Federal Court-wolf hunting ends now

[bigG]

Please show where the hunt was part of the management plan.


Who's being melodramatic?

"How the heck else are supposed to manag the population. Tell them to stop breeding?"

That's why there is a pressing need for bald eagle season. How else ya sposta control 'em?

[ramjet]

Please show where the hunt was part of the management plan.


Who's being melodramatic?

"How the heck else are supposed to manag the population. Tell them to stop breeding?"

That's why there is a pressing need for bald eagle season. How else ya sposta control 'em?

You have copy of the original plan I provided the link and page even the dissertation about legislative approval so you choose to only see what you want that's more a you issue than me issue.

Bald Eagle what is your deal on those? More emotional dribble off point and not pertinent to the conversation. This is about wolves and States having the say in managment of Natural Reasourcs based on population data gathered by DNR personell not a overreaching liberal extremist judge.

[wrestle84]

Please show where the hunt was part of the management plan.


Who's being melodramatic?

"How the heck else are supposed to manag the population. Tell them to stop breeding?"

That's why there is a pressing need for bald eagle season. How else ya sposta control 'em?

Considering that you have posted over and over about a hunt not being in the state management plan, one can assume that you are in favor of using the state management plan as our guideline for managing wolves in the state. This same state management that you would like to use as a reason not to have a hunt, also states that wolves should be delisted when the population is above 250 for one year. This same state management that you would like to use as a reason not to have a hunt, also states that the wolf population should not exceed 350 animals. I don't care if we have a hunt or not, but we should follow the state management plan( that you have used as gospel to argue your opinion)and keep the population below 350. Unless you think that document should only be used as a guideline when it suits your opinion, and we should disregard everything else in it when it does not.

[bigG]

Never once did I say I wanted to used the state (actually a federal function for our state)plan to ban hunting. I don't care about hunting or trapping a silly wolf. they mean nothing to me. Just saying, let the scientists add them to the plan before you make it a state law. That would appease the federal, liberal judge would have little to go on, as it would allow USFW to cross those Ts and dot the is.

This whole "bigG wants to use the plan to killing wolf hunt" is the paranoid voice in your head, never once in my words.

If the scientists declare 350 is the number, they will change the plan. Pretty dang tricky.

Not gospel; but, in my reading, the least biased, most scientific source we have. No Humane Society or NRA input there, right?

Not when it suits my opinion (it's obvious you're clueless as to what my opinion is, as I agree with you, hunt/no hunt, who cares?)

You must have just jumped into this thread on page 10 or something. I have not a care in the world about the wolves. My position on this has been, actually include hunting in the state plan (which is of a federal nature) and the two political sides of this (both claiming to be conservation-minded) deserve one another. Anything beyond that, you're throwing in there per speculation.

So, could you or Ram show me where the scientists claimed we should hunt these critters? i'm all eyes.

[ramjet]

yet you have had a politcal component in almost everyone of the responses you post. Double speak

[wrestle84]

Never once did I say I wanted to used the state (actually a federal function for our state)plan to ban hunting. I don't care about hunting or trapping a silly wolf. they mean nothing to me. Just saying, let the scientists add them to the plan before you make it a state law. That would appease the federal, liberal judge would have little to go on, as it would allow USFW to cross those Ts and dot the is.

This whole "bigG wants to use the plan to killing wolf hunt" is the paranoid voice in your head, never once in my words.

If the scientists declare 350 is the number, they will change the plan. Pretty dang tricky.

Not gospel; but, in my reading, the least biased, most scientific source we have. No Humane Society or NRA input there, right?

Not when it suits my opinion (it's obvious you're clueless as to what my opinion is, as I agree with you, hunt/no hunt, who cares?)

You must have just jumped into this thread on page 10 or something. I have not a care in the world about the wolves. My position on this has been, actually include hunting in the state plan (which is of a federal nature) and the two political sides of this (both claiming to be conservation-minded) deserve one another. Anything beyond that, you're throwing in there per speculation.

So, could you or Ram show me where the scientists claimed we should hunt these critters? i'm all eyes.

Nice rant, but I never said you wanted to ban a hunt. You seem to make a lot of wrong assumptions. I can not show you where the scientists said we should hunt these critters, but I can show you where the plan says the population should not exceed 350. The same plan that you tout as the reason not to have a hunt. I don't care how they get to 350 as long as they get there. A harvest season makes the most sense because it generates needed revenue.

[ramjet]

exactly G you can argue with yourself I am done with this useless thread .

[wrestle84]

exactly G you can argue with yourself I am done with this useless thread .

Give him a mirror, and he would argue all day.

[bigG]

You made quite a few assumptions about my take. Go ahead and divert with your mirror.

The link Ram provided had nothing to do with recommending a hunt but with surveying people the public. I saw no recommendation for the hunt. Pretend I'm from Missouri and show me.

If the blurb (survey) you provided is impetus for the state to declare its own wolf hunt, I feel you may be stretching it; as those politicians did when they jumped the gun.

"This same state management that you would like to use as a reason not to have a hunt."

"Nice rant, but I never said you wanted to ban a hunt."


I've never debated with the mirror. You just did; right here. Ban=not to have. Okay, you got me on squiggly semantics. ::)LOL.

I don't care how they reach 350, either; but many on the science end might fear the state not ready for the hunt. DNR is good at thinning animals without a hunt. I'm fine with the hunt, trap, etc. Addend the plan.

"The Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee reports to the Bureau of Endangered
Resources Director and Division of Lands, Land Leadership Team
of the Department of Natural Resources. Plans prepared by the Wolf Advisory
Committee are subject to approval of the Natural Resources Board"

"Fourteen strategies were developed for managing
wolves. These include:
1. managing wolves in 4 different management
zones;
2. intensely monitoring wolf populations through
threatened status and delisted status;
3. monitoring wolf health;
4. cooperatively managing wolf habitat;
5. controlling nuisance wolves and reimbursing landowners
for losses caused by wolves;
6. promoting public education about wolves;
7. establishing regulations for adequate legal protection
of threatened and delisted wolves;
3
8. encouraging interagency cooperation;
9. establishing a system for program guidance;
10. encouraging programs for volunteer assistance on wolf
conservation;
11. recommending future research needs;
12. regulating wolf-dog hybrids and captive wolves
13. establish a protocol for handling wolf specimens;
14. encouraging reasonable ecotourism of wolves and their
habitats."

Number 7 says it all. They were dealing with nuisance wolves in 07 and 08. It seems clear to me by the surveys and numbers, they were ready to addend this plan, per the Natural Resources Board.

"Mirror" off the facts.

Dealing with depredation cost the state +/- $23,400/year between 1985 and 2005. I think with that cost rising they would have passed the NRB (as Thiel predicted) but, also as Thiel predicted, the big rush to legislation opened it up to a lot of lawyering.

I'll laugh down the Humane Society as I do the NRA. These people are lobbyists in the guise of conservation.

"The same plan that you tout as the reason not to have a hunt."

NO, the same plan I said would soon recommend the hunt. Got some reading comprehension issues...with your own writing along with mine.

I agree with the logic behind the harvest. Just needed the experts to cross this Ts and dot those Is and you got an easy legislative path to the hunt. The survey was part of the science...great.

Enjoy your own mirror. You proved right here it's a major bargaining tool in your arsenal.

No rant here; just some rare facts for the actual debate. Not the mirror one. Sorry to disappoint.

[wrestle84]

You made quite a few assumptions about my take. Go ahead and divert with your mirror.

The link Ram provided had nothing to do with recommending a hunt but with surveying people the public. I saw no recommendation for the hunt. Pretend I'm from Missouri and show me.

If the blurb (survey) you provided is impetus for the state to declare its own wolf hunt, I feel you may be stretching it; as those politicians did when they jumped the gun.

"This same state management that you would like to use as a reason not to have a hunt."

"Nice rant, but I never said you wanted to ban a hunt."


I've never debated with the mirror. You just did; right here. Ban=not to have. Okay, you got me on squiggly semantics. ::)LOL.

I don't care how they reach 350, either; but many on the science end might fear the state not ready for the hunt. DNR is good at thinning animals without a hunt. I'm fine with the hunt, trap, etc. Addend the plan.

"The Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee reports to the Bureau of Endangered
Resources Director and Division of Lands, Land Leadership Team
of the Department of Natural Resources. Plans prepared by the Wolf Advisory
Committee are subject to approval of the Natural Resources Board"

"Fourteen strategies were developed for managing
wolves. These include:
1. managing wolves in 4 different management
zones;
2. intensely monitoring wolf populations through
threatened status and delisted status;
3. monitoring wolf health;
4. cooperatively managing wolf habitat;
5. controlling nuisance wolves and reimbursing landowners
for losses caused by wolves;
6. promoting public education about wolves;
7. establishing regulations for adequate legal protection
of threatened and delisted wolves;
3
8. encouraging interagency cooperation;
9. establishing a system for program guidance;
10. encouraging programs for volunteer assistance on wolf
conservation;
11. recommending future research needs;
12. regulating wolf-dog hybrids and captive wolves
13. establish a protocol for handling wolf specimens;
14. encouraging reasonable ecotourism of wolves and their
habitats."

Number 7 says it all. They were dealing with nuisance wolves in 07 and 08. It seems clear to me by the surveys and numbers, they were ready to addend this plan, per the Natural Resources Board.

"Mirror" off the facts.

Dealing with depredation cost the state +/- $23,400/year between 1985 and 2005. I think with that cost rising they would have passed the NRB (as Thiel predicted) but, also as Thiel predicted, the big rush to legislation opened it up to a lot of lawyering.

I'll laugh down the Humane Society as I do the NRA. These people are lobbyists in the guise of conservation.

"The same plan that you tout as the reason not to have a hunt."

NO, the same plan I said would soon recommend the hunt. Got some reading comprehension issues...with your own writing along with mine.

I agree with the logic behind the harvest. Just needed the experts to cross this Ts and dot those Is and you got an easy legislative path to the hunt. The survey was part of the science...great.

Enjoy your own mirror. You proved right here it's a major bargaining tool in your arsenal.

No rant here; just some rare facts for the actual debate. Not the mirror one. Sorry to disappoint.

Thanks for finally agreeing with Ram and I that the population should not exceed 350 and they should not be on the endangered list. I new you would see the light eventually.

[bigG]

I've always said they shouldn't be on the list. Another reading comprehension thing, I see. You're good. I deal with the issue frequently ; but with kids. Any more crap ya wanna toss at the wall?

Ya can lead a man to logic,  but you can't make him think.

350 is great; but had you done the reading, you would know the most recent stats are that 256 (known) died annually by accident, DNR trapping and euthanizing, etc.. Did the reading for ya. Want the graph (I read the thing, so I know where the graph is, too).You're welcome. I suppose you didn't bother to read #7 in the plan. The management obligation when delisted. We gotta get out of the funny pages, now, and start reading some things that have no pictures accompanying the words. Baby steps...baaaabyyyy steps.

No sir, said they should be delisted from the git-go. Just said the federal judge was part of the usual tit-for-tat crapola that is pervasive in our system; and that both idiotic sides deserved the other. You and Ram are mad at the "tat"; but you supported the "tit"; thus you can cry about "tat" until the next "tit" overturns it and the "tat" comes at the state level.

"Take the population into your own hands and shoot every wolf you see.  It isn't illegal unless you get caught.  To date, I haven't been caught."

What was your real name again? You gonna knock off some bald eagles, too?

[wrestle84]

I've always said they shouldn't be on the list. Another reading comprehension thing, I see. You're good. I deal with the issue frequently ; but with kids. Any more crap ya wanna toss at the wall?

Ya can lead a man to logic,  but you can't make him think.

350 is great; but had you done the reading, you would know the most recent stats are that 256 (known) died annually by accident, DNR trapping and euthanizing, etc.. Did the reading for ya. Want the graph (I read the thing, so I know where the graph is, too).You're welcome. I suppose you didn't bother to read #7 in the plan. The management obligation when delisted. We gotta get out of the funny pages, now, and start reading some things that have no pictures accompanying the words. Baby steps...baaaabyyyy steps.

No sir, said they should be delisted from the git-go. Just said the federal judge was part of the usual tit-for-tat crapola that is pervasive in our system; and that both idiotic sides deserved the other. You and Ram are mad at the "tat"; but you supported the "tit"; thus you can cry about "tat" until the next "tit" overturns it and the "tat" comes at the state level.

"Take the population into your own hands and shoot every wolf you see.  It isn't illegal unless you get caught.  To date, I haven't been caught."

What was your real name again? You gonna knock off some bald eagles, too?

So you have always said they should be on the list and think 350 is great. I have to wonder why you have been arguing for 23 pages if you agree with us. Your opinion is that the judge put them on the list because the state jumped the gun on a season, yet you have provided zilch as evidence that a season had any reason to do with it. Now you have reached the point of throwing out the classless insults and personal attacks.

[wrestle84]

Take the population into your own hands and shoot every wolf you see.  It isn't illegal unless you get caught.  To date, I haven't been caught.

Sad, but true. Until the state or feds are willing to control the population this is what will happen. It is not good for any wildlife, but as long as the problem is not being adressed people will take matters into their own hands. That means illigal traps, snares, and poision being placed in the woods. Many non-target species will be suffer the consequences also. If the gov would be doing their job, there would be much less of this going on.

[bigG]

I've always said they shouldn't be on the list. Another reading comprehension thing, I see. You're good. I deal with the issue frequently ; but with kids. Any more crap ya wanna toss at the wall?

Ya can lead a man to logic,  but you can't make him think.

350 is great; but had you done the reading, you would know the most recent stats are that 256 (known) died annually by accident, DNR trapping and euthanizing, etc.. Did the reading for ya. Want the graph (I read the thing, so I know where the graph is, too).You're welcome. I suppose you didn't bother to read #7 in the plan. The management obligation when delisted. We gotta get out of the funny pages, now, and start reading some things that have no pictures accompanying the words. Baby steps...baaaabyyyy steps.

No sir, said they should be delisted from the git-go. Just said the federal judge was part of the usual tit-for-tat crapola that is pervasive in our system; and that both idiotic sides deserved the other. You and Ram are mad at the "tat"; but you supported the "tit"; thus you can cry about "tat" until the next "tit" overturns it and the "tat" comes at the state level.

"Take the population into your own hands and shoot every wolf you see.  It isn't illegal unless you get caught.  To date, I haven't been caught."

What was your real name again? You gonna knock off some bald eagles, too?

So you have always said they should be on the list and think 350 is great. I have to wonder why you have been arguing for 23 pages if you agree with us. Your opinion is that the judge put them on the list because the state jumped the gun on a season, yet you have provided zilch as evidence that a season had any reason to do with it. Now you have reached the point of throwing out the classless insults and personal attacks.

I said the Humane Society was acting on our jumping the gun and would not have had a leg to stand on if we hadn't, and added them to the plan. Just an opinion, but ole #7 said it should be part of the plan. I would think the plan would supercede political work that was the efforts of lobbyists.

I provided evidence in the plan, which you've obviously refused to read, or only read what appeals to you.

"Give him a mirror, and he would argue all day."

This was classy and impersonal? Saying I've been "blowing" about this, etc.

I took some of your crap, but decided to fling a little back atcha. Like that?

Guess classless and personal only apply to those who disagree with your stances.

Sadly, I agree with most of yours. Had you not hurled your own crap (and proven you can read), we'd probably be shaking hands in agreement right now.

So, do you think I wanna ban the hunt, or just "not have" it? Either way, I'm fine and dandy with hunting and trapping; just like to kill much of the associated politics on BOTH sides and call lobbyists groups just that without this bogus "conservation group" myth for both the AHS and NRA. I can see why that's difficult for you; because, like many, you only see from one side of the fence. That's neither classless nor personal; just ignorant. Enjoy the bliss that comes with it.

"You must have taken BigG's poly sci class."

You must have taken Floyd Mayweather's reading class.

See? Two can play the crap fling.

I gave the facts that formed my opinions. Those were based in scientific sources. You had a small paragraph about numbers; Ram has a survey question. Just ignored the rest of the science to suit your own opinion.

So, it's your opinion v. mine. I feel mine is better backed by facts; you'll disagree. I'll agree to disagree. Just watch for the tit-for-tat; and keep blaming one side.

[wrestle84]

I've always said they shouldn't be on the list. Another reading comprehension thing, I see. You're good. I deal with the issue frequently ; but with kids. Any more crap ya wanna toss at the wall?

Ya can lead a man to logic,  but you can't make him think.

350 is great; but had you done the reading, you would know the most recent stats are that 256 (known) died annually by accident, DNR trapping and euthanizing, etc.. Did the reading for ya. Want the graph (I read the thing, so I know where the graph is, too).You're welcome. I suppose you didn't bother to read #7 in the plan. The management obligation when delisted. We gotta get out of the funny pages, now, and start reading some things that have no pictures accompanying the words. Baby steps...baaaabyyyy steps.

No sir, said they should be delisted from the git-go. Just said the federal judge was part of the usual tit-for-tat crapola that is pervasive in our system; and that both idiotic sides deserved the other. You and Ram are mad at the "tat"; but you supported the "tit"; thus you can cry about "tat" until the next "tit" overturns it and the "tat" comes at the state level.

"Take the population into your own hands and shoot every wolf you see.  It isn't illegal unless you get caught.  To date, I haven't been caught."

What was your real name again? You gonna knock off some bald eagles, too?

So you have always said they should be on the list and think 350 is great. I have to wonder why you have been arguing for 23 pages if you agree with us. Your opinion is that the judge put them on the list because the state jumped the gun on a season, yet you have provided zilch as evidence that a season had any reason to do with it. Now you have reached the point of throwing out the classless insults and personal attacks.

I said the Humane Society was acting on our jumping the gun and would not have had a leg to stand on if we hadn't, and added them to the plan. Just an opinion, but ole #7 said it should be part of the plan. I would think the plan would supercede political work that was the efforts of lobbyists.

I provided evidence in the plan, which you've obviously refused to read, or only read what appeals to you.

"Give him a mirror, and he would argue all day."

This was classy and impersonal? Saying I've been "blowing" about this, etc.

I took some of your crap, but decided to fling a little back atcha. Like that?

Guess classless and personal only apply to those who disagree with your stances.

Sadly, I agree with most of yours. Had you not hurled your own crap (and proven you can read), we'd probably be shaking hands in agreement right now.

So, do you think I wanna ban the hunt, or just "not have" it? Either way, I'm fine and dandy with hunting and trapping; just like to kill much of the associated politics on BOTH sides and call lobbyists groups just that without this bogus "conservation group" myth for both the AHS and NRA. I can see why that's difficult for you; because, like many, you only see from one side of the fence. That's neither classless nor personal; just ignorant. Enjoy the bliss that comes with it.

So why did you argue for 23 pages if you agreed with us?  Because you just like to argue. You said yourself you don't care one way or the other, yet you keep posting. Why? Because your opinion is that much more important than everyone else, or because you just like to argue? You and your mirror can keep this going, I'm done wasting my time.