Federal Court-wolf hunting ends now

[wrestle84]

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.

So, isn't it the duty of politicians to do what their constituents want? That is the reason they are elected. They represent the people. If a majority of the legislators that were elected by a majority of the people were in favor of it, I don't see the problem. It appears your problem is with democracy.

[wrestle84]

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.

Wisconsin has two seasons under it's belt where it has been legal to use dogs. The number of dogs that have been injured or killed by wolves during those seasons is zero.

[bigG]

Great. Shows wolves aren't a threat to hunting dogs. They also haven't shown to do much damage to livestock.

I'm 100% for people being able to protect their property, or even hunt the things for fur. Don't expect one political end to power grab, and the other to be content with it.

Should have been a Wolf Management/DNR call. Law would have passed itself. Grab for too much, grasp very little.

[ramjet]

Great. Shows wolves aren't a threat to hunting dogs. They also haven't shown to do much damage to livestock.

I'm 100% for people being able to protect their property, or even hunt the things for fur. Don't expect one political end to power grab, and the other to be content with it.

Should have been a Wolf Management/DNR call. Law would have passed itself. Grab for too much, grasp very little.

A well unless you own the livestock..........

[imnofish]

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

Do other dogs taste as well?

[ramjet]

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

Do other dogs taste as well?

Well if they are just another dog why all the protection?

[wrestle84]

Great. Shows wolves aren't a threat to hunting dogs. They also haven't shown to do much damage to livestock.

I'm 100% for people being able to protect their property, or even hunt the things for fur. Don't expect one political end to power grab, and the other to be content with it.

Should have been a Wolf Management/DNR call. Law would have passed itself. Grab for too much, grasp very little.

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/wolf/documents/WolfDamagePayments.pdf

I guess you consider the $1,739,927.27 paid out not much damage. That must be the fiscal conservative in you speaking. The sales of wolf license is where the money for this has been coming from since a season was started. They will need to find a new way to fund it now. The state should pass the cost to the feds since they are the ones that put them back on the endangered list, but they don't.

[maggie]

NOTHING AGAINST DOGS, BEARS,WOLF'S or those who hunt them Properly, but this is insane...... http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2013/09/wisconsin-pays-bear-hunters-for-dogs.html

[wrestle84]

NOTHING AGAINST DOGS, BEARS,WOLF'S or those who hunt them Properly, but this is insane...... http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2013/09/wisconsin-pays-bear-hunters-for-dogs.html

I agree, I don't think reimbursement for hunting dogs is necessary. There is a known risk that is assumed when you choose to hunt with dogs. I also think that when there are problem areas, that every effort should be made to relocate or eliminate the problem wolves. Having wolves unnecessarily on the endangered list eliminates that option. If someone has bear hunted in the same area without problems for the past 40 years, and now a pack of wolves moves in and is killing dogs, should that hunter be expected to stop hunting in that area and find somewhere else to hunt?

[ramjet]

NOTHING AGAINST DOGS, BEARS,WOLF'S or those who hunt them Properly, but this is insane...... http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2013/09/wisconsin-pays-bear-hunters-for-dogs.html

I agree, I don't think reimbursement for hunting dogs is necessary. There is a known risk that is assumed when you choose to hunt with dogs. I also think that when there are problem areas, that every effort should be made to relocate or eliminate the problem wolves. Having wolves unnecessarily on the endangered list eliminates that option. If someone has bear hunted in the same area without problems for the past 40 years, and now a pack of wolves moves in and is killing dogs, should that hunter be expected to stop hunting in that area and find somewhere else to hunt?

Agreed

[Handles II]

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.

So, isn't it the duty of politicians to do what their constituents want? That is the reason they are elected. They represent the people. If a majority of the legislators that were elected by a majority of the people were in favor of it, I don't see the problem. It appears your problem is with democracy.

No, actually Big G is perfectly fine with democracy, and the politicians should have followed what the majority wants (secondary to listening and following the biologist recommendations on the subject).  
From the Survey: "Among survey respondents in wolf range, 53% wanted wolf numbers maintained at current levels or increased in their county of residence, while 18% wanted wolves decreased and 15% wanted them eliminated."

As was said for several pages now, the hunting law was created by a few, for a few and without evidence that it was needed in any way. Bumbling fools made a law for wolf haters. Period.
Please do hunt the animals if needed. Please do allow for protection of livestock. Please make sure it is warranted before making such laws.

[wrestle84]

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.

So, isn't it the duty of politicians to do what their constituents want? That is the reason they are elected. They represent the people. If a majority of the legislators that were elected by a majority of the people were in favor of it, I don't see the problem. It appears your problem is with democracy.

No, actually Big G is perfectly fine with democracy, and the politicians should have followed what the majority wants (secondary to listening and following the biologist recommendations on the subject).  
From the Survey: "Among survey respondents in wolf range, 53% wanted wolf numbers maintained at current levels or increased in their county of residence, while 18% wanted wolves decreased and 15% wanted them eliminated."

As was said for several pages now, the hunting law was created by a few, for a few and without evidence that it was needed in any way. Bumbling fools made a law for wolf haters. Period.
Please do hunt the animals if needed. Please do allow for protection of livestock. Please make sure it is warranted before making such laws.

How were they able to pass a law if only a few wanted it? Was the vote like 5 yes and 96 no? I thought a majority was needed to pass. Must be some new type of democracy. How many were in favor, and how many against? It seems like you are not being honest here.

[Handles II]

The majority of constituents in wolf range were in favor of maintaining or increasing the wolf population. The politicians did not listen to the people (or biologists) in the state. They listened only to a few and made their decisions based off of that. Not science, not need, not public desire.

[wrestle84]

The majority of constituents in wolf range were in favor of maintaining or increasing the wolf population. The politicians did not listen to the people (or biologists) in the state. They listened only to a few and made their decisions based off of that. Not science, not need, not public desire.

We all know you can get whatever results you want from a survey. It's all in how you ask the question. I didn't realize we were now using survey results to govern.

[Handles II]

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.

So, isn't it the duty of politicians to do what their constituents want? That is the reason they are elected. They represent the people. If a majority of the legislators that were elected by a majority of the people were in favor of it, I don't see the problem. It appears your problem is with democracy.

No, actually Big G is perfectly fine with democracy, and the politicians should have followed what the majority wants (secondary to listening and following the biologist recommendations on the subject).  
From the Survey: "Among survey respondents in wolf range, 53% wanted wolf numbers maintained at current levels or increased in their county of residence, while 18% wanted wolves decreased and 15% wanted them eliminated."

As was said for several pages now, the hunting law was created by a few, for a few and without evidence that it was needed in any way. Bumbling fools made a law for wolf haters. Period.
Please do hunt the animals if needed. Please do allow for protection of livestock. Please make sure it is warranted before making such laws.

So if the majority doesn't like welfare payments that should stop?

"...doesn't like welfare payments that should stop?"    Yes? No?