Federal Court-wolf hunting ends now

[maggie]

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..

[ramjet]

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 ................ 💤💤💤💤💤💤

[ramjet]

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.

[Handles II]

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

[maggie]

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  ..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! 

[Handles II]

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.

[imnofish]

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. 

[bigG]

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.

[ramjet]

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  ..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.

[imnofish]

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. 

[ramjet]

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?

[maggie]

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!   

[imnofish]

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. 

[ramjet]

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?

[imnofish]

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!