WI Wolf Hunt Closing Out Quickly, Without Dogs, So...

Why are legislators and the Wisconsin DNR
a) so hell-bent on making Wisconsin the first state in the country to let dogs loose in a wolf hunt?
And b) pushing to allow dogs that are being trained for hunting to run unleashed against wolves - - even during wolf breeding and mating seasons? Sounds to me like sanctioned cruelty to both dogs and wolves - -  and a prohibition against cruelty has been extended in one recent case to wild animals in Wisconsin.

Is the goal here to get a lot of dogs killed by wolves?

The Journal Sentinel explains the DNR's thinking;

The permanent rule would: limit to six the number of dogs used for hunting or training on wolves; require the dogs to wear a collar or have a tattoo with the owner's name and contact information; allow training of dogs for wolf hunting only during normal hunting hours (not at night); and restrict training of dogs on wolves to the day after the gun deer season (late November) through March 31.

The proposal also states no license is required to train dogs on free-roaming wolves. And the dogs are not required to be on a leash.

When the Legislature passed and the governor signed Act 169 in April, Wisconsin became the only state to authorize the use of dogs to hunt wolves...

A lawsuit was filed in August by humane societies and individuals who contend the DNR had inadequate controls in place to protect dogs from "deadly encounters with wolves."

I have read the plaintiffs' lengthy brief, and cannot reprint it from its pdf format, but found a few excerpts pretty revealing - - especially the arguments that without the use of dogs, no no one would spot a wolf, so presumably none would be shot - - even though the hunt is nearly over, earlier than some had predicted.

(1)  Pages 1-5: Introduction, including the following excerpt at p. 5:

 

It also is important to point out that a central factual predicate for the Bear Hunters’ arguments is untrue.  Their representatives have stated that use of dogs is necessary to hunt wolves.  See, e.g., Lobner Affidavit, ¶ 9; Linzmeier Affidvait, ¶ 7 (without dogs, “there would be little chance of ever spotting a wolf.”).[1]  Beyond the fact that wolf hunting has proceeded without the use of dogs, these statements are simply false.  In fact, DNR reports that there have already been 83 wolves killed in the initial five weeks of the hunting season (nearly 75% of the quota in 25% of the season); and DNR has already closed two of the six zones before dogs could have been used under Act 169, absent an injunction.  See http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/wolf.html.  

---

[1] Mr. Lobner is president and Mr. Linzmeier is a member of the Wisconsin Bear Hunters’ Association.  These affidavits were submitted in connection with the Bear Hunters’ motion to intervene.]

 

While these facts underscore the  speculative nature of  the Bear Hunters’ arguments, they by no means minimize the importance of a ruling from this Court.  To the contrary, a final decision by this Court is necessary to prevent the immediate onset of unrestricted training of dogs for wolf hunting, which is not contingent upon hunting quotas, during the upcoming high-risk months of wolf mating and breeding.  Moreover, a final decision by the Court will provide essential guidance to DNR as the agency embarks on permanent rulemaking  for both wolf hunting and training with dogs.  Based on the conduct of DNR and the NRB to date, without guidance from this Court, a repeat performance of the emergency rule-making process will likely ensue.  Indeed, the defendants’ conduct at the September 2012 NRB proceeding foreshadows a comparable disregard of best available science and the law in the absence of a ruling by this Court

 

(2)   Ft. note 19 at page 34: 

“The Bear Hunters also cite Wis. Stat. § 951.015(1), arguing that wolf-dog confrontations are exempt from chapter 951 because § 29.185 authorizes the wolf hunt, i.e., that any hunt under chapter 29 is exempt.  This argument was soundly rejected in State v. Kuenzi, 2011 WI App 30, ¶ 34, which distinguished between “common hunting practices” and those acts that cause unnecessary and excessive pain or suffering.  The evidence is clear that unleashing packs of dogs on wolves is unprecedented and unauthorized anywhere else in the United States, and surely does not qualify as a “common hunting practice.”