Friday, January 24, 2014

Two More WI Dogs Killed By Wolves; State Reimbursement Payments Possible

Wisconsin is the only state in the country that reimburses hunters whose dogs are killed by wolves - - even if the hunters let their dogs loose in areas during hunting or training that the DNR has designed as wolf caution zones due to attacks on dogs.

And even if the dog owner is a scofflaw.

Dogs have been killed by territorial wolves in so-called pack rendezvous sites, or when protecting bait used by bear hunters training their hounds.

Bear hunting and other related interests are responsible for this special-interest entitlement - - not to be conflated with payments also made to farmers and ranchers whose livestock is attacked by wolves.

And it is these lobbies that pushed the hardest for Wisconsin's now-two-year-old wolf hunt, in which dogs are allowed in the hunt. And in other state.

Anyone see a pattern here?

The owners of the two most recently-reported dogs killed in January are eligible for a state reimbursement of $2,500 per dog. One dog was chasing coyotes, the other snowshoe hares.


Anonymous said...

This makes about as much sense as exercising my dogs on I-94 and expecting the DOT to reimburse me when my dogs are run over in traffic.

Anonymous said...

If you would take a look at the map you would see that the wolf caution areas are huge. I grouse hunt with dogs and am fully aware of the caution areas, but have stumbled upon areas outside of these caution zones where wolf sign is extremely prevalent. My land and home were in a caution zone a few years back after a neighbor's dog was taken off their front yard. Do you also suggest that farmers should move their cattle off of their farms if they are in caution zones? Please take the time to educate yourself on the wolf problems before you pass judgment.

Chris Harbin said...

What does a dairy farmer's livestock have to do with the subject of hunting with dogs? This is about dogs that are purposely put in harm's way. An "educated" person would realize that hunting dogs are under considerable risk to be injured or killed during a hunt - and not just by wolves. If hunting is truly a "sport", is not the risk part of the allure? Why is it the state's job to make hunting easy, safe and without risk to the hunter? the deck is already stacked against game animals as it is. Moreover, I am not so sure that the public should be put at risk from hunting dogs if on public property.

Anonymous said...

If you read the original article in The Milwaukee Journal it states, the "dogs were being trained to hunt bears or actively hunting bears. It also states, "Adult wolves are very defensive of pups at rendezvous sites and will attack other predators, including dogs, that get too close."

All I have to say is...If you are out hunting, be prepared to be hunted too. That's the nature of the game.

Max B. said...

Why not put this question to the Spring Conservation
Congress? after all, it's tax dollars and hunting fees that reimburse these irresponsible dog owners.

Boxer said...

@Anon 9:09 am-- Thanks to the thrilling success of the 2012-2014 wolf hunt, there should be very few wolves left to predate your farm animals. Then what will you do for fun?
Yes, I'm passing judgment. That happens sometimes when you stick your neck out to say something stupid. Back to your cave now!

Anonymous said...

If the DNR plants wolfs after they were gone then they should pay for the damage they do. This is a no braner

Anonymous said...

Boxer, You are not judgmental, you are insulting. So if I have farm animals I live in a cave? People who have farms do it for fun? You read what I wrote and call it stupid yet you use the word predate? Just because I do not agree entirely with Mr. Rowen's post and make a comment I'm sticking my neck out? Unlike the current idiots in the GOP, I'm assuming that others would like to hear comments about issues that do not always agree with their opinions. I disagree with James on this issue to some extent because the caution areas are huge and would exclude large tracts of land from use with dogs. By the way, payments also go out to farmers for predation. This was part of the original deal of bringing the wolves back to Wisconsin. The political chaos we have in Wisconsin is caused by people who think that they have the only opinion that matters and everyone else is stupid. This is exactly why we have idiots such as Scott Walker running our state.

Boxer said...

@Anonymous 11:50 am:

1. I couldn't agree more with your judgments that a) there are many idiots in the state GOP and b) idiots like Scott Walker are running our state.

2. Sorry I used the word predate. I do know better.

3. However, if you got "So if I have farm animals I live in a cave?" and "People who have farms do it for fun?" from my comment, you're missing the point by a large margin, my friend.
James' post was about hunting wolves and bears with dogs in wolf caution areas and then reimbursing the owners of these dogs when the dogs are killed. That's what my comment was about. . . . maybe yours, too?

4. I did no worse to you than you did to James by insulting his lack of education on the issue before "passing judgment". You said he shouldn't proffer his opinion until he self-educated. Perhaps he's pretty well educated on the subject and simply has a different opinion than yours.

5. Should you really be able to go wherever you want or are allowed to go and never have to see wolves or their scat?

Boxer said...

PS: Forgot to throw in an apology for being insulting when I fully intended to be judgmental.

Anonymous said...

The real issue with the wolf payments is the same as everything with wolves in Wisconsin, things get blown out of proportion. To think no one should use dogs for hunting in a wolf caution zone is crazy because the zones are huge. I'm sure the guy hunting rabbits with his beagle did not go into the woods thinking it would get killed. He was not in a caution zone but the area became a caution zone after the attack. I compared hunting dog depredation to farming because there are people who tell the farmers that when their calves (usually beef by the way) "vanish", its just an act of nature. The question is should they move the cattle off the farm, accept the losses, or blame the state for bringing the wolves back? The dog payment policy, right or wrong depending on who you ask, was passed to get the hound hunters to not take things into their own hands. The wolf reintroduction plan was opposed by hound owners and farmers and the DNR made the decision to make payments because their plan caused collateral damage. As for Chris Harbon who states "risk is part of the allure", why don't you drive up to Price County and tell the beagle owner that his dog getting killed by wolves "is part of the allure".