tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6621691715090523319.post2323299950147740964..comments2023-10-08T04:12:46.273-05:00Comments on The Political Environment: Cathy Stepp, On Night Hunting; Wolves, Yes - - Deer, NoJames Rowenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10203270946492159686noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6621691715090523319.post-84851540814887527722012-11-27T12:29:42.083-06:002012-11-27T12:29:42.083-06:00Heard a spokesperson for tribal government on WORT...Heard a spokesperson for tribal government on WORT-FM last night who said that this is not "shining." Apparently the only illumination allowed would occur after the deer is targeted, just before the trigger is pulled.<br /><br />I don't see how the state can maintain two standards, one for wolves and one for deer. Stepp should admit that the wolf-hunting rules have unintended consequences and were ill-considered.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6621691715090523319.post-80953591272151639822012-11-27T05:33:19.518-06:002012-11-27T05:33:19.518-06:00If the Indians are threatening to go back to court...If the Indians are threatening to go back to court over treaty privileges, the DNR should welcome this. The Crabb ruling is deeply flawed and needs to be over turned. It is a travesty that the DNR never appealed the ruling before. Any ruling which creates a privileged class is a clear and open violation of the constitution. Go back and read the treaty, word for word, and then enforce it to the absolute letter of what is actually written, not what the Indians want it to have said. The treaty gives Indians the temporary right to hunt and fish until they are removed from the land to allow for mineral development. There is nothing about having rights over and above other citizens of the US, or that other laws which apply to everyone else do not apply to them. A right to hunt and fish will never be interpreted to be an unlimited right in any fair court in the land. Bring it on. <br /><br />rkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6621691715090523319.post-50959802606836440662012-11-26T19:42:34.752-06:002012-11-26T19:42:34.752-06:00The final judgment of judge Crabb was accepted by ...The final judgment of judge Crabb was accepted by both sides at the time, those sides being the DNR and the tribes. The judgment which they agreed to specifically prohibits shining deer, so it is difficult to see how the indians would hope to prevail in court. One explanation theorizes that the Indians want to force a test case to hope to obtain rights to co-manage the fish and game populations. They claim to have this now, but a careful reading of the judgment clearly gives the DNR ultimate responsibility and authority. <br /><br />Cathy Stepp is truly standing up to ensure that the interests of Wisconsin citizens are protected and she deserves to be supported, not ridiculed as your pathetic misinterpretation of the facts seem to do. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com