Federal Court-wolf hunting ends now

[maggie]

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

[Handles II]

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.

[ramjet]

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

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

[Handles II]

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. 

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.

[Handles II]

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. 

[imnofish]

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. 

[Handles II]

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).

[imnofish]

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! 

[maggie]

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  ....shoot on!..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FA85RO89HA

[maggie]

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

[bigG]

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/

[ramjet]

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.

[bigG]

"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!!!

[ramjet]

"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.

[Handles II]

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.