Federal Court-wolf hunting ends now

[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.

Are you saying this law passed without a majority voting for it?

[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.

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.

Public input should certainly be an important part of governing in a democracy, don't you think? Once again for those who are slow to learn, the law put in place to allow wolf hunting was decided without public majority support and without biological data indicating it was needed. I'm not sure why there would need to be 12 pages of debate on something so simple. The legislators did what they wanted to do, and did without cause or evidence that it was needed.

[dman]

I don't know about you guys but this debating sure feels good since we don't have the "misc" page to debate anymore!   

So if we are going to go off of survey's to base legislation on then let's get rid of welfare, obamacare, Obama, etc.....

[Handles II]

 I've been told that the wolf hunt is what the people in wisconsin, and in wolf country wanted, and that is the reason for the law. Apparently not.
So no biological information, and a majority of people in wolf country against it. That's what I've been saying all along. Purely political legislation, exactly what ramjet said he is against. Feel free to show otherwise if you can.

[ramjet]

you guys are killing me    🐺   

[Handles II]

I've been told that the wolf hunt is what the people in wisconsin, and in wolf country wanted, and that is the reason for the law. Apparently not.
So no biological information, and a majority of people in wolf country against it. That's what I've been saying all along. Purely political legislation, exactly what ramjet said he is against. Feel free to show otherwise if you can.

Last fall we debated on how accurate surveys were regarding the election of our next Governor.  Now you say they are gospel.  Just sayin.

Please show anywhere that I said surveys were gospel. The reality is that you are simply using a red herring because you know the wolf hunt was purely political and not because of need. Show otherwise if you can.

[wrestle84]

I've been told that the wolf hunt is what the people in wisconsin, and in wolf country wanted, and that is the reason for the law. Apparently not.
So no biological information, and a majority of people in wolf country against it. That's what I've been saying all along. Purely political legislation, exactly what ramjet said he is against. Feel free to show otherwise if you can.

Last fall we debated on how accurate surveys were regarding the election of our next Governor.  Now you say they are gospel.  Just sayin.

Please show anywhere that I said surveys were gospel. The reality is that you are simply using a red herring because you know the wolf hunt was purely political and not because of need. Show otherwise if you can.

Did a majority vote in favor of a wolf hunt?

[bigG]

I've been told that the wolf hunt is what the people in wisconsin, and in wolf country wanted, and that is the reason for the law. Apparently not.
So no biological information, and a majority of people in wolf country against it. That's what I've been saying all along. Purely political legislation, exactly what ramjet said he is against. Feel free to show otherwise if you can.

Last fall we debated on how accurate surveys were regarding the election of our next Governor.  Now you say they are gospel.  Just sayin.

Please show anywhere that I said surveys were gospel. The reality is that you are simply using a red herring because you know the wolf hunt was purely political and not because of need. Show otherwise if you can.

Did a majority vote in favor of a wolf hunt?

Majority of what? Constituents, or DNR biologists?

[wrestle84]

I've been told that the wolf hunt is what the people in wisconsin, and in wolf country wanted, and that is the reason for the law. Apparently not.
So no biological information, and a majority of people in wolf country against it. That's what I've been saying all along. Purely political legislation, exactly what ramjet said he is against. Feel free to show otherwise if you can.

Last fall we debated on how accurate surveys were regarding the election of our next Governor.  Now you say they are gospel.  Just sayin.

Please show anywhere that I said surveys were gospel. The reality is that you are simply using a red herring because you know the wolf hunt was purely political and not because of need. Show otherwise if you can.

Did a majority vote in favor of a wolf hunt?

Majority of what? Constituents, or DNR biologists?

No, a majority of the legislators elected by a majority of their constituents. You're not against democracy are you? Or are you also suggesting we should start governing by any old survey that is taken, like Handles?

[bigG]

I don't know about the majority. The debate here was whether the hunt and ensuing litigation included the biologists to back this or oppose this.

You could argue that the majority elects those who appointed the judge here, too, and that we the people have elected to have the oversight.

That wasn't the debate. Ram claimed science backed this hunt/trap. He pointed to a single survey question as his evidence.

So, I guess, what we're seeing is democracy in action. Democracy sometimes takes longer than we want.

[ramjet]

I don't know about the majority. The debate here was whether the hunt and ensuing litigation included the biologists to back this or oppose this.

You could argue that the majority elects those who appointed the judge here, too, and that we the people have elected to have the oversight.

That wasn't the debate. Ram claimed science backed this hunt/trap. He pointed to a single survey question as his evidence.

So, I guess, what we're seeing is democracy in action. Democracy sometimes takes longer than we want.

Umm sorry you are misrepresenting my,postion completely so let me simplify it for you;

The original plan and manag,ent plan was written by the conservation board and DNR biologists they could not themselves enact a hunting season as part of the manag,ent p,an with legislative action. Originally they could not use hunting because wolves were protected. The USFW delisted the wolf which allowed for manag,ent using one of the tools to control population and that hunting. The Wisconsin did as law provided and passed the law based on the recommendation of the original,plan and carrying capacities setting the hunt with limits on the number of wolves that could be killed based on studies by the DNR Biologists and game managment folks.

Then comes the Obama appointed Liberal Judge who overturns the delisting and puts wolves back on the endangered species list because of law suit filed by the U.S. humane society an extreme group often referred to as tree huggers. The judge made this ruling not based on the rule of law but on her Poltical emotions.

I hope this clears my postion up for you G as very often all too often you argue for the sake of arguing just because....

So that's my postion.....yippy ding dong

[imnofish]

Well, since he was an "Obama appointed liberal judge"....   

[bigG]

"The Wisconsin did as law provided and passed the law based on the recommendation of the original,plan and carrying capacities setting the hunt with limits on the number of wolves that could be killed based on studies by the DNR Biologists and game managment folks. "

A survey questions shows no proof that the law was based on the conservation plan's recommendation. I'd like to see that recommendation in the conservation plan. That is the proof to which you allude; but can't seem to produce.

Looked like the plan people and DNR threw it out there on a survey, many seemed to favor it. If it were a viable opitn, don't you think they make it part of the management plan. You claim all along that this is a management tool. Well, let the plan folks make that call, then make the law.

Your position has always been clear. You think a liberal took your right to get a tag and hunt/trap wolves. You have yet to produce evidence of the Conservation Plan or DNR recommending hunt/trap.

Ah well, two political opposites that deserve each other. Bunch of cons jump the gun, bunch of libs react. Democracy in action.

[ramjet]

"The Wisconsin did as law provided and passed the law based on the recommendation of the original,plan and carrying capacities setting the hunt with limits on the number of wolves that could be killed based on studies by the DNR Biologists and game managment folks. "

A survey questions shows no proof that the law was based on the conservation plan's recommendation. I'd like to see that recommendation in the conservation plan. That is the proof to which you allude; but can't seem to produce.

Looked like the plan people and DNR threw it out there on a survey, many seemed to favor it. If it were a viable opitn, don't you think they make it part of the management plan. You claim all along that this is a management tool. Well, let the plan folks make that call, then make the law.

Your position has always been clear. You think a liberal took your right to get a tag and hunt/trap wolves. You have yet to produce evidence of the Conservation Plan or DNR recommending hunt/trap.

Ah well, two political opposites that deserve each other. Bunch of cons jump the gun, bunch of libs react. Democracy in action.

Well it's obvious you are only going to see what you want the original plan made recommendations on the carrying capacity and hunting so you seem to be ignoring that.

I think it's horse to the water thing you beleive what you want but understand the Conservation Board recommendations take everything in consideration. A frankly I am with others who think the survey isms very small insignificant part considering that in the past they were shot down by you and HandlesII and the data can and mostmpilelynis skewed to show what the authors and purveyors of that survey want it to show.

[ramjet]

Well, since he was an "Obama appointed liberal judge"....   

Well Fish I am sorry if the truth hurts but she is.