Federal Court-wolf hunting ends now

[imnofish]

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

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

So, is that the issue, or is it the decision she made?  Seems to me that it's the latter.  Continually bringing up the the former (your assertion) seeks to turn the discussion political, which is supposed to be tabu on here.  I have no problem with discussing the decision, but constantly stirring the proverbial political pot is counterproductive to respectful discourse, IMO.  Those on the other side of the issue could make similar claims about certain DNR officials being "right-wing Walker appointees," but they have refrained from doing so.  Why not just drop the politically-charged references, since discussion has been much more civil on here without them?

[Handles II]

"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.

Then show it. Show the evidence you speak of. Show the carrying capacity numbers. Show something, anything.  13 pages Ramjet, you have shown plenty about why the wolf is important to the state, you showed some pretty pictures, you showed nothing else, but you keep flapping your yap. Show it.

[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.

Then show it. Show the evidence you speak of. Show the carrying capacity numbers. Show something, anything.  13 pages Ramjet, you have shown plenty about why the wolf is important to the state, you showed some pretty pictures, you showed nothing else, but you keep flapping your yap. Show it.

The links are there  heck the original plan has verbiage but you refuse to see it because of the way you feel that's fine, the bottom line is this ruling will be overturned and we will get back to managing our resources as a state as it should be.

Fish as I stated many many times this Judge allowed herself to be persuaded by an extremist group and she did not rule based on the law but her Poltical and phylisophical reasons.bThis will be brought out when her ruling is overturned and it will be. The State should have the power to regulate the Natural area sources within its boundaries not some judge with a political agenda.  She is classified in several online articles as a Liberal minded Judge and she was appointed by Obama. I take issue with both.

[dman]

It's funny that some are against the fact that legislators made the decision to hunt wolves, but are for a judge changing the ruling....seems hypocritical to me.  To use some on here's defense....shouldn't the DNR and Biologist's make that determination to stop hunting, not a judge??   

[Handles II]

To go back one step, shouldn't the DNR and biologists be the ones to decide to start a wolf hunt??? That's the point dman. That's the point.

[dman]

To go back one step, shouldn't the DNR and biologists be the ones to decide to start a wolf hunt??? That's the point dman. That's the point.

But you're okay with a judge making the decision to stop the hunt....got it!     Like I have said, I am okay with the legislators making the decision to start a wolf hunt.  I can't and won't believe they made that decision in a vacuum as much as some, like you, would like to believe.

[Handles II]

To go back one step, shouldn't the DNR and biologists be the ones to decide to start a wolf hunt??? That's the point dman. That's the point.

But you're okay with a judge making the decision to stop the hunt....got it!     Like I have said, I am okay with the legislators making the decision to start a wolf hunt.  I can't and won't believe they made that decision in a vacuum as much as some, like you, would like to believe.

Should be lots of evidence and reports out there then, right Ramjet? er, dman? feel free to present it.

[bigG]

It's funny that some are against the fact that legislators made the decision to hunt wolves, but are for a judge changing the ruling....seems hypocritical to me.  To use some on here's defense....shouldn't the DNR and Biologist's make that determination to stop hunting, not a judge??   

I'm against both actions. Funny how they cancel each other out, ain't it? They are a perfect pair. 0-0=___ You guessed it.

Had the hunt/trap been included in the management plan (like it most like would have sooner or later), THEN we talk legal hunt/trap.

Funny how some people are against the judge freezing the hunt/trap, but were all for legislators making the call all on their own.

I don't feel, Ram. This means nothing to me; but an opportunity to learn about a subject I know little about.

Posting a link as to the hunting rules and a survey question does not indicate an consensus among scientists.

Instead of blaming it on how I feel; find some evidence. This judge may have been persuaded by a nut group. The legislators may have only listened to a small, but vocal, minority. Who knows?

[ramjet]

It's funny that some are against the fact that legislators made the decision to hunt wolves, but are for a judge changing the ruling....seems hypocritical to me.  To use some on here's defense....shouldn't the DNR and Biologist's make that determination to stop hunting, not a judge??   

I'm against both actions. Funny how they cancel each other out, ain't it? They are a perfect pair. 0-0=___ You guessed it.

Had the hunt/trap been included in the management plan (like it most like would have sooner or later), THEN we talk legal hunt/trap.

Funny how some people are against the judge freezing the hunt/trap, but were all for legislators making the call all on their own.

I don't feel, Ram. This means nothing to me; but an opportunity to learn about a subject I know little about.

Posting a link as to the hunting rules and a survey question does not indicate an consensus among scientists.

Instead of blaming it on how I feel; find some evidence. This judge may have been persuaded by a nut group. The legislators may have only listened to a small, but vocal, minority. Who knows?

Evidence.....we had hunting season the plan was proposed and implimented the numbers confirmed and the hunt closely monitored by the DNR.   Thats the evidence the plan suggested and recognized the use of hunting as a managment tool.

A Liberal Judge sided with an extremist group and took away the states ability to manage our natural resources.

If you really want to get to the nuts of this issue we went many many many years without wolves what problem did that cause? Where is you're scientific evidence that is not associated with the extremist group?

One more question can you prove to me that their are no biologists that work for the Wisconsin DNR?

[Handles II]

Ram, where is this evidence and plan then? Where is your science you continually speak of but never produce? And why are wolf biologists from the DNR against the legislation that was made in WI???

I'll quote again: ""..Dick Thiel, a retired DNR wolf biologist who gave expert testimony in the case, expects other legal challenges to be filed. 
Thiel and others suspect the bill was written with substantial input from pro-hunting groups, which invested more than 200 hours lobbying on its behalf, and minimal input from DNR staff and other wildlife professionals.

"They needed to keep science out of it, because there are a lot of flaws in the bill," asserts Thiel, who is among the 20,000 people who've applied for a wolf hunt license."
Theil wanted a wolf hunt, but most certainly not the way legislation set it up.

Perhaps this will help your confusion on the matter:  http://wisconsinwatch.org/2013/10/scientists-question-states-course-on-wolves/

"Whoever worked with the legislators on the bill — it's clear the legislators wanted (the wolf population) brought down," he said. "If we start talking about higher goals, it will make people nervous because of the political pressure out there."

Vander Zouwen said he didn't know who was applying this pressure: "Nobody has really told me who those influential parties are."

Several hunting groups have lobbied on the wolf hunt and contributed to GOP campaigns.

The wolf committee is one of 16 wildlife advisory committees that were revamped this spring to exclude university researchers and reduce DNR staff. The rechartering of DNR's 16 wildlife committees has raised concerns among some DNR panel members, according to emails and a report obtained under an open records request by the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism.

"(T)his is not a great way to integrate science into committee work which should be the foundation of recommendations or at the very least used to inform decision-making," DNR wildlife and forestry section chief Karl Martin wrote in a March 26 email to Vander Zouwen.

Travis Anderson, a DNR wildlife biologist, also questioned the removal of university researchers.

"If our 'partner groups' are allowed a seat at the table on our species committees, why is it that our University partners are not allowed a seat?" Anderson wrote a DNR wildlife supervisor on March 18. "They are just as important, if not more so. They provide the science behind the decisions we make to protect, preserve and restore the natural resource of this state for its citizens."

[bigG]

I can see your point, Goat, but that doesn't make legislators taking things into their own  hands right, either. I don't trust politicians more than the DNR.

I think the Wolf Management Team was bypassed because there was pressure to make it all happen now. Now you can wait.

Ram, you have shown no science, but this politically legalized experiment.

I trust the DNR over some politicians, honestly. Many of hose Stevens Point kids end up in the DNR.

But I agree, like many government agencies, they try to prove their worth by setting up little disasters. Maybe that's why the separate Wolf folks were formed.

This is why democracy isn't solely majority rule. There are checks and balances. Got one right here.

[maggie]

"Extremest groups".... ...Maggie's got news for ya little buddy, all groups are Extremest when there fighting for there cause...yes, even the one you belong too..

[ramjet]

"Extremest groups".... ...Maggie's got news for ya little buddy, all groups are Extremest when there fighting for there cause...yes, even the one you belong too..

LOL little buddy you are as extreme as they come but understand you are hurting alittle from recent events you should be just as outraged the judge stepped down n where she did not belong.

HamdlesII we had season the judge overturned it based her liberal agenda not science.

[imnofish]

I thought you guys might find this interesting:

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/12/19/great-lakes-wolves-ordered-returned-endangered-list/20655023/

[bigG]

"Extremest groups".... ...Maggie's got news for ya little buddy, all groups are Extremest when there fighting for there cause...yes, even the one you belong too..

LOL little buddy you are as extreme as they come but understand you are hurting alittle from recent events you should be just as outraged the judge stepped down n where she did not belong.

HamdlesII we had season the judge overturned it based her liberal agenda not science.

The season was started by political extremists with a pro-hunt agenda. There ya go. Wait for hunt/trap to be included in the management plan, and you have your hunt/trap. Your guys jumped the gun (pardon the pun.)