No US state in modern times has allowed wolf hunters to let packs of hours loose into the hunt, where fights between dogs and wolves will be inevitable.
But unless an appellate court rules in the next few hours against it, hunters in Wisconsin will be permitted beginning Monday to set their dogs free to find roughly three dozen wolves the DNR says can still be legally 'harvested' under this year's quota.
If you want to see what this outcome for an unlucky hound can look like, go to this link.
Bad enough that the initial 2012 Wisconsin hunt was rushed through the Legislature by lawmakers in thrall to powerful hunting and gun owner lobbies.
Lobbies that have succeeded in requiring the state to pay any bear hunter up to $2,500 per dog killed should it be confronted and killed by a wolf during bear training or hunting season.
And that a compliant, lobbyist-driven DNR boosted the wolf kill quota from 116 in 2012 to 251 this year against the advice of scientists whose voices have been drowned out by wolf killing advocates who also enjoyed a Scott Walker-provided 50% cut in the wolf killing license fee to a mere 49 bucks.
And that the wolf hunt allows the indirect use of bait by permitting the location of bear left near wolf rendezvous areas.
And allows the use of traps that snag wolves until hunters shoot them in the head.
Come Monday, outlier Wisconsin is further open for blood-letting.
Some sport.
Some state image.
But unless an appellate court rules in the next few hours against it, hunters in Wisconsin will be permitted beginning Monday to set their dogs free to find roughly three dozen wolves the DNR says can still be legally 'harvested' under this year's quota.
If you want to see what this outcome for an unlucky hound can look like, go to this link.
Bad enough that the initial 2012 Wisconsin hunt was rushed through the Legislature by lawmakers in thrall to powerful hunting and gun owner lobbies.
Lobbies that have succeeded in requiring the state to pay any bear hunter up to $2,500 per dog killed should it be confronted and killed by a wolf during bear training or hunting season.
And that a compliant, lobbyist-driven DNR boosted the wolf kill quota from 116 in 2012 to 251 this year against the advice of scientists whose voices have been drowned out by wolf killing advocates who also enjoyed a Scott Walker-provided 50% cut in the wolf killing license fee to a mere 49 bucks.
And that the wolf hunt allows the indirect use of bait by permitting the location of bear left near wolf rendezvous areas.
And allows the use of traps that snag wolves until hunters shoot them in the head.
Come Monday, outlier Wisconsin is further open for blood-letting.
Some sport.
Some state image.
Actually, the cap on the wolf population was set by THE wolf expert in the US,Adrian Wydeven who is a scientist, and the wolves have far exceeded the cap. The season should have been opened a few years back. When they took 13 off of one farmers field three years ago for killing a farmer's heifers, the need for reduction was obvious. The mistake made by Wydeven was to claim too low of a number in order to protect the wolves. Please take a look at the livestock depredation claims. This does not excuse the use of hounds for wolf hunting. It is rather ironic that hound hunters get paid for wolves killing their dogs while bear hunting, but now they will put them at greater risk to get killed by wolves.
ReplyDeleteThe 350 figure originated as a talking point in 1999. It is not set in stone.
ReplyDeleteYup you can bet our DNR has the best interests of our resources and wildlife at the top of its priority list, right behind finding another way to give some bogus group millions to campaign for Walker under the guise of serving Wisconsin's outdoor interests.
ReplyDeleteMaybe this will attract Michael Vick to come to Green Bay until Rodgers recovers.
ReplyDeleteI own scent hounds here in Northeast Oregon, we are also feeling the down side of the wolf population. They are now down on the valley floor!! There is no way on this green earth I'd allow my scent hounds to be torn to pieces. If these guys are legit hunters, they don't need their dogs, just their experience in the field. It's disgusting!!
ReplyDeleteAs someone who raises hounds for bear hunting, and adapting them to wolf hunting, I don't see a problem with this. My dogs are safer on the hunt with me than they are in the yard-just ask my neighbor who lost a dog to the wolves.
ReplyDeleteWolves are beautiful creatures, but I feel that many of you don't have a lick of first hand experience in the havoc they cause those of us directly impacted by their presence.
There are provinces in Canada which allows hunting of canines with dogs.
ReplyDeletePeople hunt coyotes with scenthounds and sighthounds; but far I am aware, no one does the same with wolves.
I don't know why Wisconsin is trying to re-invent the wheel when their northern neighbour doesn't do stuff like this despite being legal.
First of all, having grown up with hounds and hunted all of my life, most hound hunters know better.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, if we want to have a real discussion about the wolves, lets ask the people living in the areas where they are now thriving, and encroaching on suburban homes. Lets talk to the lady near Minocqua whose elmentary age children were standing waiting for the bus when a wolf walked up and stood watching them, between them and the house!
Those of you who live in in well manicured condos along Lake Monona and read about wolves in the Sunday paper really should not espouse opinions made to sound like expertise.
Enough is enough. You are not going to allow dogs to hunt wolves. It's dangerous and cruel. What I want is that the hunts be stopped. Wolves are wild, dogs aren't.
ReplyDeletejames:
ReplyDeleteYou should do a little more research before making the claim about 350 "originated as a talking point in 1999". The 350 was a goal far before 1999, and was included in many of the early wolf restoration plans dating back into the early '80's. It was far more than a "talking point".
And look what being a good scientist got Adrian, a different job. He was shuffled out of the wolf biologist position and replaced. He was probbaly too good at his job for the non-science stepp administration.
Let’s talk about the suburbs encroaching on wildlife. People who want to live in the woods had better expect to see wildlife, including wolves walking through. Why is it that when people see a bear it’s great fun and excitement but when they see a wolf the excitement turns to fear. And the story gets re-told with great emotion..…OMG, So & So saw a wolf…..OMG, So & So saw a wolf just standing there looking at her!!! Anyway, the story here is about sending packs of hounds out to see if they can run a wolf into the ground. No matter how you feel about wolves, this practice should make you think twice. Most hunters, even most hound hunters are against it (know better). But they have all been told to stick together and support their “wolf hounding brothers” no matter what. There’s power in numbers, so even if they know this is a bad idea and dogs are going to die, at least it’s a (sick) win for hunting rights. I’m amazed at how low these people are willing to go in the name of hunters rights. And if it matters, we have lived with wolves in the area since early 2000. Not one of my family or friends has been dragged kicking and screaming into the night by a wolf yet and we don’t stay awake at night worrying about it. We have heard them often in the distance and we feel quite fortunate to experience it. NO TO HOUNDS AGAINST WOLVES!!!
ReplyDeleteDick Thiel was the architect of the peer reviewed Wisconsin Wolf management Plan.....The same plan that the fake sportsmen in the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Assoc have tried to destroy in two short years.....The 350 number was that agreed upon as an arbitrary number back when there were less than 200 wolves in the State. At the time- no one knew exactly how the program would turn out.....The biological carrying cap is around 1200 wolves......The Bear Hunters don't like Wolves defending the Hunters bear bait stations and killing their hounds.....They have never heard of fair chase hunting.....
ReplyDeleteIt's absolutely ridiculous that DNR (and esp. Kurt Thiede who knows better!) keeps using 350 as the mgt. "goal". William is right - that was a very arbitrary number and is not out of date and totally inaccurate. Kill enough wolves to get to that number and they'll be right back on the Endangered list. There are plenty of ways to deal with problem wolves - and many of the "ranchers" with problems have refused to adopt recommended measures because they are wolf haters. And please stop saying it's only "Madison" or "urban" people who want wolves in WI because that's just bullshit. I worked for the DNR for 30 years and I am shocked and very ashamed at what it's become and how it's treated some of the best employees it ever had. This use of dogs is sick, and these will be known as dark times in Wisconsin. I hope citizens will continue to rise up against this as well as the outrageous hunting and trapping in our state parks. The Rethuglicans are letting a small minority run this state into the ground.
ReplyDelete