Wolves Kill Hunting Dogs Released Into Harm's Way
I'd noted here recently that the number of hunting dogs killed by wolves is rising this year, and now there is a long piece posted elsewhere from the hunters' perspective about fresh losses of hunting dogs killed by wolves, too.
Myths surround wolves, like anthropormophising them with intent.
Or blaming them for a state deer herd deemed too small by some hunters; the DNR has knocked down that myth, too.
Hounding hunters choose to let their dogs run into harm's way where known wolf activity has taken place - - in other words, into territory protected by the larger, stronger wolves, even when training dog in preparation for bear hunting through territory where bear bait left by hunters can attract wolves.
The wolves, sacred to the Ojibwe people, were here before European settlers arrived into what is now known as Wisconsin.
And there will be more dogs killed or injured in confrontations with wolves because the Wisconsin wolf hunt law rush to passage through a weak legislature by special-interests now allows hunters to let their dogs loose to 'train' against wolves year-round - - right through mating and breeding seasons - - as well as during the closing weeks of the wolf hunting season after the deer hunters have cleared out.
What do you think wolves will do when the dogs come running through their dens, and there are pups or mates to be protected along with wolf pack territory?
It baffles me that hunters risk their dogs' lives for what sport and trophy bear and wolf hunting, not for food and sustenance. In the face of Ojibwe cultural traditions and beliefs.
And then complain that the only-in-Wisconsin public reimbursement program for wolf-killed dogs up to $2,500 per dog isn't adequate compensation.
But back to the rest of the life-and-death basics:
Are the risks and the consequences in their totality really worth it - - for the dogs and he hunters, not to mention the harassed, hunted, trapped and shot wolves and bears? None of these animals, wild and domestic, have a say in the matter.
What's the message about stewardship and respect for living things and our alleged opposition to cruelty to animals being sent to the rest of the state population, to hikers, tourists or new residents and businesses in the more rural areas of the state?
To city folk interested in a walk in the Wisconsin woods?
Why show them this bloody, life-is-cheap (wolf kill permits have been halved by Walker's second budget tp just $49) face put up by politicians at the behest of hunting and gun lobbies - - one legislator being so giddy at the thought of hunting wolves that he said he could imagine them "marinating" - - to serve a very small portion of the population?
Another writer, Rachel Tilseth, has a few suggestions.
Wolves blamed for 13 dogs deaths in stateBut "blamed" is an odd word to lay on the wolves, as if they went out to slaughter dogs.
Myths surround wolves, like anthropormophising them with intent.
Or blaming them for a state deer herd deemed too small by some hunters; the DNR has knocked down that myth, too.
Hounding hunters choose to let their dogs run into harm's way where known wolf activity has taken place - - in other words, into territory protected by the larger, stronger wolves, even when training dog in preparation for bear hunting through territory where bear bait left by hunters can attract wolves.
The wolves, sacred to the Ojibwe people, were here before European settlers arrived into what is now known as Wisconsin.
And there will be more dogs killed or injured in confrontations with wolves because the Wisconsin wolf hunt law rush to passage through a weak legislature by special-interests now allows hunters to let their dogs loose to 'train' against wolves year-round - - right through mating and breeding seasons - - as well as during the closing weeks of the wolf hunting season after the deer hunters have cleared out.
What do you think wolves will do when the dogs come running through their dens, and there are pups or mates to be protected along with wolf pack territory?
It baffles me that hunters risk their dogs' lives for what sport and trophy bear and wolf hunting, not for food and sustenance. In the face of Ojibwe cultural traditions and beliefs.
And then complain that the only-in-Wisconsin public reimbursement program for wolf-killed dogs up to $2,500 per dog isn't adequate compensation.
But back to the rest of the life-and-death basics:
Are the risks and the consequences in their totality really worth it - - for the dogs and he hunters, not to mention the harassed, hunted, trapped and shot wolves and bears? None of these animals, wild and domestic, have a say in the matter.
What's the message about stewardship and respect for living things and our alleged opposition to cruelty to animals being sent to the rest of the state population, to hikers, tourists or new residents and businesses in the more rural areas of the state?
To city folk interested in a walk in the Wisconsin woods?
Why show them this bloody, life-is-cheap (wolf kill permits have been halved by Walker's second budget tp just $49) face put up by politicians at the behest of hunting and gun lobbies - - one legislator being so giddy at the thought of hunting wolves that he said he could imagine them "marinating" - - to serve a very small portion of the population?
Another writer, Rachel Tilseth, has a few suggestions.
4 comments:
While visiting a friend who lives in the Mellen/Hurley area, I was informed that the majority of the bear and wolf hunters who use dogs come from the southern states. He doesn't hold them in very high regard as they have a sort of lawless attitude and routinely run their dogs across others property without permission. Although he is an avid hunter, he thinks running dogs is inhumane and that wolf trapping is especially barbaric.
He voted for Walker the first time and in the Recall, but never again. He and his wife have been using their spare time educating friends and neighbors against the GTAC mine.
The divide and conquer thing is running out steam, in my opinion.
Of COURSE these people would lay the blame at someone/something else's feet. OF COURSE they release their dogs into harm's way. EVERYTHING is disposable. Shrug it off. Replace. Carry on. Carry on in the same reckless manner you've mastered. These people. These people take. Take. Take. They should not even be permitted to have dogs. The should not be permitted to enjoy the forest and all it offers. They should not be permitted to hunt. They should be denied privelege of any type including that of membership to the Human Race. I despise these people.
Gareth… I'm seeing and hearing the same thing. The "that's it he (Walker) has gone to far this time" .
Hopefully they will change the minds of other less enlighten Walker supporters.
As to wolf hunting… I do not understand why animal protection groups have not enter into this battle.
I too have seen these southern hunters northwest of Mellen. They don't have much respect for private property and other folks using the forests.
I fish summer and winter. I lose fishing gear with nearly every trip. Over the length of a year or two It is easy to lose several hundred dollar of flies, spinning baits, ice fishing gear and sadly an occasional rod falls overboard or down thru the ice. Can anyone tell me what where I can get reimbursed for those sporting losses. I'll even provide receipts.
The 'southern states' comments are interesting.
All the more reason to publish names and addresses of owners who are getting reimbursed by the state for the deaths of their dogs.
Post a Comment