Wisconsin Wrestling Online

federal Judges today announced that the great lakes wolf hunting and traping in the western region,includes Wis,Mi,Minn must end immediately...

Quote from: maggie on December 19, 2014, 07:00:37 PM
federal Judges today announced that the great lakes wolf hunting and traping in the western region,includes Wis,Mi,Minn must end immediately...

..........  it's no longer legal to shoot those preying on livestock or pets. Wolves can be killed only if threatening human life........

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/286397951.html

I spend a lot of time in a part of our state with a very strong wolf population, yet sightings, tracks, howling, etc., have been scarce.  I'm not a farmer, though.  Does anyone have any verifiable data regarding the rate of livestock and pet predation by wolves?   :-\

Idiot moron judge.

Hunting is an excellent management tool.

i must say, just because it was legal, didn't necessarily make it right, as with a lot of things in life, but i also believe every land owner should have the right to protect his OWN land, how crazy it's become, from almost extincted to being hunted, that has me puzzled, instead of simply killing and hunting them they should be looking at alternate ways to somehow coexist, as with any wild animal in the wild, bottom line is, if there is no food, they will simply move on or suffer losses by the mass, all tho i don't have to live in the area where they are predominant or have to fear them in any way "yet"  i don't believe an open season should have ever been granted Period...but that's just my opinion ...http://search.tb.ask.com/search/redirect.jhtml?action=pick&ct=GD&qs=&searchfor=The+True+Story+of+the+Three+Little+Pigs&cb=ZX&p2=%5EZX%5Exdm427%5ES11870%5Eus&qid=8bd829eab7ae4547aa0c7eae19d41ea2&n=780d0d57&ptb=5AD20935-9831-4619-AA37-96A9A7E70A0A&si=CMyt-_r2w8ICFREdaQodfJkACw&pg=GGmain&ots=1419251251293&pn=1&ss=sub&st=tab&tpr=jrel2&redirect=mPWsrdz9heamc8iHEhldEcgdjfjqpMajKYmz288FhTKdzvyRjUK5NoF8gqiKC9%2BeWopyT0jVBF%2FBXhCZtFK42g%3D%3D&ord=0&

Quote from: imnofish on December 21, 2014, 08:29:23 AM
I spend a lot of time in a part of our state with a very strong wolf population, yet sightings, tracks, howling, etc., have been scarce.  I'm not a farmer, though.  Does anyone have any verifiable data regarding the rate of livestock and pet predation by wolves?   :-\

My brother-in-law has a place near Tomahawk that we go to in the summer...he goes year round. has he never seen one (in person) but he has pictures of one in his yard (trail cam) and his neighbor lost 1 or 2 cattle? and their family dog (golden retriever) to wolves last year. Sitting around the camp fire last summer we could hear them howling...but never saw one. Being from Milwaukee, hearing wolves howl is very odd. There is a very clear difference between Coyote's and wolves howling! From the conversation had with his neighbor, there is no love for the re-introduction of wolves in the area.

I can see why they'd be protected in pockets (like Ft. McCoy by me), but if I'm a farmer and one tries taking out a young heifer , I'm goin' to get the 270, 30/30, whatever.

First off the hunt is very controlled.

Secondly the judge made this decision a political one he legislated from the bench and did not listen OT the biologists he took aside with a animal,protection group driven by thier belief that NO animals should be hunted.

the impact on the deer herd can be minimized and Wolves can still be part of the Eco system but to comtrol numbers we nee a method that method is hunting.

What to see what happens to gMe animals when a wolf ovulation is held unchecked read up on the elk herd numbers in western Montana and eastern Utah.

my issue is not regulation but legislating from the bench.

Like making EAB illegal for the DNR to use as a deer management tool now or in the future regardless of the circumstances? That kind of political legislation?  ::)

Or actually starting a wolf hunt in the first place without actually paying attention to deer mortality rates from wolf predation in relation to mortality rates by other predators including humans and car accidents to see that wolf predation is minor in comparison to other methods of mortality. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/wolf/documents/committee/meeting0713.pdf  (take a look at Jerry Balant and Dan Storm's publications)

The reality is that we had some people that very much wanted to hunt/trap wolves. With wolf pelt prices being higher than just about any other fur out there, and the eagerness for some people to have a very rare trophy, along with unknowing hunters that thought wolves were killing "their" deer. These people appealed to those in power and got a hunting/trapping season for an animal that was just days before on the state and federal endangered species list.

I'm not against wolf hunting or trapping. Like you ramjet, I'm against political legislation. Wisconsin's wolf hunt was most certainly so. The numbers of wolves in this state, even if we tripled them over the estimates, are still lower than what MN carried for years and years, and even at triple the estimates, deer mortality would still be less than car-deer mortality rates every year. Bear, bobcat, and coyote predation would also still be above that of wolves. We haven't seen our bear hunting quota numbers rise even though they consume more deer than do wolves. Why not?

And, at least in WI, each of the two years that we have had wolf hunting, the quota was exceeded. That shows that the hunt isn't as well controlled as you would like people to believe it is.

ex·ceed
ikˈsēd/Submit
verb
past tense: exceeded; past participle: exceeded
be greater in number or size than (a quantity, number, or other measurable thing).
"production costs have exceeded $60,000"
go beyond what is allowed or stipulated by (a set limit, especially of one's authority).
"the Tribunal's decision clearly exceeds its powers under the statute"
synonyms:   be more than, be greater than, be over, go beyond, overreach, top
"the cost will exceed $400"

And to correct myself, exceeded each of the past three years, not two. That would be every year we have had a wolf hunt. The number exceeded is not the issue.

Quote from: Handles II on December 22, 2014, 02:37:31 PM
Like making EAB illegal for the DNR to use as a deer management tool now or in the future regardless of the circumstances? That kind of political legislation?  ::)

Or actually starting a wolf hunt in the first place without actually paying attention to deer mortality rates from wolf predation in relation to mortality rates by other predators including humans and car accidents to see that wolf predation is minor in comparison to other methods of mortality. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/wolf/documents/committee/meeting0713.pdf  (take a look at Jerry Balant and Dan Storm's publications)

The reality is that we had some people that very much wanted to hunt/trap wolves. With wolf pelt prices being higher than just about any other fur out there, and the eagerness for some people to have a very rare trophy, along with unknowing hunters that thought wolves were killing "their" deer. These people appealed to those in power and got a hunting/trapping season for an animal that was just days before on the state and federal endangered species list.

I'm not against wolf hunting or trapping. Like you ramjet, I'm against political legislation. Wisconsin's wolf hunt was most certainly so. The numbers of wolves in this state, even if we tripled them over the estimates, are still lower than what MN carried for years and years, and even at triple the estimates, deer mortality would still be less than car-deer mortality rates every year. Bear, bobcat, and coyote predation would also still be above that of wolves. We haven't seen our bear hunting quota numbers rise even though they consume more deer than do wolves. Why not?

And, at least in WI, each of the two years that we have had wolf hunting, the quota was exceeded. That shows that the hunt isn't as well controlled as you would like people to believe it is.

You are ill informed the wolf hunt was endorsed and recomendedminimum by the Biologists that may know just alittle more than you about carring capacity and prededation.

I was absolutely positive you would react to this topic with emotion and misinformation as you do I also bet you have no wolves by you but if they were by you and wiped out your QDM area you would feel differently. But then it would be about you.

But soon Tom will pull this because it reeks of controversies and politics.......so get you're emotional rants in now HANDLESII ............🐾🐾🐾🐾🐾🐾😹

Please post your biologist research. I did. The biologists in my posts were ones that reported their results to the DNR and State about this exact issue and used research in this state.
Where is your research from? Who did it? Please share.

Why did we re introduce them in the first place? Help control the deer population? The Beaver population? We the people spent tons of money to eradicate them, because the benefits of eradicating them out weighed the benefits of keeping them. Now that we have them and they have reached the populations the government biologists have set we need to hunt them down to that population set by the biologists. Even the antis admit the population exceeds the numbers set by biologists when the reintroduction was started. The wolf came back much quicker than expected. The fact that the quota has been filled all 3 years in less than 1/2 the season tells me we need to give more tags. You guys want them let them put them in Milton or your back yard Handles.

Quote from: ramjet on December 22, 2014, 01:22:35 PM
First off the hunt is very controlled.

Secondly the judge made this decision a political one he legislated from the bench and did not listen OT the biologists he took aside with a animal,protection group driven by thier belief that NO animals should be hunted.

the impact on the deer herd can be minimized and Wolves can still be part of the Eco system but to comtrol numbers we nee a method that method is hunting.

What to see what happens to gMe animals when a wolf ovulation is held unchecked read up on the elk herd numbers in western Montana and eastern Utah.

my issue is not regulation but legislating from the bench.

So, are you advocating birth control for wolves?   ;)

Quote from: MHSfan on December 22, 2014, 09:00:38 PM
Why did we re introduce them in the first place? Help control the deer population? The Beaver population? We the people spent tons of money to eradicate them, because the benefits of eradicating them out weighed the benefits of keeping them. Now that we have them and they have reached the populations the government biologists have set we need to hunt them down to that population set by the biologists. Even the antis admit the population exceeds the numbers set by biologists when the reintroduction was started. The wolf came back much quicker than expected. The fact that the quota has been filled all 3 years in less than 1/2 the season tells me we need to give more tags. You guys want them let them put them in Milton or your back yard Handles.

Wolves were not re-introduced they are part of nature, the natural world, and were in this state as long or longer than man. The few remaining wolves in WI/MN/MI were put on the endangered species list and the eradication stopped. In WI it took from the 1960's until now to get the population back to about 1000 wolves. I wouldn't say that is a fast population increase. We are now back below 600 total.

Interestingly man and wolves have lived together in harmony for 10's of thousands of years. It wasn't until European settlers came to this land less than 200 years ago, with very little understanding or care of nature,  and with fear and hatred in their minds of wolves from European fairy-tales, did the eradication begin take place.
It it was very typical of almost everything in this state and others, even globally. Elk and Caribou, bison, passenger pigeon, were all quickly eradicated from WI. Deer almost were, prairie chickens, moose, cougars, lynx, bobcat, fox, coyote, bear some species of ducks and geese all were very close to extinction in this state and others. Wolves were falsely blamed for the deaths of cattle and sheep caused by dogs that were let loose to fend for themselves. 

In no way should man eradicate anything in nature, we've already done that enough and there are no benefits. Unfortunately there are still people out there who's mentality has not progressed beyond that of their 1800's era ancestors. That wiping out something we currently fear or don't understand, or lust after like a trophy, is the best way to live life. 

Please educated yourself and others on the subject. A great place to start is by watching or reading Green Fire by Aldo Leopold, an avid hunter and self-proclaimed wolf-killer. A man who strongly believed that because he loved to hunt deer and elk, that the elimination of the wolf would mean a hunters paradise for him.

Here is a quote, that would fit with what you said in your post above. "The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant, "What good is it?" If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of eons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering."

Have a good day, and good learning.

the'll be here soon enough MHS, soon enough... but unlike SOME of those in the far north, well take care of the problem without putting a bounty on them..as i stated, ever land owner has the right to protect his OWN property and possessions that are on them, included his livestock..be thankful ya don't have a Yote problem...because we all know that where there's wolf's, there are NO yote's...a decrease in Wolf's only means an Increase in Yote's as well as a decrease in the smaller Game such as pheasants, rabbits, squirrels and the rest...and we have all seen that putting a yr around bounty on them to get rid of them simply doesn't work...co-exciting can work..

Yet you hunt and use QDM so does than mean you are "messing" with Nature?

Do you hunt deer because without it you or your family would starve?  

Just like the ridiculous state,ent about the wolf pelts unfounded propaganda most of the wolves that were harvested here and there were several were sent to the taxidermist for rugs or full mounts. certainly you do not oppose that do you?

Carrying capacity for wolves is far less than what "it used to be" because human intrusion YOU'RE intrusion so save the history BS it is weak and not founded in science. Hunting is the best way to control the herd just like deer as long as it is regulated everyone including the wolves can have the best of both worlds.

The book answer from the tree hugger website that you posted above ................ 💤💤💤💤💤💤

Quote from: maggie on December 23, 2014, 08:26:15 AM
the'll be here soon enough MHS, soon enough... but unlike SOME of those in the far north, well take care of the problem without putting a bounty on them..as i stated, ever land owner has the right to protect his OWN property and possessions that are on them, included his livestock..be thankful ya don't have a Yote problem...because we all know that where there's wolf's, there are NO yote's...a decrease in Wolf's only means an Increase in Yote's as well as a decrease in the smaller Game such as pheasants, rabbits, squirrels and the rest...and we have all seen that putting a yr around bounty on them to get rid of them simply doesn't work...co-exciting can work..

There is NO BOUNTY ON WOLVES and has not been for many many years.

Umm there are plenty of yoddle pups they know enough to stay out of wolve areas and move around them.

Quote from: ramjet on December 23, 2014, 08:26:59 AM
Yet you hunt and use QDM so does than mean you are "messing" with Nature?

Do you hunt deer because without it you or your family would starve?  

Just like the ridiculous state,ent about the wolf pelts unfounded propaganda most of the wolves that were harvested here and there were several were sent to the taxidermist for rugs or full mounts. certainly you do not oppose that do you?

Carrying capacity for wolves is far less than what "it used to be" because human intrusion YOU'RE intrusion so save the history BS it is weak and not founded in science. Hunting is the best way to control the herd just like deer as long as it is regulated everyone including the wolves can have the best of both worlds.
The book answer from the tree hugger website that you posted above ................ 💤💤💤💤💤💤

Please ramjet, as asked previously, post your sources from the biologists that show wolves are a major problem in this state, specifically the ones regarding deer mortality of wolves vs. other reasons, and also show as you claim that the state couldn't carry as many wolves as we had (about 1000).  I showed my sources, the same ones that were ignored by the politicians.
It's quite obvious you have not done any research on the topic. It would do you some good as well to learn a bit from Aldo, a person far beyond your intellect, and much more versed than you in hunting as well as other facets of the natural world. Again, he was a wolf killer. Read his words, listen to them, attempt to understand. 
As I said, I'm not against wolf hunting or trapping. I'm against a political decision to go against what the biologists in this state (and others) have said regarding the wolf population in this state. Based on your first two posts on the subject, and how you hate political legislation without evidence to support it, you too should be backing the current decision.
But, that isn't you, nor your personality or mentality. Yours is unfortunately the type that Aldo spoke of in his quote I posted.
So for the third time, please post your sources, or once again, the people on this forum will know that you are making up information simply to help yourself, not to actually help anyone or anything else.  I'll be waiting :)

ok, an open hunting season, same as bounty...I'm sure those who shoot them are making money on them hides...right?...BOUNTY  ;)...YOTE'S STAY OUT OF THE WAY?..LOL  :D ..ya, right. the very first think a pack of wolfs will do while establishing itself, is to seek out and kill all those who hunt against them... PERIOD!... YOTE'S! 

Hey ramjet,

I'd like for you to explain something that you said earlier. I know that you don't have any biological evidence to support it, but lets try to see how your common sense is.
You stated that WI no longer has the carrying capacity for 1000 wolves or something like that.  Could we compare wolf populations to that of pre 1800's (estimates were about 5000 wolves in the state). That's about 5x more give/take, right? We also know at that time the state's deer population was much lower than it is now, estimates of 200,000 deer are common (vs about 800,000 now about 4x more now than then).

So...if we now have have 5x fewer wolves, but 4x more deer, and the wolves eat deer and will move to where the deer are...and the wolf population was slowly increasing over time... how could you ever equate that the carrying capacity of the state is now LESS????

Love for you to show the math on this. Better yet, rather than you do it, cite a biologist that has studied it and shows that WI can not support 1000 wolves. Maybe Scotty can help you, his math often seems to do the same thing. ;)

One thing that should be considered is the potential benefit of wolf predation on the health of deer herds.  Research has long indicated that wolves (and other predators) tend to expend the least possible energy in pursuit of their quarry.  This results in a direct reduction in the diseased, lame, aging, genetically weak, etc., which actually improves the overall health of the herd.  With CWD being a modern-day concern, perhaps wolf predation would be a positive influence.  As for claims that we are directly in competition with wolves, how many of us actually hunt with the intention of harvesting diseased, inferior deer?  I noticed in another thread on this forum that some are seeing an increased incidence of trophy deer being harvested.  Perhaps there is a connection to forces (weather, predation) that have culled out many of the inferior animals. 

Good point, Fish. I guess I often think of man as an equal predator, when that is a mistake. We don't cull out the sick and weak. We cull out the choice stuff; at least when it comes to bigger game. I shoot pretty much any squirrel/rabbit/small game I see. Not true of bigger stuff. In fact, we usually train our kids to have the patience to wait for the good stuff to come along.

Quote from: maggie on December 23, 2014, 08:55:38 AM
ok, an open hunting season, same as bounty...I'm sure those who shoot them are making money on them hides...right?...BOUNTY  ;)...YOTE'S STAY OUT OF THE WAY?..LOL  :D ..ya, right. the very first think a pack of wolfs will do while establishing itself, is to seek out and kill all those who hunt against them... PERIOD!... YOTE'S! 

I see the mortiorium on political discussion has not made you any more intelligent maggie hunting is not a bounty if that was the case then we need to stop the "bounty" on Whitetailed deer.

So HandlesII, I am saying and started this thread by saying and telling the truth a tree hugger group filed suit based on their opinions and a "liberal" Judge went along with them instead of the biologists that not only endorse wolf hunting for control but put forth the first proposals. The Judge legislated from the bench and overload a good well thought out conservation plan for wolf population control.

This is not about deer hunting you brought that up of course that is easy for you, you have few most likely NO wolves where you hunt but if you did you would cry the first time one of those so called trophy deer on your property was torn too shreds by the pack. Or the first time your family pet or hunting dog was killed by them or the neighbors calf. This country with its urban sprawl and expanding encroachment on the forest does not have the capacity to carry many wolves they breed like gerbils and without control will over populate. Just like deer and so forth interesting you use the same voodoo science for your wolf BS thatnyounuse for Global Warming.

Save it you are much the problem with hunting these days as the wolf maybe more with your "trophy" attitude and QDM......... talk about messing with nature......


Hopefully Tom will pull this moronic go no where thread that was started to stir controversy.

Ram, I don't see why we can't discuss the various perspectives, considerations, etc. that relate to this topic.  Actually, most of the points made have merit, IMO.  Honestly, I don't see the political rhetoric pop up in this thread until your last post.  I understand that people in different parts of the state, with different outdoor experiences and priorities, are going to see things differently.  Personally, I think it's all about finding the right balance, but that can be a pretty darn elusive target, even without any political posturing. 

Quote from: imnofish on December 24, 2014, 01:08:15 AM
Ram, I don't see why we can't discuss the various perspectives, considerations, etc. that relate to this topic.  Actually, most of the points made have merit, IMO.  Honestly, I don't see the political rhetoric pop up in this thread until your last post.  I understand that people in different parts of the state, with different outdoor experiences and priorities, are going to see things differently.  Personally, I think it's all about finding the right balance, but that can be a pretty darn elusive target, even without any political posturing. 

Of course then you chime in.  This topic is charged with political rhetoric it always has been and when a Judge rules based on personal or political beliefs that in itself makes it political. So nice try but you are not that uninformed so please do not act like it.

The recommendations to open season comes from a miriad of sources including the biologists with the DNR complaints and wolf carring capacity. A study one you cited HandlesII done by a group funded by who?

By the way if you have no issue with hunting wolves then you should be as outraged about the judge overstepping as anyone. Because next they may decide deer hunting is wrong as well or yote hunting or trapping or fishing for that matter. Then what?

Ha you you ever stop to think before ya post rammy? how rude can a person get, were having an intelligent discussion  about wolfs and you take the time to personally assault me...mine you, Toms website or not, you my friend have insulted me for the very last time...have a x-Mas ya moron!   :D

Quote from: ramjet on December 24, 2014, 08:56:05 AM

Quote from: imnofish on December 24, 2014, 01:08:15 AM
Ram, I don't see why we can't discuss the various perspectives, considerations, etc. that relate to this topic.  Actually, most of the points made have merit, IMO.  Honestly, I don't see the political rhetoric pop up in this thread until your last post.  I understand that people in different parts of the state, with different outdoor experiences and priorities, are going to see things differently.  Personally, I think it's all about finding the right balance, but that can be a pretty darn elusive target, even without any political posturing. 

Of course then you chime in.  This topic is charged with political rhetoric it always has been and when a Judge rules based on personal or political beliefs that in itself makes it political. So nice try but you are not that uninformed so please do not act like it.

The recommendations to open season comes from a miriad of sources including the biologists with the DNR complaints and wolf carring capacity. A study one you cited HandlesII done by a group funded by who?

By the way if you have no issue with hunting wolves then you should be as outraged about the judge overstepping as anyone. Because next they may decide deer hunting is wrong as well or yote hunting or trapping or fishing for that matter. Then what?

What if the initial decision that allowed wolf hunting was overreach?  Would you be as outraged about that, or does it only matter when it conflicts with your personal wishes?  Note that I am not taking any political or emotionally aggressive stance; rather, I advocate and welcome a thoughtful analysis of the biological, economical, and other factors relevant to this topic.  Just because I don't attack another person's information, it does not indicate full agreement/disagreement with his position.  For the record, I have been appreciative of he fact that restraint has been shown through DNR limits, with the apparent intent of striking an appropriate balance.  I get the concerns regarding the loss of wolf habitat and its potential impact on carrying capacity.  However, carrying capacity is a complex dynamic, as it directly and indirectly impacts the health of many other species.  Changes result in a ripple effect, rather than a domino effect.  Responsible stewardship demands careful consideration of all such variables, IMO.  The inherent discussion can be carried out respectfully and I would hope that we all keep that in mind.  In the past, I had my own lapses in judgment in this regard, but I hope to have learned from my own mistakes and do better going forward.  I appreciate your passion; I'm just hoping that we have all learned to discuss any topic without being personally insulting. 

Quote from: imnofish on December 24, 2014, 01:17:39 PM

Quote from: ramjet on December 24, 2014, 08:56:05 AM

Quote from: imnofish on December 24, 2014, 01:08:15 AM
Ram, I don't see why we can't discuss the various perspectives, considerations, etc. that relate to this topic.  Actually, most of the points made have merit, IMO.  Honestly, I don't see the political rhetoric pop up in this thread until your last post.  I understand that people in different parts of the state, with different outdoor experiences and priorities, are going to see things differently.  Personally, I think it's all about finding the right balance, but that can be a pretty darn elusive target, even without any political posturing. 

Of course then you chime in.  This topic is charged with political rhetoric it always has been and when a Judge rules based on personal or political beliefs that in itself makes it political. So nice try but you are not that uninformed so please do not act like it.

The recommendations to open season comes from a miriad of sources including the biologists with the DNR complaints and wolf carring capacity. A study one you cited HandlesII done by a group funded by who?

By the way if you have no issue with hunting wolves then you should be as outraged about the judge overstepping as anyone. Because next they may decide deer hunting is wrong as well or yote hunting or trapping or fishing for that matter. Then what?

What if the initial decision that allowed wolf hunting was overreach?  Would you be as outraged about that, or does it only matter when it conflicts with your personal wishes?  Note that I am not taking any political or emotionally aggressive stance; rather, I advocate and welcome a thoughtful analysis of the biological, economical, and other factors relevant to this topic.  Just because I don't attack another person's information, it does not indicate full agreement/disagreement with his position.  For the record, I have been appreciative of he fact that restraint has been shown through DNR limits, with the apparent intent of striking an appropriate balance.  I get the concerns regarding the loss of wolf habitat and its potential impact on carrying capacity.  However, carrying capacity is a complex dynamic, as it directly and indirectly impacts the health of many other species.  Changes result in a ripple effect, rather than a domino effect.  Responsible stewardship demands careful consideration of all such variables, IMO.  The inherent discussion can be carried out respectfully and I would hope that we all keep that in mind.  In the past, I had my own lapses in judgment in this regard, but I hope to have learned from my own mistakes and do better going forward.  I appreciate your passion; I'm just hoping that we have all learned to discuss any topic without being personally insulting. 

The fact remains a judge of liberal persuasion overturned a well thought out and implimented conservation program that was setup on the state levels. Big government in action. Federal overreach and frankly if this hunt was so bad for wolves why wait to strike it down for two years......oh oh let me answer this it took the tree huggers that long to get through to the liberal judge they knew would turn over the law.

So you consider the comment about "bounties" and the wolves being killed in Wisconsin for the hide or pelt intelligable conversation?

What does it matter if he was a liberal or conservative judge?  If you disagree with his decision, that's fine.  Just state your position and supportive reasons.  Throwing labels around just puts the whole discussion back into that all-too-familiar political realm, which clouds the issue and sets up boundaries to calm, reasoned discourse.  Sure, we know there was not a bounty on wolves, but there are ways of addressing that misperception without giving someone a tongue lashing.  Again, if we want to be treated courteously and have our ideas respectfully considered, the best course of action is to treat others that way.  Tactful presentation of alternative viewpoints, rather than personally attacking the ideas and actions of others, would be a good step in the right direction.  FYI, I am not your enemy, even if you perceive me as such.  Anyway...

It's Christmas Eve.  Peace on Earth; Good will to all men!  Time to chill out and enjoy your family time.  Merry Christmas!

Quote from: imnofish on December 24, 2014, 09:14:34 PM
What does it matter if he was a liberal or conservative judge?  If you disagree with his decision, that's fine.  Just state your position and supportive reasons.  Throwing labels around just puts the whole discussion back into that all-too-familiar political realm, which clouds the issue and sets up boundaries to calm, reasoned discourse.  Sure, we know there was not a bounty on wolves, but there are ways of addressing that misperception without giving someone a tongue lashing.  Again, if we want to be treated courteously and have our ideas respectfully considered, the best course of action is to treat others that way.  Tactful presentation of alternative viewpoints, rather than personally attacking the ideas and actions of others, would be a good step in the right direction.  FYI, I am not your enemy, even if you perceive me as such.  Anyway...

It's Christmas Eve.  Peace on Earth; Good will to all men!  Time to chill out and enjoy your family time.  Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Fish

The label is precisely the point he used his political influence to make a decision that is contrary to good conservation practices. As much as you try and be coy about the fact fact it is most certainly a political decision and political topic. The label fits this judge and the track record proves it. Sorry it not all unicorns and rainbows but revisit ally the topic is a controversial one and politically charged.

FACT REMAINS, no more wolf hunting... ;)...that's the only true fact here... :)

True, Maggie.  Do you see this as a political issue, an environmental one, or both?  Do you think we can discuss the environmental aspects without getting political?

Merry Christmas!

Sadly this whole topic is a political hot bed. Both sides flexing muscles while exposing their weaknesses in the process. The liberal judge is just reacting to a con DNR.

In the end we can't hunt wolves. Not the end of the world. I don't think we have enough of them for them to be a real threat to much.

Quote from: Goat Roper on December 24, 2014, 08:03:25 PM
There are plenty of videos on youtube that show wolves taking very healthy bucks.  There are also plenty of game camera videos with wolves taking fawns into dens.  Get rid of the idea they take sick animals.  Liberal thought.

a few years ago some locals around the Park Falls area set up a video camera by a wolfs den and in less than 6 months the count of deer and fawns getting dragged into the den was at 37.

Not sure if Hound is still on but I think he would know more about this.

I believe the wolf needs to know they have some enemies. While I have only seen a couple of wolfs in person I know quite a few that have seen those wolves up close and those wolfs appeared to be pretty comfortable in that area.

Merry X-Mas Littleguy, I don't doubt that a bit., 37 seems like a lot, I'm looking for that footage while enjoying the family...lol...but no, I don't want to turn this into a political thing, not at all...bottom line is, there is not one thing today that doesn't turn political, that includes our great sport of wrestling...sadly..

Precedence guys this the issue here.

Wolves now deer hunting later. The group who brought this action is a anti hunting group period.

They also stopped much of the logging here in the NE until the mortiorium was lifted and working folks could get back to work.

You are right if it was only wolf hunting most would not clamor but it includes way more........bear hunting is also on the list as is coyote hunting using the premise that one would accidentally shoot a wolf.

Again a judge and a Poltical group used the courts to overrule the sound practice and plan for co trolling wolf numbers in this state and many others. This group wants ALL hunting stopped.

I fully support the tradition of regulated hunting, as a wildlife management tool.  Anti-hunting folks don't realize that they are NOT doing wild animals a favor.   

Quote from: Goat Roper on December 24, 2014, 08:03:25 PM
There are plenty of videos on youtube that show wolves taking very healthy bucks.  There are also plenty of game camera videos with wolves taking fawns into dens.  Get rid of the idea they take sick animals.  Liberal thought.

Not saying that wolves never take healthy deer, but it is a scientific fact that they will cull out the majority of the weakest ones, because they are an easy meal.  Nothing liberal or conservative about that thought.  I should acknowledge that fawns include those less able to escape predation, so they are taken by coyotes, bears, and wolves. 

I'm unaware of this anti hunting group who brought all this up...can you show anything up to back your claim that mentions them in the court documents?

Suit was filed by the Coilition of Humane Society.

The Human Society is a vehement anti hunting group.

You know how to use google don't you maggie ?

Inside many of these groups there is hope that the wolves will actually control the deer heard completely so that hunting can be stopped completely. Crazy way of thinking but little research and the use of Google search engine will take you directly to that way of thinking.

Again if you google Law Suit to stop wolf hunting you will get a large amount of information. the suits are filed on a regular basis for all sorts of hunting they went as far to say those who use hounds to hunt wolves are using the dogs as bait. That was hilarious but some folks buy inot that way of thinking.
The tactic is used by these extremists if they file enough court actions they eventually will come across a judge who has the same point of view as them and will rule in thier favor that's what this judge did went completely away from common sense and the law so eventually it will be overturned and the States will once again have the right to manage the natural resources within thier boundaries.

yes, i know how they use Google, obviously you do not, otherwise ya would have posted something up here showing your proof instead of just saying so...i'll wait to see it...PS. not all people that are backing a no wolf hunt are anti hunting..

Quote from: ramjet on December 25, 2014, 09:10:17 PM
Precedence guys this the issue here.

Wolves now deer hunting later. The group who brought this action is a anti hunting group period.

They also stopped much of the logging here in the NE until the mortiorium was lifted and working folks could get back to work.

You are right if it was only wolf hunting most would not clamor but it includes way more........bear hunting is also on the list as is coyote hunting using the premise that one would accidentally shoot a wolf.

Again a judge and a Poltical group used the courts to overrule the sound practice and plan for co trolling wolf numbers in this state and many others. This group wants ALL hunting stopped.

So, I'm cool with throwing those folks their proverbial, and punny,  "bone." Just another cog to the balancing structure between two parties who have taken up appear control of our wilds.

One side would have us kill anything and everything, the other would have is kill nothing. Scary such a dumb animal has amassed so much power.

Still, there are people behind the politics to hopefully balance the foolishness out.

"They're gonna take all our guns"= "They're gonna kill all of the insert critter here."

Lots of hyperbole with some truth to the paranoia; but still no reason to get paranoid, IMHO.

But please, don't act like this is some one-sided political move; when it takes two to Tango, here. The head of the DNR has been politically hand-picked, too.

United Sportsmen of WI is every bit as political as Sierra Club. I'm not comfortable with either gaining political power. The fact both have that power is a testament to our ignorance.

We're the smartest animal and the dumbest animal at times.

Quote from: bigG on December 26, 2014, 11:22:49 AM

Quote from: ramjet on December 25, 2014, 09:10:17 PM
Precedence guys this the issue here.

Wolves now deer hunting later. The group who brought this action is a anti hunting group period.

They also stopped much of the logging here in the NE until the mortiorium was lifted and working folks could get back to work.

You are right if it was only wolf hunting most would not clamor but it includes way more........bear hunting is also on the list as is coyote hunting using the premise that one would accidentally shoot a wolf.

Again a judge and a Poltical group used the courts to overrule the sound practice and plan for co trolling wolf numbers in this state and many others. This group wants ALL hunting stopped.

So, I'm cool with throwing those folks their proverbial, and punny,  "bone." Just another cog to the balancing structure between two parties who have taken up appear control of our wilds.

One side would have us kill anything and everything, the other would have is kill nothing. Scary such a dumb animal has amassed so much power.

Still, there are people behind the politics to hopefully balance the foolishness out.

"They're gonna take all our guns"= "They're gonna kill all of the insert critter here."

Lots of hyperbole with some truth to the paranoia; but still no reason to get paranoid, IMHO.

But please, don't act like this is some one-sided political move; when it takes two to Tango, here. The head of the DNR has been politically hand-picked, too.

United Sportsmen of WI is every bit as political as Sierra Club. I'm not comfortable with either gaining political power. The fact both have that power is a testament to our ignorance.

We're the smartest animal and the dumbest animal at times.

So G a good conservation plan to control wolf numbers is political because Walker is office (3rd win)?

The premise that politics should not be involved is true and that was gist of all my posts.

G these law suits are real for years the National Forest timber harvesting plan was completely stopped and much of the timber that was ready for harvest went to waste because of Liberal Judges that sided not with the law but with the tree huggers allot of money and time to finally turn over the ruling that was done by a Federal Judge that had common sense and followed the letter of the law rather than thier heart.

Hunting is under attack and this is one instances where that judge ruled based on personal beliefs rather the law. Most certainly it will be overturned AGAIN but man what a total waste of money time a resources. Funny how some folks who do not have deal with the over population of said predator can offer advice and direction on how to deal with it. Also equally laughable that what used to be good charitable organization is now a PAC like the NRA you so despise the Humane Society is no different political arm of extremists.

Most Hunters are conservationists and stewards of conservation not as you just portrayed them in you're post.


Maggie unless you're fingers are broke do you're own search I am not your secretary or should I be I do not post links because it is rather dumb considering you should have the ability to do your own research. But maybe you are too lazy or just want to argue. So if you want links do you're own research.

Why do such insults have to be thrown around. Now the arguement has turn personal and political.

Controling any animal population should be thought of. I dont agree with the judges verdict and like it was stated before that it will be probably overturned at some point.

The DNR has agreed that the wolves have populated more quickly than first expected but they have no answer as to how to control the population either so it is left in the control of groups that are either for or against and which group can toss more money in the way of the judge as to how to vote.

Besides complaining, does anyone have a idea as what to do with this situation?

Like BigG states, I have no problem with voices from either side because if you do not have a balance you going to have some problems.

Quote from: ramjet on December 26, 2014, 12:03:12 PM

Quote from: bigG on December 26, 2014, 11:22:49 AM

Quote from: ramjet on December 25, 2014, 09:10:17 PM
Precedence guys this the issue here.

Wolves now deer hunting later. The group who brought this action is a anti hunting group period.

They also stopped much of the logging here in the NE until the mortiorium was lifted and working folks could get back to work.

You are right if it was only wolf hunting most would not clamor but it includes way more........bear hunting is also on the list as is coyote hunting using the premise that one would accidentally shoot a wolf.

Again a judge and a Poltical group used the courts to overrule the sound practice and plan for co trolling wolf numbers in this state and many others. This group wants ALL hunting stopped.

So, I'm cool with throwing those folks their proverbial, and punny,  "bone." Just another cog to the balancing structure between two parties who have taken up appear control of our wilds.

One side would have us kill anything and everything, the other would have is kill nothing. Scary such a dumb animal has amassed so much power.

Still, there are people behind the politics to hopefully balance the foolishness out.

"They're gonna take all our guns"= "They're gonna kill all of the insert critter here."

Lots of hyperbole with some truth to the paranoia; but still no reason to get paranoid, IMHO.

But please, don't act like this is some one-sided political move; when it takes two to Tango, here. The head of the DNR has been politically hand-picked, too.

United Sportsmen of WI is every bit as political as Sierra Club. I'm not comfortable with either gaining political power. The fact both have that power is a testament to our ignorance.

We're the smartest animal and the dumbest animal at times.

So G a good conservation plan to control wolf numbers is political because Walker is office (3rd win)?

The premise that politics should not be involved is true and that was gist of all my posts.

G these law suits are real for years the National Forest timber harvesting plan was completely stopped and much of the timber that was ready for harvest went to waste because of Liberal Judges that sided not with the law but with the tree huggers allot of money and time to finally turn over the ruling that was done by a Federal Judge that had common sense and followed the letter of the law rather than thier heart.

Hunting is under attack and this is one instances where that judge ruled based on personal beliefs rather the law. Most certainly it will be overturned AGAIN but man what a total waste of money time a resources. Funny how some folks who do not have deal with the over population of said predator can offer advice and direction on how to deal with it. Also equally laughable that what used to be good charitable organization is now a PAC like the NRA you so despise the Humane Society is no different political arm of extremists.

Most Hunters are conservationists and stewards of conservation not as you just portrayed them in you're post.


Maggie unless you're fingers are broke do you're own search I am not your secretary or should I be I do not post links because it is rather dumb considering you should have the ability to do your own research. But maybe you are too lazy or just want to argue. So if you want links do you're own research.

This isn't about Walker. You play the political tune when some politics go against your politics. You're a victim; who has lost nothing.

Hunting, per se, is not under attack. It's regulated by politicians. So hunting and the wild are always under threat. The attacks go both ways. You just think one political side is right, so it doesn't attack, in your opinion; rather, you play one political side as the victim. Both parties are very adept at fostering this "victim" mentality in their followers. We're all victims.

If not being able to kill wolves means hunting is under attack; I'd say I'm not too shook about it. I suppose when the NRA maneuvers, those aren't attacks, but protecting rights. Right?

Most hunters I know aren't conservationists. They buy their license, then they hunt, then they come home. Rod and gun clubs are comprised of hunters that perform conservation. Great stuff.

Yup. NRA and the Humane Society are perfect examples. Both started great and have morphed into political Godzillas that serve nobody but a self-serving party.

I'll promise to condemn the Humane Society if you'll do the same with the NRA. Deal? Growing up I saw the Sierra Club evolve the same way. They go from "what can we do to benefit people, environment, society?" to "how do we politically support our paying members?"

They die philanthropically, as profitability soars.
.

Well I guess best both sides exist to make thier case....... so be it........I side with conservationists and the right to hunt a long tradition and excellent way to control of wildlife and so that much wildlife (not only that which is hunted benefit) can prosper through the efforts and funds brought forth by hunters.

I oppose liberal and extremist groups like the Humane Society and support the NRA for fighting for my hunting rights as my single voice means nothing to the Liberal Judges who have no respect for the rule of law and use thier own Poltical and phylisophical beliefs to rule rather the LAW as the guiding document.

So now you know where I stand this thread can die as it should of when it posted because in reality it posted to stir Poltical debate and that has run its course now.

Whether your all about hunting conservation , or the tree-hugging variety, man has demonstrated, over and over, throughout history, it is not good at managing wild. Good at manipulating nature to our likes; but not good at conserving nature. That sad, my local Rod and Gun, does a fine job, IMHO...until they bond with the NRA or some other mega buck entity claiming to be conservation-minded.

I think the only thing proven true is that less man = more nature. Sad statement. Also why you and I live in more sparsely populated areas. More man = less nature. Wolf herd on Ft. McCoy is flourishing. So are the deer.

I'm not impressed with this judge's efforts and more nor less than some of our states groups that run counter strong arm their way to political favor. Political checks and balances on both sides of this debate stink of profitable politics.

Looks like Crow season just opened back up... :)

Quote from: maggie on December 26, 2014, 02:03:07 PM
Looks like Crow season just opened back up... :)

🚫🍗

http://m.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2014/12/fed-court-wolf-hunt-season-over-121914.html (http://m.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2014/12/fed-court-wolf-hunt-season-over-121914.html)

here you go maggie send your donations maybe you can take a tax deduction.........☕️

Oh look the source is the MPR Also you should notice the original ruling was from a U.S. Fish and Game under the Obama administration so are they still stacked G? Laughable really.

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/12/19/wolves (http://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/12/19/wolves)

Maggie pay particular attention to who was part of the law suit so you can learn and not post some of the foolishness that you did above.

A judge taking the regulation and management away from the State. It's wrong period.

Here you may want to take some time to learn more about the wolf and Wisconsin so again you do not look so ill informed on the topic.  

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/wolf/ (http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/wolf/)

Like I stated politics not conservation this judge is aliberal activist judge appointed by Obama.

G unlike what you eluded to and are wrong about the State DNR had little to do with the delisting of the Wolf it was the US Fish and Game but this judge thinks she knows more than the biologists.

Yes, and all the clowns wanna join the circus.

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=36270.0

I agree this decision was 100% frivolous. I also agree it's political tripe.

The states have to own some of this, though. When you say "we're taking 500 wolves" you better not take 520.

I'm willing to give the treehuggers this big win. These groups are a little nuts ,like the NRA, and many other extremist groups. My only gripe is the fed flexing over the states. Then again, our state doesn't seem to manage all too well.

I'll bet we'll be able to shoot some wolves someday soon. I'm pushing for Sandhills, personally.

Quote from: bigG on December 26, 2014, 03:37:35 PM
Yes, and all the clowns wanna join the circus.

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=36270.0

I agree this decision was 100% frivolous. I also agree it's political tripe.

The states have to own some of this, though. When you say "we're taking 500 wolves" you better not take 520.

I'm willing to give the treehuggers this big win. These groups are a little nuts ,like the NRA, and many other extremist groups. My only gripe is the fed flexing over the states. Then again, our state doesn't seem to manage all too well.

I'll bet we'll be able to shoot some wolves someday soon. I'm pushing for Sandhills, personally.

Yes we agree however ur earlier statement about a con DNR is not pertinent in this case.

Sandhills cranes are excellent table fare yum yum

Just saying the DNR is politically motivated, as well. Not the individual agents; but the group, as a whole, is very politicized through policy. More and more every. Not because of one party , or the other; but, because there's more and more financial weight on nature. By me, land was $2k/acre in 1999, when I moved in. Now they're getting $10k for the same acre. I think people, more and more, yearn for the out of doors; which means some yearners who are willing to pay bigger bucks; but might not be as responsible. I'd love for Elk hunting, etc. to happen.

It seems our DNR was a little better in terms of control on the last wolf hunt. Oughtta get some love for that.  :)

Sandys are, lights out, my favorite game to eat. Perfectly rich without excess fat (like raccoons). Food of the future. ;)

Quote from: bigG on December 26, 2014, 05:13:59 PM
Just saying the DNR is politically motivated, as well. Not the individual agents; but the group, as a whole, is very politicized through policy. More and more every. Not because of one party , or the other; but, because there's more and more financial weight on nature. By me, land was $2k/acre in 1999, when I moved in. Now they're getting $10k for the same acre. I think people, more and more, yearn for the out of doors; which means some yearners who are willing to pay bigger bucks; but might not be as responsible. I'd love for Elk hunting, etc. to happen.

It seems our DNR was a little better in terms of control on the last wolf hunt. Oughtta get some love for that.  :)

Sandys are, lights out, my favorite game to eat. Perfectly rich without excess fat (like raccoons). Food of the future. ;)

See even we can come together on a topic so this is officially done......😄😃😀

thank you rammy, I see, so hunting was the practice that brought them back to the brink of extinction   :o ...Brilliant!... ;) let's do it again.. :o  you call them clowns for protecting what they believe is right even tho there argument carry's a lot of weight with documentation, and liberal judges have no respect for the laws  ::)  however, I'm glad ya told us where ya stand on the issue,  here's where i stand on it, as i stated before, a person has the right to protect his OWN land, family and animals, if there on your land, SHOOT AWAY, i would!  ;) as far as hunting them,I'm not going to, first of all, i would not see any pleasure in shooting them, besides, we seen what happen last time there was a open season or bounty on them, to the brink of EXTINCTION! ..but ha, seeing they were here on this land long, long before we were, maybe we should just have the military round them all up and ship them all to south Dakota and force them to spend the rest of there lives on a reservation and then shoot them if they still want there land back or want to leave....sound familiar rammy?  as far as me getting informed on the subject, again, you have no idea son, my sis in laws is very well educated and happens to be one of the Leading authority on the wolf's in this state, so i don't need your advice when it comes to this subject, but thanks you anyways,...and No, shes not out there protecting or condemning the NRA, bribing liberal judges or even trashing the DNR...she simply understand the repercussions as to what a hunt might bring to the Wolfs in this state and others...SHOOT ON!  :)...PS. it ain't over, till i say it's over!  :)

I guess it's the teacher in me that says "never make a rule you can't enforce." Someone sees their: livestock, dog, kid getting shredded by a wolf, they'll probably do something. After which, I'm guessing a burning barrel might be in order.

Listen you are both wrong here the numbers were very close they build that into the formula so thier was fudge based on the kill they are way above even with overages they are far above the goals so that argument is weak and without foundation. So you know they also figure in the illegal killing of wolves which is what you two especially maggie is endorsing.

Consider this wolves within the carrying capacity will not really be as much a burden on livestock and or pets. but at over the sustainable carrying capacity they will plus once fido is gone what do you think ? the its oK to kill wolves excuse me but you are arse backwards on that. Management should be at the State level and G you have put forth one shred of evidence that the State made wolf policy based on politics and that would be very difficult considering they were delisted per the Federal Government.

As I said it takes little research to see the track record of this judge she is extremely political and will once again be overturned and wolf management will once again be in the hands of the State where it should be.

Maggie again you espouse foolishness and tons of miss information because you are either too lazy or stubborn to do your own research.  You want to argue the merits then step up the level of intelligence in you're responses or frankly do not post at all. It gets tiring to keep hearing total lies and saying thier is a bounty, that is a bold face and complete lie. I just get tired of you and you're lying on this forum. You wanted the truth about who brought this suit I gave it to you you wanted truth and facts about the structure of the season we had I gave it to you yet you still lie and post misinformation. Stop it......

If you'll read the management plan (I wasted way too much time on this), you'll see the only support of wolf hunting/trapping has to do with would depredation of domestics and an owner's potential of acting on their own. Not some go get a license and kill them. I'm okay with "no hunting" right now, as they haven't shown to be much of a problem in terms of domestic depredation. If individual land owner complaints show up, then those fellas should be given a go-ahead by the DNR to shoot and save the carcass.

You haven't cited anything that says hunting them would be a wise next step. Though I'm cool with it, if we have enough to hunt. MN has many more wolves than WI; and they have very few depredation problems (I believe those numbers are in the 2007 addendum).

all you did was show us a few groups that helped bring on the lawsuit and then you added your opinion... don't flatter yourself..i lied about nothing...where did you got that from?, i have no idea..what misinformation are you speaking of?...do those that hunt wolfs not turn there pelts in for money?, I'm sure i would if the price was right...so there's no bounty, i already admitted that, i was wrong, i associated HUNTING THEM as a bounty...and likewise, i get sick of your gibberish on this forum as well..blinders and one sideedness along with your life according to you attitude...shoot on!.. ;) good luck taking one out of the heard,  kill'em all i say!..""you can't handle the truth!""  ;)

I dunno, Mag. It is pretty obvious there are many political forces that made this happen. My question is, were there political forces that allowed it in the first place. The only thing I see outside of the WI conservation plan is the hunting of them non-specific to domestic predation (i.e. issuing hunting/trapping permits, instead of limiting those to land owners with nuisance wolf issues).

I think this ruling will last about as long as a bad fart.

I think, overall, our DNR has handled wolves well over the years. I just wonder if some political pressure made the trapping/hunt happen.

Read it and find where it says they'd open up a hunt/trap, aside from odd spots where landowners suffered losses.

http://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/ER/ER0099.pdf

personally, i could give  RATS inappropriate term2...i hope ya understand that...

So 5 pages and Ramjet hasn't been able to cite ONE biologist that shows the carrying capacity for wolves in this state is less than 1000, OR one biologist that shows wolves take more deer than other predators.

FIVE pages of him saying these are truths, but not one shred of evidence other than his political whining.  'Nuff said.

HandlesII you are off base I never said nor do I care how many deer wolves eat or kill. That is not the issue the issue as I stated all along is a Liberal judge with liberal track record of using her personal views as guidance as opposed to the law took our ability as a State to manage wolves.

But anyhow here is some reading enjoy be educated and please save your ignorant reposnse for someone else this topic like most you post about is pretty well run its course.

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/forestry/tri_state/tristate_2012/2012_tristate_%20talks/Wolf_Management_in_Wisconsin.pdf (http://www.extension.iastate.edu/forestry/tri_state/tristate_2012/2012_tristate_%20talks/Wolf_Management_in_Wisconsin.pdf)

By the way take some time thier is scientific evidence on both sides of this topic but make no mistake my issue is a judge with an overreach attitude and using her postion for forward the liberal agenda now reaching inot the long treasured tradition of hunting.

Here this should keep,you busy but if you need help understanding it just PM me I will explain it to you.

http://www.academia.edu/6377180/Density_dependent_matrix_model_for_gray_wolf_population_projection (http://www.academia.edu/6377180/Density_dependent_matrix_model_for_gray_wolf_population_projection)

I looked at your long slide-show. Great pictures but zero information that backs up any of your previous claims about carrying capacity of wolves in this state OR that biologists were saying that a wolf hunt in wisconsin was needed. What it does do a good job of showing is that illegal shooting of radio collared wolves is one of the top reasons for wolf mortality in the state. This simply shows that some people either A. hate wolves as did their ancestors or B. are looking for some type of a trophy or bar-stool bragging rights. Either excuse should have no bearing on the decision to legalize a hunt but apparently it did. I'm not against a wolf hunt at all if needed and warranted. This one was not. In wolf territory, over 53% of DNR survey respondents were in favor of increasing the wolf population. In the same survey, 15% were for elimination of all wolves and only 18% were for decreasing the population size. Which is a higher % ramjet, 53 or 35??  Also on slide #1 that thread you want us to read, there is an article about elk population and habitat in yellowstone both with and without wolves. Your "evidence" for wolf hunting actually shows that the elk herd AND elk habitat is healthier in yellowstone with the return of the wolf. Hmm... Had you known anything about this previously, or had you learned anything in my postings, you would have found that famous wolf-hunter, Aldo Leopold, was one of the main leaders and biologists on the return of wolf to yellowstone. He observed that his original hypothesis of eliminating wolves to create better hunting was wrong. More importantly, he was man enough to admit it, and change the minds of other wrongful thinkers like he once was.
The information I showed was directly used in discussions in the DNR. Yours was not.
So to sum up...
You claim that the wisconsin hunt was justified and needed. You claim that the retraction of the wolf hunt was purely political and unjustly founded. You claim that the carrying capacity of the state was shown by biologists to be fewer than the number of wolves we had. You claim that numerous biologists claim that and it was not "political legislation" Yet you were unable to show anything that supports ANY of your claims, much less all of them.
I showed the actual biologist reports used, NONE of which match your claims. Surveys by the DNR show the public in wolf country wanted a higher wolf population by a margin 53-35%. Political Legislation you say??
Since you are so great at googling things and demean others who you believe can't, you should have known that.  ;D

Here is something you can google: "..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."  So he was right, and it went to a higher court and now has been reversed. And guess what? He wanted to hunt wolves! Yet he was smart enough to know this was a bad law from the start.
And guess who was behind this "keeping science out of it"? Oh, you know, the United Sportsman of Wisconsin, that lobbied over 200 hours in this one issue. Where have I heard of them before? Oh yeah, they were the group that Walker illegally awarded a contract for teaching outdoor youth education, something they had no experience to do, and lost our state thousands in additional outdoor education funding.
Political Legislation? You've shown it ramjet, you've shown it. Your side (wolf haters) had better pay off plenty of biologists to get this latest reversed, because if the argument is purely based on rhetoric and political motivation as yours is, it will continue to fail.

Quote from: littleguy301 on December 25, 2014, 07:33:24 PM

Quote from: Goat Roper on December 24, 2014, 08:03:25 PM
There are plenty of videos on youtube that show wolves taking very healthy bucks.  There are also plenty of game camera videos with wolves taking fawns into dens.  Get rid of the idea they take sick animals.  Liberal thought.

a few years ago some locals around the Park Falls area set up a video camera by a wolfs den and in less than 6 months the count of deer and fawns getting dragged into the den was at 37.

Not sure if Hound is still on but I think he would know more about this.

I believe the wolf needs to know they have some enemies. While I have only seen a couple of wolfs in person I know quite a few that have seen those wolves up close and those wolfs appeared to be pretty comfortable in that area.

LG, not sure if you are confusing a similar argument on the forum from a couple years ago with this one or not, but I posted on here that the neighboring farm from where I hunt put a camera on a coyote den and if I remember correctly, 24 fawn were brought into that den in 6 weeks. I believe it was an argument from some on here saying wolves kill more deer than do other predators, and thus a reason to wolf hunt. That was proven to be false rhetoric as biological evidence shows coyotes, bobcats, and bear kill far more deer than do our resident wolves. There may also be a park falls wolf video, however I don't recall one being discussed on here.
Goat is partially right, wolves (and all other predators) will kill what they can catch. Sometimes that's a perfectly healthy animal that they can out run, out smart, or catch by the element of surprise. Videos of bear, coyotes and cats (cougar, lynx, bobcat) all killing healthy appearing deer are out there too. 

Maybe the state should start paying citizens for losses suffered due to deer activities, like they do for victims of wolf activities.  For example: crop & garden damage, damage to landscaped plants, orchard damage, tree damage, wrecked vehicles, etc.  I wonder how that practice would impact deer herd management, as well as wolf, bear, and coyote management. 

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/wdacp.html

Already have it. It's part of what factors into deer herd management and the number of doe tags allowed per hunting unit. Not sure exactly what kind of a pay-out is given to farmers vs. non-farmers (gardens, etc).

Now that you mention it, I do recall hearing about the crop damage.  I don't think non-farmers get squat, though.  It got so bad in our neighborhood that the city opened up bow hunting (with lots of restrictions).  I think it could get interesting if compensation was given for deer-damaged vehicles.  Probably be darn expensive! 

G, i can't agree more, Handles, Perfect! and spot on!....yep, good old Aig-tag that the DNR handed out FREELY to anyone with land under there watchful eye(CRP) that brought our deer herd down here in southern Wis to the lowest levels ever and the after affect still linger on 20 yrs later... :(...as G stated, landowners with wolf problems should have the right to take care of them the way they see fit, as we all know they already do!...and if you want to run a bear to death or up a tree for fun while practicing or hunting them with your dogs, by all means, do so, but in these very dense areas that are populated with wolf's between Sept 10th through Oct 7th, don't come crying to the DNR because a wolf killed your hounds...what do you expect? a sit down dinner between the 2  :o....shoot on!..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FA85RO89HA

his hair was PERFECT!... :)..........https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDpYBT0XyvA

Quote from: maggie on December 27, 2014, 05:04:51 PM
personally, i could give  RATS ash...i hope ya understand that...

Sorry to have offended you. This doesn't mean the world to me, either. Interesting subject, though. If a bunch of gun lobbyists helped pressure the right to hunt wolves, this is just desserts. Polar-opposite extremists deserve each other.

I don't want that influence in our DNR, and I sure don't like it coming down from the fed level, either.

Hey, Mag, take a walk on the wild side!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KaWSOlASWc

Dick Thiel comes across as pretty unpolitical in what I've read of and from him. Sure seems to know his wolves.

I think I can trust TWIN for info. I haven't seen any political leanings on their site, yet.

http://www.timberwolfinformation.org/meet-the-board-members-of-twin/

Thiel is to emotionally invested in wolves to give a fair and balanced opinion.

HandlesII you read to many liberal blogs the fact remains all animals have a carrying capacity and if you had read and understood the scientific paper you would realize even wolves do. So when they are over that carrying capacity how would you propose to control the numbers? Come on HandlesII this should be good and I am really interested to hear you're plan?

Can you say without going to and getting someone else's opinion?

The fact is a Judge used her position and power not the rule of law to side with radical group the co trol of the resource should be on the state level and lime I said you do not have to deal with wolves so you have distorted view of right and wrong. I would consider you a "Tree Hugger" you post like one have  always talked like one except when it comes to QDM then the size of the horns become more important than herd health. The same perspective is evident on the wolf issue. The same perspective you should about the crossbow season so on and so on. It is evident science has no influence or you would have commented ont eh link Imposted wpexcept you did understand it or you ignored it.

Maggie is just plain goofy on thei topic calling a well panned and managed hunt a bounty a bounty then must also be for deer ducks partridge and squirrels.

Then what's really funny is the suggestion that we the tax payers compensate folks for loss from wildlife one time before the season they did this it was joke and could have been abused and most likely was. Once the hunting season and wolf management was implimented the program to reimburse was dropped as it should be. You want compensations hen get it from the federal government they think they can afford it. I do not want my license fee or taxes going for this considering that we can manage the herds other ways that are practical and can actually benefit all species of wildlife.

What many of fail to realize the funding for guys like Thiel comes from the tax payer and from license fees. Some donations but the Humane Society spends more on court battles than research of certain species. Funny Handles II you would even mention this guy he gives money to Republicans .......... yikes!

The liberal Judge overstepped he bounds and will be overturned that is the good news. The management of the wolf needs to be at State level not from some liberal "Tree Huggers extremist" desk or politician on the Fed level.

"Thiel is to emotionally invested in wolves to give a fair and balanced opinion."

Proof? He even thought the hunt was going to happen in the near future. Just doesn't want another extremist group to have a say when and how. I find it odd the number of addendums in the state plan and none mention hunting trapping season.

Thiel is a stakeholder and has earned his involvement in this.

Can you also prove that TWIN is funded through tax dollars. I see they have a $12 membership fee; and Thiel claims the members to be volunteers.

I think Thiel is okay with the hunt; just not the overstepping of hunting extremists influencing the WDNR. He sure seems to have a better grasp of the animal and ecology than anyone else I've read. I noticed TWIN didn't post the political decision to stop the hunt/trap. Must not see it as a huge win, if they are tree huggers.

I'm great with landowners either getting a permit to take care of their turf; but worry when I see recreational opportunities to kill them.  

Either way, I don't know how deeply politics plays into this whole mess. I still think wolves will be hunted in the near future.

I wonder if Hound has lost any dogs to wolves. Love to hear his take on this.

Either way, I'm all for landowners protecting their property. Too bad the judge couldn't add the caveat. But it's either "list or delist."

I just don't, either, want people who are too emotionally invested in guns and hunting, to have a fair and balanced opinion, to influence the WDNR. Know what I mean? I don't know. Kind of got thrown in to piggyback Family Care legislation.

I guess my best outcome right now would be to allow issuance of permits to landowners with known nuisance wolves and let them take the animal or have some guy pay for the right to take that wolf.

While we're waiting for the liberal judge to get overturned, come shoot some of the feral pigs in Crawford county. :)

I can see why you want to hunt them. Might prove to be the best management. I think to tell someone they can't protect their property is wrong. I can also see why bear hunters would not want wolves on their turf.

We need to focus on what's really important. Sandhill cranes, baby! Flying steaks!!!

Quote from: bigG on December 28, 2014, 02:23:02 PM
"Thiel is to emotionally invested in wolves to give a fair and balanced opinion."

Proof? He even thought the hunt was going to happen in the near future. Just doesn't want another extremist group to have a say when and how. I find it odd the number of addendums in the state plan and none mention hunting trapping season.

Thiel is a stakeholder and has earned his involvement in this.

Can you also prove that TWIN is funded through tax dollars. I see they have a $12 membership fee; and Thiel claims the members to be volunteers.

I think Thiel is okay with the hunt; just not the overstepping of hunting extremists influencing the WDNR. He sure seems to have a better grasp of the animal and ecology than anyone else I've read. I noticed TWIN didn't post the political decision to stop the hunt/trap. Must not see it as a huge win, if they are tree huggers.

I do not disagree with all he says or even endorses but even he is ignored by the Liberal Judge who took away the states right to manage the wolves.

I say he is over invested because he has lived and breathed wolves for much of adult life when someone is that involved thier view can be skewed that's all I am saying.

Just like HandlesII constantly bringing up the wolf impact on deer to me. I could careless how many deer wolves eat and never made that part of the issue, the issue is the Judge siding with extreme group and overstepping the rule of law and State control of resources within the thier boundaries.

I also take issue with maggie using the term Bounty to describe as reasonably written wolf management plan.

Like I said maggie posted this to stir Poltical debate and he got it so some extent.

Quote from: ramjet on December 28, 2014, 01:52:17 PM
Thiel is to emotionally invested in wolves to give a fair and balanced opinion.

HandlesII you read to many liberal blogs the fact remains all animals have a carrying capacity and if you had read and understood the scientific paper you would realize even wolves do. So when they are over that carrying capacity how would you propose to control the numbers? Come on HandlesII this should be good and I am really interested to hear you're plan?

Can you say without going to and getting someone else's opinion?

The fact is a Judge used her position and power not the rule of law to side with radical group the co trol of the resource should be on the state level and lime I said you do not have to deal with wolves so you have distorted view of right and wrong. I would consider you a "Tree Hugger" you post like one have  always talked like one except when it comes to QDM then the size of the horns become more important than herd health. The same perspective is evident on the wolf issue. The same perspective you should about the crossbow season so on and so on. It is evident science has no influence or you would have commented ont eh link Imposted wpexcept you did understand it or you ignored it.

Maggie is just plain goofy on thei topic calling a well panned and managed hunt a bounty a bounty then must also be for deer ducks partridge and squirrels.

Then what's really funny is the suggestion that we the tax payers compensate folks for loss from wildlife one time before the season they did this it was joke and could have been abused and most likely was. Once the hunting season and wolf management was implimented the program to reimburse was dropped as it should be. You want compensations hen get it from the federal government they think they can afford it. I do not want my license fee or taxes going for this considering that we can manage the herds other ways that are practical and can actually benefit all species of wildlife.

What many of fail to realize the funding for guys like Thiel comes from the tax payer and from license fees. Some donations but the Humane Society spends more on court battles than research of certain species. Funny Handles II you would even mention this guy he gives money to Republicans .......... yikes!

The liberal Judge overstepped he bounds and will be overturned that is the good news. The management of the wolf needs to be at State level not from some liberal "Tree Huggers extremist" desk or politician on the Fed level.

I'm perfectly ok with a hunting or trapping season if one is warranted. I've said it now, what, three or four times?? The reality is that you have produced ZERO of the information you claim was used to show that a wolf hunt in WI was warranted. All you showed was information supporting wolf hunting was simply a political legislation created by a few for a few, plain and simple. It had nothing to do with needing a hunt. It had nothing to do with carrying capacity as you made up. It had nothing to do with the public in wolf country wanting a wolf hunt. It only that a few lobbyist groups and wolf haters, trophy hunters, and trappers looking to cash in wanted one.   

As for Theil...He applied for a wolf license. He was going to hunt them. I'm sure you knew that already though, right Ramjet???? So certainly a guy who according to you too invested in wolves to give a fair and balanced report certainly wouldn't be hunting them, would he??
But as he knew, the groups writing the laws had no idea what they were doing and wanted to keep all the science out of the argument (opposite of what you claim happened) and because of their bumbling and lack of proof, the law was reversed. It should never have been created in the first place.

g, not at all upset a with you... ;)

We're good.

see HandlesII you might have some credibility in your argument if you would have left out the term wolf haters that term is used over and over and over by extreme groups that want it thier way and thier way on,y the carrying capacity is determined by the science I gave you the complete scientific methodology but you refuse to recognize it because you only beleive that the liberal extreme organizations that want to stop all hunting. You on this topic like others refuse to see the big picture.

The scientific data for carrying capacity is there again if you do not or cannot understand it PM me and I will simplify it for you.

Wolf Haters lol you are so easily mislead.

Funny you mention "trophy Hunters" you fall under that category based on posts you make about deer hunting so any laws pertaining to deer are bogus and should be overturned by some political advocate caller herself  judge?

Fact is the WI wolf conservation plan did not include hunting and trapping. That plan was initiated in 1999 and added to since then. In no addendum I've seen was there the hunting/trapping part. Mind you, it's a long doc; but, if our state went outside it's own plan, we have this coming.

I don't think you have to worry about your regular hunting routine, Ram.

Quote from: bigG on December 29, 2014, 07:38:40 AM
Fact is the WI wolf conservation plan did not include hunting and trapping. That plan was initiated in 1999 and added to since then. In no addendum I've seen was there the hunting/trapping part. Mind you, it's a long doc; but, if our state went outside it's own plan, we have this coming.

I don't think you have to worry about your regular hunting routine, Ram.

First off few wolves are actually hunted so to speak most were taken by trapping they are pretty consistent in thier routines once they establish thier tuning areas and pack pecking order I beleive that use snares to catch them. Like I said most of the ones I know folks got they had rugs made for thier themselves or full mounts.

Good plan to help control numbers so the rest of the pack can thrive is good plan.
it's not like they are going to spay and neuter them for crying out loud.

Quote from: Handles II on December 27, 2014, 10:46:22 PM

Quote from: littleguy301 on December 25, 2014, 07:33:24 PM

Quote from: Goat Roper on December 24, 2014, 08:03:25 PM
There are plenty of videos on youtube that show wolves taking very healthy bucks.  There are also plenty of game camera videos with wolves taking fawns into dens.  Get rid of the idea they take sick animals.  Liberal thought.

a few years ago some locals around the Park Falls area set up a video camera by a wolfs den and in less than 6 months the count of deer and fawns getting dragged into the den was at 37.

Not sure if Hound is still on but I think he would know more about this.

I believe the wolf needs to know they have some enemies. While I have only seen a couple of wolfs in person I know quite a few that have seen those wolves up close and those wolfs appeared to be pretty comfortable in that area.

LG, not sure if you are confusing a similar argument on the forum from a couple years ago with this one or not, but I posted on here that the neighboring farm from where I hunt put a camera on a coyote den and if I remember correctly, 24 fawn were brought into that den in 6 weeks. I believe it was an argument from some on here saying wolves kill more deer than do other predators, and thus a reason to wolf hunt. That was proven to be false rhetoric as biological evidence shows coyotes, bobcats, and bear kill far more deer than do our resident wolves. There may also be a park falls wolf video, however I don't recall one being discussed on here.
Goat is partially right, wolves (and all other predators) will kill what they can catch. Sometimes that's a perfectly healthy animal that they can out run, out smart, or catch by the element of surprise. Videos of bear, coyotes and cats (cougar, lynx, bobcat) all killing healthy appearing deer are out there too. 

No, I have different information about that situations than you provided. Had at the time family that lived in that area and that was the talk for quite a while about that video. In that area they were having some serious problems with the wolves with deer kill and wolves just plainly being in public and pretty comfortable being in public. Fast forward 2-3 years and not sure if this is still a problem or not because my family members have moved so they dont have the information about this and I was hoping someone like Hound may have some information about this since Hound and my Bro-In-Law worked together.

wolf packs take care of themselves when it comes to numbers!....that simple

Quote from: maggie on December 29, 2014, 10:50:29 AM
wolf packs take care of themselves when it comes to numbers!....that simple

LOL

wow you are really ill informed but we all know that.........🙈🙉🙊

Quote from: ramjet on December 29, 2014, 09:07:34 AM

Quote from: bigG on December 29, 2014, 07:38:40 AM
Fact is the WI wolf conservation plan did not include hunting and trapping. That plan was initiated in 1999 and added to since then. In no addendum I've seen was there the hunting/trapping part. Mind you, it's a long doc; but, if our state went outside it's own plan, we have this coming.

I don't think you have to worry about your regular hunting routine, Ram.

First off few wolves are actually hunted so to speak most were taken by trapping they are pretty consistent in thier routines once they establish thier tuning areas and pack pecking order I beleive that use snares to catch them. Like I said most of the ones I know folks got they had rugs made for thier themselves or full mounts.

Good plan to help control numbers so the rest of the pack can thrive is good plan.
it's not like they are going to spay and neuter them for crying out loud.

Love the idea. Never made part of the conservation plan. Maybe some folks were frustrated they couldn't get included in the plan and either rammed or snuck the bill through. It was piggyback to the Family Care plan.

Quote from: bigG on December 29, 2014, 11:31:55 AM

Quote from: ramjet on December 29, 2014, 09:07:34 AM

Quote from: bigG on December 29, 2014, 07:38:40 AM
Fact is the WI wolf conservation plan did not include hunting and trapping. That plan was initiated in 1999 and added to since then. In no addendum I've seen was there the hunting/trapping part. Mind you, it's a long doc; but, if our state went outside it's own plan, we have this coming.

I don't think you have to worry about your regular hunting routine, Ram.

First off few wolves are actually hunted so to speak most were taken by trapping they are pretty consistent in thier routines once they establish thier tuning areas and pack pecking order I beleive that use snares to catch them. Like I said most of the ones I know folks got they had rugs made for thier themselves or full mounts.

Good plan to help control numbers so the rest of the pack can thrive is good plan.
it's not like they are going to spay and neuter them for crying out loud.

Love the idea. Never made part of the conservation plan. Maybe some folks were frustrated they couldn't get included in the plan and either rammed or snuck the bill through. It was piggyback to the Family Care plan.

So maybe we should let the DNR biologists lay out the plan if it included hunting do you think people like HandlesII and others from that ilk would accept it?

Quote from: bigG on December 29, 2014, 11:31:55 AM

Quote from: ramjet on December 29, 2014, 09:07:34 AM

Quote from: bigG on December 29, 2014, 07:38:40 AM
Fact is the WI wolf conservation plan did not include hunting and trapping. That plan was initiated in 1999 and added to since then. In no addendum I've seen was there the hunting/trapping part. Mind you, it's a long doc; but, if our state went outside it's own plan, we have this coming.

I don't think you have to worry about your regular hunting routine, Ram.

First off few wolves are actually hunted so to speak most were taken by trapping they are pretty consistent in thier routines once they establish thier tuning areas and pack pecking order I beleive that use snares to catch them. Like I said most of the ones I know folks got they had rugs made for thier themselves or full mounts.

Good plan to help control numbers so the rest of the pack can thrive is good plan.
it's not like they are going to spay and neuter them for crying out loud.

Love the idea. Never made part of the conservation plan. Maybe some folks were frustrated they couldn't get included in the plan and either rammed or snuck the bill through. It was piggyback to the Family Care plan.

Birth control initiative?   ??? 

Quote from: imnofish on December 29, 2014, 11:48:02 AM

Quote from: bigG on December 29, 2014, 11:31:55 AM

Quote from: ramjet on December 29, 2014, 09:07:34 AM

Quote from: bigG on December 29, 2014, 07:38:40 AM
Fact is the WI wolf conservation plan did not include hunting and trapping. That plan was initiated in 1999 and added to since then. In no addendum I've seen was there the hunting/trapping part. Mind you, it's a long doc; but, if our state went outside it's own plan, we have this coming.

I don't think you have to worry about your regular hunting routine, Ram.

First off few wolves are actually hunted so to speak most were taken by trapping they are pretty consistent in thier routines once they establish thier tuning areas and pack pecking order I beleive that use snares to catch them. Like I said most of the ones I know folks got they had rugs made for thier themselves or full mounts.

Good plan to help control numbers so the rest of the pack can thrive is good plan.
it's not like they are going to spay and neuter them for crying out loud.

Love the idea. Never made part of the conservation plan. Maybe some folks were frustrated they couldn't get included in the plan and either rammed or snuck the bill through. It was piggyback to the Family Care plan.

Birth control initiative?   ??? 

don't laugh many of these organization think this is viable.......

I think they should release huge numbers of wolves in the city parks and on HandlesII hunting land then 5 years ask what they think about wolves management plans.

Quote from: ramjet on December 29, 2014, 11:45:32 AM

Quote from: bigG on December 29, 2014, 11:31:55 AM

Quote from: ramjet on December 29, 2014, 09:07:34 AM

Quote from: bigG on December 29, 2014, 07:38:40 AM
Fact is the WI wolf conservation plan did not include hunting and trapping. That plan was initiated in 1999 and added to since then. In no addendum I've seen was there the hunting/trapping part. Mind you, it's a long doc; but, if our state went outside it's own plan, we have this coming.

I don't think you have to worry about your regular hunting routine, Ram.

First off few wolves are actually hunted so to speak most were taken by trapping they are pretty consistent in thier routines once they establish thier tuning areas and pack pecking order I beleive that use snares to catch them. Like I said most of the ones I know folks got they had rugs made for thier themselves or full mounts.

Good plan to help control numbers so the rest of the pack can thrive is good plan.
it's not like they are going to spay and neuter them for crying out loud.

Love the idea. Never made part of the conservation plan. Maybe some folks were frustrated they couldn't get included in the plan and either rammed or snuck the bill through. It was piggyback to the Family Care plan.

So maybe we should let the DNR biologists lay out the plan if it included hunting do you think people like HandlesII and others from that ilk would accept it?

Sure, if the movement had some science to back it. Not the hand picked head of the DNR getting strong armed to make it happen.

Show the science, change the plan, and enjoy the hunt/trap. I fail to see where any biologists were involved in the bill that passed for hunting and trapping; just like the hunt/trap provision is absent from the conservation plan. Have some people with knowledge/stake in the critters make those calls. Amend the plan, then talk about hunting/trapping.

Maybe if they released huge numbers of inner city crack dealers in Wabeno, you'd see birth control differently.  ;)

It sounds to me, back in 2012 when this thing got wheels, there sure wasn't consensus among DNR folks.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2012/04/wisconsin-wolf-hunting-bill-signed-season-begin-mid-october

Apparently not enough consensus to change the conservation plan. There is plenty of time to make an addendum, and to pass muster with the experts.

In this article, Dick Thiel totally called this.

http://host.madison.com/news/local/environment/wolf-hunting-bill-goes-too-far-scientists-tell-lawmakers/article_40235420-4d2a-11e1-8618-0019bb2963f4.html

"As it is written now, you run the risk of seriously offending many citizens who have supported wolf recovery for 35 years," Thiel said. "And that will invite litigation that will lock up progress on wolf management."

Not surprising the groups that backed the bill. Sure doesn't sound like it was left in the hands of the biologists, though. Don't hire a politician to do a biologist's job.

Quote from: bigG on December 29, 2014, 01:22:57 PM

Quote from: ramjet on December 29, 2014, 11:45:32 AM

Quote from: bigG on December 29, 2014, 11:31:55 AM

Quote from: ramjet on December 29, 2014, 09:07:34 AM

Quote from: bigG on December 29, 2014, 07:38:40 AM
Fact is the WI wolf conservation plan did not include hunting and trapping. That plan was initiated in 1999 and added to since then. In no addendum I've seen was there the hunting/trapping part. Mind you, it's a long doc; but, if our state went outside it's own plan, we have this coming.

I don't think you have to worry about your regular hunting routine, Ram.

First off few wolves are actually hunted so to speak most were taken by trapping they are pretty consistent in thier routines once they establish thier tuning areas and pack pecking order I beleive that use snares to catch them. Like I said most of the ones I know folks got they had rugs made for thier themselves or full mounts.

Good plan to help control numbers so the rest of the pack can thrive is good plan.
it's not like they are going to spay and neuter them for crying out loud.

Love the idea. Never made part of the conservation plan. Maybe some folks were frustrated they couldn't get included in the plan and either rammed or snuck the bill through. It was piggyback to the Family Care plan.

So maybe we should let the DNR biologists lay out the plan if it included hunting do you think people like HandlesII and others from that ilk would accept it?

Sure, if the movement had some science to back it. Not the hand picked head of the DNR getting strong armed to make it happen.

Show the science, change the plan, and enjoy the hunt/trap. I fail to see where any biologists were involved in the bill that passed for hunting and trapping; just like the hunt/trap provision is absent from the conservation plan. Have some people with knowledge/stake in the critters make those calls. Amend the plan, then talk about hunting/trapping.

Maybe if they released huge numbers of inner city crack dealers in Wabeno, you'd see birth control differently.  ;)

It sounds to me, back in 2012 when this thing got wheels, there sure wasn't consensus among DNR folks.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2012/04/wisconsin-wolf-hunting-bill-signed-season-begin-mid-october

Apparently not enough consensus to change the conservation plan. There is plenty of time to make an addendum, and to pass muster with the experts.

In this article, Dick Thiel totally called this.

http://host.madison.com/news/local/environment/wolf-hunting-bill-goes-too-far-scientists-tell-lawmakers/article_40235420-4d2a-11e1-8618-0019bb2963f4.html

"As it is written now, you run the risk of seriously offending many citizens who have supported wolf recovery for 35 years," Thiel said. "And that will invite litigation that will lock up progress on wolf management."

Not surprising the groups that backed the bill. Sure doesn't sound like it was left in the hands of the biologists, though. Don't hire a politician to do a biologist's job.

Wabeno already has wolves.

so based on thus response you're position is "not in my area"  funny ...... but typical.

I live right by Ft. McCoy. Maybe someday my wolves will meet yours.  :)

I just can't find the biologist consensus to make this make sense. Written by two politicians, this bill sure wasn't the culmination of the conservation plan. There are DNR guys who back the hunt. This bill set the hunt/trap back by not including the stakeholders.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/sports/outdoors/hunting/2014/12/27/wolf-endangered-species-ruling-defies-biology/20946265/

Good article. But, by replacing biologist expertise with politics in the state, you create another political federal monster. I know people here get a tad nervous about the wolves, as we have much more livestock than the northern zones. No major issues yet.

I would think the DNR might be frustrated at the lack of respect from politicians on the state and federal levels.

Quote from: ramjet on December 29, 2014, 12:20:32 PM
I think they should release huge numbers of wolves in the city parks and on HandlesII hunting land then 5 years ask what they think about wolves management plans.

Pretty typical of you ramjet, wanting your (percieved) problems to go onto others. Not the first time you've wished bad onto others on this forum. FYI, my cabin is in Barnes. Every hear of it? Two major wolf packs have been living in the area for years.

There are wolf haters ramjet, it isn't a liberal saying no matter how much you would love it to be so. It's a wolf hater saying, they readily admit hating wolves and wanting to eliminate them. Many are loud and proud. If you don't believe me, either head to a local watering hole and ask a show of hands who hates wolves, or perhaps you could look in the mirror?

7 pages ramjet, and all you've shown is ZERO. Bumbling lawmakers trying to rush through poorly written bill for a very small demographic of wolf haters, trappers, and trophy hunters and lobbyists is what made it happen. And that's what made it get reversed. Blame yours for not doing their homework.

Quote from: Handles II on December 29, 2014, 07:48:16 PM

Quote from: ramjet on December 29, 2014, 12:20:32 PM
I think they should release huge numbers of wolves in the city parks and on HandlesII hunting land then 5 years ask what they think about wolves management plans.

Pretty typical of you ramjet, wanting your (percieved) problems to go onto others. Not the first time you've wished bad onto others on this forum. FYI, my cabin is in Barnes. Every hear of it? Two major wolf packs have been living in the area for years.

There are wolf haters ramjet, it isn't a liberal saying no matter how much you would love it to be so. It's a wolf hater saying, they readily admit hating wolves and wanting to eliminate them. Many are loud and proud. If you don't believe me, either head to a local watering hole and ask a show of hands who hates wolves, or perhaps you could look in the mirror?

7 pages ramjet, and all you've shown is ZERO. Bumbling lawmakers trying to rush through poorly written bill for a very small demographic of wolf haters, trappers, and trophy hunters and lobbyists is what made it happen. And that's what made it get reversed. Blame yours for not doing their homework.

Yes there are wolf haters just as there are wolf zealots and tree Huggers.

So now what do you propose for management government sharp shooters? Wolfy birth control? just move them to southwest part of the state? Just let numbers continue to climb and ignore it?

Come on HandlesII I would likemf Rahoi to volunteer the placement of a Pack in the area you deer hunt they will not hurt the deer herd or other animals as you have stated so why not?

The problem is not with hunting/trapping. It's with two state politicians making the call, instead of our experts on the matter. Even Thiel must believe we'll be hunting /trapping them. Can't replace real biologists with politicians. Just like Dick Thiel predicted. Now, the law suits will drag this on.

I agree with you on the federal politics intruding being crap. But you don't seem to want to accept the fact that the whole reason this happened was with state political pencil necks making the call over the actual scientists.

If you voted for one of those geniuses who took it on themselves to do this, than your best move would be to adios them.

I'd like to hear from Hound, because it seems the biggest issue is predation of hunting dogs. Deer and livestock fatalities are down from 2013 to 2014; but I bet they're real tough on the dogs. I'm sure Hound puts a lot of time and $ into his pooches.

Hound is the only one I know on here whose livelihood could be afflicted by wolves. I'm sure the bear hunters rightly lobbied for the bill to pass. I also understand politicians have to listen to their constituencies.

Not a ton of bear hunters in my area; but we do have some black bears floating around. One thing I do know is that the deer population hasn't gone down since the wolves came to the Fort; and they haven't snapped up much livestock in the Ft. McCoy area. They're only three roads away from me.  :o

If they do, I hear llamas are the best way to protect from wolves. Spit right on 'em!!

To be honest, the only area I hear about some real problems with Wolves is in the area Hound lives though I could be not hearing about other areas and that is my fault.

In the price county area I have heard of wolves disrupting cattle and livestock in general. But like I said, I do not have any conections to that area any more so maybe it has been curbed.

Quote from: ramjet on December 29, 2014, 08:02:36 PM

Quote from: Handles II on December 29, 2014, 07:48:16 PM

Quote from: ramjet on December 29, 2014, 12:20:32 PM
I think they should release huge numbers of wolves in the city parks and on HandlesII hunting land then 5 years ask what they think about wolves management plans.

Pretty typical of you ramjet, wanting your (percieved) problems to go onto others. Not the first time you've wished bad onto others on this forum. FYI, my cabin is in Barnes. Every hear of it? Two major wolf packs have been living in the area for years.

There are wolf haters ramjet, it isn't a liberal saying no matter how much you would love it to be so. It's a wolf hater saying, they readily admit hating wolves and wanting to eliminate them. Many are loud and proud. If you don't believe me, either head to a local watering hole and ask a show of hands who hates wolves, or perhaps you could look in the mirror?

7 pages ramjet, and all you've shown is ZERO. Bumbling lawmakers trying to rush through poorly written bill for a very small demographic of wolf haters, trappers, and trophy hunters and lobbyists is what made it happen. And that's what made it get reversed. Blame yours for not doing their homework.

Yes there are wolf haters just as there are wolf zealots and tree Huggers.

So now what do you propose for management government sharp shooters? Wolfy birth control? just move them to southwest part of the state? Just let numbers continue to climb and ignore it?

Come on HandlesII I would likemf Rahoi to volunteer the placement of a Pack in the area you deer hunt they will not hurt the deer herd or other animals as you have stated so why not?

So you need me to say it a 4th time ramjet? I will only if you will actually listen and learn. I am in FAVOR of hunting and trapping wolves and/or other animals if it is warranted and justified, not just a political agenda. 5th time:I am in FAVOR of hunting and trapping wolves and/or other animals if it is warranted and justified, not just a political agenda. 6th time:I am in FAVOR of hunting and trapping wolves and/or other animals if it is warranted and justified, not just a political agenda.7th time:I am in FAVOR of hunting and trapping wolves and/or other animals if it is warranted and justified, not just a political agenda.

Need I say it again??? I should hope not.
You lost the debate many pages ago ramjet. Just like those who created the wolf hunting season, you claimed science was on your side, but in reality it wasn't.

I'm glad all you guys debated this. I'm sure it will rage on; but it sort of forced me to get to know a subject I which I was previously impervious. Now I'm pervious. :)

Happy hunting, either way.

Quote from: bigG on December 30, 2014, 11:16:38 AM
I'm glad all you guys debated this. I'm sure it will rage on; but it sort of forced me to get to know a subject I which I was previously impervious. Now I'm pervious. :)

Happy hunting, either way.

Never admit to being pervious.  The DOJ might require you to register.   ;)  ;D

Perviously, I respected your opinion.

As young kids, sickies are preverts.

:)

Reed yer dikshunairie, four krine aut laud.

Quote from: bigG on December 30, 2014, 01:34:17 PM
Perviously, I respected your opinion.

As young kids, sickies are preverts.

:)

Reed yer dikshunairie, four krine aut laud.

Shirley you didn't think I was Sirius.  That would indicate naivete of astronomical proportions...   or, with improper diet, it might be gastronomical.   Woof!    ;D

So HandlesII there is no debate therefore I cannot or did not loose anything.

DNR biologists supported the wolf hunt and supported delisting them so they could manage the packs locally.

On one hand you say you support it but on the other hand you supported the Poltical decision by a known liberal Obama appointee that has NO background in biology and is just another puppet.

So we agree, no debate, hunt on I will apply for another tag as soon as the ruling is overturned and it will be.

We need more bear hunters.  One of them attacked a miniature horse near here and one of my friends lost a pig.  I am tired of them eating all of my blackberries and pooping in my yard (I live in town.).   

Quote from: ramjet on December 31, 2014, 09:35:34 AM
So HandlesII there is no debate therefore I cannot or did not loose anything.

DNR biologists supported the wolf hunt and supported delisting them so they could manage the packs locally.

On one hand you say you support it but on the other hand you supported the Poltical decision by a known liberal Obama appointee that has NO background in biology and is just another puppet.

So we agree, no debate, hunt on I will apply for another tag as soon as the ruling is overturned and it will be.

The problem, at least from my perspective, is that , from what I've read, ONE DNR biologist favored the hunt/trap, and the main proponents were politicians; not biologists. You've shown no proof of these biologists. I'm sure many will be okay in the near future.

It will be overturned as long as the packs keep thriving. Win/win!!

Maybe next time we really have some biological consensus from the DNR; so we don't have to have politicians pushing things through with no science to back them.

Quote from: bigG on December 31, 2014, 10:39:40 AM

Quote from: ramjet on December 31, 2014, 09:35:34 AM
So HandlesII there is no debate therefore I cannot or did not loose anything.

DNR biologists supported the wolf hunt and supported delisting them so they could manage the packs locally.

On one hand you say you support it but on the other hand you supported the Poltical decision by a known liberal Obama appointee that has NO background in biology and is just another puppet.

So we agree, no debate, hunt on I will apply for another tag as soon as the ruling is overturned and it will be.

The problem, at least from my perspective, is that , from what I've read, ONE DNR biologist favored the hunt/trap, and the main proponents were politicians; not biologists. You've shown no proof of these biologists. I'm sure many will be okay in the near future.

It will be overturned as long as the packs keep thriving. Win/win!!

Maybe next time we really have some biological consensus from the DNR; so we don't have to have politicians pushing things through with no science to back them.

...which will result in the ultimate win/win - no arguments about it online.   ;)

that's what really kills me, your going to apply for a tag... :o...like i said, if ya have a problem, fix it! if ya don't , don't worry about it..have a happy new yr... :)

I was just on the Ft. today. Nice place for any critter to live. I think I'll get much of my wood from there. Maybe I'll get to see one. Doubt it, though. Chainsaws aren't too friendly soundin'. I usually see tons of stuff there. Lotta bald eagles everywhere, lately.

Interesting that you brought up bald eagles. when they went on the endangered species list in the 50's their resident population in wisconsin was about equal to that of wolves at that time (about 40). They are now off the list and we have over 1200 resident breeding pairs (2400 birds). In that same time span, wolves increased to about 850 total. Some people on here, and elsewhere have been claiming how fast the recovery was for wovles, how quickly they reproduce. Apparently that isn't really the case at all, as most of us on here were witness to how slow the actual recovery of eagles has been, and their are 3x more of them than wolves.
Hunting season for bald eagles anyone? I think we are beyond the carrying capacity (based on my own opinion and not actual fact), and it's known that they have killed family pets. These are the same reasons why wolf hunting was started. Just sayin'.

Good points. I would like to see numbers of pet fatalities and see how many were hunting dogs and how many were nabbed from a yard, off the chain, etc. 1200 pairs of eagles? I'd swear I see all of them when I drive over the Mississippi. :)

Hound must be busy these days. Carrying capacity will be a hotly debated term. It took about 30 years to get the wolves to where they are now. Nice to see a happy medium. It's very different hearing from an opinioned person that we are at carrying capacity, as opposed to someone who studies the darn things. Ya know?

Gotta be a balance somewhere.

When the eagles were making their comeback, one resort owner I knew was very upset because they were taking ducks from his docks and beach.  Personally, I liked the decrease in duck manure and swimmers itch. 

Quote from: bigG on January 04, 2015, 11:18:35 AM
Good points. I would like to see numbers of pet fatalities and see how many were hunting dogs and how many were nabbed from a yard, off the chain, etc. 1200 pairs of eagles? I'd swear I see all of them when I drive over the Mississippi. :)

Hound must be busy these days. Carrying capacity will be a hotly debated term. It took about 30 years to get the wolves to where they are now. Nice to see a happy medium. It's very different hearing from an opinioned person that we are at carrying capacity, as opposed to someone who studies the darn things. Ya know?

Gotta be a balance somewhere.

In reality it was more like 60 years to get the wolves to 850, Longer than many of us have been alive. It took only 3 years and we dropped back to 350. It will take an estimated 40 years to get back to 850 again. Something to think about.

As for the eagles, you might be seeing some of the large numbers of migrating eagles, not just the "resident" eagles.

Prolly right. Just nice to seem them. Been a good bird year. had a huge pileated woody in my birch the other day. Just about 15' from my kitchen window. Looked like a little dinosaur.

Sounds like a long-standing political debate among lobbysists. Oregon Outdoor Council is a state pro-hunting trapping libbyist; while the humane society, among others, are wolf huggers.Too bad. I think our DNR should make the call.

Maybe if our state allowed biologists to make the decisions, folks wouldn't have to wait for this to be overturned.

I just wanted to know if any of Hound's pooches got hurt by wolves and how it afflicts his livlihood.

Quote from: bigG on January 05, 2015, 09:31:28 AM
Sounds like a long-standing political debate among lobbysists. Oregon Outdoor Council is a state pro-hunting trapping libbyist; while the humane society, among others, are wolf huggers.Too bad. I think our DNR should make the call.

Maybe if our state allowed biologists to make the decisions, folks wouldn't have to wait for this to be overturned.

I just wanted to know if any of Hound's pooches got hurt by wolves and how it afflicts his livlihood.

G you keep saying this when with little work you can find the wisconsin DNR biologists setting the wolf policy the law was based off but you continue line HandlesII make this political.

Again I think handlesII and you should Allow wolves to be released on or near your house and 5 years later I want to survey the attitude you have about them. Heck Handles has many acres he hits so they would be well within the eco system they were hundreds of years ago less the cars and houses and fido the dog.

Again, you seem to think there is one political side to this debate. There are clearly two. Handles harped on it; now I will ask you where you get this DNR made this happen. Please link us.

Make the work little for me. LINK IT!

Is there some mystery? I can't find this group of biologists and their agreement.

"WI dnr biologists for wolf hunt"

I googled this. Nothing. Please, lift the haze!

So goat, why is it that a parent should show the wolf/moose video to their children? Is it so that they can see how nature really works when not interfered with by man? How one life sustains that of others? The overall circle of life? How many small individuals can overcome one large individual (my personal favorite). If so, good for you! I readily watch nature shows with my children, as did my parents with me. Death can be pretty gruesome, especially when it is starvation from a population being higher than the habitat can afford. Perhaps you could supplement with some information about Isle Royale National Park, and how left to themselves, the wolves and the moose have quite a symbiotic relationship, each population rising and falling almost in unison? Each population completely kept in check by the other as virtually have been all populations of all animals without human intervention.

Or is it that you would simply like to begat more wolf haters? Or perhaps haters of predators in general? Or a hatred of all things that hunt other things?
A cat playing with a not-dead-yet mouse, so they can learn to hate cats?
A dog doing the same with a rabbit, so they can learn to hate dogs?
Maybe showing them videos of wounded deer shot by hunters and still barely alive hours and days later would also prove your point?
How about hogs at a slaughterhouse being crushed to death by a hydraulic press?


Ramjet, 8 pages now and you have shown ZERO other than a report on the BENEFITS of re-introduction of wolves to yellowstone.

G if you go onto the site DNR and review the plan and also understand the season was mag ament lol proposed by the DNR with input from its Biologists. For you to say otherwise because of some liberal democratic and tree hugger tripe does not make that gospel either.

Again if you guys want wolves to be high in numbers and prosper without management then by all means volunteer your area for placement. This would go along ways towards supporting the reintroduction effort.

HandlesII just so you know it's too freaking late NOT to interfere with Nature that started with Cain and Able....

You mean the report I posted on page 1 of this? Yup. If you have another, why don't you post it? Big G asked nicely.

Nice reply, I expected as much.  :o

This is an awesome video to show your kids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q#t=231

Quote from: Goat Roper on January 05, 2015, 10:00:36 AM
Couple of things, first of all wolves are "PACK" animals.  They don't prey on the sick and wounded as fish thought.  I have seen a video at the lodge we go to in Canada where six wolves kill a big bull moose on the ice.  According to the owners it took the moose over two hours to die, even as the wolves were feeding on them.  I would recommend all on here find a similar video and show them to their young children.

Second, Handles says the wolves weren't introduced well that is not completely true.  The DNR did introduce two wolves in the Shiocton area about 6 years ago.  They denied this of course until security video was produced (because the land owner had problems with burglaries in his hunting shack) and the DNR was stupid enough to set them free at the end of his private drive.  The DNR warden initials MY stated that if the locals didn't want to take care of the deer population these wolves would.  Needless to say the first wolf was killed within two months and the second was killed one year later by fox/coyote hunters.

All predators will take the easiest prey to catch, when it's available.  When I stated that, I was not claiming that they would exclusively consume those animals, however.  Try this: Snip off part of a minnow's tail fin before hooking it; then throw it into the school of minnows upon which fish are feeding.  Fisherman have successfully used the technique many times.

Quote from: ramjet on January 05, 2015, 01:00:08 PM
G if you go onto the site DNR and review the plan and also understand the season was mag ament lol proposed by the DNR with input from its Biologists. For you to say otherwise because of some liberal democratic and tree hugger tripe does not make that gospel either.

Again if you guys want wolves to be high in numbers and prosper without management then by all means volunteer your area for placement. This would go along ways towards supporting the reintroduction effort.

HandlesII just so you know it's too freaking late NOT to interfere with Nature that started with Cain and Able....

That was the first place I went. The plan. I was the one that posted, and read most of, the plan. There is nothing about hunting/trapping in the plan that I saw. The Wolf Conservation plan does not yet include hunting/trapping. The hunting/trapping part was put in there by politicians. If the biologists ran the show and agreed it would make sense to manage the wolves by hunting/trapping, I'd think they'd addendum that to their conservation plan. Please show me where I missed something in there. 

The DNR hunting/trapping website sure doesn't outline any scientific evidence one way or the other. The DNR is just doing what their political overlords make them do. Must really cheese some off that they're listened to less than politicians who created such legislation.

Pretend I'm from Missouri and, instead of calling me some childish name, show me.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/outdoors/wisconsin-wolf-hunt-snags-attention-b99376125z1-280140242.html

Sounds like it was going to be in the management Plan addendum of 2015. Too bad politicos had to jump in. Did you vote for nay of those folks?

If you did, then you voted for politics over science.

Ted's lobby v. the Tree Huggers lobby. Sounds like lose/lose. Let the scientists create the plan...win/win.

"The Legislature forced the agency to open a wolf hunting and trapping season before it had updated its wolf management plan. The current plan was written in 1999; it sets the wolf population goal at 350."

I bet they'll make hunting/trapping part of the 2015 addendum. Are you going to be mad if they don't allow dogs or night hunting?

Quote from: bigG on January 05, 2015, 01:54:24 PM

Quote from: ramjet on January 05, 2015, 01:00:08 PM
G if you go onto the site DNR and review the plan and also understand the season was mag ament lol proposed by the DNR with input from its Biologists. For you to say otherwise because of some liberal democratic and tree hugger tripe does not make that gospel either.

Again if you guys want wolves to be high in numbers and prosper without management then by all means volunteer your area for placement. This would go along ways towards supporting the reintroduction effort.

HandlesII just so you know it's too freaking late NOT to interfere with Nature that started with Cain and Able....

That was the first place I went. The plan. I was the one that posted, and read most of, the plan. There is nothing about hunting/trapping in the plan that I saw. The Wolf Conservation plan does not yet include hunting/trapping. The hunting/trapping part was put in there by politicians. If the biologists ran the show and agreed it would make sense to manage the wolves by hunting/trapping, I'd think they'd addendum that to their conservation plan. Please show me where I missed something in there.  

The DNR hunting/trapping website sure doesn't outline any scientific evidence one way or the other. The DNR is just doing what their political overlords make them do. Must really cheese some off that they're listened to less than politicians who created such legislation.

Pretend I'dm from Missouri and, instead of calling me some childish name, show me.

First off I did not call you anything. But I will now stop trying to start something here in you're usual martyr fashion.

So they have Wolf Managment plan but no way to control or manage the population?


http://dnr.wi.gov/files/pdf/pubs/er/er0099.pdf (http://dnr.wi.gov/files/pdf/pubs/er/er0099.pdf)

Page 53 item 2

this is good start and as you see the harvest/hunting was always a consideration for Management especially when the population levels were reached. You will notice even way back then the carring capacity was determined on science and not by the Poltical intervention of Liberal out of Control judges or politicians and ven back in 2009 they need Legilative approval for a hunt.

G I forgot to answer the one other question about using dogs to hunt wolves.

My answer; We should absolutely allow it in fact I would love tis ee hunters bring back and use some of the original breeds developed for wolf hunting.

a you know some of those breeds are hundreds of years old.

Quote from: Handles II on January 05, 2015, 01:15:48 PM
Nice reply, I expected as much.  :o

This is an awesome video to show your kids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q#t=231

If you knew the answer why did you ask to try and create controvesy and more hard feelings?

P. 54 contained item 2. A survey question.

That was scientific evidence of anything wolf besides opinion?

Hunting and trapping as a management technique were not part of the plan. Legislation made it happen.

You said I was a treehugger like Handles. Ouch.

So, you'll still be upset if the addendum doesn't allow for dogs?

A survey question in a many-page plan is not scientific evidence. It's popular opinion; a tiny bit of public info. in support of hunt/trap.

Looks like you're the martyr. No evidence, pure conjecture.

Let it happen, bud. This was politicians pushing for the portion of the constituency that got them elected. This was not motivated by the management plan one bit.

Jeez. Let them change the plan before you ramrod stuff. I don't think the lobo will take us over in the meantime. Maybe they should be the ones to write the addendum so it can become a law, cleanly. I'm sure they hired someone who knew what they were doing when they hired them to write the law. Doesn't make the process right.

Either way, wolves are doing fine by me and haven't swept up any pooches in my immediate area (coyotes are great killers). Git out there and knockout some yotes, eh!! The wolves will come. The goofball judge was as weak as those who ran it through. Lose/lose. You don't make laws like that without the considerations of the scientists who really study these things hard? Public opinion should be considered. But to force feed the DNR like that, I think, was poorly thought out.

The outdoorsy types of kids I've helped send to Point, so they can do that work, aren't what you would call tree huggers. Most are really good tree cutters and huntsmen, as the Brit would say.

Let it happen. Many are in the DNR because hunting is what got them outdoors to begin with. When you just rip stuff through; there might be consequences.

Been a fun topic to read up on, a little bit.

Still, I bet I can chug 6 sandhills in one sitting.


P.S. de-feathered and broasted.

Quote from: Goat Roper on January 05, 2015, 04:50:11 PM

Quote from: Handles II on January 05, 2015, 01:15:48 PM
Nice reply, I expected as much.  :o

This is an awesome video to show your kids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q#t=231

Ever heard of a clean kill?  Never wounded and lost a deer so I don't know what that would be like.  Apparently you have.

You obviously are purposely ignoring the fact that hunters wound deer. Many, many more than wolves do.

P.54 Item 2.  Hahahahahahahahaha! That's your "scientific evidence from biologists in favor of the wolf hunt"??? Oh, man, my ribs are aching!!! Thanks Ramjet, you gave me the biggest laugh of the day. By all means, keep it coming!

Quote from: bigG on January 05, 2015, 06:02:18 PM
P. 54 contained item 2. A survey question.

That was scientific evidence of anything wolf besides opinion?

Hunting and trapping as a management technique were not part of the plan. Legislation made it happen.

You said I was a treehugger like Handles. Ouch.

So, you'll still be upset if the addendum doesn't allow for dogs?

A survey question in a many-page plan is not scientific evidence. It's popular opinion; a tiny bit of public info. in support of hunt/trap.

Looks like you're the martyr. No evidence, pure conjecture.

Let it happen, bud. This was politicians pushing for the portion of the constituency that got them elected. This was not motivated by the management plan one bit.

Jeez. Let them change the plan before you ramrod stuff. I don't think the lobo will take us over in the meantime. Maybe they should be the ones to write the addendum so it can become a law, cleanly. I'm sure they hired someone who knew what they were doing when they hired them to write the law. Doesn't make the process right.

Either way, wolves are doing fine by me and haven't swept up any pooches in my immediate area (coyotes are great killers). Git out there and knockout some yotes, eh!! The wolves will come. The goofball judge was as weak as those who ran it through. Lose/lose. You don't make laws like that without the considerations of the scientists who really study these things hard? Public opinion should be considered. But to force feed the DNR like that, I think, was poorly thought out.

The outdoorsy types of kids I've helped send to Point, so they can do that work, aren't what you would call tree huggers. Most are really good tree cutters and huntsmen, as the Brit would say.

Let it happen. Many are in the DNR because hunting is what got them outdoors to begin with. When you just rip stuff through; there might be consequences.

Been a fun topic to read up on, a little bit.

Still, I bet I can chug 6 sandhills in one sitting.


P.S. de-feathered and broasted.

But as the law provides it takes the approval of the legislature so there no way not have them it's called check and balances the bottom line the ONLY way to a manage the population of Wolves to ensure they are within the carring capacity is by hunting or trapping them.

What's interesting is carrying capacity is more than science it's also impact on those where the wolf over population causes issues with safety, livestock, pets and other sporting interests including quality of life for those who have to,live with them. If you do not consider these other things you put the wolf in front of people and quality of life and economic livelihood. So do you and Ha does advocate that these things are put in front of the wolf or consider it more I portabt that we leave the wolf alone or do advocate manage the resource and that hunting is and should be part of the management plan?

As far as the use of dogs as I said I see no issue with it and you have not and HandlesII has not told me why it's bad. I do not think I called you a tree hugger I may have categorized you're behaviour or attitude to be consistent with Tree Huggers.

As I see it HandlesII and you to some extent follow the idealisms of the political party ont his issue as you do with other topics you frankly G lean slightly more OT the middle but the line of thinking follows that Poltical line of thinking.

Thank goodness we have some lawmakers willing to look for the folks and not allow the nuts to put the animals ahead of us because you can find balance but the side HandlesII and you have followed are only interested in the Wolf........sorry that's the same mentality the Human Society uses towards medical research using animals they feel better OT let people die than harm an animal in research.......yikes thank goodness for the lawmakers that stick up for common sense.

Quote from: Goat Roper on January 05, 2015, 04:50:11 PM

Quote from: Handles II on January 05, 2015, 01:15:48 PM
Nice reply, I expected as much.  :o

This is an awesome video to show your kids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q#t=231

Ever heard of a clean kill?  Never wounded and lost a deer so I don't know what that would be like.  Apparently you have.

Fish, apparently I don't need to clip a fin to catch a fish.

I'm sure you don't, but taking such action makes the minnow easier for predators to catch, so the practice is effective for those without your remarkable skills in all things outdoors. 

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.

I did not vote for the guy who appointed the judge .........did you?

Two seasons with wolves hunted with hounds effective method and allot fun just like bird hunting with a dog. Wolf becomes prey not not the or editor when pursued by a well trained group of dogs.

I neither voted for any federal judge nor any politicians who would take it on themselves to decide if hunting/trapping would be a sound biological terms of wolf management. Clearly a few high-and-mighty politicos thought they knew more than the scientists (or that their constituency was somehow qualified to make the call).

Thus the judge you despise so much. Take your feeling for that judge and imagine the same sentiment the other way to the ignorami that created the bill. There you go. I stand nowhere on wolves. No impact on my world at all (yet). I have no political wolf affiliation. The libertarian in my says charge $5k per permit, issue as many as wolves you want to take, and make some bucks. BUT, I would also like some scientific backing that conservation effort wasn't money wasted, either.

You generally don't vote for federal judges not the head of the DNR. Your point?

Quote from: bigG on January 06, 2015, 08:09:16 AM
I neither voted for any federal judge nor any politicians who would take it on themselves to decide if hunting/trapping would be a sound biological terms of wolf management. Clearly a few high-and-mighty politicos thought they knew more than the scientists (or that their constituency was somehow qualified to make the call).

Thus the judge you despise so much. Take your feeling for that judge and imagine the same sentiment the other way to the ignorami that created the bill. There you go. I stand nowhere on wolves. No impact on my world at all (yet). I have no political wolf affiliation. The libertarian in my says charge $5k per permit, issue as many as wolves you want to take, and make some bucks. BUT, I would also like some scientific backing that conservation effort wasn't money wasted, either.

You generally don't vote for federal judges not the head of the DNR. Your point?

HandleII would you welcome a wolf pack to be released on You're hunting land?  HANDLESII????

G Weak argument she was appointed to advance a particular political philosophy Obama appointed her.

I don't know what's worse:appointed to advance a political philosophy or elected to advance one. Horse a piece, I guess.

You stated biologists supported our two state politicians. Those politicians took it out of the hands of the experts. Not at all a weak argument. You let experts make those calls, and the new laws will follow. Write the clowns a letter who "wrote" and had this bill passed. they're the ones who sure come across as jumping the gun.

Ramjet, you have shown ZERO except that wolves actually help deer and elk herds. You have shown no biologists who, as you said over and over, were pushing for a wolf hunt. You have shown no information that details the "carrying capacity" of the state was maxed out as you claimed. The majority of public in wolf areas of the state are for increasing the population based on a DNR survey.
You started this thread because you stated you were against political legislation. All you have shown is that the decision to have a wolf hunt was strictly a political decision of a bumbling few to quench the thirst of another few, and not one based on biological reasons, carrying capacity, nor public need or desire.
In order to reverse the recent non-hunting decision, I suspect all three of the above will need to be shown as it should have been in the first place. As it should be to pass any other type of hunting season or laws.

Quote from: Handles II on January 06, 2015, 10:37:47 AM
Ramjet, you have shown ZERO except that wolves actually help deer and elk herds. You have shown no biologists who, as you said over and over, were pushing for a wolf hunt. You have shown no information that details the "carrying capacity" of the state was maxed out as you claimed. The majority of public in wolf areas of the state are for increasing the population based on a DNR survey.
You started this thread because you stated you were against political legislation. All you have shown is that the decision to have a wolf hunt was strictly a political decision of a bumbling few to quench the thirst of another few, and not one based on biological reasons, carrying capacity, nor public need or desire.
In order to reverse the recent non-hunting decision, I suspect all three of the above will need to be shown as it should have been in the first place. As it should be to pass any other type of hunting season or laws.

I am sure people in Milwaukee and Madison want more wolves that makes sense.......

Answer my question if you support more wolves then how do you feel about a release of 5 of them on you're hunting land?

BOTTOM LINE, YOU PUT YOUR HOUNDS IN HARMS WAY AND SET THEM AFTER BEAR's or WOLF's...don't expect a red cent from the taxpayers of Wis to help fund your dead hounds...

A little late to the party, but do have a question, why would it be appropriate for a scientist to recommend wolf hunting?  Isn't it the scientist/biologist's job to understand the ecology of wolf survival, breeding habits, carrying capacity, population health, predator/prey relationships, etc......which means aren't they only responsible for the "what" and the DNR/Legislation responsible for the "how" i.e., to hunt or not?

Quote from: maggie on January 07, 2015, 11:22:54 AM
BOTTOM LINE, YOU PUT YOUR HOUNDS IN HARMS WAY AND SET THEM AFTER BEAR's or WOLF's...don't expect a red cent from the taxpayers of Wis to help fund your dead hounds...

Well to help you out here Maggie they do not ask if they use them for hunting that animal.....maybe they have bounty on them dogs....... ::)

Quote from: dman on January 07, 2015, 12:15:44 PM
A little late to the party, but do have a question, why would it be appropriate for a scientist to recommend wolf hunting?  Isn't it the scientist/biologist's job to understand the ecology of wolf survival, breeding habits, carrying capacity, population health, predator/prey relationships, etc......which means aren't they only responsible for the "what" and the DNR/Legislation responsible for the "how" i.e., to hunt or not?

All of those considerations speak to achieving and sustaining the broader ecological balance of communities, so I can't see how any of these disqualifies them from the discussion.  Rather, it should further validate their place at the table, IMO. 

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.

Quote from: dman on January 07, 2015, 01:32:21 PM
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? 

Quote from: imnofish on January 07, 2015, 01:36:08 PM

Quote from: dman on January 07, 2015, 01:32:21 PM
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.

Bottom line is, from what I have heard from farmers and those living in the areas in which wolves are present....they are causing problems already so hunt away in my book.  Not that I would ever hunt them but I see no problem with it.

Quote from: Goat Roper on January 07, 2015, 02:24:24 PM

Quote from: dman on January 07, 2015, 02:12:29 PM
Bottom line is, from what I have heard from farmers and those living in the areas in which wolves are present....they are causing problems already so hunt away in my book.  Not that I would ever hunt them but I see no problem with it.

+1

Hound hunts them with his bare hands (kind of like Larry "The Axe" Henning used to hunt bears with a switch).

LOL

Quote from: dman on January 07, 2015, 02:10:59 PM

Quote from: imnofish on January 07, 2015, 01:36:08 PM

Quote from: dman on January 07, 2015, 01:32:21 PM
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.

Quote from: bigG on January 07, 2015, 03:56:43 PM

Quote from: dman on January 07, 2015, 02:10:59 PM

Quote from: imnofish on January 07, 2015, 01:36:08 PM

Quote from: dman on January 07, 2015, 01:32:21 PM
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.

How are "hunting" laws passed normally?  Is it a politicians responsibility?  I truly don't know....guess I should read up on that.  Eitherway, I still don't think we should be letting Biologist's making hunting decisions....they should make the decisions on if the heards/packs need to be controlled.  Again, there is a lot more that goes into the decision of whether or not to hunt and animal than just what the biologists says....and this is coming from a guy with a biology degree.  :)

But like I said....hunting them wolves is all good with me. 

Good with me, too. Hunt , no hunt, dogs, no dogs...whatever. I could care less. But, many on here contend the ban was a big , brazen, political move. Well, so was the hunt and this whole ordeal was just political act/political react.

I'm also fine with not hunting them. I would much rather biologists make the hunting calls than legislators. That's all I'm saying. We let biologists make the calls all the time. Why, now that it's wolves, has it gone to a bunch of political posturing?

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

Never had one. I couldn't imagine much of a strap. But what's there is usually good on any mammal. Magic meat, along that back.

I've been on a turkey kick, and I think my favorite meat flavor (maybe tied with lamb cheek) is neckbone meat off the turkey. There's like that little baby back strap , on either side, that runs the length of the neck. Heaven.

Mixin' beer and wine, eh? Yer askin' for it!!

Quote from: bigG on January 07, 2015, 03:56:43 PM

Quote from: dman on January 07, 2015, 02:10:59 PM

Quote from: imnofish on January 07, 2015, 01:36:08 PM

Quote from: dman on January 07, 2015, 01:32:21 PM
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.

Quote from: bigG on January 06, 2015, 06:47:39 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: bigG on January 07, 2015, 08:13:24 PM
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..........

Quote from: ramjet on January 07, 2015, 06:18:51 PM
Wolf back straps are wonderful especially when marinaded with soy sauce and red wine oh and dark beer.

Do other dogs taste as well?

Quote from: imnofish on January 07, 2015, 10:17:11 PM

Quote from: ramjet on January 07, 2015, 06:18:51 PM
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?

Quote from: bigG on January 07, 2015, 08:13:24 PM
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.

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

Quote from: maggie on January 08, 2015, 07:19:05 AM
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?

Quote from: wrestle84 on January 08, 2015, 07:31:51 AM

Quote from: maggie on January 08, 2015, 07:19:05 AM
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

Quote from: wrestle84 on January 07, 2015, 07:37:47 PM

Quote from: bigG on January 07, 2015, 03:56:43 PM

Quote from: dman on January 07, 2015, 02:10:59 PM

Quote from: imnofish on January 07, 2015, 01:36:08 PM

Quote from: dman on January 07, 2015, 01:32:21 PM
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.

Quote from: Handles II on January 08, 2015, 07:52:04 AM

Quote from: wrestle84 on January 07, 2015, 07:37:47 PM

Quote from: bigG on January 07, 2015, 03:56:43 PM

Quote from: dman on January 07, 2015, 02:10:59 PM

Quote from: imnofish on January 07, 2015, 01:36:08 PM

Quote from: dman on January 07, 2015, 01:32:21 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Handles II on January 08, 2015, 08:56:03 AM
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.

Quote from: Goat Roper on January 08, 2015, 08:54:49 AM

Quote from: Handles II on January 08, 2015, 07:52:04 AM

Quote from: wrestle84 on January 07, 2015, 07:37:47 PM

Quote from: bigG on January 07, 2015, 03:56:43 PM

Quote from: dman on January 07, 2015, 02:10:59 PM

Quote from: imnofish on January 07, 2015, 01:36:08 PM

Quote from: dman on January 07, 2015, 01:32:21 PM
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?

Quote from: Handles II on January 08, 2015, 08:56:03 AM
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?

Quote from: wrestle84 on January 08, 2015, 09:36:20 AM

Quote from: Handles II on January 08, 2015, 08:56:03 AM
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.

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

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.....

 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.

you guys are killing me    🐺    ;D

Quote from: Goat Roper on January 08, 2015, 11:20:23 AM

Quote from: Handles II on January 08, 2015, 10:27:15 AM
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.

Quote from: Handles II on January 08, 2015, 02:17:16 PM

Quote from: Goat Roper on January 08, 2015, 11:20:23 AM

Quote from: Handles II on January 08, 2015, 10:27:15 AM
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?

Quote from: wrestle84 on January 08, 2015, 05:10:10 PM

Quote from: Handles II on January 08, 2015, 02:17:16 PM

Quote from: Goat Roper on January 08, 2015, 11:20:23 AM

Quote from: Handles II on January 08, 2015, 10:27:15 AM
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?

Quote from: bigG on January 08, 2015, 06:23:48 PM

Quote from: wrestle84 on January 08, 2015, 05:10:10 PM

Quote from: Handles II on January 08, 2015, 02:17:16 PM

Quote from: Goat Roper on January 08, 2015, 11:20:23 AM

Quote from: Handles II on January 08, 2015, 10:27:15 AM
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?

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.

Quote from: bigG on January 08, 2015, 08:05:59 PM
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

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

"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.

Quote from: bigG on January 09, 2015, 06:53:14 AM
"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.

Quote from: imnofish on January 09, 2015, 12:21:59 AM
Well, since he was an "Obama appointed liberal judge"....    ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

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

Quote from: ramjet on January 09, 2015, 08:44:34 AM

Quote from: imnofish on January 09, 2015, 12:21:59 AM
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?

Quote from: ramjet on January 09, 2015, 08:43:30 AM

Quote from: bigG on January 09, 2015, 06:53:14 AM
"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.

Quote from: Handles II on January 09, 2015, 12:20:44 PM

Quote from: ramjet on January 09, 2015, 08:43:30 AM

Quote from: bigG on January 09, 2015, 06:53:14 AM
"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.

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??   ::)

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.

Quote from: Handles II on January 09, 2015, 01:30:22 PM
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.

Quote from: dman on January 09, 2015, 01:51:11 PM

Quote from: Handles II on January 09, 2015, 01:30:22 PM
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.

Quote from: dman on January 09, 2015, 01:27:26 PM
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?

Quote from: bigG on January 09, 2015, 02:41:28 PM

Quote from: dman on January 09, 2015, 01:27:26 PM
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?

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."

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.

"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.. ;)

Quote from: maggie on January 10, 2015, 07:48:20 AM
"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.

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/

Quote from: ramjet on January 10, 2015, 07:37:03 PM

Quote from: maggie on January 10, 2015, 07:48:20 AM
"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.)

Quote from: bigG on January 11, 2015, 08:08:42 AM

Quote from: ramjet on January 10, 2015, 07:37:03 PM

Quote from: maggie on January 10, 2015, 07:48:20 AM
"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.)

Yea same extremist group that wants us to have deer season or squirrel season or rabbit season or grouse season or duck season or yoddle pup season or fishing season or turkey season........

Quote from: ramjet on January 11, 2015, 11:21:10 AM

Quote from: bigG on January 11, 2015, 08:08:42 AM

Quote from: ramjet on January 10, 2015, 07:37:03 PM

Quote from: maggie on January 10, 2015, 07:48:20 AM
"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.)

Yea same extremist group that wants us to have deer season or squirrel season or rabbit season or grouse season or duck season or yoddle pup season or fishing season or turkey season........

I agree with Hitler on a few things. Doesn't mean I'd vote for him.

Quote from: bigG on January 11, 2015, 11:30:01 AM

Quote from: ramjet on January 11, 2015, 11:21:10 AM

Quote from: bigG on January 11, 2015, 08:08:42 AM

Quote from: ramjet on January 10, 2015, 07:37:03 PM

Quote from: maggie on January 10, 2015, 07:48:20 AM
"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.)

Yea same extremist group that wants us to have deer season or squirrel season or rabbit season or grouse season or duck season or yoddle pup season or fishing season or turkey season........

I agree with Hitler on a few things. Doesn't mean I'd vote for him.

So the same system and process that set the other seasons is wrong too if Imuse the way you are looking at this. Yes or NO

The Obama Administration delisted the wolf; then a judge appointed by President Obama ruled against their decision.  Pretty ironic.

Quote from: imnofish on January 11, 2015, 03:44:50 PM
The Obama Administration delisted the wolf; then a judge appointed by President Obama ruled against their decision.  Pretty ironic.

National Fish and Game Dept Biologists on that staff they do have them despite what G and HandlesII think.

Political driven tree hugger judge but she like on most of her controversial rulings will be overturned.

The other seasons didn't involve an endangered species. You ready for eagle season?

You fail to provide evidence of these biologists. There must be a few. So, the fellas that write the addenda to the magmnt. plan and determine hunting/trapping won't hurt the chances of staying strong. Let them make that call.

NFG biologists generally share their work with the state teams. Super. You should be able to kill wolves soon. Patience. If you're bored come on down an smack some yotes. Some ferals in Crawford, too; if ya wanna go south.

Quote from: bigG on January 11, 2015, 07:59:47 PM
The other seasons didn't involve an endangered species. You ready for eagle season?

You fail to provide evidence of these biologists. There must be a few. So, the fellas that write the addenda to the magmnt. plan and determine hunting/trapping won't hurt the chances of staying strong. Let them make that call.

NFG biologists generally share their work with the state teams. Super. You should be able to kill wolves soon. Patience. If you're bored come on down an smack some yotes. Some ferals in Crawford, too; if ya wanna go south.

Do you think that the DNR and USFW ahave on thier payrolls biologists or not?

It would be interesting to get this guy's take on this topic.  Very knowledgeable and experienced, plus he was one of our wrestlers. 

http://www.agriview.com/briefs/livestock/suckow-appointed-ws-western-regional-director/article_8bd9f1bf-65a9-534f-83cd-8b11fb357eac.html

Jason Suckow
Wisconsin State Director, Wildlife Biologist
USDA APHIS Wildlife Services
Phone: 608-837-2727
Email: Jason.Suckow@aphis.usda.gov

Quote from: bigG on January 11, 2015, 07:59:47 PM
The other seasons didn't involve an endangered species. You ready for eagle season?

You fail to provide evidence of these biologists. There must be a few. So, the fellas that write the addenda to the magmnt. plan and determine hunting/trapping won't hurt the chances of staying strong. Let them make that call.

NFG biologists generally share their work with the state teams. Super. You should be able to kill wolves soon. Patience. If you're bored come on down an smack some yotes. Some ferals in Crawford, too; if ya wanna go south.

Wolves were not on the endangered list when a season was implemented.

The judges ruling had nothing to do with how the wolves season was implemtd, it was about how the were delisted, which had nothing to do with the state. It is a fed issue. All the blowing you have been doing about the state pols jumping the gun on a season has no bearing on the Feds decision to delist or the judges decision to overturn that delisting.

Quote from: wrestle84 on January 11, 2015, 09:47:59 PM

Quote from: bigG on January 11, 2015, 07:59:47 PM
The other seasons didn't involve an endangered species. You ready for eagle season?

You fail to provide evidence of these biologists. There must be a few. So, the fellas that write the addenda to the magmnt. plan and determine hunting/trapping won't hurt the chances of staying strong. Let them make that call.

NFG biologists generally share their work with the state teams. Super. You should be able to kill wolves soon. Patience. If you're bored come on down an smack some yotes. Some ferals in Crawford, too; if ya wanna go south.

Wolves were not on the endangered list when a season was implemented.

The judges ruling had nothing to do with how the wolves season was implemtd, it was about how the were delisted, which had nothing to do with the state. It is a fed issue. All the blowing you have been doing about the state pols jumping the gun on a season has no bearing on the Feds decision to delist or the judges decision to overturn that delisting.

Just going by what biologists did say, including Dick Thiel. He called it. He said if you go ahead with it at the time they did, this thing would get wrapped up in the courts.

now, this i can agree with.....http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/opinion/3648319-view-wolf-hunting-wolf-management-should-be-based-science-and-conservation-%E2%80%94-not

Quote from: ramjet on January 11, 2015, 08:10:05 PM

Quote from: bigG on January 11, 2015, 07:59:47 PM
The other seasons didn't involve an endangered species. You ready for eagle season?

You fail to provide evidence of these biologists. There must be a few. So, the fellas that write the addenda to the magmnt. plan and determine hunting/trapping won't hurt the chances of staying strong. Let them make that call.

NFG biologists generally share their work with the state teams. Super. You should be able to kill wolves soon. Patience. If you're bored come on down an smack some yotes. Some ferals in Crawford, too; if ya wanna go south.

Do you think that the DNR and USFW ahave on thier payrolls biologists or not?

Yes they do. I've quoted them. What are they saying about the wolf hunt in wisconsin and how it became law Ramjet?

Quote from: Handles II on January 12, 2015, 08:05:23 AM

Quote from: ramjet on January 11, 2015, 08:10:05 PM

Quote from: bigG on January 11, 2015, 07:59:47 PM
The other seasons didn't involve an endangered species. You ready for eagle season?

You fail to provide evidence of these biologists. There must be a few. So, the fellas that write the addenda to the magmnt. plan and determine hunting/trapping won't hurt the chances of staying strong. Let them make that call.

NFG biologists generally share their work with the state teams. Super. You should be able to kill wolves soon. Patience. If you're bored come on down an smack some yotes. Some ferals in Crawford, too; if ya wanna go south.

Do you think that the DNR and USFW ahave on thier payrolls biologists or not?

Yes they do. I've quoted them. What are they saying about the wolf hunt in wisconsin and how it became law Ramjet?

So let's say the emotional stance you have on this is correct and we need more wolves as you seem to advocate......would you allow the DNR to set free a pack of 5 on You're hunting land?

The wolves are free to go where they like. Bears, bobcats and coyotes all have been on camera where I hunt. Bears, bobcats and coyotes have been shown to kill more deer than wolves as you know. Reading deeper into the resources you provided, studies on 200 wolves averaged 1.9 deer per square mile of range per year. Far less than car kills.
And speaking of cars, you have one right ramjet? If you feel you don't want to hunt where wolves are, you can simply jump in your car and hunt elsewhere. Problem solved.
It's too bad the GOP bumbled this one so badly, not surprising though, using science and evidence to help guide decisions isn't their strong-suit.

Quote from: Handles II on January 12, 2015, 09:55:47 AM
The wolves are free to go where they like. Bears, bobcats and coyotes all have been on camera where I hunt. Bears, bobcats and coyotes have been shown to kill more deer than wolves as you know. Reading deeper into the resources you provided, studies on 200 wolves averaged 1.9 deer per square mile of range per year. Far less than car kills.
And speaking of cars, you have one right ramjet? If you feel you don't want to hunt where wolves are, you can simply jump in your car and hunt elsewhere. Problem solved.
It's too bad the GOP bumbled this one so badly, not surprising though, using science and evidence to help guide decisions isn't their strong-suit.

Stop deflecting and answer the question yes or no?

Quote from: Handles II on January 12, 2015, 09:55:47 AM
The wolves are free to go where they like. Bears, bobcats and coyotes all have been on camera where I hunt. Bears, bobcats and coyotes have been shown to kill more deer than wolves as you know. Reading deeper into the resources you provided, studies on 200 wolves averaged 1.9 deer per square mile of range per year. Far less than car kills.
And speaking of cars, you have one right ramjet? If you feel you don't want to hunt where wolves are, you can simply jump in your car and hunt elsewhere. Problem solved.
It's too bad the GOP bumbled this one so badly, not surprising though, using science and evidence to help guide decisions isn't their strong-suit.

Don't let the truth get in the way of your agenda. The GOP was not responsible for removing the wolves from the Endangered species list, the Obama administration was.

If it wasn't for Little Red Riding Hood and The Three Little Pigs, we wouldn't be having this discussion.   :)

Sounds like two agenda are involved here. Too bad.

Quote from: ramjet on January 12, 2015, 10:32:05 AM

Quote from: Handles II on January 12, 2015, 09:55:47 AM
The wolves are free to go where they like. Bears, bobcats and coyotes all have been on camera where I hunt. Bears, bobcats and coyotes have been shown to kill more deer than wolves as you know. Reading deeper into the resources you provided, studies on 200 wolves averaged 1.9 deer per square mile of range per year. Far less than car kills.
And speaking of cars, you have one right ramjet? If you feel you don't want to hunt where wolves are, you can simply jump in your car and hunt elsewhere. Problem solved.
It's too bad the GOP bumbled this one so badly, not surprising though, using science and evidence to help guide decisions isn't their strong-suit.

Stop deflecting and answer the question yes or no?

I already answered.
Tell ya what...As soon as you produce all of the scientific and biologic evidence that you have said was used by the legislation to start the hunt, I'll give you a yes or a no. That should give me all of eternity or another 15 pages of you flapping your jaws to mull it over, whichever comes first. Your move. 

gave you the evidence we had legal hunt for a few years what more do you need?

see I knew "as long as it's not in my neighborhood."

I suspect you two will have to settle this on the golf course.   ;D

lol if that's the case I am toast I really stink at golf.......⛳️

Quote from: ramjet on January 12, 2015, 03:03:48 PM
gave you the evidence we had legal hunt for a few years what more do you need?

see I knew "as long as it's not in my neighborhood."

They are in my neighborhood. Haven't been too bad, here. Lot more livestock where I am than the northern reaches.

On the other hand, I can see why bearhunters despise them. Include in management plan, you'll have your way and day.

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

Quote from: ramjet on January 12, 2015, 03:03:48 PM
gave you the evidence we had legal hunt for a few years what more do you need?

Really? You believe you gave the biological evidence? Big G and I went through everything you posted pretty thoroughly, no where was there shown any type of scientific need for a hunt such as carrying capacity issues as you said. No where was there any thing that showed wolves were killing too many deer as you suggest.. No where was there any testimonial or quotes from biologists saying this hunt was needed. And no where did you explain, or show, why wildlife biologists from the DNR and University were kept off of the wolf panel, yet people from the trappers association were placed on it.

Please show any or all of these things, as requested previously, and you will get your yes or no answer. See, I'm not about to make such a decision based on emotion as you hope, and as you and a few others have. I want to see the facts first, and make a logical decision after reviewing them. You produce your 'facts'.  

so Handles how many deer per sq mile do you have in your hunting land?

let's say 50 release 10 wolves and 1 wolf will kill 20 deer per year that's 200 deer in the range that you have yea seems like very few of course they would eventually turn to other things like live stock. I think the DNR should expand the range and release 20 wolves on you're hunting land. You would be a hero with The Humane Society not so much with you're neighbors though.

maybe you could convince them with you're Humane Society funded research and biologists?

yea much of what are quoting is coming from research funded by the anti hunting group th Humane Society oh oh scramble now spend the next four hours researching but the money trail is there.

ahhh too bad the research is skewed because of political and financial influence.........lol

Quote from: ramjet on January 13, 2015, 07:25:08 AM
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.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote from: Handles II on January 13, 2015, 07:50:58 AM

Quote from: ramjet on January 13, 2015, 07:25:08 AM
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.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

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.

You mean to find more politically inspired crap from the other side. I'm sure the NRA and all will produce your Humane Soc. evidence. I have no doubt the humane Society is politically skewed which is why I didn't include any in my links.  honestly, I tried to fins links that supported your side, and every last one of them was some sort of con, gun-nut organization. Tree huggers and overzealous hunters deserve one another.

Kill some yotes and ferals and you might make a dent in the real problem.

You found no evidence to back your claims, Ram. My only claim was that both political extremes had a hand in this, and they both deserve one another. I'll stand by that.

Quote from: ramjet on January 13, 2015, 08:01:14 AM

Quote from: Handles II on January 13, 2015, 07:50:58 AM

Quote from: ramjet on January 13, 2015, 07:25:08 AM
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.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

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. :D :D :D :D You are obviously cut of the same cloth as the bumbling legislators and lobbyists who paid for this bill to be written.  ;D ;D ;D ;D 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.  ::)

Quote from: Handles II on January 13, 2015, 08:35:24 AM

Quote from: ramjet on January 13, 2015, 08:01:14 AM

Quote from: Handles II on January 13, 2015, 07:50:58 AM

Quote from: ramjet on January 13, 2015, 07:25:08 AM
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.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

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. :D :D :D :D You are obviously cut of the same cloth as the bumbling legislators and lobbyists who paid for this bill to be written.  ;D ;D ;D ;D 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.  ::)

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

Quote from: dman on January 13, 2015, 12:24:44 PM
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

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

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

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. 

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

I want my car keys back.   ::)

Quote from: imnofish on January 13, 2015, 09:52:47 PM
I want my car keys back.   ::)

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

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. 

Quote from: dman on January 14, 2015, 06:54:09 AM

Quote from: imnofish on January 13, 2015, 09:52:47 PM
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.

Quote from: Handles II on January 14, 2015, 07:43:02 AM
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?

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.

QuoteWolf 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 (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?

Quote from: Handles II on January 14, 2015, 07:43:02 AM
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?? 

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.

I'm currently lobbying for an open season on parakeets, but my wife is against it.  Small, but tasty...   and incredibly loud when you are on the phone or trying to watch tv.   ;D

I remember a similar pssin' contest over morning doves. Those really are good. Just small. Easy to gut, though.  :)

Those little things are all over , though. So were carrier pigeons, back in the day.

Quote from: dman on January 13, 2015, 12:24:44 PM
Wonder how a "wolf hunt" can be something that is political?  What does one gain by making a wolf hunt political??

Seems less than wolves becoming political than politicians kidnapping wolves. Wait 'til bald eagle, manatee, and burrow owl seasons open up.

Quote from: bigG on January 14, 2015, 02:18:38 PM

Quote from: dman on January 13, 2015, 12:24:44 PM
Wonder how a "wolf hunt" can be something that is political?  What does one gain by making a wolf hunt political??

Seems less than wolves becoming political than politicians kidnapping wolves. Wait 'til bald eagle, manatee, and burrow owl seasons open up.

Now you are reaching and being mello dramatic.

You're right, politicians never jump on stuff like this. ::)

Quote from: bigG on January 14, 2015, 03:45:19 PM
You're right, politicians never jump on stuff like this. ::)

Oh come on Eagles that is just ridiculous......sure tongue and cheek but ridiculous.......🇺🇸

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1044649,00.html

Perhaps not so ridiculous ramjet. People want to shoot them for their feathers and talons. That's reason enough for some people to want to start a hunting season. The value of one wolf pelt is that of 1000 raccoons. Why else would the trappers association want, and get to be on the wolf control board? They ain't eatin' 'em.

Quote from: Handles II on January 14, 2015, 05:52:08 PM
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1044649,00.html

Perhaps not so ridiculous ramjet. People want to shoot them for their feathers and talons. That's reason enough for some people to want to start a hunting season. The value of one wolf pelt is that of 1000 raccoons. Why else would the trappers association want, and get to be on the wolf control board? They ain't eatin' 'em.

yea and Hollowwood wants ground up deer antlers for better wood so there are nuts that does not mean they get thier way just like poachers in Africa clamp down on the buyers of this stuff you cut off the head of the snake.

Quote from: ramjet on January 14, 2015, 04:10:21 PM

Quote from: bigG on January 14, 2015, 03:45:19 PM
You're right, politicians never jump on stuff like this. ::)

Oh come on Eagles that is just ridiculous......sure tongue and cheek but ridiculous.......🇺🇸

There are many ranchers out west who would love legalized eagle kill. Just like people here want to control wolves by hunting/trapping. I don't mind a little of either; so long as the best science says those numbers are sustainable without hurting too much on their human neighbors' property.

Quote from: bigG on January 14, 2015, 07:30:09 PM

Quote from: ramjet on January 14, 2015, 04:10:21 PM

Quote from: bigG on January 14, 2015, 03:45:19 PM
You're right, politicians never jump on stuff like this. ::)

Oh come on Eagles that is just ridiculous......sure tongue and cheek but ridiculous.......🇺🇸

There are many ranchers out west who would love legalized eagle kill. Just like people here want to control wolves by hunting/trapping. I don't mind a little of either; so long as the best science says those numbers are sustainable without hurting too much on their human neighbors' property.

Well unless the scientists are politically motivated which may skew the research..........

Sounds like you would prefer if the car salesman determines what is wrong with your car rather than the mechanic, cause ya know, some mechanics are biased, so going with the salesman is the best route to go every time.

Well we know the politicians are politically motivated and don't know or use science for their decisions, so let's play it smart and safe and let those who do wildlife biology as their livelyhood have the lion's share of the input.

GREAT point Handles....as for the Eagles around here, there becoming quite aboundent, i seen 14 of them young ones sitting all together last Aug (have a picture also) at the hunting area, We constructed a Osprey Nest a few yrs ago with a Huge Telephone pole, we were told by the folks from the UW Madison Wildlife dept who were thare watching us, that there would more than likely be no Ospreys using it for at least a 4 yrs, 4 days after it was put up, we seen a Bird had already taken residents in it..they also said that the Eagles would run them out, didn't happen...yet anyways...the eagles must move on because were only seeing a few here and there now...

Quote from: Handles II on January 14, 2015, 08:36:52 PM
Sounds like you would prefer if the car salesman determines what is wrong with your car rather than the mechanic, cause ya know, some mechanics are biased, so going with the salesman is the best route to go every time.

Well we know the politicians are politically motivated and don't know or use science for their decisions, so let's play it smart and safe and let those who do wildlife biology as their livelyhood have the lion's share of the input.

W ell the difference between you and I is I have an open mind that is not controlled by the Humane Society like you'res is and can objectively look at the entire situation not only the anti hunting point of view like you.

Incorrect. I've never looked at anything humane society. In fact the much of the information I looked at came from YOUR SOURCES. I have a very open mind on it. I'm in favor of a wolf hunt or hunting most anything as long as it can be shown that the hunt is warranted with science to back it up.
You've been wrong on this for 18 pages now ramjet. How many more are you going to attempt to go on ZERO information to support your side of the argument? Your elected ones completely failed. Their law is now stopped. Their fault.

"I have an open mind that is not controlled by the Humane Society."

You're good people, Ram; but common man!! The pro-hunt has some major influence on you. I'm guessing the wolves have taken some of your venison; and maybe even some of Hound's dogs.

It sounds like the time is right to start the hunt/trp; but it also sounds like you and many of your hunting enthusiast friends may have pushed the issue a tad; and without the backing (yet) of the people in charge of the plan to keep the wolves here. This has been a fun topic; but please consider your politics and how they might limit your mind from opening. Or don't and just point out handles, who did come up with science, being some flaming liberal. He has evidence; which I think merits inclusion of hunt/trap in the plan.n THEN, the politicians should talk "law."

I do like that our state, in general, keeps an open mind, and with any luck, we'll be hunting elk and sandhills, and other yummies, in the near future. I've gotta believe the plan team will addend to hunt/trap in the very near future.

Quote from: bigG on January 15, 2015, 11:11:12 AM
"I have an open mind that is not controlled by the Humane Society."

You're good people, Ram; but common man!! The pro-hunt has some major influence on you. I'm guessing the wolves have taken some of your venison; and maybe even some of Hound's dogs.

It sounds like the time is right to start the hunt/trp; but it also sounds like you and many of your hunting enthusiast friends may have pushed the issue a tad; and without the backing (yet) of the people in charge of the plan to keep the wolves here. This has been a fun topic; but please consider your politics and how they might limit your mind from opening. Or don't and just point out handles, who did come up with science, being some flaming liberal. He has evidence; which I think merits inclusion of hunt/trap in the plan.n THEN, the politicians should talk "law."

I do like that our state, in general, keeps an open mind, and with any luck, we'll be hunting elk and sandhills, and other yummies, in the near future. I've gotta believe the plan team will addend to hunt/trap in the very near future.

Nope never even applied for a tag.

Still no golf date scheduled?   ???    ;)

A federal judge ruled the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had been "arbitrary and capricious" in its handling of wolf management in the western Great Lakes region. I'm not sure why Handles and BigG keep blaming the state lawmakers for that. I didn't realize our state lawmakers were in control of the USFWS.

Quote from: wrestle84 on January 15, 2015, 12:52:55 PM
A federal judge ruled the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had been "arbitrary and capricious" in its handling of wolf management in the western Great Lakes region. I'm not sure why Handles and BigG keep blaming the state lawmakers for that. I didn't realize our state lawmakers were in control of the USFWS.

Cause blaming the state lawmakers is easier based on political beliefs.

who's order was tossed out?......http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/12/19/great-lakes-wolves-ordered-returned-endangered-list/20655023/   so much for that dman

Quote from: maggie on January 15, 2015, 01:11:21 PM
who's order was tossed out?......http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/12/19/great-lakes-wolves-ordered-returned-endangered-list/20655023/   so much for that dman

So you are speaking for bigG and Handles now....got it.  Not to mention it was meant to be tongue and cheek.....thanks for playing though.   ::)

Quote from: maggie on January 15, 2015, 01:11:21 PM
who's order was tossed out?......http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/12/19/great-lakes-wolves-ordered-returned-endangered-list/20655023/   so much for that dman

A federal judge on Friday threw out an Obama administration decision to remove the gray wolf population in the western Great Lakes region from the endangered species list

last i checked, i started the thread.. ;)

Quote from: dman on January 15, 2015, 01:00:36 PM

Quote from: wrestle84 on January 15, 2015, 12:52:55 PM
A federal judge ruled the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had been "arbitrary and capricious" in its handling of wolf management in the western Great Lakes region. I'm not sure why Handles and BigG keep blaming the state lawmakers for that. I didn't realize our state lawmakers were in control of the USFWS.

Cause blaming the state lawmakers is easier based on political beliefs.

Yeah, I really take a political side on this.

"The science clearly shows that wolves are recovered in the Great Lakes region, and we believe the Great Lakes states have clearly demonstrated their ability to effectively manage their wolf populations," Shire said. "This is a significant step backward."

Wolf advocates applauded the ruling Friday.

"We filed the lawsuit to relist the Great Lakes population of wolves," said Fritz. "It was based on the assertion that the Great Lakes states had proven they could not responsibly manage wolves when they were delisted in January 2012."

Here's the crux. The fact is wasn't added to the management plan, IMO, made the re-listing happen. Maybe they were relisted because the Management Plan didn't include hunting/trapping.

Quote from: bigG on January 15, 2015, 04:06:36 PM

Quote from: dman on January 15, 2015, 01:00:36 PM

Quote from: wrestle84 on January 15, 2015, 12:52:55 PM
A federal judge ruled the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had been "arbitrary and capricious" in its handling of wolf management in the western Great Lakes region. I'm not sure why Handles and BigG keep blaming the state lawmakers for that. I didn't realize our state lawmakers were in control of the USFWS.

Cause blaming the state lawmakers is easier based on political beliefs.

Yeah, I really take a political side on this.

"The science clearly shows that wolves are recovered in the Great Lakes region, and we believe the Great Lakes states have clearly demonstrated their ability to effectively manage their wolf populations," Shire said. "This is a significant step backward."

Wolf advocates applauded the ruling Friday.

"We filed the lawsuit to relist the Great Lakes population of wolves," said Fritz. "It was based on the assertion that the Great Lakes states had proven they could not responsibly manage wolves when they were delisted in January 2012."

Here's the crux. The fact is wasn't added to the management plan, IMO, made the re-listing happen. Maybe they were relisted because the Management Plan didn't include hunting/trapping.

"We" being the Humane Society a vehement Anti Hunting organization. they are more interested in stopping all hunting than just "saving the wolf" ....

Quote from: bigG on January 15, 2015, 04:06:36 PM

Quote from: dman on January 15, 2015, 01:00:36 PM

Quote from: wrestle84 on January 15, 2015, 12:52:55 PM
A federal judge ruled the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had been "arbitrary and capricious" in its handling of wolf management in the western Great Lakes region. I'm not sure why Handles and BigG keep blaming the state lawmakers for that. I didn't realize our state lawmakers were in control of the USFWS.

Cause blaming the state lawmakers is easier based on political beliefs.

Yeah, I really take a political side on this.

"The science clearly shows that wolves are recovered in the Great Lakes region, and we believe the Great Lakes states have clearly demonstrated their ability to effectively manage their wolf populations," Shire said. "This is a significant step backward."

Wolf advocates applauded the ruling Friday.

"We filed the lawsuit to relist the Great Lakes population of wolves," said Fritz. "It was based on the assertion that the Great Lakes states had proven they could not responsibly manage wolves when they were delisted in January 2012."

Here's the crux. The fact is wasn't added to the management plan, IMO, made the re-listing happen. Maybe they were relisted because the Management Plan didn't include hunting/trapping.

That's what you don't get. The delisting and relisting have zero to do with anything the state has done. The USFWS did not dot the i's and cross the t's when delisting. For the one hundredth time,  The USFWS is not run by the state. Read the judges ruling, show me where anything that happened in the state legislature had anything to do with the decision to relist.

Quote from: wrestle84 on January 15, 2015, 04:51:29 PM

Quote from: bigG on January 15, 2015, 04:06:36 PM

Quote from: dman on January 15, 2015, 01:00:36 PM

Quote from: wrestle84 on January 15, 2015, 12:52:55 PM
A federal judge ruled the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had been "arbitrary and capricious" in its handling of wolf management in the western Great Lakes region. I'm not sure why Handles and BigG keep blaming the state lawmakers for that. I didn't realize our state lawmakers were in control of the USFWS.

Cause blaming the state lawmakers is easier based on political beliefs.

Yeah, I really take a political side on this.

"The science clearly shows that wolves are recovered in the Great Lakes region, and we believe the Great Lakes states have clearly demonstrated their ability to effectively manage their wolf populations," Shire said. "This is a significant step backward."

Wolf advocates applauded the ruling Friday.

"We filed the lawsuit to relist the Great Lakes population of wolves," said Fritz. "It was based on the assertion that the Great Lakes states had proven they could not responsibly manage wolves when they were delisted in January 2012."

Here's the crux. The fact is wasn't added to the management plan, IMO, made the re-listing happen. Maybe they were relisted because the Management Plan didn't include hunting/trapping.

That's what you don't get. The delisting and relisting have zero to do with anything the state has done. The USFWS did not dot the i's and cross the t's when delisting. For the one hundredth time,  The USFWS is not run by the state. Read the judges ruling, show me where anything that happened in the state legislature had anything to do with the decision to relist.

No, they didn't do such. Too bad. But, it appears those t's and i's made it possible to allow hunts without any science from either agency, from states. It's the same political pssin' match.

Now we'll get money from NRA and WolfloversUSA fightin' it out.

You think the impact of a state beginning a hunt/trap, dogs/night w/out it part of the actual conservation plan doesn't an impact on folks at the federal level? I think it would and did. Just agreeing with the hippy biologists who've been in this wolf thing for years and applied to hunt them.  ::)

The judge was wrong. So was the state for not waiting, IMHO. That's what you don't get.

Quote from: bigG on January 15, 2015, 05:25:48 PM

Quote from: wrestle84 on January 15, 2015, 04:51:29 PM

Quote from: bigG on January 15, 2015, 04:06:36 PM

Quote from: dman on January 15, 2015, 01:00:36 PM

Quote from: wrestle84 on January 15, 2015, 12:52:55 PM
A federal judge ruled the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had been "arbitrary and capricious" in its handling of wolf management in the western Great Lakes region. I'm not sure why Handles and BigG keep blaming the state lawmakers for that. I didn't realize our state lawmakers were in control of the USFWS.

Cause blaming the state lawmakers is easier based on political beliefs.

Yeah, I really take a political side on this.

"The science clearly shows that wolves are recovered in the Great Lakes region, and we believe the Great Lakes states have clearly demonstrated their ability to effectively manage their wolf populations," Shire said. "This is a significant step backward."

Wolf advocates applauded the ruling Friday.

"We filed the lawsuit to relist the Great Lakes population of wolves," said Fritz. "It was based on the assertion that the Great Lakes states had proven they could not responsibly manage wolves when they were delisted in January 2012."

Here's the crux. The fact is wasn't added to the management plan, IMO, made the re-listing happen. Maybe they were relisted because the Management Plan didn't include hunting/trapping.

That's what you don't get. The delisting and relisting have zero to do with anything the state has done. The USFWS did not dot the i's and cross the t's when delisting. For the one hundredth time,  The USFWS is not run by the state. Read the judges ruling, show me where anything that happened in the state legislature had anything to do with the decision to relist.

No, they didn't do such. Too bad. But, it appears those t's and i's made it possible to allow hunts without any science from either agency, from states. It's the same political pssin' match.

Now we'll get money from NRA and WolfloversUSA fightin' it out.

You think the impact of a state beginning a hunt/trap, dogs/night w/out it part of the actual conservation plan doesn't an impact on folks at the federal level? I think it would and did. Just agreeing with the hippy biologists who've been in this wolf thing for years and applied to hunt them.  ::)

The judge was wrong. So was the state for not waiting, IMHO. That's what you don't get.

So you can't find anything in the judges ruling pointing to anything that the state did wrong, but you still blame the state. Got it. No sense arguing with that kind of logic.

I think, if you'll read the links; especially what Dick Thiel said, you'll see there is that link. See it's not just the judge; it's the Humane Society. Get it, it's not just the judge. I'm guessing the Humane Society wouldn't have wasted their time if the hunt/trap were in the plan. Wolf hunt lovers may have blown their shot for some time now. No, the state overstepping their bounds had nothing to do with it. ::)

It's just all this judge influenced by the Humane Society. And the Humane Society was just miffed at Fish and Game. I don't think I'm taking a huge leap here; but I'll agree to disagree with you.

ha! look, it says here in the 57,548 Th page of this bill that we can now shoot wolfs when ever we want too...

http://www.outdoornews.com/January-2015/Legislators-look-to-address-gray-wolf-issue/

Maybe what happens on the state level has an impact on the federal level.

Quote from: bigG on January 30, 2015, 06:28:26 AM
Maybe what happens on the state level has an impact on the federal level.

I didn't see anything that said a hunting season was the reason they were relisted. You seem to be stuck.

wow, simple as attaching a rider to a Budget bill....crazy.. ::)

Quote from: wrestle84 on January 30, 2015, 07:09:03 AM

Quote from: bigG on January 30, 2015, 06:28:26 AM
Maybe what happens on the state level has an impact on the federal level.

I didn't see anything that said a hunting season was the reason they were relisted. You seem to be stuck.

If it's all the Feds, why would you even pursue any of it at the state level?

You seem stuck, there.

Quote from: bigG on January 30, 2015, 10:15:31 AM

Quote from: wrestle84 on January 30, 2015, 07:09:03 AM

Quote from: bigG on January 30, 2015, 06:28:26 AM
Maybe what happens on the state level has an impact on the federal level.

I didn't see anything that said a hunting season was the reason they were relisted. You seem to be stuck.

If it's all the Feds, why would you even pursue any of it at the state level?

You seem stuck, there.

Ummm, this is a federal legislation that is in the works, not state. No matter how many times you repeat it, you are still not right.

This is what our congressional folks are working on? That is a state problem? My God, I would hope we'd have have a little more to worry about than getting to hunt wolves. But, it's not about the whole constituency, but the constituency that got them elected.

I love the "scientific evidence" they provide in the article.

Little Red Riding Hood has been doing a lot of lobbying down in Madison.   ;)   ....along with the three little pig farmers. 

Quote from: imnofish on January 30, 2015, 12:42:59 PM
Little Red Riding Hood has been doing a lot of lobbying down in Madison.   ;)   ....along with the three little pig farmers. 

So you think lobbying in Madison is the best way to get a law passed on the fed level? You must have taken BigG's poly sci class.

The elected officials in the article represent the state, right?

Keep posting Nugent articles with scant science.

Quote from: bigG on January 30, 2015, 01:59:50 PM
The elected officials in the article represent the state, right?

Keep posting Nugent articles with scant science.

Actually they represent a congressional district within their respective states. I'm not sure what you mean by Nugent articles. I didn't see anything about Nugent in there. Do you always make things up, or just this time?Keep trying, you'll get it right eventually.

Quote from: wrestle84 on January 30, 2015, 01:30:53 PM

Quote from: imnofish on January 30, 2015, 12:42:59 PM
Little Red Riding Hood has been doing a lot of lobbying down in Madison.   ;)   ....along with the three little pig farmers. 

So you think lobbying in Madison is the best way to get a law passed on the fed level? You must have taken BigG's poly sci class.

Chill out, dude...   https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A0LEVvyAgsxUiUMAuRYnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTB0b2ZrZmU3BHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x?p=foghorn+leghorn+that%27s+a+joke+son+youtube&tnr=21&vid=732F16947B03FF35BF79732F16947B03FF35BF79&l=22&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DUN.608006699130357923%26pid%3D15.1&sigi=11rse08rc&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DKTwnwbG9YLE&sigr=11buvco1e&tt=b&tit=Foghorn+Leghorn&sigt=10f7n00ob&back=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Dfoghorn%2Bleghorn%2Bthat%2527s%2Ba%2Bjoke%2Bson%2Byou%2Btube%26ei%3DUTF-8%26hsimp%3Dyhs-001%26hspart%3Dmozilla&sigb=13ogn20rl&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

Quote from: imnofish on January 31, 2015, 01:22:31 AM

Quote from: wrestle84 on January 30, 2015, 01:30:53 PM

Quote from: imnofish on January 30, 2015, 12:42:59 PM
Little Red Riding Hood has been doing a lot of lobbying down in Madison.   ;)   ....along with the three little pig farmers. 

So you think lobbying in Madison is the best way to get a law passed on the fed level? You must have taken BigG's poly sci class.

Chill out, dude...   https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A0LEVvyAgsxUiUMAuRYnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTB0b2ZrZmU3BHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x?p=foghorn+leghorn+that%27s+a+joke+son+youtube&tnr=21&vid=732F16947B03FF35BF79732F16947B03FF35BF79&l=22&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DUN.608006699130357923%26pid%3D15.1&sigi=11rse08rc&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DKTwnwbG9YLE&sigr=11buvco1e&tt=b&tit=Foghorn+Leghorn&sigt=10f7n00ob&back=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Dfoghorn%2Bleghorn%2Bthat%2527s%2Ba%2Bjoke%2Bson%2Byou%2Btube%26ei%3DUTF-8%26hsimp%3Dyhs-001%26hspart%3Dmozilla&sigb=13ogn20rl&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

If someone just showed me how clueless I am, my best response would be "chill out dude" too.

"By 2007, the recovery goal for the Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan wolf populations had not only been met but had nearly tripled, requiring delisting. By 2008, the recovery goal for the northern Rockies –  100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs in each of the three states (Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho) also had been exceeded by at least 300 percent."

Despite the scientific evidence, the Center for Biological Diversity and its allies got a court order blocking delisting.

No link to any other "science" but this blurb. Aaaalllll politics.

But, of all these pages, this is the first indication of any science to back your position. NRA science.

I'll take my weak poly sci class over your degree from Nugent U, any day.

I'll be waiting for the "chill out dude" from you. :)

We'd better act on this pressing matter; and right quick.  ::)

Quote from: wrestle84 on January 31, 2015, 05:53:13 AM

Quote from: imnofish on January 31, 2015, 01:22:31 AM

Quote from: wrestle84 on January 30, 2015, 01:30:53 PM

Quote from: imnofish on January 30, 2015, 12:42:59 PM
Little Red Riding Hood has been doing a lot of lobbying down in Madison.   ;)   ....along with the three little pig farmers. 

So you think lobbying in Madison is the best way to get a law passed on the fed level? You must have taken BigG's poly sci class.

Chill out, dude...   https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A0LEVvyAgsxUiUMAuRYnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTB0b2ZrZmU3BHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x?p=foghorn+leghorn+that%27s+a+joke+son+youtube&tnr=21&vid=732F16947B03FF35BF79732F16947B03FF35BF79&l=22&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DUN.608006699130357923%26pid%3D15.1&sigi=11rse08rc&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DKTwnwbG9YLE&sigr=11buvco1e&tt=b&tit=Foghorn+Leghorn&sigt=10f7n00ob&back=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Dfoghorn%2Bleghorn%2Bthat%2527s%2Ba%2Bjoke%2Bson%2Byou%2Btube%26ei%3DUTF-8%26hsimp%3Dyhs-001%26hspart%3Dmozilla&sigb=13ogn20rl&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

If someone just showed me how clueless I am, my best response would be "chill out dude" too.

It was "just a joke, son!"  I am not your enemy.  You need to lighten it up a bit and enjoy the company of your fellow wrestling community members.  Life is too short to waste on continued anger and aggression. 

seems that they had the same problem in NJ in 82.....kill'em all i say! WARREN WILL FLUSH'EM OUT!........https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbmS5Pq6e7A

This is a smile step to allow States manage the resource I cannot understand why you think G,Maggie, Fish this ismhard thing we as the State of Wisconsin should be able to manage our resources after all our scientist know better what the condition and numbers than the Fedzilla.

The premise in which you argue against State control is the same one you use too promote science.

Maggie I laugh my arse off you got you're Political thread here it is THE ONLY reason you started it why Tom puts up with you're bull dung is beyond me? Maybe you are a contributor financially to this site? Who knows but it is baffling the baloney you pull on here. it's certainly not because you have ANYTHING that is remotely intellectual to say.

State control of Natrual Reasources is the best plan we know our resources much better than Fedzilla.

Having met maggie, I have absolutely no doubt he'd be the first to shoot a wolf, pulling out the 44 from his glove compartment (if it was even that far away from him :) ).

G, at what point of population would you think warrants a wolf hunt?

Quote from: bigG on January 31, 2015, 07:42:41 AM
"By 2007, the recovery goal for the Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan wolf populations had not only been met but had nearly tripled, requiring delisting. By 2008, the recovery goal for the northern Rockies –  100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs in each of the three states (Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho) also had been exceeded by at least 300 percent."

Despite the scientific evidence, the Center for Biological Diversity and its allies got a court order blocking delisting.

No link to any other "science" but this blurb. Aaaalllll politics.

But, of all these pages, this is the first indication of any science to back your position. NRA science.

I'll take my weak poly sci class over your degree from Nugent U, any day.

I'll be waiting for the "chill out dude" from you. :)

We'd better act on this pressing matter; and right quick.  ::)

Still don't see where your getting the Nugent thing from.

Quote from: bigoil on January 31, 2015, 11:07:44 AM
Having met maggie, I have absolutely no doubt he'd be the first to shoot a wolf, pulling out the 44 from his glove compartment (if it was even that far away from him :) ).

G, at what point of population would you think warrants a wolf hunt?

At the point where scientists who study them addendum and put them in the management plan. Then , after some time, if the experts see it as a success, leave it to the states.

I think there is enough evidence to make the hunt part of the plan. I'm no expert. But, neither are Wrestle 84 nor ramjet.

84, I get the Nugent thing from justifying the hunt with really scant science. "Should be able to killa whatcha want."

Eagle season is just around the corner. They're stealing all my fish, so I want to start eating them. Our state should be able to make that legal, too. Right?

I said before, BigOil, that this will happen. Just gotta take the proper steps.

Quote from: bigG on February 01, 2015, 11:34:32 AM

Quote from: bigoil on January 31, 2015, 11:07:44 AM
Having met maggie, I have absolutely no doubt he'd be the first to shoot a wolf, pulling out the 44 from his glove compartment (if it was even that far away from him :) ).

G, at what point of population would you think warrants a wolf hunt?

At the point where scientists who study them addendum and put them in the management plan. Then , after some time, if the experts see it as a success, leave it to the states.

I think there is enough evidence to make the hunt part of the plan. I'm no expert. But, neither are Wrestle 84 nor ramjet.

84, I get the Nugent thing from justifying the hunt with really scant science. "Should be able to killa whatcha want."

Eagle season is just around the corner. They're stealing all my fish, so I want to start eating them. Our state should be able to make that legal, too. Right?

I said before, BigOil, that this will happen. Just gotta take the proper steps.

So even though this has nothing to do with Nugent, you just made hat part up and through it in? How can I debate logic like that?

"How can I debate logic like that?"

It's not hard to debate Nugent logic; just think for a bit. :)

Let them change the plan. The conservation plan is of federal origin. Be hard for a Fed judge to debate with a federal plan based on science and success; and untouched by political activists.

G I for the most part respect you but you're last sentence is total and complete lie all the "science" is influenced and a result of political pandering the funding alone clearly indicates politics so either you're politics or you are just ignoring the reality for the sake of arguing with anyone who disagrees with you.

Quote from: ramjet on February 01, 2015, 12:09:49 PM
G I for the most part respect you but you're last sentence is total and complete lie all the "science" is influenced and a result of political pandering the funding alone clearly indicates politics so either you're politics or you are just ignoring the reality for the sake of arguing with anyone who disagrees with you.

You should have been a carpenter, you just hit the nail right on the head.

Quote from: ramjet on February 01, 2015, 12:09:49 PM
G I for the most part respect you but you're last sentence is total and complete lie all the "science" is influenced and a result of political pandering the funding alone clearly indicates politics so either you're politics or you are just ignoring the reality for the sake of arguing with anyone who disagrees with you.

Show me what science you feel is "influenced." You've shown nothing this whole thread. You keep hitting your thumb with that hammer.

I read most of the management plan. What part do you disagree with? To me it sure sounded like they were ready for a hunt.

Please just show me what science you disagree with. Most of what I've seen would justify a hunt. To bad the power had to be thrown into the hands of politicians, or they probably be delisted and up for addendum to the plan. The state jumped the gun on the plan.

I know 84 doesn't want to believe such a thing could influence the feds. Think again.

Should the state be able to legalize bald eagle hunting if they are delisted? States have already tried and the evil fed stopped them.

Please show me this poli-sci, ramjet. I'll read it.

The state jumped the gun on the fed plan. I do think that had an impact on the judge's ruling; as well as some politically trumped up "science" from the humane society. Maybe we should just get rid of all the wolves so neither political side can have them.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/321184

We should all be able to hunt eagles. They are delisted many places.

Should a state be able to legalize eagle hunting? Very similar to wolfs. They just eat fish, instead of rabbit and deer.

Quote from: bigG on February 02, 2015, 06:41:55 AM

Quote from: ramjet on February 01, 2015, 12:09:49 PM
G I for the most part respect you but you're last sentence is total and complete lie all the "science" is influenced and a result of political pandering the funding alone clearly indicates politics so either you're politics or you are just ignoring the reality for the sake of arguing with anyone who disagrees with you.

Show me what science you feel is "influenced." You've shown nothing this whole thread. You keep hitting your thumb with that hammer.

I read most of the management plan. What part do you disagree with? To me it sure sounded like they were ready for a hunt.

Please just show me what science you disagree with. Most of what I've seen would justify a hunt. To bad the power had to be thrown into the hands of politicians, or they probably be delisted and up for addendum to the plan. The state jumped the gun on the plan.

I know 84 doesn't want to believe such a thing could influence the feds. Think again.

Should the state be able to legalize bald eagle hunting if they are delisted? States have already tried and the evil fed stopped them.

Please show me this poli-sci, ramjet. I'll read it.

The state jumped the gun on the fed plan. I do think that had an impact on the judge's ruling; as well as some politically trumped up "science" from the humane society. Maybe we should just get rid of all the wolves so neither political side can have them.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/321184

We should all be able to hunt eagles. They are delisted many places.

Should a state be able to legalize eagle hunting? Very similar to wolfs. They just eat fish, instead of rabbit and deer.

You still don't get it. You keep blowing hot air about the state and a hunt, but you have failed to show anything that says the judge relisted wolves because of any hunt. They were relisted because Obama's USFW team didn't cross all the T's. You keep talking but provide no evidence of the claims you make. Like Ram said, you just want to argue because someone disagrees with your OPINION. Show me the facts.

Quote from: bigG on February 02, 2015, 06:41:55 AM

Quote from: ramjet on February 01, 2015, 12:09:49 PM
G I for the most part respect you but you're last sentence is total and complete lie all the "science" is influenced and a result of political pandering the funding alone clearly indicates politics so either you're politics or you are just ignoring the reality for the sake of arguing with anyone who disagrees with you.

Show me what science you feel is "influenced." You've shown nothing this whole thread. You keep hitting your thumb with that hammer.

I read most of the management plan. What part do you disagree with? To me it sure sounded like they were ready for a hunt.

Please just show me what science you disagree with. Most of what I've seen would justify a hunt. To bad the power had to be thrown into the hands of politicians, or they probably be delisted and up for addendum to the plan. The state jumped the gun on the plan.

I know 84 doesn't want to believe such a thing could influence the feds. Think again.

Should the state be able to legalize bald eagle hunting if they are delisted? States have already tried and the evil fed stopped them.

Please show me this poli-sci, ramjet. I'll read it.

The state jumped the gun on the fed plan. I do think that had an impact on the judge's ruling; as well as some politically trumped up "science" from the humane society. Maybe we should just get rid of all the wolves so neither political side can have them.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/321184

We should all be able to hunt eagles. They are delisted many places.

Should a state be able to legalize eagle hunting? Very similar to wolfs. They just eat fish, instead of rabbit and deer.

The suit was filed and paid for and defended by the Humane Society they are a extremist political machine that get money from George Soros and they use that money to pa the scientists that where used during the legal briefs stop being so dense.

this had nothing to do with killing wolves it has everything to do with a Fedzilla overreach. This had nothing to do with science it has everything to do with a tree hugger extremist group that filed suit in a court where the Judge did not use the rule of law but politics to make ruling that removed control of resources by the state.

I have only one opinion on this: that the hunt should be included in the plan before any state politicians make it legal. That's her.

How many pages and the only "science" to the contrary is a blurb?

It is my opinion that the judge and humane society acted on the state-legalized hunt. Just like it's only ram's opinion (apparently yours as well) that the state was justified to legalize the hunt and that the judge is a liberal tree-hugger.

I guess I have two opinions on this.

1. the hunt before plan thing
2. Details aside, the two political sides deserve one another.

Someone on the state side was given money to pay for a retired fish US F&W to right up the state legislation. Money comes from both sides.

You didn't answer my question, Ram. Should a state be able to make delisted bald eagles legal to hunt?

Quote from: bigG on February 02, 2015, 08:39:10 AM
I have only one opinion on this: that the hunt should be included in the plan before any state politicians make it legal. That's her.

How many pages and the only "science" to the contrary is a blurb?

It is my opinion that the judge and humane society acted on the state-legalized hunt. Just like it's only ram's opinion (apparently yours as well) that the state was justified to legalize the hunt and that the judge is a liberal tree-hugger.

I guess I have two opinions on this.

1. the hunt before plan thing
2. Details aside, the two political sides deserve one another.

Someone on the state side was given money to pay for a retired fish US F&W to right up the state legislation. Money comes from both sides.

You didn't answer my question, Ram. Should a state be able to make delisted bald eagles legal to hunt?

Oh come stop being mellow dramatic States should have the control of the natural resources.Also you keep touting the "plan" "the scientists" well the plan specified the approval of the state legislature the pan that was originally drafted with the wolf biologists it was set that way so there as check and balance.....

I agree the state should control their own natural resources; but with endangered critters, we do need some checks and balances.

"well the plan specified the approval of the state legislature the pan that was originally drafted with the wolf biologists it was set that way so there as check and balance."

Proof?

The natural resources in one state belong to everyone in the country, not just those in that state, or more importantly, those currently calling the shots in that state (pun intended). The "United" in United States is the key to our country's strength. States cannot and should not have complete control over their natural resources. Just as a teen should have some control over their wardrobe, they should not have complete control over how they dress for every situation.

Quote from: Handles II on February 02, 2015, 09:39:45 AM
The natural resources in one state belong to everyone in the country, not just those in that state, or more importantly, those currently calling the shots in that state (pun intended). The "United" in United States is the key to our country's strength. States cannot and should not have complete control over their natural resources. Just as a teen should have some control over their wardrobe, they should not have complete control over how they dress for every situation.

So MN should not be allowed to set their own seasons and bag limits for fish and game?

Um, not at all what I was saying. Nice try though.

Quote from: Handles II on February 02, 2015, 12:38:51 PM
Um, not at all what I was saying. Nice try though.

Should we be getting a say on how those with land in ND develop or chose not to develop their oil patch?

Quote from: Handles II on February 02, 2015, 12:38:51 PM
Um, not at all what I was saying. Nice try though.

So you just want it your way when it suits you best.

Quote from: bigoil on February 02, 2015, 12:47:29 PM

Quote from: Handles II on February 02, 2015, 12:38:51 PM
Um, not at all what I was saying. Nice try though.

Should we be getting a say on how those with land in ND develop or chose not to develop their oil patch?

Land is sold by the square foot, not cubic feet.

Quote from: bigoil on February 02, 2015, 12:47:29 PM

Quote from: Handles II on February 02, 2015, 12:38:51 PM
Um, not at all what I was saying. Nice try though.

Should we be getting a say on how those with land in ND develop or chose not to develop their oil patch?

If what goes on under their turf can impact what goes on under my land or your land, you bet we should all have a say. When it comes to ground water, we better have a say, or the day will come when anybody can come in, buy an acre and suck it dry for many acres around.

G HandlesII the issue is an activist judge not following the rule of law and it comes down to not IF but when her ruling is overturned and it will be she has terrible track record.

States need to be able to manage the resources with in thier state  not be overruled by every activist judge one party or the other finds to do so.

If this would have been a conservative Judge that leaned the other way you two would be screaming bloody murder.

It's not about killing or hunting wolves it's about an over each and suit brought to court by an extremist group called the Humane Society.

Actually Ram, I didn't know until told, nor did I care what the judge,s political affiliation was, or if she even had one. I expect a judge, any judge to look at the evidence presented unto them and make a decision not based on money, or greed, but by what is the right decision based on that, and any other evidence brought forth.

I'm sure you are right, that this will be overturned. And if so, then it should be because much better evidence was provided, and not because of the whims of a person or groups of people wanting to exploit a resource that doesn't belong to them. 
Remember, the Trappers Association was in on the Wisconsin decision for one reason and one reason only. Money. They had no other iron in the fire except the price of fur.

G HandlesII the issue is an activist judge not following the rule of law and it comes down to not IF but when her ruling is overturned and it will be she has terrible track record.

Agreed.

States need to be able to manage the resources with in thier state  not be overruled by every activist judge one party or the other finds to do so.
I do like some checks and balances beyond the state.

If this would have been a conservative Judge that leaned the other way you two would be screaming bloody murder.

100% bull. We just wouldn't have heard a peep out of you.

Well, now we get another extremist group to join the fight. Welcome the NRA, and their many minion sub-groups, to the political circus.

Oh come on NRA has been conservation group longer than the Humane Society and is that the best you can do? My goodness you are really reaching with that one. This fight was started by a vehement anti hunting group called the Humane Society plain and simple they are extremist and vehemently ain't hunting or anything sportsman related. 

I think we should just live trap all the wolves and give them poodle cuts.  They will then hide in the woods, out of embarrassment, and no domesticated animals will be endangered by them.  Problem solved.  See how easy that was?   ;)

Quote from: Handles II on February 02, 2015, 12:58:33 PM

Quote from: bigoil on February 02, 2015, 12:47:29 PM

Quote from: Handles II on February 02, 2015, 12:38:51 PM
Um, not at all what I was saying. Nice try though.

Should we be getting a say on how those with land in ND develop or chose not to develop their oil patch?

Land is sold by the square foot, not cubic feet.

There are natural resources associated with land.

Quote from: ramjet on February 02, 2015, 04:12:16 PM
Oh come on NRA has been conservation group longer than the Humane Society and is that the best you can do? My goodness you are really reaching with that one. This fight was started by a vehement anti hunting group called the Humane Society plain and simple they are extremist and vehemently ain't hunting or anything sportsman related. 

And what started the wolf hunting push?

Not the best I can do. It's just reality. A bunch of extremists pushed for this. A bunch of extremists pushed back.

NRA is no more a conservation group than the Human Society. I love how these extremist groups try to make out like they are doing the world some good. I see one of them has you buffaloed.

NRA and Humane Society are political groups that deserve one another so perfectly, they should adopt the "yin and yang" when they merge into a super conservation (in reality political) group.

See the hunt was part of the original managment plan and you continue to be stubborn and ignore it maybe in your argument tatie mind you think Fishes plan is good one?

how the heck else are supposed to manag the population. Tell them to stop breeding? Thais how lame you are being on this. I am surprized you have not blamed thus on Walker yet. lol

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?

Quote from: bigG on February 03, 2015, 08:43:02 AM
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.

Quote from: bigG on February 03, 2015, 08:43:02 AM
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.

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.

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

Quote from: bigG on February 03, 2015, 12:01:50 PM
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.

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

Quote from: ramjet on February 03, 2015, 01:14:54 PM
exactly G you can argue with yourself I am done with this useless thread .

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

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.

Quote from: bigG on February 03, 2015, 07:07:00 PM
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.

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?

Quote from: bigG on February 04, 2015, 06:20:33 AM
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.

Quote from: Goat Roper on February 03, 2015, 08:15:21 PM
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.

Quote from: wrestle84 on February 04, 2015, 07:07:05 AM

Quote from: bigG on February 04, 2015, 06:20:33 AM
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.

Quote from: bigG on February 04, 2015, 08:27:49 AM

Quote from: wrestle84 on February 04, 2015, 07:07:05 AM

Quote from: bigG on February 04, 2015, 06:20:33 AM
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.

Like to drive home the fact there are two negative entities involved, here. 'Bout it.

I do like to debate. My main debate was with Ram, that this wasn't just some hippie liberal reactionary thing. It was; but reacting to a gun-nut legislation jumping their own gun(s).

"You and your mirror can keep this going, I'm done wasting my time."

Thank you, you've wasted enough of mine. Only reason it took 23 pages was that I had to re-explain my position to you over and over, as you don't seem to have read the debate from the beginning; nor do you have a strong grasp in the reading dpepartment. Keep tellin' your mirror you're right. Worked this long.

Goat a poacher? Woulda never guessed.  ::). And your saying isn't true. Poaching is illegal, whether you get caught or not. I certainly hope you are.

Hope you get busted on both.

now that's intelligents at it's finest!, admitting your a poucher to all the states wrestling fan, not to mention, a bunch of honest sportsmen,  ::),ya, that'll get ya places, maybe not to the top, but places.... :) believe me, your better off just.. :-X  that proclaiming your a poucher by your own admittance,  i also hope ya get caught, tells me,  if you would pouch a wolf, you would certainly pouch a deer..."no fear, no fear, the deer/wolf killer is here"   ::) ...oh boy, that there has got to be the most Ignorant and the stupidest thing that i ever seen you post goat, no kidding... whats the matter with you?... >:(

Quote from: ramjet on December 22, 2014, 01:22:35 PM
First off the hunt is very controlled.

Secondly the judge made this decision a political one he legislated from the bench and did not listen OT the biologists he took aside with a animal,protection group driven by thier belief that NO animals should be hunted.

the impact on the deer herd can be minimized and Wolves can still be part of the Eco system but to comtrol numbers we nee a method that method is hunting.

What to see what happens to gMe animals when a wolf ovulation is held unchecked read up on the elk herd numbers in western Montana and eastern Utah.

my issue is not regulation but legislating from the bench.

Ram, this was the first mention of politics on this subject. It is a political debate.

Surprise, surprise, surprise .... ::) Walker is making cuts to the DNR and specifically to scientists. Unfreakingbelievable. If the facts and proof don't meet your wants, just get rid of the proof.

Should be able to do anything, so long as you don't get caught. ;)

WELL, to openly admit to a federal offence is quite...ahhhhh, what am i looking for here...ahhhhh...stupid in my book no matter who you are...

What's more disturbing to me is the logic. But, hey, that's what prisons are for.

Quote from: maggie on February 05, 2015, 01:07:08 PM
WELL, to openly admit to a federal offence is quite...ahhhhh, what am i looking for here...ahhhhh...stupid in my book no matter who you are...

Stupid is as Stupid does - Ms. Gump

Poachers suck. They aren't hunters, they aren't sportsmen, they are simply scum. Hope you get busted Goat. What's that number? Oh yeah, 1-800-Tip-WDNR.  ;)

Quote from: Goat Roper on February 03, 2015, 08:15:21 PM
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.

Nice anonymity. What's your real name, again?

it's people like you goat that give good sportsmen like me a bad name...sad..all tho i am willing to give you  a second change if you would like to recant you position...

Quote from: Goat Roper on February 04, 2015, 12:44:28 PM

Quote from: Handles II on February 04, 2015, 12:25:32 PM
Hope you get busted on both.

You probably have?

Little surprised you didn't ream out Maggie when he said you can shoot them if they are threatening.

I thought you could shoot them in the shoulders or head if they are threatening?

I remember a case in the north part of the state that let a person off because the wolf was shot straight on and in his yard.

Anyone from price county or an area county know of this?

Quote from: hammer on February 06, 2015, 10:16:57 AM

Quote from: Goat Roper on February 04, 2015, 12:44:28 PM

Quote from: Handles II on February 04, 2015, 12:25:32 PM
Hope you get busted on both.

You probably have?

Little surprised you didn't ream out Maggie when he said you can shoot them if they are threatening.

I thought you could shoot them in the shoulders or head if they are threatening?

I remember a case in the north part of the state that let a person off because the wolf was shot straight on and in his yard.

Anyone from price county or an area county know of this?

As I recall, he got a pass because the wolf was huffing and puffing and trying to blow his house down.   ;)

not a bad point Hammer, but you left a lot of gray area(no pun intended) when you say, "shoot straight on"...you neglected to say from how far....500'  350"  10"  5"  248"...you get the picture I'm sure, "threatened" means....http://www.thefreedictionary.com/threatened       did you  you mean  "Life Therning'     http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/life-threatening

Recent posts on this thread give perfect reason to federal checks and balances. You always think the state can swing on its own; but, then you get poachers and paid-off politicians right here in WI.

regardless of what you meant hammer, About 15 yrs ago, I had a close friend whom acquired some land in an area called the "New Wood" a bit north of Merrell off Lake Alexander on the Wis River, he was out one morning clearing his land on a smaller Bulldozer when he notice a Wolf about 60 yds from him as he was working on the dozer, he said  was quite amazed because it was the first time he had ever seen a Wolf not retreat when he seen one, he keeping working and a few Minutes later he noticed a few more on the opposite side of him at about the same distance and then a few more, he said within 10 Minutes, there were 7 wolfs that he could see not 60 yds from him, noise and all,  so he decided to head towards his truck, because as he put it, he was being stalked and headed back home, i happen to be over to his house with friends when he arrived and after telling us about it, he called the DNR guy up there named Joe Writer  (can't forget that name because he checked me out fishing many time and i have a friend with the same name) and he told him, it's a good thing ya didn't shoot and got to your truck and left, because had ya shoot them, because had we been notified and found out about it..I would have arrested ya. :o,  I couldn't believe he said that, i asked him, what it would take to killing one in an situation like that, and he said, many Liable witnesses and an act of god! he also added that he has been called to situations just like this one more than once in his yrs as an agent where people had no idea they were being though of as supper...he said, if ya do have too shoot one, you better have had a Dang good cause, thats all i can say...and left it at that...wow, that statement for some reason didn't sit very well with any of us, putting an animal's life ahead of my own didn't and still doesn't seem right..yes, if threatened, i would shoot Hammer, in this case, my buddy did the right thing and got to safety and left..don't you agree?.....after all, it's real easy to pull the 270 out from the back seat and shoot an animal just because ya don't like it or find it a nuisance...    

Quote from: wrestle84 on February 04, 2015, 07:11:46 AM

Quote from: Goat Roper on February 03, 2015, 08:15:21 PM
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.

You're going to blame poaching on government/politicians?

What problem was not being addressed?

Some twisted rationalizing, here.

Quote from: maggie on February 07, 2015, 08:12:39 AM
regardless of what you meant hammer, About 15 yrs ago, I had a close friend whom acquired some land in an area called the "New Wood" a bit north of Merrell off Lake Alexander on the Wis River, he was out one morning clearing his land on a smaller Bulldozer when he notice a Wolf about 60 yds from him as he was working on the dozer, he said  was quite amazed because it was the first time he had ever seen a Wolf not retreat when he seen one, he keeping working and a few Minutes later he noticed a few more on the opposite side of him at about the same distance and then a few more, he said within 10 Minutes, there were 7 wolfs that he could see not 60 yds from him, noise and all,  so he decided to head towards his truck, because as he put it, he was being stalked and headed back home, i happen to be over to his house with friends when he arrived and after telling us about it, he called the DNR guy up there named Joe Writer  (can't forget that name because he checked me out fishing many time and i have a friend with the same name) and he told him, it's a good thing ya didn't shoot and got to your truck and left, because had ya shoot them, because had we been notified and found out about it..I would have arrested ya. :o,  I couldn't believe he said that, i asked him, what it would take to killing one in an situation like that, and he said, many Liable witnesses and an act of god! he also added that he has been called to situations just like this one more than once in his yrs as an agent where people had no idea they were being though of as supper...he said, if ya do have too shoot one, you better have had a Dang good cause, thats all i can say...and left it at that...wow, that statement for some reason didn't sit very well with any of us, putting an animal's life ahead of my own didn't and still doesn't seem right..yes, if threatened, i would shoot Hammer, in this case, my buddy did the right thing and got to safety and left..don't you agree?.....after all, it's real easy to pull the 270 out from the back seat and shoot an animal just because ya don't like it or find it a nuisance...    

So the wolves lives are more valuable than humans life?

Umm sounds like a "liberal mindset" ........😀

Of course this all depends if the story was true or not.

Quote from: bigG on February 09, 2015, 06:42:07 AM

Quote from: wrestle84 on February 04, 2015, 07:11:46 AM

Quote from: Goat Roper on February 03, 2015, 08:15:21 PM
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.

You're going to blame poaching on government/politicians?

What problem was not being addressed?

Some twisted rationalizing, here.

If the government followed the wolf management plan and kept the population below 350 would there be less poaching of wolves? I think there is no question that the answer is yes.

So, it's okay to poach if the government doesn't regulate as you see fit.

Wow. We should all be vigilantes. ::)

I think poachers are poachers and don't care about the plan or the law. They are the reason for more regulation and relisting. Blame a judge rather than some ignorant felons.

Quote from: bigG on February 09, 2015, 11:20:26 AM
So, it's okay to poach if the government doesn't regulate as you see fit.

Wow. We should all be vigilantes. ::)

I think poachers are poachers and don't care about the plan or the law. They are the reason for more regulation and relisting. Blame a judge rather than some ignorant felons.

Your reading comprehension needs some work. I never once said it was ok to poach. Nice of you to put words in my mouth just so you can argue some more though. Would you be ok with me making up stuff that you never said? You don't seem to have a problem doing it to other people.

Quote from: wrestle84 on February 04, 2015, 07:11:46 AM

Quote from: Goat Roper on February 03, 2015, 08:15:21 PM
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.

You don't rationalize poaching, here, as being a government failure (as opposed to the individual being in the wrong)?

Quote from: bigG on February 09, 2015, 02:17:37 PM

Quote from: wrestle84 on February 04, 2015, 07:11:46 AM

Quote from: Goat Roper on February 03, 2015, 08:15:21 PM
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.

You don't rationalize poaching, here, as being a government failure (as opposed to the individual being in the wrong)?

I gave reasons why people poach, I didn't rationalize it, in fact, I did the opposite, I said it was not good. I'm not sure what level your reading skills are at, but I don't think anyone would claim that not good means ok. I never said it was ok. Big difference. You can twist it however you want, I never, ever said it was ok to poach. But I guess it is ok for you to post something I never said as fact? Pretty said that you would do that just to argue some more. It looks like your high horse is really just a Shetland.

Oh, it's true alright rammy, plus note, I never said a wolfs live was more valuable that a humans....the DNR man suggest that himself, maybe ya better  re read what I posted..comprehend son...

What was the big problem government failed to address? Last data I saw said they caused +/- $25k per year in damage.

What if the powers that be decide we're good at 1,500 wolves?

" I gave reasons why people poach, I didn't rationalize it"

Rationalize: attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.

Looks like your Shetland is really a Schnauzer. ;)

You attempt to explain poaching by some mysterious act of government that isn't taking place. You think not hunting/trapping causes poaching?

Glad you don't think it's okay to poach. I not only think it's wrong; but there is no explanation nor excuse for it. Just lack of ethics, upbringing, empathy, etc.

I get mad enough at "sportsmen" who leave beer cans, wrappers, etc. laying around. Poachers are a much nastier breed of cat that gives plenty of fuel to the tree hugger groups.

Funny, many on here want this judge's head on a pole; but are cool with the poacher.

"Umm sounds like a "liberal mindset" "

The people you call "liberal" on here, don't share that mindset, though.
You were all over this judge, Ram; but it's okay we have a pacher right on the forum. ???

Is poaching a conservative mindset? Not the cons I know.

Quote from: bigG on February 09, 2015, 05:20:16 PM
What was the big problem government failed to address? Last data I saw said they caused +/- $25k per year in damage.

What if the powers that be decide we're good at 1,500 wolves?

" I gave reasons why people poach, I didn't rationalize it"

Rationalize: attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.

Looks like your Shetland is really a Schnauzer. ;)

You attempt to explain poaching by some mysterious act of government that isn't taking place. You think not hunting/trapping causes poaching?

Glad you don't think it's okay to poach. I not only think it's wrong; but there is no explanation nor excuse for it. Just lack of ethics, upbringing, empathy, etc.

I get mad enough at "sportsmen" who leave beer cans, wrappers, etc. laying around. Poachers are a much nastier breed of cat that gives plenty of fuel to the tree hugger groups.

Funny, many on here want this judge's head on a pole; but are cool with the poacher.

"Umm sounds like a "liberal mindset" "

The people you call "liberal" on here, don't share that mindset, though.
You were all over this judge, Ram; but it's okay we have a pacher right on the forum. ???

Is poaching a conservative mindset? Not the cons I know.

You didn't answer the question. Would it be ok for me to post something you never said and post it as a fact? Or is it only ok when you do it? You completely lied when you said I was ok with poaching. You keep trying to rationalize your lie, but I have yet to see your retraction. If it wasn't a lie, you should have no problem showing where I said poaching was ok.

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

Like this? I guess it was okay; although incorrect. You're forgiven.

You certainly did rationalize poaching.

I retract you said poaching was okay. You never apologized for you not knowing whether I am or not for banning the hunt/trap. I'm for a well-run hunt/trap.

You did, indeed, rationalize poaching, though; which led me to believe you felt it was okay. Given the ink spilled on the judge and lack of ink on the poacher, I have to worry about the scruples of those tough on one and ignorant of the other.

Seem I read 5 pages ago that a few of you were done with this tread... ;)....old G wins again.... :)

maggie, I am sure there are many stories out there like that. I have heard a few and it involves a few farmers and live stock.I was simply asking about a story that I remembered reading about a wolf that was shot on a property in the northern part of the state. If I remember the wolf was camped out on the front yard and was being aggressive, the wolf was shot from a short distance also. I was hoping someone would remember it.

Also, there was a wolf shot in Price County some time back and it had a tracker on it and the person drove to the superior area to ditch the remains and was caugh while he was doing it. That person got some time in the state system for some time to think about that.I think in this age the DNR would be able to tell if you shot a wolf from 50 feet or 50 yards. I would think that a 50 foot shot in the head or shoulders would be classified as a defense in some cases.

Quote from: maggie on February 09, 2015, 10:21:23 PM
Seem I read 5 pages ago that a few of you were done with this tread... ;)....old G wins again.... :)

I didn't win; and won't until these dopes we elect get off their paid-off high horses and do something with the interests of the state and country, not just their donors, in mind.

The idea people can't defend their livestock, nor themselves, is pretty sad. So is the idea that we have low-life poachers out there who ruin it for the rest of us who can follow a stinkin' law. After learning what I learned here these past few pages; I sill favor a hunt/trap, but doubt it could happen so nicely, as there are people who think they own the woods, and can do as they please with our natural resources. Old debate, there.  Tree huggers v. gun nuts. They deserve each other. But, the rest of us have to lose some privileges because of the ignorance from both sides. Both claiming conservation but really just profiting from the word.

driving to another area to dispose of the remains when it had a tracking device on it.. :o   in that case, he deserved some time in the slammer...don't ya THINK?, quite obvious he wasn't and didn't..thats funny...LOL....i know of a guy who shoot a little Doe on a drive and after the drive the group was one tag short...he later was caught and charged with poached or possessing a deer without a tag for it,talk about stupid... he had it hanging in his shed out in the middle of nowhere on private land with 5 others that were all tagged, he got wet feet and started feeling guilty about it and thought for some stupid reason that the Wardens were going to come over to his shed...so, instead of simply cutting it up with the rest of them, he decided to toss it in his truck and head down the road to get rid of it, he was caught tossing it out a half mile from his shed on his own land.. :o...it's stories like this that make me laugh at how stupid some people that are able to posses guns really can be..an honest poucher... :)

Quote from: maggie on February 10, 2015, 07:30:38 AM
driving to another area to dispose of the remains when it had a tracking device on it.. :o   in that case, he deserved some time in the slammer...don't ya THINK?, quite obvious he wasn't and didn't..thats funny...LOL....i know of a guy who shoot a little Doe on a drive and after the drive the group was one tag short...he later was caught and charged with poached or possessing a deer without a tag for it,talk about stupid... he had it hanging in his shed out in the middle of nowhere on private land with 5 others that were all tagged, he got wet feet and started feeling guilty about it and thought for some stupid reason that the Wardens were going to come over to his shed...so, instead of simply cutting it up with the rest of them, he decided to toss it in his truck and head down the road to get rid of it, he was caught tossing it out a half mile from his shed on his own land.. :o...it's stories like this that make me laugh at how stupid some people that are able to posses guns really can be..an honest poucher... :)

Maybe just maybe you should be more picky about whom you hang wit,h you were just as guilty as everyone with that poacher was considering you were aware of a crime and did not report it.

But as I said before for this to be true the story you tell has to be true and frankly Maggie with you it's really hard to tell what is  truth and what is illusion.

Quote from: hammer on February 09, 2015, 10:59:06 PM
maggie, I am sure there are many stories out there like that. I have heard a few and it involves a few farmers and live stock.I was simply asking about a story that I remembered reading about a wolf that was shot on a property in the northern part of the state. If I remember the wolf was camped out on the front yard and was being aggressive, the wolf was shot from a short distance also. I was hoping someone would remember it.

Also, there was a wolf shot in Price County some time back and it had a tracker on it and the person drove to the superior area to ditch the remains and was caugh while he was doing it. That person got some time in the state system for some time to think about that.I think in this age the DNR would be able to tell if you shot a wolf from 50 feet or 50 yards. I would think that a 50 foot shot in the head or shoulders would be classified as a defense in some cases.

Do you have a link or anything to the Price County wolf shot with the tracker. I read the Price County Review every week and don't recall seeing anything about that.

comprehend Rammy, why are you having such a hard time doing so? Comprehending is obviously not your strong suit   ;) ..........let me repeat  slowly for you....'I KNOW OF A GUY"  now, does it anywhere in there slightly suggest that "WE HANG TOGETHER? as you are suggesting?....maybe you should be explaining this to your buddy, the self proclaimed POUCHER....by the way, where did he run too?...

Quote from: maggie on February 10, 2015, 09:23:01 AM
comprehend Rammy, why are you having such a hard time doing so? Comprehending is obviously not your strong suit   ;) ..........let me repeat  slowly for you....'I KNOW OF A GUY"  now, does it anywhere in there slightly suggest that "WE HANG TOGETHER? as you are suggesting?....maybe you should be explaining this to your buddy, the self proclaimed POUCHER....by the way, where did he run too?...

Oh so that entire story is a second hand third hand story or just another story you made up to draw attention to yourself?

Quote from: wrestle84 on February 10, 2015, 09:03:00 AM

Quote from: hammer on February 09, 2015, 10:59:06 PM
maggie, I am sure there are many stories out there like that. I have heard a few and it involves a few farmers and live stock.I was simply asking about a story that I remembered reading about a wolf that was shot on a property in the northern part of the state. If I remember the wolf was camped out on the front yard and was being aggressive, the wolf was shot from a short distance also. I was hoping someone would remember it.

Also, there was a wolf shot in Price County some time back and it had a tracker on it and the person drove to the superior area to ditch the remains and was caugh while he was doing it. That person got some time in the state system for some time to think about that.I think in this age the DNR would be able to tell if you shot a wolf from 50 feet or 50 yards. I would think that a 50 foot shot in the head or shoulders would be classified as a defense in some cases.

Do you have a link or anything to the Price County wolf shot with the tracker. I read the Price County Review every week and don't recall seeing anything about that.

I could have the county wrong but had family in the county and they sent the article to me 7-8 years ago. It was reported in a big newspaper at one time and made several news reports.

I assumed it was price county because of were my family was living but I could be wrong.

I just looked up wolfs shot in Wisconsin.I came across an article from the Chippewa Herold from December or 2006 about 9 wolfs shot during deer hunting. The list the counties and Price was one of them.

I could be misstaken about were someone took the remains but they talk of arresting a man for one of the shootings.My memory could be pretty poor on actually places but just looking up wolf shootings in Wisconsin there are a few pages of this that happens and some of it doesnt look the legal part either.

Sorry if I misslead because that was not the intention at all, trying to jog up some memories of these shootings and like I asked before about shooting them in the head or neck, just wondering if that was true or not.

Quote from: hammer on February 10, 2015, 11:16:30 AM
I just looked up wolfs shot in Wisconsin.I came across an article from the Chippewa Herold from December or 2006 about 9 wolfs shot during deer hunting. The list the counties and Price was one of them.

I could be misstaken about were someone took the remains but they talk of arresting a man for one of the shootings.My memory could be pretty poor on actually places but just looking up wolf shootings in Wisconsin there are a few pages of this that happens and some of it doesnt look the legal part either.

Sorry if I misslead because that was not the intention at all, trying to jog up some memories of these shootings and like I asked before about shooting them in the head or neck, just wondering if that was true or not.

Just curious, because the only people I remember being ticketed for shooting wolves are a few that have turned themselves in after accidently shooting a wolf. I don't remember hearing about someone being caught with a tracker or anyone doing time because of it.

No such thing as a "good poacher" just scum.

You keep those wolves you poach eh? Good eating I'm sure. 

Trying to pretend you are doing something right by comparing yourself to another group doesn't make you right no matter who they are or what they do. You are a poacher.

Quote from: Handles II on February 10, 2015, 07:01:29 PM
You keep those wolves you poach eh? Good eating I'm sure. 

Trying to pretend you are doing something right by comparing yourself to another group doesn't make you right no matter who they are or what they do. You are a poacher.

So I did not see one thing where Goat admitted to doing anything? so HandlesII you are judge and jury and hangman funny how you make these crazy off the HandleII proclamations without any cause other than your emotions.

How do you know Wolf if prepared properly is not absolutely delicious?

It isn't illegal unless you get caught.  To date, I haven't been caught.~Goat

See no evil ramjet, keep those eyes shut tight.

Yea he is pushing ur buttons and you run with it and in the context with the rest of the post he never said it was he that poached again you only see what YOU want to.

"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."

If you don't think this would be probablE cause for investigation, I fear you're hate for the tree hugger and love for the poacher has you leaning way to one side.

This, to me, is an admission of poaching. If Maggie had said this, you'd probably drop the dime.

Quote from: ramjet on February 10, 2015, 09:42:23 PM

Quote from: Handles II on February 10, 2015, 07:01:29 PM
You keep those wolves you poach eh? Good eating I'm sure. 

Trying to pretend you are doing something right by comparing yourself to another group doesn't make you right no matter who they are or what they do. You are a poacher.

So I did not see one thing where Goat admitted to doing anything? so HandlesII you are judge and jury and hangman funny how you make these crazy off the HandleII proclamations without any cause other than your emotions.

How do you know Wolf if prepared properly is not absolutely delicious?

If Handles were the judge and jury, Goat would be posting from jail, then prison.

If the DNR needed probable cause to enter Goat's dwelling, check his vehicles, etc., they would have it in that statement. No brainer.

oh ya, had I said anything to that affect...Crucifixion would have a new Meaning...:o  ya, maybe he was just pushing buttons, but it sure didn't sound or look that way to me and i guess many others, with the exception of you rammy...personally, i could care less what he shoots or when, no skin of me one way or another...but even you have to admit Rammy, that has to be the most self incriminating post he or anyone else on this site has ever made.. so self incriminating that he's to Embarrassed and has yet to come back here to even try defending it...so be it...but I'm willing to give him a pass on the post,because we've all opened our mouths up and said stupid things before that we might not have meant, however, I never went on a public web-site and Incriminate myself to thousands of people..thats a no brainer...come back goat, your forgiven... :)

Quote from: maggie on February 11, 2015, 09:54:22 AM
oh ya, had I said anything to that affect...Crucifixion would have a new Meaning...:o  ya, maybe he was just pushing buttons, but it sure didn't sound or look that way to me and i guess many others, with the exception of you rammy...personally, i could care less what he shoots or when, no skin of me one way or another...but even you have to admit Rammy, that has to be the most self incriminating post he or anyone else on this site has ever made.. so self incriminating that he's to Embarrassed and has yet to come back here to even try defending it...so be it...but I'm willing to give him a pass on the post,because we've all opened our mouths up and said stupid things before that we might not have meant, however, I never went on a public web-site and Incriminate myself to thousands of people..thats a no brainer...come back goat, your forgiven... :)

Well actually maggie you and your loyal followers self incriminate with every post. You did in many posts here. I understand the feelings you and several other of the folks here are feeling after three elections not going you're way it must be tough to swallow, but for you to start this politcal thread and chastise others for speaking their minds is rather ironic.

You are all about  like G and HandlesII denegrade anyone who does not share you're views.

Wolf hunting and State control over NaturalReasources will be back its just a matter of time before the extremist Judge lady gets overruled.

If I was the moderator here this thread would have been shut down long ago.

well, as i was asked a while ago not to debate politics on here and I respectively did so, you should follow suit and do the same...now back to Goats decision to Incriminate himself publicly on here, it wasn't I, nor handles,G or anyone else who did so, it was Goat, who you proclaimed Innocent of doing so even after we all read his 4,252'nd post to date on page 23 of our wolf killing debate....I happen to believe you were wrong doing so...and yes, it's the first sign of defeat by try and "Close the gap" as to speak when losing a debate, thats like stopping the music because ya can't dance...as for the Feds starting back up a wolf hunt, guess well just have to wait and see..until then, killing them with a firearm or trapping them is not Legal....and to do other wise, caught or not, is Poaching...that simple... ;)   

Quote from: ramjet on February 11, 2015, 11:22:30 AM

Quote from: maggie on February 11, 2015, 09:54:22 AM
oh ya, had I said anything to that affect...Crucifixion would have a new Meaning...:o  ya, maybe he was just pushing buttons, but it sure didn't sound or look that way to me and i guess many others, with the exception of you rammy...personally, i could care less what he shoots or when, no skin of me one way or another...but even you have to admit Rammy, that has to be the most self incriminating post he or anyone else on this site has ever made.. so self incriminating that he's to Embarrassed and has yet to come back here to even try defending it...so be it...but I'm willing to give him a pass on the post,because we've all opened our mouths up and said stupid things before that we might not have meant, however, I never went on a public web-site and Incriminate myself to thousands of people..thats a no brainer...come back goat, your forgiven... :)

Well actually maggie you and your loyal followers self incriminate with every post. You did in many posts here. I understand the feelings you and several other of the folks here are feeling after three elections not going you're way it must be tough to swallow, but for you to start this politcal thread and chastise others for speaking their minds is rather ironic.

You are all about  like G and HandlesII denegrade anyone who does not share you're views.

Wolf hunting and State control over NaturalReasources will be back its just a matter of time before the extremist Judge lady gets overruled.

If I was the moderator here this thread would have been shut down long ago.

Sorry Ramjet, but my "sharing views" with someone ends when they admit to committing felonies. It says so very much about you as a person when you defend and/or excuse people who do these things. As much as you claim to be a sportsman, you obviously are not. Sportsmen don't tolerate poachers, much less defend and excuse them.

"You are all about  like G and HandlesII denegrade anyone who does not share you're views."

The only "denegration" I'm guilty of is in regards to poaching. I think I used facts pretty well to degrade your opinion, and that of 84, to one where I feel comfortable in my logic. I've learned a lot on this thread. Never thought Goat was a poacher, though. That surprised me. Makes for the best case for even more federal oversight; that I thought was overboard until learning how common poaching must be. All the tree hugger sites complain that all the wolves shot illegally never get prosecuted because the shooter claimed they thought it was a yote.

Next time you want to hunt wolves, but can't, put the blame where it belongs, Ram.

"No different then a free loader living off the government.  Most poachers keep what they kill."

Big difference. Free-loaders don't ruin the hunt for everybody else.

But, since you put yourself at the  level of a government freeloader, I'm satisfied your self image is accurate.

I equate free loaders and poachers to scum. Never thought of you as scum before. At least you're honest; unless you really aren't a poacher.

Quote from: ramjet on February 11, 2015, 11:22:30 AM

Quote from: maggie on February 11, 2015, 09:54:22 AM
oh ya, had I said anything to that affect...Crucifixion would have a new Meaning...:o  ya, maybe he was just pushing buttons, but it sure didn't sound or look that way to me and i guess many others, with the exception of you rammy...personally, i could care less what he shoots or when, no skin of me one way or another...but even you have to admit Rammy, that has to be the most self incriminating post he or anyone else on this site has ever made.. so self incriminating that he's to Embarrassed and has yet to come back here to even try defending it...so be it...but I'm willing to give him a pass on the post,because we've all opened our mouths up and said stupid things before that we might not have meant, however, I never went on a public web-site and Incriminate myself to thousands of people..thats a no brainer...come back goat, your forgiven... :)

Well actually maggie you and your loyal followers self incriminate with every post. You did in many posts here. I understand the feelings you and several other of the folks here are feeling after three elections not going you're way it must be tough to swallow, but for you to start this politcal thread and chastise others for speaking their minds is rather ironic.

You are all about  like G and HandlesII denegrade anyone who does not share you're views.

Wolf hunting and State control over NaturalReasources will be back its just a matter of time before the extremist Judge lady gets overruled.

If I was the moderator here this thread would have been shut down long ago.

If you were the moderator, half of us would have been booted after our first posts. ;)

Quote from: bigG on February 11, 2015, 01:56:38 PM

Quote from: ramjet on February 11, 2015, 11:22:30 AM

Quote from: maggie on February 11, 2015, 09:54:22 AM
oh ya, had I said anything to that affect...Crucifixion would have a new Meaning...:o  ya, maybe he was just pushing buttons, but it sure didn't sound or look that way to me and i guess many others, with the exception of you rammy...personally, i could care less what he shoots or when, no skin of me one way or another...but even you have to admit Rammy, that has to be the most self incriminating post he or anyone else on this site has ever made.. so self incriminating that he's to Embarrassed and has yet to come back here to even try defending it...so be it...but I'm willing to give him a pass on the post,because we've all opened our mouths up and said stupid things before that we might not have meant, however, I never went on a public web-site and Incriminate myself to thousands of people..thats a no brainer...come back goat, your forgiven... :)

Well actually maggie you and your loyal followers self incriminate with every post. You did in many posts here. I understand the feelings you and several other of the folks here are feeling after three elections not going you're way it must be tough to swallow, but for you to start this politcal thread and chastise others for speaking their minds is rather ironic.

You are all about  like G and HandlesII denegrade anyone who does not share you're views.

Wolf hunting and State control over NaturalReasources will be back its just a matter of time before the extremist Judge lady gets overruled.

If I was the moderator here this thread would have been shut down long ago.

If you were the moderator, half of us would have been booted after our first posts. ;)

See there you go I did not say one thing about "booting" anyone just closing the thread much different but you did just prove my point. 😁

Quote from: bigG on February 11, 2015, 01:16:56 PM
"You are all about  like G and HandlesII denegrade anyone who does not share you're views."

The only "denegration" I'm guilty of is in regards to poaching. I think I used facts pretty well to degrade your opinion, and that of 84, to one where I feel comfortable in my logic. I've learned a lot on this thread. Never thought Goat was a poacher, though. That surprised me. Makes for the best case for even more federal oversight; that I thought was overboard until learning how common poaching must be. All the tree hugger sites complain that all the wolves shot illegally never get prosecuted because the shooter claimed they thought it was a yote.

Next time you want to hunt wolves, but can't, put the blame where it belongs, Ram.

"No different then a free loader living off the government.  Most poachers keep what they kill."

Big difference. Free-loaders don't ruin the hunt for everybody else.

But, since you put yourself at the  level of a government freeloader, I'm satisfied your self image is accurate.

I equate free loaders and poachers to scum. Never thought of you as scum before. At least you're honest; unless you really aren't a poacher.

Yes, you did degrade my opinion by posting lies. Nice to see you boasting about it. Odd that you would be proud about posting lies.

yep, it's only good business to play it safe....wouldn't you agree rammy?...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBHdbexrK1Q

perhaps i missed them, with all due respect,  i din't see any in there...

Ram. I was joking. I don't think you'd boot me for disagreeing with me.

;) ;) nudge, nudge. Joking, right? Take it easy.

"Yes, you did degrade my opinion by posting lies. Nice to see you boasting about it. Odd that you would be proud about posting lies."
-84

I believe I admitted my inaccuracy regarding your opinion. I admitted it. You apparently don't read the bilge you wrote about me. Number one you were wrong about me. Number two, you even contradicted yourself when you said I wanted the end the hunt; then you said that you never said that I wanted to ban the hunt; then I said that you were the one who said that I wanted to ban the hunt and you said I said I never did, then I said what you said  back to you, then you said nothing about what you said about me. If I'm a liar, so are you. I'm rubber, you're glue...

Glad you see nothing wrong with your own lying. Or could we both see we didn't quite understand each others' opinions fully? Naw, that would be too adult.

Quote from: bigG on February 11, 2015, 03:13:21 PM
Ram. I was joking. I don't think you'd boot me for disagreeing with me.

;) ;) nudge, nudge. Joking, right? Take it easy.

"Yes, you did degrade my opinion by posting lies. Nice to see you boasting about it. Odd that you would be proud about posting lies."
-84

I believe I admitted my inaccuracy regarding your opinion. I admitted it. You apparently don't read the bilge you wrote about me. Number one you were wrong about me. Number two, you even contradicted yourself when you said I wanted the end the hunt; then you said that you never said that I wanted to ban the hunt; then I said that you were the one who said that I wanted to ban the hunt and you said I said I never did, then I said what you said  back to you, then you said nothing about what you said about me. If I'm a liar, so are you. I'm rubber, you're glue...

Glad you see nothing wrong with your own lying. Or could we both see we didn't quite understand each others' opinions fully? Naw, that would be too adult.

You can twist it however you want to save face, the truth is you argued for 28 pages in favor of the relisting because the state jumped the gun on a season in your opinion. So yes, you did argue against a hunt.

Ill have to punt on this one I'm afraid  84.   No comment

Quote from: bigG on February 11, 2015, 03:13:21 PM
Ram. I was joking. I don't think you'd boot me for disagreeing with me.

;) ;) nudge, nudge. Joking, right? Take it easy.

"Yes, you did degrade my opinion by posting lies. Nice to see you boasting about it. Odd that you would be proud about posting lies."
-84

I believe I admitted my inaccuracy regarding your opinion. I admitted it. You apparently don't read the bilge you wrote about me. Number one you were wrong about me. Number two, you even contradicted yourself when you said I wanted the end the hunt; then you said that you never said that I wanted to ban the hunt; then I said that you were the one who said that I wanted to ban the hunt and you said I said I never did, then I said what you said  back to you, then you said nothing about what you said about me. If I'm a liar, so are you. I'm rubber, you're glue...

Glad you see nothing wrong with your own lying. Or could we both see we didn't quite understand each others' opinions fully? Naw, that would be too adult.

I am taking easy any way I can🎉🎊🎈

Good man!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEzTdBJUHO8

Always loved that song.

Quote from: wrestle84 on February 11, 2015, 03:52:17 PM

Quote from: bigG on February 11, 2015, 03:13:21 PM
Ram. I was joking. I don't think you'd boot me for disagreeing with me.

;) ;) nudge, nudge. Joking, right? Take it easy.

"Yes, you did degrade my opinion by posting lies. Nice to see you boasting about it. Odd that you would be proud about posting lies."
-84

I believe I admitted my inaccuracy regarding your opinion. I admitted it. You apparently don't read the bilge you wrote about me. Number one you were wrong about me. Number two, you even contradicted yourself when you said I wanted the end the hunt; then you said that you never said that I wanted to ban the hunt; then I said that you were the one who said that I wanted to ban the hunt and you said I said I never did, then I said what you said  back to you, then you said nothing about what you said about me. If I'm a liar, so are you. I'm rubber, you're glue...

Glad you see nothing wrong with your own lying. Or could we both see we didn't quite understand each others' opinions fully? Naw, that would be too adult.

You can twist it however you want to save face, the truth is you argued for 28 pages in favor of the relisting because the state jumped the gun on a season in your opinion. So yes, you did argue against a hunt.

I sure don't recall arguing in favor of relisting. You like to fill in those gaps with your own emotions. Felt, and still feel, the relisting is as political as the way the hunt itself passed. Liar. Just said it was a natural result of weak-butt politics from the Ram side (which I feel I've argued logically and respectfully). Notice the personal attacks only came after you started slinging crap. I'm cool with Ram and enjoy his forum company. It is you who appears to be attempting to save face, my friend. Maybe if you read all 28 pages, you'd see I actually agree the hunt should happen. I only perpetually refer to the plan, as it's our best source for wolf information to date. Goat's admission to poaching sure made me think I was wrong for favoring the hunt/trap. Just hoping he's part of a tiny minority of folks who do such things. I also hope he's doesn't really poach; but I'll take him for his word.

Ooo. Now you've lied about me twice as much as I lied about you. No face to save here, pal. No need to feel salty, either.

The thing will be overturned; and rightfully so.

Keep dreaming up my position; or read what I really said. Never favored delisting; just that it was more tit-for-tat politics; and that we should look at the "tit" and the "tat." You're just looking at the "tit"; check out the "tat." I don't like the "tit" nor the "tat."

I've also been adamant that people should be able to defend their livestock and human life; whether they're delisted, relisted, etc. You're, I'm afraid, the twister, here.

I admitted to my mistake. So, the only twisting I've done, apparently, has been your tail. Seems the more I agree with the trap/hunt, the more angry you get. I think the Rams of this world should be bale to hunt/trap them. Just want it done right. Both sides have brushed aside the science and evidence; thus, they deserve one another, while normal folks have to wait for another season.

Quote from: bigG on December 22, 2014, 07:01:02 AM
I can see why they'd be protected in pockets (like Ft. McCoy by me), but if I'm a farmer and one tries taking out a young heifer , I'm goin' to get the 270, 30/30, whatever.

Wouldn't that make you a poacher?

Maybe, if I did it. I live in a "wolf" area and have yet to hear for the need for such action. My neighbors all have considerable livestock. Never heard them say the wolves are killing their calves/dogs/chickens/etc.  Compare that to what Goat admitted to. Yup, I defend the ability to protect my people and critters.

Still won't admit you totally lied about me...again?

I'm sure there are more straws for you to grasp at. Keep grasping.

What you don't seem to grasp is simple logic. Can't fix illogical.

I'll confess to poaching eggs. Nice try.

So, why do you insist I'm against the hunt? I argues against the politics. Not the hunt.

So you chastise Goat for making a statement about poaching, you accuse me of rationalizing poaching, yet you admit in your very first post on this thread that you would take the law into your own hands. Seems pretty hypocritical. So would you really shoot a wolf, or was that another post where you were not being truthful?

If my kid was in harm's way, I'd shoot a wolf, man, chicken, whatever.

You did rationalize poaching. Try to take it back. You can't.

I chastised Goat for admitting to poaching.

I don't know if or not a farmer can protect his love stock ,or not, from wolves. I'm not a farmer. Maybe my way of saying I think farmers should be able to shoot if their livestock is threatened. I don't own own a .270. Goat said to take as many as you can; not against the law, if you don't get caught. He never has been caught. I guess you can't tell the difference between the two takes. Ever think I might fire off a few shots to scare the buggers. I bet they react to loud guns without having to kill them. In my reading of the actual plan (the one you haven't yet read) I learned they are very sensitive to noise and tend to inhabit areas with few, if any roads. I'm guessing a loud gun might be effective in scaring them. Sure works on pretty much every other animal with ears.

Maybe I should have revised the post to say 10 gauge w/bird shot. BLOO-EY! I didn't say I'd even shoot the wolf. Goat said he never got caught. That post indicating to me he had.

So, can you admit to rationalizing poaching, or are you going to stick by the lie that you didn't? You tried to explain poaching away with the illogical position that somehow government is the cause of it. Stick with the lie, or fess up. What's it gonna be 84? Do I need to quote your rationalization again, along with the definition of "rationalize" again? Not only was it a rationalization; but a dang weak one that group- like the Humane Society can use to further load their litigious guns.

Quote from: bigG on December 22, 2014, 07:01:02 AM
I can see why they'd be protected in pockets (like Ft. McCoy by me), but if I'm a farmer and one tries taking out a young heifer , I'm goin' to get the 270, 30/30, whatever.

I guess it is my fault for assuming you were being truthful with this post.

I was truthful. I would shoot off a few rounds to scare off a wolf. I admit it. If it were my kid, I'd shoot it(the wolf, not the kid, since you're in a nit-picky mode). If it were my live stock, I think shooting a few rounds would do the trick. If it came at me, I'd shoot it. Our state doesn't have a recent history of superfluous prosecution due to wolf killings.

This stuff has happened many times in our state with very few cases where the "defender" was prosecuted and found guilty. This idea where anyone who defends themselves or their herd will spend life in prison is bull. Look at the facts. Like me to present them to you? Or, are you still trying to find ways to talk yourself out of the facts that you rationalized poaching and lied about my position? That way you can blame the government for all that ails you.

You do assume a lot. That's fer sher. Where was I untruthful in that post? Please point it out, so we can clarify.

84, I/We gave Goat every opportunity to come back here and recant his story, he didn't,  there for I have no other alternative to believe he's a well seasoned POACHER..you do understand the difference don't ya?.....Wisconsin Wolf Poacher Gets $2,500 Fine
by Dave Hurteau
       0
From UpNorthLive.com:
Green Bay, Wisconsin man who killed a wolf in Upper Michigan and was caught hunting without a license was sentenced Monday in Iron County Circuit Court.

Stephen Popp Jr. was sentenced to 20 days community service and ordered to pay more than $2,500 in fines.  He is also on six months probation and is banned from hunting for two years.

Quote from: maggie on February 12, 2015, 08:22:29 AM
84, I/We gave Goat every opportunity to come back here and recant his story, he didn't,  there for I have no other alternative to believe he's a well seasoned POACHER..you do understand the difference don't ya?.....Wisconsin Wolf Poacher Gets $2,500 Fine
by Dave Hurteau
       0
From UpNorthLive.com:
Green Bay, Wisconsin man who killed a wolf in Upper Michigan and was caught hunting without a license was sentenced Monday in Iron County Circuit Court.

Stephen Popp Jr. was sentenced to 20 days community service and ordered to pay more than $2,500 in fines.  He is also on six months probation and is banned from hunting for two years.

U talk like you know?

So you admit that you don't keep and use the wolves you shoot. No need to try to excuse yourself for breaking federal laws.

Quote from: Goat Roper on February 12, 2015, 02:25:53 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poaching

It is amazing that guys like Handles, Maggie, and G claiming they have done nothing wrong.  Never shot a minute before or a minute after legal shooting hours?  Right.  If you have ever killed an animal in that time frame you are a poacher.

Kept a 14-7/8" Walleye on a 15" size limit lake?  Poacher.

Poachers normally keep and use what they kill.  Thrill killers don't.  Big difference.

As far as incriminating myself you need evidence for a conviction.  The DNR is welcome at my house anytime.  They don't need a search warrant either.  I will let them right in.  Won't find anything.  Not that stupid. 

Bingo. I talk to guys all the time that hate anyone that breaks the game laws, yet they think nothing of hunting until they can't see. I'm betting Handles is one of them.

Quote from: Goat Roper on February 12, 2015, 02:25:53 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poaching

It is amazing that guys like Handles, Maggie, and G claiming they have done nothing wrong.  Never shot a minute before or a minute after legal shooting hours?  Right.  If you have ever killed an animal in that time frame you are a poacher.

Kept a 14-7/8" Walleye on a 15" size limit lake?  Poacher.

Poachers normally keep and use what they kill.  Thrill killers don't.  Big difference.

As far as incriminating myself you need evidence for a conviction.  The DNR is welcome at my house anytime.  They don't need a search warrant either.  I will let them right in.  Won't find anything.  Not that stupid.  

Show me one place where I've said I have done nothing wrong. But shooting every one I see (of any game, above limit)never happened. But, if you want to hunt and trap them legally; why would you poach and give credence to the liberal, so-called, conservation groups? That's what I don't get. I kept a trout that was 1/4inch too small when I was 17 and got dinged. Yeah, I'm a bad boy. But I didn't keep every fish I caught knowing full-well many were illegal to keep.

I hope you were just stirring the turd by your admission. Honestly, you don't seem so irresponsible to me. I want you to be able to get a tag and hunt/trap them wolves legally. It's high time we show how responsible we are, so we can have such nice luxuries.

Sandhills become legal, and I'll be first in line to buy a tag. Never shot one before. Though I do froth at the mouth when I see them, as I know they are great eats.

Either way, if we can follow the rules and be sportsmen, I think we'll be rewarded with more opportunities.

To me, looking at the statistics of the years we had the hunt; those who participated acted like sportsmen, and are worthy to continue. It also appears that, from 2002 to 2006 (years they didn't even have the hunt) there were about 5-8 incidents per year brought to court, and less than 1 per year convicted of poaching wolves. DNR is set to addend the plan (sorry to use the word again, but that is what it's called) and I do hope they use those surveys and stats to justify a wolf hunt/trap. It does sound like the DNR and feds do respond to complaints and euthanize when necessary.

I'll say, though, if you were serious, Goat, then you do justify such extensive checks and balances by feds. Hope you were jiss joshin'. Like I say, I do think you're better than that.

Wish I had patience to hang in the woods until dark. If the squirrels are out and about , great; I haven't seen a ton in the dark. I'll say my duck huntin' buddies got me into it, and they are religious about the minute they can start. I can be patient, then, though, because when you make room for 20, another 200 see a safe place to hang. Then you roll.

Just saying. I hope you aren't a poacher. You know the difference. I trust that.

There it is, ..Thrill Killer!.....a few thoughts, why, if you know these people are pouching, (as you said you know MANY from "just north of Appleton") why aren't you turning them in?, after all it's only hurters like Me,G, Handles and the rest of Wisconsin's Honest Sportsmen.....we all know, birds of feather tend to flock together....Birds of a feather flock together
When people that act the same, hang out together. People that have the same morals often tend to group. It has nothing to do with jealousy, nor the amount of friends a person is allowed to hang out with. It is NOT pointed towards having a close friend neither. it simply means when people act the same, they normally hang out. Like a clique.
Wondalee told someone something Maria told her not to tell anyone about.

Taylor told a boy something and brought up Ella's name, when Ella wasnt supposed to tell anyone but trusted Taylor.

Wondalee and taylor hang out on a daily basis

THEREFORE, taylor & wondalee, are birds of a feather that flock together(they were doing the same thing).... thus an average person would describe what they did using the saying "birds of a feather flock together"

so if a person registered there deer in blue jeans, they are a poucher?.. :o...last i checked, ya had a few days to register your deer, people do have a knack of changing there cloths once ever 3 days.. :D.....PS. you say, "you SEE people pouching deer all the time"...NO, i do not, if i did, there would be one less person hunting in wis for a few yrs...no, there is NO poucher in me Goat, why are you trying to get us to do as you did and admit pouching?... ::).....NO, I DON'T POUCH...

We're kind of vigilant in my neighborhood. We have some trail cams scattered about; and when we get a photo of someone coming on poaching, the real hunt is on; to fit a name to the face, truck, whatever photos we have. Only dinged two in the last few years; but it sends a message.

OK, now I'm a loser... ::) for what?....not pouching? or for calling it as i see it?....please is right, Please, an explanation would be nice... ;)....yes, in this day and age, a person can't walk into a woods without being on a trail cam, poachers just don't get that ....say cheese!   :)

Ill make darn sure I'm not wearing my BLUE JEANS next time i go to regester my deer... :D...because according to some people, all poachers wear jeans... :D....ohhhh no, I guess this shoots that theory out of the water... ;)............http://search.tb.ask.com/search/redirect.jhtml?action=pick&ct=GD&qs=&searchfor=designer+hunting+jeans+for+ladies&cb=ZX&p2=%5EZX%5Exdm427%5ES11870%5Eus&qid=2ec3db449dae4d6883d9ad7286d05632&n=780d0d57&ptb=5AD20935-9831-4619-AA37-96A9A7E70A0A&si=CMyt-_r2w8ICFREdaQodfJkACw&pg=GGmain&ots=1423836873592&pn=1&ss=sub&st=tab&tpr=sc&redirect=mPWsrdz9heamc8iHEhldEePRpclffZ3%2BdlP9ozcIt6qjQl7xDNJZnLlVRQUxnd8lf1u3HG7edHa6wKd%2BoPf1cVClIFXUIEnKuRipISnHdR0%3D&ord=0&

for the 3rd time Goat.... :).........https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN3tOupwXik

Quote from: Goat Roper on February 12, 2015, 04:55:31 PM

Quote from: wrestle84 on February 12, 2015, 02:57:37 PM

Quote from: Goat Roper on February 12, 2015, 02:25:53 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poaching

It is amazing that guys like Handles, Maggie, and G claiming they have done nothing wrong.  Never shot a minute before or a minute after legal shooting hours?  Right.  If you have ever killed an animal in that time frame you are a poacher.

Kept a 14-7/8" Walleye on a 15" size limit lake?  Poacher.

Poachers normally keep and use what they kill.  Thrill killers don't.  Big difference.

As far as incriminating myself you need evidence for a conviction.  The DNR is welcome at my house anytime.  They don't need a search warrant either.  I will let them right in.  Won't find anything.  Not that stupid. 

Bingo. I talk to guys all the time that hate anyone that breaks the game laws, yet they think nothing of hunting until they can't see. I'm betting Handles is one of them.

I would bet you are correct as well.  I used to hear the same thing from poachers who used more than the legal amount of bait to lure deer.  Said it was ok because the neighbor was doing it.  Handles fits in this category too.

I've never kept a short fish, nor baited any animal.

I know you are simply trying to make your self feel better by dragging others down to your level. Same tactics used by druggies trying to defend their actions because someone else took 4 aspirin instead of 2.  It won't work. You are an admitted poacher of an animal on the federal endangered species list, and I'm sure quite a bit more poaching that just that. You bragged about it, advocate for it, and try to defend your actions in a sophomoric way . Scum, no matter how you try to defend your actions. Can't wait for you to get busted.

guess that settles that!.... :)

Quote from: maggie on February 13, 2015, 09:26:27 AM
guess that settles that!.... :)

Opening morning of gun deer season. When do you load your gun?

Summary:  Yeah, but look at what others are doing!  That justifies what I admitted to doing.  You must be doing bad things, because I am accusing you of doing them.  That will teach you to hold me accountable!  You are a hypocrite, because I say you are doing the things I admittedly have done.   ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)   Pretty weak...   

Quote from: wrestle84 on February 13, 2015, 10:19:01 AM

Quote from: maggie on February 13, 2015, 09:26:27 AM
guess that settles that!.... :)

Opening morning of gun deer season. When do you load your gun?

That depends on where I am hunting and what the date is. But you can gladly show everyone in the deer hunting regulations when they are allowed to load their gun in the morning. Just post it on this forum.

I find it very disturbing when people try to back and justify an admitted criminal, especially one who advocates for others to do it and has no remorse for his actions other. It's quite telling.

say what?...this is my rifle, this is my gun, this ones for shooting, and this ones for fun!  :D...to answer that...as soon as it's light enough see that it's 6:23...how that?... :)

Dang it. I can't find this source again. I know I wasn't dreaming. The wolf planning group, though, is set to meet and rework the plan this spring. Just can't find my source again. Grr.

My gun is loaded and with me all the time......except where not welcome or illegal.🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫

You got like a daily gun, or do you pick a different honey every day? Always wondered how that worked. I got my atlatl all heated up and ready to chuck. Just say the word!! ;)

Quote from: bigG on February 13, 2015, 04:31:02 PM
Dang it. I can't find this source again. I know I wasn't dreaming. The wolf planning group, though, is set to meet and rework the plan this spring. Just can't find my source again. Grr.

Last I heard, it was delayed due to the relisting.

Quote from: bigG on February 13, 2015, 04:45:48 PM
You got like a daily gun, or do you pick a different honey every day? Always wondered how that worked. I got my atlatl all heated up and ready to chuck. Just say the word!! ;)

Several into the rotation ..............

Great show on last night with hunting wolves with archery equipment. very wary the wolves are but in the end the Hunter won but ip close and personal. very cool hunting show.

LOL!! What's today's model?

Where'd you catch the bow/wolf show?

Quote from: wrestle84 on February 13, 2015, 05:56:20 PM

Quote from: bigG on February 13, 2015, 04:31:02 PM
Dang it. I can't find this source again. I know I wasn't dreaming. The wolf planning group, though, is set to meet and rework the plan this spring. Just can't find my source again. Grr.

Last I heard, it was delayed due to the relisting.

True. Looks like we want to sink our congressional resources into this.



Wisconsin Ag News Headlines 


Wisconsin Lawmakers Co-Sponsor Wolf Population Management Bill
Wisconsin Ag Connection - 02/13/2015

A group of Congressmen, include several from Wisconsin, introduced a bill this week to direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue final rules relating to listing of the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes and Wyoming under the Endangered Species Act.

The measure would reinstate two decisions of the Fish and Wildlife Service to delist the gray wolf from the Endangered Species List and allow states to continue their successful population management plans. The Endangered Species Act and the ability of the Fish and Wildlife Service to re-list the gray wolf in the case of future population changes are left entirely intact.

"Wisconsin's gray wolf population has significantly recovered over the last several decades, and I am confident in our state's ability to manage the population," said Rep. Reid Ribble, who is one of the co-sponsors of the bill. "This bipartisan legislative fix will allow the Great Lakes states to continue the effective work they are doing in managing wolf populations without tying the hands of the Fish and Wildlife Service or undermining the Endangered Species Act."

Other co-sponsors from the Badger State include Sean Duffy, Glenn Grothman, Ron Kind, Paul Ryan, and Jim Sensenbrenner,

On December 21, Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the wildlife agency should not have removed federal protections for wolves in Wisconsin and eight other Great Lakes states, which led to several wolf hunting seasons in many of those states. He then immediately placed the animal under protections first established in the late-1970s.


This surely must be at the top of the list of "things" to do in congress.

lol... :D   the hunter won what?....a wolf pelt? meat to eat?...or just a sense of killing pride?..man over wolf, Man wins every time...sounds quite sporty to me! almost as sporty as Bobcat hunting with your dogs, Tree a cat, and sit down below and pluck away at a sitting target... :D...ya, it doesn't get any funner than that!  :D

Quote from: bigG on February 14, 2015, 09:50:01 AM

Quote from: wrestle84 on February 13, 2015, 05:56:20 PM

Quote from: bigG on February 13, 2015, 04:31:02 PM
Dang it. I can't find this source again. I know I wasn't dreaming. The wolf planning group, though, is set to meet and rework the plan this spring. Just can't find my source again. Grr.

Last I heard, it was delayed due to the relisting.

True. Looks like we want to sink our congressional resources into this.



Wisconsin Ag News Headlines 


Wisconsin Lawmakers Co-Sponsor Wolf Population Management Bill
Wisconsin Ag Connection - 02/13/2015

A group of Congressmen, include several from Wisconsin, introduced a bill this week to direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue final rules relating to listing of the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes and Wyoming under the Endangered Species Act.

The measure would reinstate two decisions of the Fish and Wildlife Service to delist the gray wolf from the Endangered Species List and allow states to continue their successful population management plans. The Endangered Species Act and the ability of the Fish and Wildlife Service to re-list the gray wolf in the case of future population changes are left entirely intact.

"Wisconsin's gray wolf population has significantly recovered over the last several decades, and I am confident in our state's ability to manage the population," said Rep. Reid Ribble, who is one of the co-sponsors of the bill. "This bipartisan legislative fix will allow the Great Lakes states to continue the effective work they are doing in managing wolf populations without tying the hands of the Fish and Wildlife Service or undermining the Endangered Species Act."

Other co-sponsors from the Badger State include Sean Duffy, Glenn Grothman, Ron Kind, Paul Ryan, and Jim Sensenbrenner,

On December 21, Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the wildlife agency should not have removed federal protections for wolves in Wisconsin and eight other Great Lakes states, which led to several wolf hunting seasons in many of those states. He then immediately placed the animal under protections first established in the late-1970s.


This surely must be at the top of the list of "things" to do in congress.

A Congressman or woman's job is to represent the will of their constituents.

Must be some serious "constituents" backing this. :) Hard to believe enough "constituency" would drive such an effort. Just work-a-holics. Maybe we could substantiate with numbers.

I hope this is worth the effort to those who enjoy the right to hunt/trap wolf. To me, it's a bit of a waste of time. But, whatever. If this means that much to our state, financially, let it ride. Is this a cost-effective practice?

Quote from: bigG on February 14, 2015, 03:13:06 PM
Must be some serious "constituents" backing this. :) Hard to believe enough "constituency" would drive such an effort. Just work-a-holics. Maybe we could substantiate with numbers.

I hope this is worth the effort to those who enjoy the right to hunt/trap wolf. To me, it's a bit of a waste of time. But, whatever. If this means that much to our state, financially, let it ride. Is this a cost-effective practice?

Sales of applications and tags for the wolf season brought in over $150,000 last year.

Quote from: maggie on February 14, 2015, 09:54:50 AM
lol... :D   the hunter won what?....a wolf pelt? meat to eat?...or just a sense of killing pride?..man over wolf, Man wins every time...sounds quite sporty to me! almost as sporty as Bobcat hunting with your dogs, Tree a cat, and sit down below and pluck away at a sitting target... :D...ya, it doesn't get any funner than that!  :D

Do you get a sense of killing pride when you hunt deer , ducks, pheasant, rabbits, frogs, mice, gophers and so on.

Second question; do you have ANY idea what sporty is?

Third question; when post such ignorant rants do you even realize that you are doing so?

Quote from: wrestle84 on February 14, 2015, 05:15:09 PM

Quote from: bigG on February 14, 2015, 03:13:06 PM
Must be some serious "constituents" backing this. :) Hard to believe enough "constituency" would drive such an effort. Just work-a-holics. Maybe we could substantiate with numbers.

I hope this is worth the effort to those who enjoy the right to hunt/trap wolf. To me, it's a bit of a waste of time. But, whatever. If this means that much to our state, financially, let it ride. Is this a cost-effective practice?

Sales of applications and tags for the wolf season brought in over $150,000 last year.

Sounds like a great use of congressional time. Not like it's free to manage them.

Just don't get why is "congressional" important.

Quote from: bigG on February 14, 2015, 10:47:53 PM

Quote from: wrestle84 on February 14, 2015, 05:15:09 PM

Quote from: bigG on February 14, 2015, 03:13:06 PM
Must be some serious "constituents" backing this. :) Hard to believe enough "constituency" would drive such an effort. Just work-a-holics. Maybe we could substantiate with numbers.

I hope this is worth the effort to those who enjoy the right to hunt/trap wolf. To me, it's a bit of a waste of time. But, whatever. If this means that much to our state, financially, let it ride. Is this a cost-effective practice?

Sales of applications and tags for the wolf season brought in over $150,000 last year.

Sounds like a great use of congressional time. Not like it's free to manage them.

Just don't get why is "congressional" important.

I am not too surprised that you don't get it.

Better look into steroid use, too. ::)

well thanks again for the degrading remark Rammy, somehow you forget I'm like a duck... :)... however, I don't take pride from killing anything, as you must and what i do shoot, I eat, i do know that SPORTY is not treeing a defenceless Anminal and simply shooting it to watch it hit the ground, Must give ya sense of Bigness ha?  sure gives a Hunter a lot pride in doing that ha?..  ::)   i wouldn't know, I never did it...if thats your idea of sporty, I feel for ya Dude, it's people like you that take "fair chase, fair game"  to your own self righteous level, a level i will never lowering myself too...people like you have long forgotten the true conception of Hunting...and ya, you bet i know what I'm doing!....besides making a fool out of you, I'm trying to preserve the rights of Traditional Hunting ...how that?... ;) ...shoot away!.....

Quote from: maggie on February 15, 2015, 08:58:17 AM
well thanks again for the degrading remark Rammy, somehow you forget I'm like a duck... :)... however, I don't take pride from killing anything, as you must and what i do shoot, I eat, i do know that SPORTY is not treeing a defenceless Anminal and simply shooting it to watch it hit the ground, Must give ya sense of Bigness ha?  sure gives a Hunter a lot pride in doing that ha?..  ::)   i wouldn't know, I never did it...if thats your idea of sporty, I feel for ya Dude, it's people like you that take "fair chase, fair game"  to your own self righteous level, a level i will never lowering myself too...people like you have long forgotten the true conception of Hunting...and ya, you bet i know what I'm doing!....besides making a fool out of you, I'm trying to preserve the rights of Traditional Hunting ...how that?... ;) ...shoot away!.....

Great, another barstool expert. So you have never done it and yet somehow you feel like you know all about it. That is like someone that has never seen a wrestling match saying that wrestling should be banned because it is a barbaric sport. Would you take their opinion seriously?

" That is like someone that has never seen a wrestling match saying that wrestling should be banned because it is a barbaric sport."

This is why I read some of the science.  You have just been posting your uninformed opinions on this. You preach from the stool, as well.

350 is all the science you need, right?

Quote from: bigG on February 15, 2015, 10:26:45 AM
" That is like someone that has never seen a wrestling match saying that wrestling should be banned because it is a barbaric sport."

This is why I read some of the science.  You have just been posting your uninformed opinions on this. You preach from the stool, as well.

350 is all the science you need, right?

I am more informed on this subject than you will ever be. I don't just throw out what I happened to read from one side of the issue because I want to argue with somebody and then try to convince them how right I am. I actually spend a lot of time in woods where there is a large wolf population. Not on my couch in the southern half of the state.

I live right by a large population. No more couch potato than you. You've proven to have very little knowledge on this subject. You've also proven you're not open to any but your own politicized side.

Quote from: bigG on February 15, 2015, 11:25:58 AM
I live right by a large population. No more couch potato than you. You've proven to have very little knowledge on this subject. You've also proven you're not open to any but your own politicized side.

You are correct, I am not open to anything you have to say on the subject because I have no respect for your over inflated opinion. You have proven to be dishonest.

The fact is, wolves will soon be delisted and hunted again soon. Why? Because science is on our side.

You don't even have a grasp of the science. Nice cliché, though.

They should be delisted; because science doesn't choose sides. Biased pseudo-science reflects a side. You wouldn't know, now, would you.

Enjoy your big up-north couch.

Quote from: bigG on February 15, 2015, 01:25:06 PM
You don't even have a grasp of the science. Nice cliché, though.

They should be delisted; because science doesn't choose sides. Biased pseudo-science reflects a side. You wouldn't know, now, would you.

Enjoy your big up-north couch.

Funny coming from someone as clueless as you. Better be careful stepping out of your house with that huge wolf population you have there.

I never complained about my local wolves.

http://www.mccoy.army.mil/vnewspaper/newspaper/realmccoy/08282009/wolves.htm

I don't know just how many live by me; but I've heard the howl. Haven't seen any, though.

They'll be delisted again, soon.

Still think I want to ban the hunt? :)LOL!

Quote from: maggie on February 15, 2015, 08:58:17 AM
well thanks again for the degrading remark Rammy, somehow you forget I'm like a duck... :)... however, I don't take pride from killing anything, as you must and what i do shoot, I eat, i do know that SPORTY is not treeing a defenceless Anminal and simply shooting it to watch it hit the ground, Must give ya sense of Bigness ha?  sure gives a Hunter a lot pride in doing that ha?..  ::)   i wouldn't know, I never did it...if thats your idea of sporty, I feel for ya Dude, it's people like you that take "fair chase, fair game"  to your own self righteous level, a level i will never lowering myself too...people like you have long forgotten the true conception of Hunting...and ya, you bet i know what I'm doing!....besides making a fool out of you, I'm trying to preserve the rights of Traditional Hunting ...how that?... ;) ...shoot away!.....

So you blabbing again about nothing good post as usual........by the way you are the one who constantly contradicts himself with these ridiculous tirades that say allot,of nothing.

I doubt most of us head out to seek poaching opportunities. Most like just being outside.

Walleyes are great filleted; but cook the whole fish and, not as good. The dang rules are so nuts, I only keep 'em when I'm real sure.

I don't hear any move to relist. ;)

I hope nobody actually poaches; and we act like men. The time I got dinged, I got dinged for money I didn't have. Makes one remember.

Stop, Maggie, Stop! your hurting our ears!!!....NO 84 I have never tried it or will ever try it...you can have it...tree shooter like you give good sportsmen like me and all the rest a bad name, BAD NAME. :)....(a little Bon Jovi for ya there... :)).....now, Contradict that rammy.....  :)

Quote from: maggie on February 16, 2015, 05:43:15 AM
Stop, Maggie, Stop! your hurting our ears!!!....NO 84 I have never tried it or will ever try it...you can have it...tree shooter like you give good sportsmen like me and all the rest a bad name, BAD NAME. :)....(a little Bon Jovi for ya there... :)).....now, Contradict that rammy.....  :)

I think you give a bad name to everything your associated with. You are the laughingstock of the forum.

 ;) winning again....ya mean, Pouching stock don't ya?...keep up!...

Quote from: maggie on February 16, 2015, 08:11:22 AM
;) winning again....ya mean, Pouching stock don't ya?...keep up!...

"winning again" ?

didn't you loose three times in a row recently?

 :o....Stop.Stop.Stop!!!   

Not too many 'possum poachers out there; but 'possum pouchers are  a dime a doz.

POACHING, can you use it in a sentence please, sure, Poaching, goat and 84 spent the day together Poaching.... Poaching... :)

still talking wolves and page 32 ??? ???

you know how to control wolf populations, teach them wolfs to read and read this thread. Those wolfs will be running to the highest bridge to jump ;D

Quote from: maggie on February 16, 2015, 09:54:52 PM
POACHING, can you use it in a sentence please, sure, Poaching, goat and 84 spent the day together Poaching.... Poaching... :)

If you're adept as making hollandaise sauce, you should learn to poach an egg as well. Bizarre how an egg-based sauce can enhance eggs.

this looks like a wolf...sort off.... :)........https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm4N67AE9Xg

ya, I'd say we pretty much pounded this horse to death....32 pages of nothing, sort of like Seinfeld... :)

how ironic that YOU started the thread............

Quote from: Goat Roper on February 15, 2015, 06:35:54 PM

Quote from: Handles II on February 13, 2015, 08:41:20 AM

Quote from: Goat Roper on February 12, 2015, 04:55:31 PM

Quote from: wrestle84 on February 12, 2015, 02:57:37 PM

Quote from: Goat Roper on February 12, 2015, 02:25:53 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poaching

It is amazing that guys like Handles, Maggie, and G claiming they have done nothing wrong.  Never shot a minute before or a minute after legal shooting hours?  Right.  If you have ever killed an animal in that time frame you are a poacher.

Kept a 14-7/8" Walleye on a 15" size limit lake?  Poacher.

Poachers normally keep and use what they kill.  Thrill killers don't.  Big difference.

As far as incriminating myself you need evidence for a conviction.  The DNR is welcome at my house anytime.  They don't need a search warrant either.  I will let them right in.  Won't find anything.  Not that stupid. 

Bingo. I talk to guys all the time that hate anyone that breaks the game laws, yet they think nothing of hunting until they can't see. I'm betting Handles is one of them.

I would bet you are correct as well.  I used to hear the same thing from poachers who used more than the legal amount of bait to lure deer.  Said it was ok because the neighbor was doing it.  Handles fits in this category too.

I've never kept a short fish, nor baited any animal.

I know you are simply trying to make your self feel better by dragging others down to your level. Same tactics used by druggies trying to defend their actions because someone else took 4 aspirin instead of 2.  It won't work. You are an admitted poacher of an animal on the federal endangered species list, and I'm sure quite a bit more poaching that just that. You bragged about it, advocate for it, and try to defend your actions in a sophomoric way . Scum, no matter how you try to defend your actions. Can't wait for you to get busted.

I don't believe anything you say.  I quit hunting after the 2009 season.  Hunted for 40 years.

I know a lot of people who fish with their kids.  Dad catches 7 walleyes and kids catch 3.  Dad is a poacher.

You will be the one that gets busted Rick.  Can't wait until it happens.

Go ahead and please hold your breath on that one Goat, you will be holding it a very long time. Poachers like you shouldn't have a voice, so holding your breath would be a welcome change. And if over your 40 years of buying a license you willingly and wantingly broke laws to take game that was out of season, or on the endangered species list, then you were never actually a hunter, no matter how you might try to excuse yourself.

how ironic that you keep coming back to defend yourself... :)

defend?

It's an opinion what's there to defend?

I come back to point out out how incredibly foolish and clueless you are. It's like you're predictions they are always wrong and without any substance or did you already the three nib ones you missed on? do you need me to remind you?

welcome back....Again.. ;)...yes, refresh our memories...enlighten us Almighty rammy.. :)

Well in order to enlighten one that person would have to posssss the ability to comprehend anything that rules you out.

I see, so because you didn't poach a deer you aren't a poacher., but you do poach wolves,  Got it.  ::)
You certainly like to see the world through your own distorted lens.

Quote from: Goat Roper on February 17, 2015, 05:49:10 PM

Quote from: Handles II on February 17, 2015, 02:57:32 PM
I see, so because you didn't poach a deer you aren't a poacher., but you do poach wolves,  Got it.  ::)
You certainly like to see the world through your own distorted lens.

Again you're reading comprehension isn't too good.  See my response above, I admitted I poached ducks.

Your words are on page 23. You advocate for and admit to shooting wolves and brag about not being caught.. You advise taking the law into one's own hands.

Goat, stop already! Man stop incriminating yourself!....wth are ya thinking man...wow...stop!

a state needs to be able to manage thier wildlife and resources just like we manage coyote and Bobcats and deer the carrying capacity numbers were set and any time the wolf is removed and anyone wants to manage them the liberal extremists scream and file a civil litigation. They do this even though nobody is interested in "wiping out" the wolf just managin them with tools they use to manage all the other predators.

personally rammy, and first of all, the state has already proven over many years that they have no clue as how to manage our States Resources much less our Wildlife... i don't like nor do trust the states APPOINTED people managing these types of things, No matter who appointed them!  more so now with an APPOINTED out of state texan in charge of our Wis deer herd!...why would anyone put trust in that?  ::)  or even want to see them being able to manage it?..what we need is an a non-partisan board to oversea all the daily actives without the all might state getting involved...maybe they would agree that we need to thin things down, who knows?....but to simply have it said and done by people who have no real idea about wildlife to begin with is just plain stupid!...and yes, there are all kind of people who were POLITICAL APPOINTED and sat on that DNR board who had absolutely No idea about wildlife..as a matter of fact, i happen to know a funeral director quite well who was appointed a few yrs back under Tommy...and he will be the first to admit, he really had no prior understanding abut the states wildlife situation..now,thats as bad as it gets... >:(

Quote from: ramjet on February 18, 2015, 01:43:36 PM
a state needs to be able to manage thier wildlife and resources just like we manage coyote and Bobcats and deer the carrying capacity numbers were set and any time the wolf is removed and anyone wants to manage them the liberal extremists scream and file a civil litigation. They do this even though nobody is interested in "wiping out" the wolf just managin them with tools they use to manage all the other predators.

I'm with you, Ram. Honest to God. But it was Con extremists who made the whole hunt happen. I can see why bear hunters, like a friend we have on the forum, would push hard to pass a wolf hunt/trap. Can't blame them one bit. I honestly believe that, had they waited for this year's DNR addendum, we'd be okay to do all that. I hate the politics every bit as much as you do. This is what happens when politics replaces science; on BOTH ends. The Plan Team was poised to recommend the hunt/trap. Just by fiscal measures; it makes sense. Anyone who has seen the poaching evidence can see it's really a non-factor in the wolf world. People sweat the fines. That's why we have laws. The $100, or whatever I paid, for my trout, put that little fear into my head. I doubt you or goat are some nasty poachers. You're decent guys, I'd bet. Goat, ya gotta understand that that post was somewhat incriminating; or , more appropriately, probable cause.

\Like we agree. The hunt/trap will happen. Just tangled up in political twine.

Quote from: maggie on February 18, 2015, 02:33:31 PM
personally rammy, and first of all, the state has already proven over many years that they have no clue as how to manage our States Resources much less our Wildlife... i don't like nor do trust the states APPOINTED people managing these types of things, No matter who appointed them!  more so now with an APPOINTED out of state texan in charge of our Wis deer herd!...why would anyone put trust in that?  ::)  or even want to see them being able to manage it?..what we need is an a non-partisan board to oversea all the daily actives without the all might state getting involved...maybe they would agree that we need to thin things down, who knows?....but to simply have it said and done by people who have no real idea about wildlife to begin with is just plain stupid!...and yes, there are all kind of people who were POLITICAL APPOINTED and sat on that DNR board who had absolutely No idea about wildlife..as a matter of fact, i happen to know a funeral director quite well who was appointed a few yrs back under Tommy...and he will be the first to admit, he really had no prior understanding abut the states wildlife situation..now,thats as bad as it gets... >:(

Nope your analysis is pure BS and allot like the prediction on political elections just plain WRONG.

Quote from: bigG on February 18, 2015, 05:48:42 PM

Quote from: ramjet on February 18, 2015, 01:43:36 PM
a state needs to be able to manage thier wildlife and resources just like we manage coyote and Bobcats and deer the carrying capacity numbers were set and any time the wolf is removed and anyone wants to manage them the liberal extremists scream and file a civil litigation. They do this even though nobody is interested in "wiping out" the wolf just managin them with tools they use to manage all the other predators.

I'm with you, Ram. Honest to God. But it was Con extremists who made the whole hunt happen. I can see why bear hunters, like a friend we have on the forum, would push hard to pass a wolf hunt/trap. Can't blame them one bit. I honestly believe that, had they waited for this year's DNR addendum, we'd be okay to do all that. I hate the politics every bit as much as you do. This is what happens when politics replaces science; on BOTH ends. The Plan Team was poised to recommend the hunt/trap. Just by fiscal measures; it makes sense. Anyone who has seen the poaching evidence can see it's really a non-factor in the wolf world. People sweat the fines. That's why we have laws. The $100, or whatever I paid, for my trout, put that little fear into my head. I doubt you or goat are some nasty poachers. You're decent guys, I'd bet. Goat, ya gotta understand that that post was somewhat incriminating; or , more appropriately, probable cause.

\Like we agree. The hunt/trap will happen. Just tangled up in political twine.

First off for,you even use me in your poaching conversation is complete crap and you are full to the eye balls I was not part of that never POSTED ONE STINKING THING IN REFERENCE TO IT other than poke fun at you guys for being so mellow dramatic. Second the wolf population was above the carrying capacity from the original plan you read it so the way to control it is a hunt.

Every single time the wolf is delisted and control given to the state a legal action is filed. The Humane Society is solidly behind this.

A see with you G it comes down to us vs them you an d Magpie two peas in a pod blah blah blah liberal vs conservative even though this has nothing absolutely nothing to do with that it is State being able to a mange the animal population through conservation which includes hunting and or trapping just like Bobcats coyotes, martins, and so on.

By the way magpie you think the government is doing so well with amazing things? Yea they are doing great massive debt and ObamaCare has destroyed our healthcare in this country. Nice you are so confident or is just plain clueless?

Never meant to imply that you are a poacher. Seriously. I even doubt Goat; despite his words. Just think about this every time you see hunting legislation regarding an endangered or threatened species. Let the Humane Soc. waste their money. When a Dick Thiel type advocates, they don't have a leg to stand on. Millions for a five-minute reprieve.

I don't think you and Goat are poachers at all. Just don't want to give the other side any ammo unless it's of a scientific nature. I don't feel the scientists involved with the Plan are tree huggin. Sounds like they've been leaning toward the solution you favore all along. Just a matter of waiting for the latest addendum. Now we'll waste congressional time on it. Blame who you want.

rammy, rammy, rammy, ""ah,ah,ah,..look at me, not down there! right here! "" (my favorite Judge Judy impersonation   ;) ) please, don't start drag our personal political views into all this, stay on topic son, were talking a state wolf killing here...Now, my post was spot on! and very truthful...so if you can find and falsehood in it, just go ahead and try and then simply and politely, tell us all what is not true about it... ;)   

Quote from: maggie on February 19, 2015, 07:21:12 AM
rammy, rammy, rammy, ""ah,ah,ah,..look at me, not down there! right here! "" (my favorite Judge Judy impersonation   ;) ) please, don't start drag our personal political views into all this, stay on topic son, were talking a state wolf killing here...Now, my post was spot on! and very truthful...so if you can find and falsehood in it, just go ahead and try and then simply and politely, tell us all what is not true about it... ;)   

You started this as political thread because the very idea that Liberal Judge appointed by Obama made the ruling. You did so that you could find a some small way to find some sort of victory after your Wisconsin Givernor prediction got destroyed not only once but three times in very short period.

Quote from: bigG on February 18, 2015, 09:24:21 PM
Never meant to imply that you are a poacher. Seriously. I even doubt Goat; despite his words. Just think about this every time you see hunting legislation regarding an endangered or threatened species. Let the Humane Soc. waste their money. When a Dick Thiel type advocates, they don't have a leg to stand on. Millions for a five-minute reprieve.

I don't think you and Goat are poachers at all. Just don't want to give the other side any ammo unless it's of a scientific nature. I don't feel the scientists involved with the Plan are tree huggin. Sounds like they've been leaning toward the solution you favore all along. Just a matter of waiting for the latest addendum. Now we'll waste congressional time on it. Blame who you want.

You did speculate or indicate I approve of poaching and ai never in this entire thread ever advocated it or even  gave a minor indication that I approve of it.  Thiel is the one who was involved and set the population goals of which the estimates of wolves greatly exceeded this goal thus the managment plan allowed for a Legislative approval of a hunt and trapping.

yup this is political because the tree/bunny huggers continue to make it that way. I just did not know maggie was one till this thread............

ok, back to killing wolf, Maggie a tree hugger?...just my little Walnut I started a few yrs back...other than that, I'm not...besides that, i will stick to my post in witch i said we need to keep state appointees out of the decision making for our natural resources and Wildlife programs...if you like folks like that making them kind of decisions, so be it, i do not..live with it...focus now, and try staying on topic   ;)

Quote from: maggie on February 19, 2015, 08:29:34 AM
ok, back to killing wolf, Maggie a tree hugger?...just my little Walnut I started a few yrs back...other than that, I'm not...besides that, i will stick to my post in witch i said we need to keep state appointees out of the decision making for our natural resources and Wildlife programs...if you like folks like that making them kind of decisions, so be it, i do not..live with it...focus now, and try staying on topic   ;)

Just like you tried to denigrate the Guy from Texas whomis a world renowned expert and does deer and herd a managment for a living I think he is exactly what we need and is also without Poltical influence unlike you......bunny hugger types. 🐇

OK, so your fine with a out of state state appointed, high fence hunter running our WIS deer herd...an expert you say?, a Texan expert on the Wis's Deer herd?..lol  :D...whats wrong with that picture..not only that, ya say he's "WORLD RENOWNED"  :D...ya, in texas!...ya, he sure did do some deer management alright, again, IN TEXAS!...but please, let me correct this for ya, you said, "without political influence" = PANTS ON FIRE, as we ALL know, he was APPOINTED... ;).....shoots that all to heck ha rammy... :D

Quote from: maggie on February 19, 2015, 10:17:06 AM
OK, so your fine with a out of state state appointed, high fence hunter running our WIS deer herd...an expert you say?, a Texan expert on the Wis's Deer herd?..lol  :D...whats wrong with that picture..not only that, ya say he's "WORLD RENOWNED"  :D...ya, in texas!...ya, he sure did do some deer management alright, again, IN TEXAS!...but please, let me correct this for ya, you said, "without political influence" = PANTS ON FIRE, as we ALL know, he was APPOINTED... ;).....shoots that all to heck ha rammy... :D

He has participated in many deer habit studies and is known world wide for Whitetailed deer managment and studies you darn right we should take some input from him. Plus if you're boy Doyle would have done better job of doing things like this the deer heard in Northwoods would not be down as bad as it is. So you can espouse your dribble and I'll informed Poltical baloney to somebody else I am not buying the Bunny hugger 🐇🐇🐇🐇🐇 mentality you displayed on this topic.

Now RJ, saying that Dr. Deer is unbiased is going beyond reality. He's a noted high-fence and bait guy not fair chase. He's against public hunting land. He is 100% GOP.

Quote from: Handles II on February 19, 2015, 01:29:51 PM
Now RJ, saying that Dr. Deer is unbiased is going beyond reality. He's a noted high-fence and bait guy not fair chase. He's against public hunting land. He is 100% GOP.

Can you point out anywhere in Kroll's final WI report where he is in favor of privatizing deer hunting in WI?


http://www.jsonline.com/sports/outdoors/cries-from-left-groundless-on-deer-hunt-review-dc5i1ob-154571965.html


To be clear, neither Gov. Walker, the governor's spokesman nor Kroll has ever said he intends to "privatize" deer hunting in Wisconsin.

I have interviewed Kroll four times since October and attended four stakeholder and public input meetings this year as part of the review of Wisconsin's deer management system.

While he is a controversial figure among wildlife professionals for his extensive work in high fence deer management and captive deer breeding, at no point has Kroll advocated for privatizing deer hunting in Wisconsin.

He has stated several times "Wisconsin isn't Texas."

In a phone interview on Friday, Kroll maintained his comments in the 2002 Texas Monthly article were "distorted by a liberal publication."

"I'm neither a Democrat or a Republican," Kroll said. "The last thing I want is to make it harder for hunters to participate in the great sport of deer hunting in Wisconsin on public land." 

Looks like your 100% GOP statement is a lie also.

HandlesII aka BunnyhuggerII

here you go so you are saying somebody with his education and qualification has no idea what he is doing? That would be contrary to all the dribble you post about education so which is it?

Opps whatnisnthatball,over you and Maggie's faces? Oh yea EGG.




​Dr Kroll


Professor Emeritus of Forest Wildlife Management, Stephen F. Austin State University

Date of Birth: November 5, 1946             Place of Birth: Waco, Texas

Present Position: Professr Emertus of Forest Wildlife Management

Academic Summary:
Ph.D.              1973   Texas A&M University (Distinguished Graduate)
M.S.                1970   Baylor University
B.S.                 1969   Baylor University


2013- present: Professor Emeritus

2008-2013: Henry M. Rockwell Chair in Forest Wildlife Management

2004-2008: Director, Columbia Regional Geospatial Service Center.

1997-2008:  Director, Forest Resources Institute, College of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University.

1981-present:  Professor of Forest Wildlife and Director, Institute for White-tailed Deer Management and Research, College of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University. Now teach courses in wildlife habitat management, wildlife management techniques, wildlife ecology, land management planning, white-tailed deer ecology and management, introduction to forestry, and research methods. Also, direct a large on-going research project in white-tailed deer biology.

1975-present: Director, Institute for White-tailed Deer Management and Research, College of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University. Directs large research and management institute with one million dollar budget. Nationally known for excellence in research in deer biology, management and economics.

1973-1981:  Assistant and Associate Professor of Forest Wildlife, School of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University. Taught the following courses: wildlife management techniques, wildlife habitat management, natural history, advanced wildlife ecology and population dynamics, research methods, non-game management and wildlife photography.

When I came to SFASU, the wildlife curriculum consisted of two courses taught on a part-time basis by U.S. Forest Service personnel. I developed the curriculum to eight courses relating directly to wildlife, and organized the Student Chapter of the Wildlife Society.

1972: Assistant Professor of Biology, Salem College, West Virginia.  Taught undergraduate courses in the following: comparative anatomy, physiology, evolution, physiological ecology, histology and desert ecology.

1971   Laboratory instructor in ecology, herpetology and ichthyology, Texas A&M University. Taught laboratories to undergraduate majors in wildlife and fisheries. Also, worked with students in field ecological studies. Immediate supervisors: Drs. J. R. Dixon, R. J. Baldauf and D. R. Clark Jr.

1970   Instructor in Zoology, McLennan Community College. Taught freshman zoology at junior college level.

1970   Instructor in herpetology and  taxidermy, Strecker Museum. Taught introductory courses in herpetology and taxidermy to elementary aged children. Immediate supervisor: Dr. Bryce C. Brown.

1970   Laboratory instructor for anatomy and physiology, Baylor University. Taught human anatomy and physiology to nursing students. Immediate supervisor: Dr. Eugene Crowder.

1968   Laboratory assistant in zoology, Baylor University. Taught laboratories in introductory zoology. Immediate supervisor: Dr. J. F. Watkins II.

1967   Research assistant in predator-prey studies, Baylor University. Conducted research on the predator-prey interactions of blind snakes and army ants. Immediate supervisor: Dr. J. F. Watkins II.


Society of American Foresters, Wildlife Society (Texas Chapter), Texas Forestry Association (Director), Texas Deer Association (Co-Founder), Southeast Deer Study Group, Southwestern Association of Naturalists, Sigma Xi, Beta Beta Beta, Phi Sigma Society, Texas Wildlife Association (Director), Texas System of Natural Laboratories (Director) and Xi Sigma Pi, Stephen F. Austin State University Research Committee, Center for Applied Studies Council, College of Forestry Faculty Alumni Committee.


            2012   Nacogdoches County Agriculture Pioneer
2011   Muy Grande Hall of Fame
2009   Baylor University Outstanding Alumni Award
2007   Whitetail Country, ESPN2: Career Biography
2007   Research Contributions in Deer Management, ANGADI
2004   Golden Moose Award, Outdoor Channel (North American WHITETAILTelevision)
2003   Honors Award, NASA- Shuttle Columbia Disaster
2002   Golden Moose Award, Outdoor Channel, Journal of the Texas Trophy Hunters

Distinguished Alumni – Waco Independent School
2000   Past-Presidents Award, Texas Deer Association

Teaching Excellence Award
Distinguished Professor Award
Award for Excellence, Texas Outdoor Writers Association:
Whitetail Video Management Series; Magazine Articles
1994   Texas Chapter, The Wildlife Society, Publication Award

Educator of the Year, Lone Star Bowhunters
1993   Regents Professor, Research (SFASU

Distinguished Professor Award
            1989   Buckhorn Hunting Club's Conservationist of the Year
1985   Texas Forestry Association's Forestry Research Award

Who's Who in the South and Southwest
Best Book Publication, The Wildlife Society, for Role of
             Insectivorous Birds in the Forest

Appreciation Award, National Rifle Association
1975   Elected to Xi Sigma Pi
1974   Outstanding Educators in America
1973   Distinguished Doctoral Graduate, Texas A&M University.
1971   Environmental Defense Fund
1971   Elected to Phi Sigma Society
1971   President, The Association of Graduate Wildlife and Fisheries Scientists. Organized first graduate organization in wildlife at TAMU. The Association grown to be an integral part of student-faculty relationships.

Editor of ENVIRON
1971   Graduate teaching assistantship, Texas A&M University.
1970   NSF Trainee, Texas A&M University. I was awarded this traineeship based on academic and research record. I conducted research under NSF funding and published a number of papers.
1970   Graduate teaching assistantship, Baylor University.
1970   Elected to Sigma Xi
1969   Featured in Iscani Magazine, acknowledging research in pheromones.
1969   Elected to Beta Beta Beta
1969   NSF graduate research assistant to Drs. Watkins and Gehlbach, Baylor University. Conducted independent research and published papers with senior researchers. Major accomplishments include discovery of repellent compound (3-methyl indole) for ants, termites and snakes.
1968   Vice-president of Lamda Sigma Chi.
1967   NSF undergraduate research assistant to Drs. J. F. Watkins II and F. R. Gehlbach, Baylor University: Predator-prey interactions of army ants and blind snakes. Published as an undergraduate.
1965   Biology Award, Regional Science Fair. Sound communication in honey bees.
1964   President of University High School Science Club

Grants:

To date, approximately $20 million in funding has been acquired while at SFASU.

2009-10Food Plot Research Initiative- Arkansas County Seed Co.
2009   U.S. Congress, Department of Defense, Regional Geospatial Service Center System (SFA, Texas Tech, Lamar University and University of Texas, El Paso).
2009- Present: Campbell Group: Hunting club management assistance program.
1997-Present: South Texas Ranchers Consortium: Antler Development in Free-ranging Whitetails.
2007-present: Television monitoring of free-ranging whitetails. DeerChannel.com
2008   Campbell Group: Hunting club management assistance program.
2008   U.S. Congress, Department of Defense, Regional Geospatial Service Center System (SFA, Texas Tech, Lamar University and University of Texas, El Paso).
2008   Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: Critical   infrastructure mapping for small water systems in Texas.
2008   Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: Water district boundary mapping for small water systems in Texas.                 
2007   Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Critical Infrastructure Mapping Project
2007   U.S. Congress, Department of Defense, Regional Geospatial Service Center System (SFA, Texas Tech and University of Texas, El Paso)
2006    U.S. Congress. Columbia Regional Geospatial Service Center
System (5 years)
2005    U.S. Congress. Columbia Regional Geospatial Service Center
System (5 years).
1997-2007
Hunting Club Management Assistance Program: Temple-Inland, Inc.
1997   T.L.L. Temple Foundation Forestry Research Institute (5 years)
1997   Conservation Fund Grant, Pope and Young Club. (2 years)
1996   Temple-Inland, Inc. The White-tailed Deer and Intensively Managed Southern Pine Plantations:  Impact on Population Density and Productivity. (Renewal)

Game & Fish Publications
Què Paso Ranch
McIntyre-Stennis Federal Research, Ecology & Management of White-tailed Deer in the Southern Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest
1992   McIntyre-Stennis Federal Research,  Ecology & Management of White-tailed Deer in the Southern Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest
1991   Temple-Inland, Inc. The White-tailed Deer and             Intensively Managed Southern Pine Plantations:  Impact on Population Density and Productivity.
1991   Multiple-use management of mixed pine-hardwood forests. Texas A&M Univ. coop. project.
1989   International Paper Co., Inc. Movements and Behavior of White-tailed Deer in an Intensively Managed Pine Plantation.

International Paper Co., Inc. Movements and Behavior of White-tailed Deer in an Intensively Managed Pine Plantation.
1987   Management Strategies for White-tailed Deer on Private Non-industrial Forest Lands, Game & Fish Magazines/North American Whitetail Magazine
1986   Houston Safari Club. White-tailed Deer Research. Funded.
1985   Evaluation of habitat suitability models on Fort Benning, Ga. The potential for interspecific resource competition between white-tailed deer and feral hogs in the Post Oak Savannah  Region of Texas. Texas Parks & Wildlife Department.
1983   Ecological assessment of 2,4-D treatment on a pine hardwood ecosystem. Part II: Possible persistence and bio-magnification. USDA For. Serv. Nat. Agric. Prod. Assess. Prog. Funded. (2 years)

Habitat inventory of the red-cockaded woodpecker.     U.S.F.S.
1977   Ecological impact of herbicidal timber stand improvement on vertebrates and invertebrates inhabiting the pine-hardwood forests of East Texas. U.S.F.S.
1975   Effects of woodpeckers (Picidae) on populations of the southern pine beetle (Scolytidae). C.S.R.S.-U.S. Forest Service.
1975   Red Wolf Documentary film. National Rifle Association.
1975   A radio-telemetric study on movements of white-tailed deer in East Texas. C.S.R.S.-McIntyre-Stennis.
1975   Red Wolf Documentary Film. Southl. Paper Mills Inc.
1974   Physiological ecology of the Plains Pocket Gopher. C.S.R.S.-McIntyre-Stennis.
1974   A radio-telemetric study of movements of captive-reared alligators when released into the wild. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
1974   Effects of habitat manipulation on nesting success of the Golden-cheeked Warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia). U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Theses and Dissertations Directed:

Deer use of gut piles in northeastern Michigan forest habitats. M.S. Thesis. John Varnell (2011 completion)

Economic analysis of private white-tailed deer management and breeding. M.S. Thesis. James Hudiburgh (2011 completion)

Using animal-mounted video cameras to study whitetail behavior. M.S. Thesis. Andy McCrady (2011 completion)

Using infrared-triggered cameras to census bobcat (Lynx rufus) in east Texas. M.S. Thesis. 2006,  Matthew Symmank (co-major professor).

Landscape Level Analysis of Rutting Behavior in White-tailed Deer. M.S. Thesis. 2004. Charles Anderson.

Monitoring Changes in Landscape Patterns of the Angelina National Forest, East Texas.  (Doc, Dissert.). 2000. Qingzhou Li.

Estrus Synchronization and Timed Artificial Insemination in Captive White-tailed Deer. (Thesis) J. D. Sellers, 1998.

Effects of Estrus Synchronization on Breeding of Captive White-tailed Deer. (Thesis). A. J. Smalling, 1998.

Prediction of Diet Quality Parameters of White-tailed Deer via Near  Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy (NIRS) Fecal Profiling. (Masters Thesis). Scott E. Showers, Co-Operative with Texas A&M. 1997.

Infrared-Triggered Cameras For Censusing White-Tailed Deer. (Thesis). R. W. Browning, 1995

A Computerized Data Collection System For Studying Activity of White-tailed Deer. (Thesis). R. G. Skinner. 1994.

Movement and activity patterns of white-tailed deer on East Texas. (Thesis). D. E. Evans.  1992.

Response of native vegetation to fertilization in East Texas pine plantations. (Thesis). R. J. Bane.  1992.

Evaluation of supplemental forages for the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in East Texas. (Doc, Dissert.). 1991. B. J. Higginbotham.

Analysis of an optimum sustained yield management program for white-tailed deer in the southern mixed pine-hardwood forest. (Thesis). W. B. Goodrum. 1990.

            Genetic implications of intensive white-tailed deer management. (Doc.       Dissert.).  1989. W. A. Wall.

            The hunting club as a management unit. (Thesis). C. Evans. 1989.

Seasonal shifts in home range utilization by white-tailed deer. (Thesis). W. R. Green. 1988.

The potential for interspecific resource competition between white-tailed deer and feral hogs in the Post Oak Savannah Region of Texas. (Doc. Dissert.). G. K. Yarrow. 1987.

            Habitat structure and bird species diversity in seedtree and clear-cut           regeneration areas in East Texas. (Thesis). S. B. Hall. 1987.

            Wood duck nest site selection in East Texas. (Thesis). M. E. May. 1986

Foraging activity of white-tailed deer in East Texas. (Doc. Dissert.). 1984. R.L. Rayburn.

           A freshwater inventory of wetland plant communities on Sam Rayburn      Reservoir using remote sensing. 1981. S. G. Head.

Invertebrate abundance and diversity in young southern pine-hardwood forests. 1980. R. S. Bounds.

Colony site selection by red-cockaded woodpeckers in East Texas. (Thesis). 1980. B. A. Locke.

Avian diversity in various age pine forests in East Texas. (Doc. Dissert.). 1978.     R. M. Whiting.

Factors affecting summer activity of white-tailed deer, with consideration of track and spotlight counts. 1978. R. G. Braden.

Operational characteristics of commercial exotic big game hunting ranches in the U.S. (Thesis). 1975. J. R. Attebury.

Thermal ecology of the plains pocket gopher (Geomys bursarius) in East Texas, with consideration of evolutionary trends in Geomyidae. (Thesis) R. D. Montgomery. 1975.

Internships Directed:
           
Turtle Lake Club, Hillman, Michigan (1 student annually)
Alico, Inc., Frost Proof, Florida (2 students)
Muy Grande Ranch, Gaylord, Michigan (1 student)
Riser Ranch, George West, Texas, (1 student)
4-Canyon Ranch, Uvalde, Texas (3 students)

Publications, Books:

Food Source Management for Whitetails, Intermedia Press. 203 pp. (Co-author)

Solving the Mysteries of Deer Movement, College of Forestry,  178 pp., (Co-author).

Aging and Judging Trophy Whitetails,  College of Forestry  204 pp. (best-seller status), 3 eds.

Managing Quality White-tailed Deer, (Chapter) Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA

            Amazing Whitetails,  (Introduction), Biggs Publishing, Ft. Worth, TX

            Deer, Stackpole Books, (3 chapters) Harrisburg, PA

The Art and Science of Patterning Whitetails,  2nd Edition, College of Forestry 224 pp.

            The Southern Food Plot Manual, College of Forestry 138 pp

The Role of Insectivorous Birds in Forest Ecosystems. Academic Press, N.Y. (Co-edited).

            A Practical Guide to Producing and Harvesting White-tailed Deer. 
Arthur Temple College of Forestry Publ..  691 pp. (best-seller status) 6 eds.

            A Dictionary of Science. Hammond-Barnhart Publ., New York, N.Y. 1983 .
740 p.p. (Co-authored)

Publications, Television Programs:

2004-Present: North American Whitetail Television. Outdoor
Channel.Golden Moose Award.

2007. Journal of the Texas Trophy Hunters. Mens Outdoor Recreation
Channel.

2007. The Cattle Channel. RFD Television.

Journal of the Texas Trophy Hunters. Outdoor Channel. Golden Moose Award (Chronic Wasting Disease).
            1978 Outdoor Magazine (PBS), Outstanding Television Program Award

1975-76         KTRE Television, Wildlife Heritage weekly program.

Publications, Internet:

2011   Dr. Deer.com. On-line education and deer management
assistance.
2007. DeerChannel.com. Live narrated video from whitetails.

Publications, videos:

            Winchester Presents Dr. Deer, 3 DVD series, 13 shows

Whitetail Antlers. Intermedia, Inc. 70 minute DVD.

Food Source Management for Whitetails. Intermedia, Inc. One Hour DVD

            Dr. Deer's Whitetail World, DeerChannel.com. DVD (Vols. 1-4)

            Building Your Own Whitetail Paradise, DeerChannel.com DVD (3 hours)

A Practical Guide to Producing and Harvesting White-tailed Deer:  Vol. 4, Scoring Trophy Whitetails.  Produced by Institute for White-tailed Deer        Management and Research.  1995.

A Practical Guide to Producing and Harvesting White-tailed Deer:  Vol. 3, Record-Keeping.  Produced by Institute for White-tailed Deer Management and Research.  1994.

A Practical Guide to Producing and Harvesting White-tailed Deer:  Vol. 2, Aging and Judging Trophy Whitetails.  Produced by Institute for White-tailed Deer Management and Research.  1993.

A Practical Guide to Producing and Harvesting White-tailed Deer:  Vol. 1, Food Plots and Supplemental Feeding.  Produced by Institute for White-tailed          Deer Management and Research.  1993.

Managing Trophy White-tailed Deer. P.B.S.' Outdoor Magazine Series. (Note: this program won the best television program of the year by the Outdoor Writers of America). (co-authored)

          Producing and Harvesting Trophy Whitetails. Wildlife Heritage and                         Sportsman's Prod. 1988. 1 hour.

Publications, journals and symposia:

Symmank, M, C. Comer and J. C. Kroll. 2011. Using infrared-triggered cameras to monitor activity of forest carnivores. Southeastern Naturalist. in press, (accepted 7-28-2011.).

Koerth, B. H., J. C. Kroll. 2010. White-tailed deer antler research: A response to Demarais and Strickland. J. Wildlife Manage. 74(2):198-202.

Symmank, M, C. Comer and J. C. Kroll. 2009. Using infrared-triggered cameras to census bobcat (Lynx rufus) in east Texas. SEAGFA Proc. (in press).

Unger, D., J. Kroll, I-Kaui Hung, J. Williams, D. Coble and J. Grogan. 2008. A standardized, cost-effective and repeatable remote sensing methodology to quantify forested resources in Texas. So. J. Appl. For. ( in press)

Koerth, B. H. and J. C. Kroll. 2008. Antler development in free-ranging white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. (in press)

Raines, J., J. Grogan, I-Kaui Hung and J. Kroll. 2008. Assessment of Landsat TM Band Combinations for Forest Cover Classification in East Texas. S. J. Appl. For. (in press).

Showers, S. E., J. W. Stuth, J. C. Kroll, and B. H. Koerth. 2006. Predicting diet quality of white-tailed deer via fecal profiling.  J. Range Manage.59:300-307.

Hung, I., Williams, J. M., Kroll, J. C., and Unger, D. R. 2004. Forest landscape changes in east Texas from 1974 to 2002. in Proc. 4th Southern For. & Natur. Res. GIS Conference, Athens, GA 16-17 Dec., 2004.

Koerth, B. H. and J. C. Kroll. 2000. That New Car Smell: Deer Response to Traditional and Non-Traditional Scents in Mock Scrapes. 23rd Annual Meeting Southeast Deer Study Group, Wilmington, NC.

Koerth, B. H, J. C. Kroll, and H. A. Jacobson. 1999. Using remote cameras in deer management. Deer 101: Deer Management from the Ground Up Symposium. Texas Agricultural Extension Service and Texas A&M University Department of Wildlife & Fisheries  Sciences. College Station, Texas. (accepted)

Koerth, B. H. and J. C. Kroll.  1999. Harvest management strategies for white-tailed deer.  Pages 79-87 in N. Wilkins, ed., Deer 101: Deer Management from the Ground Up. Texas Agricultural Extension Service and Texas A&M University Department of Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences. College Station, Texas.

Koerth, B. H., and J. C. Kroll.  1999. Bait type and timing for infrared-triggered camera counts of deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin.

Kroll, J.C.  1999.   Building your own 'deer factory':  Improving the cover on your hunting land.  North American Whitetail.  July.  Vol. 18, No. 3, pages 29-33.

Kroll, J. C., and B. H. Koerth. 1998. To cull or not to cull: A really good question! Pages 72-79 in D. Rollins, editor, The Role of Genetics in White-tailed Deer Management Symposium. Texas A&M University and the Texas Chapter, The Wildlife Society. College Station, Texas.

Randel, R. R., J. C. Kroll, A. J. Smalling, J. D. Sellers, and B. H. Koerth. 1998. Infusing new genes: Natural or artificial insemination? Pages 37-39 in D. Rollins, editor, The Role of Genetics in White-tailed Deer Management Symposium. Texas A&M University and the Texas Chapter, The Wildlife Society. College Station, Texas.

Showers, S., J. Stuth, B. H. Koerth, and J. C. Kroll. 1997. Prediction of Dietary Crude Protein of White-tailed Deer via NIRS Technology. 20th Annual SE Deer Study Group, Charleston, SC.

Jacobson, H. A., J. C. Kroll, R. W. Browning, B. H. Koerth, and M. H. Conway. 1997. Infrared-triggered cameras for censusing white-tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:547-556.

Koerth, B. H., C. D. McKown, and J. C. Kroll. 1997. Infrared-triggered camera versus helicop

© 2015 Dr. Deer™ | GroupM7 Design™ About | Consultations/Seminars | OnLine Education | Members | Products | Photo Gallery | Contact Us

 :D what a waste of time Rammy.... :D    HE IS A WORTHLESS, HIGH FENCE HUNTING ADVOCATE!...he nothing but another TED NUGENT!...all mouth, and NO show...LOL.. :D

Quote from: maggie on February 19, 2015, 04:45:56 PM
:D what a waste of time Rammy.... :D    HE IS A WORTHLESS, HIGH FENCE HUNTING ADVOCATE!...he nothing but another TED NUGENT!...all mouth, and NO show...LOL.. :D

Nice job of describing yourself maggie and again why don't you give us some more of useless predictions because they are usually opposite of what you predict......

Well look at that G and HandlesII maggie puts zero credence in education, scientific studies and solid biological evidence.

Let the evidence do the talking, then. Not chosen political agenda. It is not a one-sided(bad liberal judge). Sorry to mix politics with science. Sucks when they do it. That's not dotting "I"s and crossin "T"s. I ndo see it as tit-for-tat. I could be wrong. Just not this time. :D

We should educate about our great natural resources in WI' so they can hunt, fish, poa..I mean frog gig, trap, etc.  :)

You can get a little MD at times, also, Ram. One of the many things I like about ya. :)

My brother went to a high fence park down there. Weird. Giraffe was the priciest- $35k. Weirded him out, too. He thought he was paying to hunt someone's land; until he got there.

Either way, you're allowed to protect yourself. Very few of the wolf deaths get prosecuted. But, if I saw a dead eagle on the side of the road, and took it for its feathers, I think I'd be lookin' at some freaky charges, $$$$$$$$$$$...just for the carcass. Bizarre world; but you try to follow the rules. I don't think you're such to supersede the rules. Always thought of justice as one of your virtues. Goat, too. None of the guys on here are pukes. Just strongly opinionated. Wrestlers tend not to relent. We're stubborn. Such is the way. 8)

So rammy you take 100% stock in what Kroll says, but not an entire slew of Dnr, UW, national and even some international biologists, most of whom could put Kroll to shame since he is 100% for high fence and baiting (that's his living)?
Figures, he was hired by walker, so to you his word is gold, everyone else is crap.

And let's not forget that WI is the #1 state for P&Y and B&C bucks, not texas.

Quote from: Handles II on February 19, 2015, 08:46:42 PM
So rammy you take 100% stock in what Kroll says, but not an entire slew of Dnr, UW, national and even some international biologists, most of whom could put Kroll to shame since he is 100% for high fence and baiting (that's his living)?
Figures, he was hired by walker, so to you his word is gold, everyone else is crap.

And let's not forget that WI is the #1 state for P&Y and B&C bucks, not texas.

Umm show anywhere where I said his word is only one to consider. Abut normally you be just rejoicing in the education and back ground of one who has such a diverse and extreme education in a particular field. abut because he does not meet your bunny hugger opinion the he is scum?

Wow so education and his resume means nothing? Away? because he came in under a Govenor Walker? Wow again surprized all the carrying on you have done about respecting science and education only counts if they have the same political phylisophical beliefs as you?

So based on what you posted above we shouldmtotallyndisregard anything he has donemornrecomdnations he made his resume means nothing his scientific research and studies mean nothing his education means nothing?

Come on aka BunnyhuggerII even the Humane Society gives respect too science and education but you seem to think its not important. Makes me laugh how badly you have contradicted yourself.

page 35? dang these wolfs sure invoke some confo!!!!!

good point Handles, pretty much puts that to bed.....now, back to killing wolf's,   6 dogs were either killed or seriously Injured in Jan this yr, yes, that's double the number from a yr ago, however, the reason more dogs were killed earlier this year, if the simple fact that A LOT more hunters took advantage of the mild winter we were having and headed to the wood to hunt Rabbits, Yoties, Bobcats, with there Loose unleashed dogs, it doesn't mean or indicate that there was a rise in wolf population or Behavior at all...now Rammy, is that a fair statement?, do you believe this is true?...a simple, Polite, yes or no will do..  :)

Quote from: maggie on February 20, 2015, 06:45:55 AM
good point Handles, pretty much puts that to bed.....now, back to killing wolf's,   6 dogs were either killed or seriously Injured in Jan this yr, yes, that's double the number from a yr ago, however, the reason more dogs were killed earlier this year, if the simple fact that A LOT more hunters took advantage of the mild winter we were having and headed to the wood to hunt Rabbits, Yoties, Bobcats, with there Loose unleashed dogs, it doesn't mean or indicate that there was a rise in wolf population or Behavior at all...now Rammy, is that a fair statement?, do you believe this is true?...a simple, Polite, yes or no will do..  :)

No, hunters are in the woods every year as long as there is snow on the ground. Guy that run cats and coyotes are hard core about it. Mild winter has nothing to do with it. I don't think it indicates a rise in the wolf population though. It only means there were more incidents. It does go against the biolgist claims that wolves are only protecting rendevous sites were they are raising pups. The pups are now full grown and according to the experts, rendezvous sites are only actively used from mid-May to mid-October.

OK, so you agree that it does not indicate a rise in the wolf population, good, glad to see we can agree on that,so now i have to ask, who would have more knoledge as to more hunters taking the wood when i indicated it that anyone else?...

Quote from: maggie on February 20, 2015, 07:59:36 AM
OK, so you agree that it does not indicate a rise in the wolf population, good, glad to see we can agree on that,so now i have to ask, who would have more knoledge as to more hunters taking the wood when i indicated it that anyone else?...

Um predictor hunting as in coyote hunting is at its worse when you have lack of snow but how would you know this maggie unless you hear it in a tavern or see it on TV.

Handles put nothing to bed other than he does not respect education and or work expereince.

Humane Society a extremist group of bunny huggers files suit on wolves every time they are delisted and the States are given power to manage a resource just as they manage deer , coyotes, Bobcats bunnies, squirrels etc etc... if they are good enough to manage those specifies why not wolves? Why is it that hunters contribute millions and millions of dollars that benefit ALLmspecies but cannot be trusted by the likes of maggie and HandlesII to be part of the conservation effort on wolves? Because it has nothing to do with science  and or biology for bunny huggers and maggie and HandlesII it just liberal politics.

This ruling will overturned and State managment will be turned back over to the state as it should be.

so you agree Rammy, that the rise in dogs killed in Jan compared to a yr ago has nothing to do with a rise in the wolf population or differences in there behavior pattern..as i stated....so then you also believe, as you indicate, in the powers of the DNR and there Managers to control our wolf population and what they say is true....is that correct?...you believe there experts?...

Quote from: ramjet on February 20, 2015, 08:20:59 AM

Quote from: maggie on February 20, 2015, 07:59:36 AM
OK, so you agree that it does not indicate a rise in the wolf population, good, glad to see we can agree on that,so now i have to ask, who would have more knoledge as to more hunters taking the wood when i indicated it that anyone else?...

Um predictor hunting as in coyote hunting is at its worse when you have lack of snow but how would you know this maggie unless you hear it in a tavern or see it on TV.

Handles put nothing to bed other than he does not respect education and or work expereince.

Humane Society a extremist group of bunny huggers files suit on wolves every time they are delisted and the States are given power to manage a resource just as they manage deer , coyotes, Bobcats bunnies, squirrels etc etc... if they are good enough to manage those specifies why not wolves? Why is it that hunters contribute millions and millions of dollars that benefit ALLmspecies but cannot be trusted by the likes of maggie and HandlesII to be part of the conservation effort on wolves? Because it has nothing to do with science  and or biology for bunny huggers and maggie and HandlesII it just liberal politics.

This ruling will overturned and State managment will be turned back over to the state as it should be.

Seems to know his deer. This thread is about wolves. So, you're okay with diving right in on this Kroll's deer perspective because it matches your own; yet the only "science" you've shown on here to back your opinion on the hunt is one survey question from the many pages of the management plan. Kroll is a savior; but Thiel must be tainted. What would he know about wolves, right?

I agree, though. We should be able to manage our own wolves by now.

where did he run too now?.... :o

Be nice, man.

I'm being nice....Judy wonder where he ran off 2.  ....rammyyyyyyyyy

Quote from: bigG on February 20, 2015, 08:57:33 AM

Quote from: ramjet on February 20, 2015, 08:20:59 AM

Quote from: maggie on February 20, 2015, 07:59:36 AM
OK, so you agree that it does not indicate a rise in the wolf population, good, glad to see we can agree on that,so now i have to ask, who would have more knoledge as to more hunters taking the wood when i indicated it that anyone else?...

Um predictor hunting as in coyote hunting is at its worse when you have lack of snow but how would you know this maggie unless you hear it in a tavern or see it on TV.

Handles put nothing to bed other than he does not respect education and or work expereince.

Humane Society a extremist group of bunny huggers files suit on wolves every time they are delisted and the States are given power to manage a resource just as they manage deer , coyotes, Bobcats bunnies, squirrels etc etc... if they are good enough to manage those specifies why not wolves? Why is it that hunters contribute millions and millions of dollars that benefit ALLmspecies but cannot be trusted by the likes of maggie and HandlesII to be part of the conservation effort on wolves? Because it has nothing to do with science  and or biology for bunny huggers and maggie and HandlesII it just liberal politics.

This ruling will overturned and State managment will be turned back over to the state as it should be.

Seems to know his deer. This thread is about wolves. So, you're okay with diving right in on this Kroll's deer perspective because it matches your own; yet the only "science" you've shown on here to back your opinion on the hunt is one survey question from the many pages of the management plan. Kroll is a savior; but Thiel must be tainted. What would he know about wolves, right?

I agree, though. We should be able to manage our own wolves by now.

wake up G ......... maggie brought Kroll into the thread,  just set the facts straight...... so if you feel the need to criticize for off topic post then be fair and direct your'e cow dung towards maggie. oh that's right you won't he is on your'e side.......lol