Federal Court-wolf hunting ends now

[ramjet]

science Handles ; "1.9 deer per sq mile" LOL so there are a bunch .1 deer running around ? That's just stupid stat and who said that the Humane Society biologists............so 1.9 looks better than 2? more ridiculous rhetoric from the emotional HandlesII

From your source: P 58. "Wolves in the Great Lakes region normally consume 15-18 deer per wolf per year (Fuller 1995). At a rate of 18 deer per wolf pack per year and average Wisconsin wolf pack of 4 wolves on a 70-square mile territory would consume 72 deer per year or about 1 deer per square mile".
Sorry, I was mistaken about the 1.9. Remove the .9. 
In fact, it would be very wise of you to read ALL of page 58 of the source you provided, particularly the 3rd and last paragraphs in the 2nd column. Thanks for producing evidence that completely contradicts what you have been spewing. Maybe you should actually read and comprehend what you are posting before you do. Nah, it's more fun when you do stuff like this. 

All yu have done for weeks is echo th Humane Society position on wolves and used many quotes from them. So you are using politics not science.

all folks have to do is Google "Humane Society donates to wolf research" many of tha so called scientific facts come up you have been exposed plain and simple it's no science at a
l just more liberal politics.

Hey man, this was directly from the source YOU produced as evidence for NEED for a wolf hunt. You are obviously cut of the same cloth as the bumbling legislators and lobbyists who paid for this bill to be written.  Too fun Ramjet, once again you duped yourself! HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Speaking of bumbling; Look what your paid spokesman and leader for the NRA said:"WISCONSIN Spirit BloodBrothers the Weisner family trapped this stunning wolf. Though no state has issued an adeqaute number of wolf tags, believe when I tell you that certain WE THE PEOPLE in touch caring Americans are killing MANY MANY more wolves than the numbnut corrupt dishonest PC government thugs allow. Kill as many as you can real conservationists. The wolf population is irresponsibly & dangerously out of control. Wolf jackets ROCK!!"

Old uncle ted is promoting, encouraging and admitting to poaching. What a wonderful example. 

[dman]

Wonder how a "wolf hunt" can be something that is political?  What does one gain by making a wolf hunt political??

[ramjet]

Wonder how a "wolf hunt" can be something that is political?  What does one gain by making a wolf hunt political??

Political Ideaology dd you read the last 16 pages?

State control of Natural Resources vs Federal control.

Anti hunters vs Pro hunting

[bigG]

Many hunters would favor the science over politics approach. You have shown no science and all politics on this issue, Ram. You know i respect you and believe you'll be hunting wolves in the very near future. Just leave it in the hands of the scientists to make it part of the management plan.

It state politicians v. federal politicians. That's all. If you voted for the state ones to overstep, then you voted for the feds to react, IMHO.

One gains the love of a certain, powerful, constituency in one's area. One might even profit from such a thing. I know the NRA doesn't have deep coffers. Just thinking hypothetically.

What does one lose by waiting for the management team's blessing?

Politicians v. Politicians

[maggie]

looks as tho politicians and playing games with our wildlife ..putting there executions into a bill...wow, how sad is that...

[imnofish]

I'm all for keeping wildlife populations properly balanced, but I favor a process that does not circumvent the best use of relevant skills and knowledge already at our disposal.  It's like having a parking attendant decide to personally rebuild your transmission, just because he has your car keys. 

[wrestle84]

http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/Bill-would-remove-federal-protections-for-wolves-in-4-states-288461371.html?device=tablet&c=y

[imnofish]

I want my car keys back.   

[dman]

I want my car keys back.   

Have you read the legislation?  Do you know who was consulted in the latest legislation??   

[Handles II]

Who was consulted in the first legislation dman? That's where it all started. That's where the problem began. Our biologists predicted it would end up this way, and it has, sounds like they know a thing or two about this. Perhaps they should have had a much bigger role in the wolf hunt decision rather than being shut out of the process. You are simply trying to throw the flag at the person who threw the 2nd punch of the fight, in self defense, and ignoring one that threw the 1st. 

And sorry ramjet, this isn't about anti hunters per se. There are many pro-hunters, like myself, that would completely support wolf hunting, but not when it's decided behind closed doors without scientific evidence and backing.

Big G mentioned Sandhill Crane hunting. I'm not for it in WI, yet. Their population here (and yes, I've been paying attention to it) isn't such to insure that over harvest, poaching, a wet spring and poor nesting for a year or two, or a disease wouldn't put them right back to almost zero. This is in spite of what a few other trigger happy hunters and lobbyists want the population to think, that we are being overrun by sandhills and we must shoot them. 

[bigG]

I want my car keys back.   

Have you read the legislation?  Do you know who was consulted in the latest legislation??   

The clips I've read in different news source suggest the two legislators, acting on their bear hunting constituency, hired a retired admin. from the US Dept. of Fish and game to write the law. I don't know how true that is. One thing I do know is that the wolf management team did not add hunting and trapping to an addendum in the management plan. I bet it is open to the idea and will make it part of the plan with scientific evidence and public input. Nice to include the stakeholders; and all of them.

I'm for hunting Sandhills tonight,if I can. But, I also understand that my expertise can't compare to a real-live biologist who studies these things in detail. Yes, the DNR makes mistakes; but does that mean we leave these decisions up to much less qualified legislators? I hope not. I'd for for legalizing sandhills. If a majority does; that doesn't necessarily make them right, does it? I just like to eat good meat. maybe the lasting presence of the animal means more than my freezer. If they live off a fish I like, that doesn't mean they should be killed. Might be the only thing they can eat. I can still go to the store and buy fish. Wolves eat deer for survival. People hunt them for fun and food; but I doubt there are (m)any humans whose sustenance depends on deer. 

I'll be happy with or without sandhill hunting if it means that bird gets to thrive and survive. Knowing that I can hope they'll one day be legal to consume. MMM.

[ramjet]

Who was consulted in the first legislation dman? That's where it all started. That's where the problem began. Our biologists predicted it would end up this way, and it has, sounds like they know a thing or two about this. Perhaps they should have had a much bigger role in the wolf hunt decision rather than being shut out of the process. You are simply trying to throw the flag at the person who threw the 2nd punch of the fight, in self defense, and ignoring one that threw the 1st. 

And sorry ramjet, this isn't about anti hunters per se. There are many pro-hunters, like myself, that would completely support wolf hunting, but not when it's decided behind closed doors without scientific evidence and backing.

Big G mentioned Sandhill Crane hunting. I'm not for it in WI, yet. Their population here (and yes, I've been paying attention to it) isn't such to insure that over harvest, poaching, a wet spring and poor nesting for a year or two, or a disease wouldn't put them right back to almost zero. This is in spite of what a few other trigger happy hunters and lobbyists want the population to think, that we are being overrun by sandhills and we must shoot them. 

ha ha SH Cranes are delicious and plentiful stop reading the Humane Society Blogs and expand you're knowledge of wildlife some........🙀

You realize they still would not allow them to be hunted in the refuge right?

[ramjet]

Yea we go on and on and even in this job description from the Beirut of Labor and statistics this paragraph tells so much the last sentence being the key.

Wolf Biologist Job Description
Wolf biologists study the lifestyles, breeding habits, and migration patterns of wolves. Information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) stated that some major research sites where wolf biologists work included Yellowstone National Park and the Northern Rocky Mountains (www.fws.gov). Most biologists spend months in the field actively watching wolf packs. Some biologists also work as political activists who encourage politicians to change laws that help protect dwindling wolf populations.

http://education-portal.com/articles/Wolf_Biologist_Job_Description_Salary_and_Duties.html

So G and Handles how do you differentiate the activist Biologists from the non activists ones if they work in the same room? How do you differentiate of thier work is influenced by thier politics or not?

[dman]

Who was consulted in the first legislation dman? That's where it all started. That's where the problem began. Our biologists predicted it would end up this way, and it has, sounds like they know a thing or two about this. Perhaps they should have had a much bigger role in the wolf hunt decision rather than being shut out of the process. You are simply trying to throw the flag at the person who threw the 2nd punch of the fight, in self defense, and ignoring one that threw the 1st. 

And sorry ramjet, this isn't about anti hunters per se. There are many pro-hunters, like myself, that would completely support wolf hunting, but not when it's decided behind closed doors without scientific evidence and backing.

Big G mentioned Sandhill Crane hunting. I'm not for it in WI, yet. Their population here (and yes, I've been paying attention to it) isn't such to insure that over harvest, poaching, a wet spring and poor nesting for a year or two, or a disease wouldn't put them right back to almost zero. This is in spite of what a few other trigger happy hunters and lobbyists want the population to think, that we are being overrun by sandhills and we must shoot them. 

That's fine Handle's look at it from only one side and forget the lens you look at it from.     My point to all of this is I truly believe that none of us on here know who or who was not "consulted" when making the decision to hunt or not hunt wolves.  I also for the life of me can't figure out who is to gain politically by this.  Sure I can see pro-hunting groups wanting to hunt wolfs, that is what they are suppose to do, but is that a political thing?? 

[bigG]

How does the judge gain anything?

You point to the biggest issue, dman: the fact nobody knows who was consulted or not to make this law.

Many people get elected on promises like this. A good chunk of your constituency elects based on this one item, and it becomes pressing to get it passed.

The only thing I have is that it was never included in the conservation plan. Delisting wolves doesn't mean the conservation plan dies. To the contrary; it seems the most important time for a solid conservation plan.

I'm just going by what Dick Thiel, and some other biologists said about it. I'll take their word over a politician. Now, instead of thinking about the wolves, we're thinking politics. Lose/lose.