. 

[bigG]

Good with me, too. Hunt , no hunt, dogs, no dogs...whatever. I could care less. But, many on here contend the ban was a big , brazen, political move. Well, so was the hunt and this whole ordeal was just political act/political react.

I'm also fine with not hunting them. I would much rather biologists make the hunting calls than legislators. That's all I'm saying. We let biologists make the calls all the time. Why, now that it's wolves, has it gone to a bunch of political posturing?

[ramjet]

Wolf back straps are wonderful especially when marinaded with soy sauce and red wine oh and dark beer.

[bigG]

Never had one. I couldn't imagine much of a strap. But what's there is usually good on any mammal. Magic meat, along that back.

I've been on a turkey kick, and I think my favorite meat flavor (maybe tied with lamb cheek) is neckbone meat off the turkey. There's like that little baby back strap , on either side, that runs the length of the neck. Heaven.

Mixin' beer and wine, eh? Yer askin' for it!!