Friday, September 21, 2012

When Wolves Kill Dogs, The State Pays. Fair, Or Entitlement?

There is a report today from the DNR confirming that a bear-hunting hound was killed by a wolf.

This is a known risk, as wolves are territorial, and the state extends payments to hunters whose dogs are killed just as the state reimburses livestock owners whose animals die in this manner, too:

The state paid $37,000 for 15 dogs killed last year, for instance.
My question is: as traumatic an event this no doubt is for the owner's dog, is a state payment to a hunter whose dog is killed by wolves during hunting - - the very issue that led a judge to bar hunters from using dogs in the wolf hunt set to begin in October - - a fair action by the state, or an entitlement payment?


CJ said...

Entitlement. Entitlement. Entitlement.

Boxer said...

Three observations:

1. $2466.00 PER DOG???? Are you kidding? I doubt that every dog killed was a "trained hunting dog." So $2466.00 for dear old Bowser seems quite excessive. If you don't want Bowser to become rawhide for wolves, keep him in at night, next to the fire.

2. I've seen bear-hunting dogs. I don't know how much training is involved, but they way they hunt is for the "bear hunter" to outfit Rolf the dog with a radio collar and then go about his daily business--the "bear hunter"'s daily business, I mean--whilst keeping one ear tuned to the scanner. Rolf in the meantime meanders the woods until he perhaps encounters a bear. There's no protection for Rolf should he bump into one. So wolves, lions, tigers or bears . . Rolf's a goner regardless.

3. Does the DNR require proof that these dogs are "trained hunting dogs" as these scammers are likely to claim? I can imagine the outcry if we were to ask as little proof from food stamp recipients.

Beloved family pets or trained hunting dogs. It seems as if you can have it both ways at least until the DNR changes its rules.

I have no problems with compensating farmers for loss of livestock (but not crops--c'mon now!). This deal sounds more like welfare for rednecks.

JB said...

What really burns me is recently learning that the endangered resources contribution I make through the license plate fee (or is it the income tax, I don't remember which) goes to the fund making these payments. I was paying for whooping cranes and Karner blues, dang it, not the bear hunters' dogs. What a scam.

Anonymous said...

So if I hit a stump in one of our lakes, will the state pay for the repair of my motor?

Anonymous said...

I would say an entitlement. Why doesn't the state pay for dogs hit by cars then?

Anonymous said...

If you support having an un-necessary wolf population then you should support the damage that they do. If they dumped the wolves in the city of Madison and they ate your dogs and cats you would realize this.

your verification test really sucks

Anony Too said...

"Support the damage they do . . ."?

Your grammar really sucks, right along with your thought process.
A "unnecessary" wolf population is only an opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.

Anonymous said...

If you Madison liberals love wolves so much and think that they are that important to a healthy ecosystem why aren't you loudly petitioning the DNR to establish a pack in Madison????

JB said...

Silly anonymous, a wolf pack wouldn't want to live in Madison. They need room to roam, and they don't like roads.

Before you opine on wolves' place in the environment, you should learn something about them.

Anonymous said...

Actually, there is no physical limitation to having a wolf pack in the Madison area. The idea that they can only thrive where there are no people is a myth. All they really need is a food source, and Madison seems to have an abundance of liberals, who although may not be tasty, do offer protein.