What's the message and justification there?
To date this year, 23 dogs have been killed by wolves in Wisconsin, records show.
 |
| DNR Secretary Stepp With Future Sport Prey |
Details from the DNR's website, here, and from one recent news story:
Wolves have killed 16 dogs being trained to hunt bears so far this season, including five in the past three days....
When wolves attack dogs in hunting or training situations on public land, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources creates "wolf caution areas" to warn hunters that a specific pack has attacked a dog or group of dogs.
Bear hunters are urged to exercise greater caution if they plan to train hounds or hunt bear with hounds near any caution area, especially if near an actual kill site....Using dogs in wolf-hunting is tied up in court, but no doubt state payments for dogs torn to pieces by predatory wolves would dramatically increase, were it allowed.
Adult wolves are very defensive of pups at rendezvous sites and will attack other predators, including dogs, that get too close to the rendezvous site or the pups.
Wisconsin pays hunters up to $2,500 per dog for dogs killed by wolves.
Just another mistep for Ms. Stepp.
ReplyDeleteVery good question. Why do hunters have more rights than the wildlife? They know what they are training their dogs to do and the risk involved. What makes hunters so special? They are not the major contributors to protection of natural resources or wildlife. The major contributors are all taxpayers and tourists and not the hunters, no matter how much they say they are.
ReplyDeleteTourists do not foot the bill for protection of natural resources. They do not pay an excise tax to visit Wisconsin. Tourists can access county or national forests for free, no money for wildlife there. Tourists may buy a state park sticker, or a trail pass, but that in no way compares to the money that comes in for conservation from the sale of hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses, and stamps
DeleteHounders should NEVER be paid for lost dogs. The chance of that happening is the price hounders should pay. Take responsibility. I hate hounding. It's an evil practice.
ReplyDeleteHere’s an novel idea…...any hound hunter who has a dog killed after he chooses to turn his pack of hounds loose in a “wolf caution area”, gets a hefty fine. Let’s say $2,500., for causing the intentional death of his dog.
ReplyDeleteHere is another novel idea, anyone who has a dog killed by wolves, gets 5 free wolf harvest tags.
DeleteHunt without dogs. Case closed
DeleteReduce the wolf population to the state goal of 350 CASE CLOSED!
DeleteThese hounders are allowed to let their dogs run rampant through our woods from July 1st of each year under the guise of "training." Then when the "training" season is finished they then enter the killing season that leads to the death of around 5,000 bears each year. This usually happens after the hounder allows his dogs to chase a bear for often 20 plus miles, tree them, and then blow them out of the tree. As a "reward" for their dogs the hounders then allow their dogs to rip at the often wounded bear. When they are not hounding bear they go after coyotes and often allow their vicious dogs to illegally kill them. In fact the DNR was given video evidence of the DNR's "Youth Hunter of the Year" doing just that and NO action was taken. They had a "talk" with him for allowing his dogs to rip apart coyotes, no citations. This is illegal under state law yet the DNR goes out of their way to protect hounders. These numerous sadistic and illegal acts committed by bear/coyote/wolf hounders are ignored by the DNR and it is little wonder why. Look who is on their "advisory committees" and who "vouched" for the corrupt "United Sportsmen" group. The Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association. These people and their lobbyist, Bob Welch, control the DNR and legislature. It is about time these cretins are forced out of the shadows and the general public sees what kind of sadistic monsters they really are.
ReplyDelete#1 While a 20 mile chase is possible, it is the exception, rather than common. Most chases are much shorter than that.
Delete#2 Take a look at the harvest statistics for any given year. The number of bear harvested with dogs is less than 50% of the total harvest.
Better look up the definition of vicious, these dogs are not vicious. Vicious is just a scare word used by the anti hunters, just like calling the dogs rabid, or the hunter a murderer. All these words are incorrectly used to generate emotion. If your cause is so just, and so right, why do you need to use these lies to try and further your agenda?
DeleteWhy do hunters continue to release packs of dogs into *known* warning areas?? If you look on the DNR web site, since 2009 9 hunting hounds had been killed in the Flag River Pack area. On Aug 5th of this year another hound was killed there and again a caution area was set up, On Aug 17th hunters disregarded those warnings and 2 more hunting hounds lost their lives. Caution was again posted on the DNR web site. Yet on Sept 9th more hounds were sent to that same area and another hound lost his life. The questions remain. If those hunters knew there would NOT be a pay-out in the end of this deadly game would they be so reckless with the lives of their dogs. Would they heed the warnings and be a little more careful about where they released their hunting hounds? Why does the state continue to reward this reckless behavior?
ReplyDeleteOh, that dumb state. This is cruel and unacceptable. Hound hunting should be banned and outlawed. And hunting of wolves should be illegal. All animals and wildlife deserve better. This is very,very important.
ReplyDeleteIt is very important to reduce wolf numbers to socially acceptable numbers. The minimum count is 800 plus wolves. In reality, the actual count is higher tan that.
DeleteHunters in Wisconsin, in general, are very supportive of the republican controlled legislature, which has given hunters in this state pretty much everything on their wish list in the last three years. Republicans tout themselves as the party of “personal responsibility” but apparently that does not apply to hunters who purposefully and knowingly send their dogs into the woods to confront large predators and yet, expect the taxpayers to compensate them for their “loss” when a dog is ripped to shreds by a wolf or bear. I call on the republican controlled legislature to end this misuse of taxpayer funds and end compensation to hunters for their dogs that are massacred in the woods, because of their own cruel and reckless behavior. Tell hunters to take some “personal responsibility” for their dead dogs. Why should I have to pay for their cruelty and reckless behavior with their own property? This is an outrage on so many levels.
ReplyDeleteYou are not paying for compensation. Nor are the taxpayers. Hunters are not compensated for dogs killed by bears, only wolves. The money for compensation comes from the sale of wolf hunting licenses, not out of your pocket.
DeleteThe compensation program was in place BEFORE wolf hunting was allowed in Wisconsin. So, well before hunters could hunt wolves, they were sending their hounds into woods full of large predators, and into known wolf rendezvous areas, which the WDNR marks. Regardless of where the compensation comes from, if a hunter uses a dog to hunt bears, regardless of how that dog is killed, a hunter should not then be able to get $$ for a dog that was killed because of their own behavior. Personal responsibility. Your dog is dead because you sent it after a bear, knowing there could be wolves in the woods too? Well, too bad! No cash payoff for you!!! It's your own damn fault!
DeleteYou are correct that compensation was in place before a wolf hunting season was in place. Also be aware that the state pays compensation for damage caused by animals listed as endangered, not only the wolf, and not only for pets, livestock, or hunting dogs.
DeleteAs far as it is the hunters own damn fault remark, try this scenario. You allow your child to shoot buckets in the park down the street, by himself. Your child loves to do this, and has done it many times. Today your child again goes to the park, however this time he interrupts a drug deal, and is ambushed and killed. I guess by using your logic it would be your damn fault for letting your kid be in a dangerous area, now wouldn't it?
The DNR does not mark rendezvous areas, they mark where attacks have occurred. Not all wolf attacks occur at rendezvous areas, nor are the rendezvous areas constant. Nor do all wolf attacks on dogs happen because they are protecting their pups.
If the state is allowed to continue wolf management, and reduce the population to the goal of 350 wolves, I would imagine that you will see much fewer conflicts, and possibly an end to depredation payments. The problem is that because of lawsuits that prevented delisting and wolf management, the wolf population was able to far exceed population goals. Also the state populaion goal is a minimum, and as such it is known to be very, very conservative. There are many variables that contribute to this, such as not all sections are surveyed. Wolves on reservation land are not counted as part of the population. Not all wolves will leave tracks that will be seen by the survey taker etc... Why don't we strive to get the wolf population to goal, in conjunction with ending wolf depredation payments.
I am not aware of any other state that pays hunters if their hounds are killed by wolves. In 2010 Wisconsin paid $51,275.00 for dead hounds, 2011 they paid $44,500.00 and in 2012 they paid $45,500.00. The driving force behind the (so called) emergency wolf hunting law was the fact that the state could no longer afford to keep paying these outrageous hound depredation fees because the endangered resources money would go away after de-listing. With a big push from the WI Bear Hunters Association and lack of input by the general public it was put on the fast track and passed into law. Depredation payments for hunting hounds were only supposed to stay in effect as long as wolves were on the endangered list. So why are we still paying?? Not only paying tax money but our wolves are paying with their lives. 275 more wolves will be killed this year. This year hound depredation will most likely reach record levels with record pay-outs. And yet, most of these deaths are preventable. Keep hounds OUT of warning areas, stop running bear hounds off bear baits in July, Aug & Sept, stop paying for dead hounds and do NOT allow wolf hunting with hounds. Wisconsin also needs to improve their livestock depredation “prevention program”, stop placing 100% of the blame on our wolves and hold hound hunters and farms to some level of responsibility.
ReplyDeleteMore, here:
ReplyDeletehttp://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2013/09/far-more-wolf-attacks-on-hunting-dogs.html
Nope these dogs are not vicious at all are they?
ReplyDeletehttp://wiwildlifeethic.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/bear-hunting-with-hound-dogs-in-wisconsin-headshot-saveyoutube-com.mp4
http://wiwildlifeethic.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/coyote-hunting-with-dogs-hd.mp4
So dogs ripping wild animals apart are not "vicious," but those same dogs killing animals is called "harvesting" by you? That word isn't used to generate "emotion" or to fluff up your killing agenda? NIce try at misinformation but the public now on to hounders and their sadistic tactics. Dogs are nothing more than four legged weapons to these sick sadists and it it you that pervert words like "harvest" to try and minimize sport killing.
Oh and the definition of VICIOUS from Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
a : dangerously aggressive : savage a vicious dog
b : marked by violence or ferocity : fierce a vicious fight
Hmmmmmm. A pack of dogs ripping apart bears and coyotes seem to fit this definition. I guess in the sadist world of bear hounders everything is delusion.
Why are you protecting the vicious wolf. They rip animals apart, they often do not eat theanimals they kill, and let them lay. That is the sadism of the wolf. Also you sure sound like William, or Paul who use emotion and scare words rather than facts.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Oxford Dictionary, vicious is defined as (of an animal) wild and dangerous to humans. These hounds are not dangerous to people. They do not attack humans.
I never said one word about dogs harvesting bears, I said bears harvested with dogs. Harvest is the politically correct word. Since wildlife is managed as a renewable resource, harvest is certainly an acceptable term.
Do you actually have any experience with hound hunting, or is all your knowledge from the internet? How much time have you actually spent in the woods in northern Wisconsin? Do you have any actual honest experience, or are you an armchair expert?
I've never done a drive by shooting or been in an IED attack so I would certainly take the word of the internet rather than being around people that get off ripping wild animals apart with their dogs. I have also spent plenty of time in the woods and around ethical hunters that despise hounders and their ilk. The propaganda isn't working. This "United Sportsmen" scandal and their ties to the bear hounders are only shining a light on your despicable and sadistic acts for the rest of the state to see. Good luck winning the PR battle. Maybe you can use your lobbyists and lawyers to defend Suder and his former aide that a sure to be facing a RICO investigation very soon. And guess what? This all goes right to the doorstep of the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association. Good luck.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations on never being part of a drive by, or an IED attack. Hound hunters do not do this either, so your comparison is silly. Also, the dogs do not rip a bear apart. Your ignorance is showing. Wolves rip animals apart however, so why not condem the wolf?
DeleteSpeaking of being despised, you do not see the powers that be in state, and federal government singing the praises, and showing love for wolves, or their advocates now do you?
They have the audacity to call it depredation???? Excuse me, but when you set a half dozen hounds on a bear by her den with her cubs exactly WHO is the predator??? I have many friends that fill their freezers with venison, NONE are hounders, and ALL hate them just as much as I do. Wolves will be hunted this year WITH DOGS unless there is yet another law suit. 4.5 months long season, able to be killed with bow, crossbow, guns, bait, use of animal distress calls, and now with dogs. This is the only state in the Union that allows this barbaric ritual to be facilitated with the use of these hounds. These hounders have ZERO respect for anyone's property. I watch a 600 acre plot for an out of town landlord, and we WILL be prosecuting these dispicable individuals this year for trespassing.
ReplyDeleteFirst, let me explain something to you. Training season starts in July, and harvest season ends by the first week in October. Bears are out of their winter dens long before July first, and have not yet gone into their winter dens by the beginning of October. Your cubs by the den scenario is completely false. Also most, (I said most, not all), hunters try to avoid a chase involving a sow, and cubs.
DeleteDepredation, yes look it up, the DNR calls wolf attacks on pets, livestock, and hunting dogs DEPREDATION. Maybe you can petition the DNR to change the terminology to something more suitable to your liking, but for now, the correct term is Depredation.
As far as everyone hating hounders, how many people love wolves / wolf lovers? From the looks of it, you are not on many Christmas card lists yourself. Let's take a look at some facts. 7 states have viable wolf populations. All 7 states will have a wolf season this year. States like Utah do not want any wolves in their state. Finally the Federal Government is tired of the wolf issue, and does not want the wolf on the Endangered Species List. Can You Feel The Love?
Finally in regards to tresspass, are hunters actually setting foot on the property, or just the dogs? If the hunters are on the property without permisson, they should be fined. If it is just the dogs, dogs can not be guilty of tresspass.
"What makes hunters so special? They are not the major contributors to protection of natural resources or wildlife. The major contributors are all taxpayers and tourists and not the hunters, no matter how much they say they are."
ReplyDeleteIt's cluelessness like this that prevents anyone from exhibiting any respect for you anti-hunters. Hunters and fishermen have largely financed almost all of the conservation efforts in America over the last 100 years through the creation of the Pittman–Robertson Act in 1937. Many species of wildlife were driven to or near extinction by hunting pressure and/or habitat degradation from humans in those days. The Act created an excise tax that provides funds to each state to manage such animals and their habitats. Notable species that have come back from the brink since the implementation of this act include white-tailed deer, wild turkey, and wood ducks.. It was hunters who lobbied for laws that restricted seasons and put ethical limits on hunting practices. It was hunters who lobbied for bag limits and scientific game management. Photographers, hikers, and sightseers pay no such tax, nor do they each buy $300 to $500 worth of hunting and fishing licenses a year, the revenue from which goes back into wildlife management. has conserved more than 12.8 million acres of waterfowl habitat in North America. DU partners with a wide range of corporations, governments, other non-governmental organizations, landowners, and private citizens to restore and manage areas that have been degraded and to prevent further degradation of existing wetlands. DU is also active in working with others to recommend government policies that will positively influence wetlands and the environment. DU generates $180 million in revenues each year, of which a minimum of 80 percent goes directly towards habitat conservation. How much of the HSUS fundraising goes to directly helping animals (Hint: It's less than 5 %)?
Now that I've thoroughly embarrassed you, how about we address those "vicious" hounds:
"Nope these dogs are not vicious at all are they?
.....Oh and the definition of VICIOUS from Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
a : dangerously aggressive : savage a vicious dog
b : marked by violence or ferocity : fierce a vicious fight"
Here's another hint. Sarcasm only works when you have the superior argument, and you don't.
No, I would say they are not vicious:
http://www.zzzeke.com/Sky2013Aeryn.jpg