Federal Court-wolf hunting ends now

[bigG]

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.
.

[ramjet]

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.

[bigG]

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.

[maggie]

Looks like Crow season just opened back up...

[ramjet]

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

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

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/

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.

[bigG]

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.

[ramjet]

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

[bigG]

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.

[ramjet]

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......😄😃😀

[maggie]

thank you rammy, I see, so hunting was the practice that brought them back to the brink of extinction   ...Brilliant!... let's do it again..  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! 

[bigG]

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.

[ramjet]

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......

[bigG]

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).

[maggie]

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!""  

[bigG]

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