Wolf kills hunting dog in jackson County

8/4/14 @ 12:05 PM
ORIGINAL POST
ol sarge
ol sarge
USER since 3/8/04
From the Tomah Journal: A hunting dog was killed by wolves July 22 in the Jackson County town of Knapp. The Department of Natural Resources confirmed that a five-year-old Plott bear hound was the victim of a fatal attack in Jackson County Forest land east of Potter’s Flowage. The DNR has posted a map marking a four-mile radius from the site of the attack and labeled it a “wolf caution area.” DNR carnivore specialist Dave McFarland said the area remains open to dogs but advised caution. “This is just a notice to be aware that there’s a caution area and heightened risk,” he said. The area is one of the prime wolf habitats in the state. “That portion of Jackson County and the central forest is what we would consider traditional population, and there’s a healthy population there,” McFarland said. While wolves are highly territorial and prone to attacking hunting dogs, McFarland said the risk of a wolf attacking a human is “extremely low.” He said there isn’t a documented case of a wolf attacking and injuring a human in Wisconsin and that human encounters with wolves are very rare. “The wolf population is low density compared to deer and other animals,” McFarland said. “Many people who live in wolf country will never see a wolf.” The dog was the sixth killed by wolves in Wisconsin this year. A dog was killed in Clark County near the Jackson County border Jan. 1, and four others have been killed in northern Wisconsin. Dog owners are eligible for reimbursement from the state up to a maximum of $2,500. Just my two cents. I live not far from this area and fish Potters alot. This area is nothing but swamp,pines and cranberry bogs. It is some of the most rugged and remote area in the central part of the state and there is a very healthy wolf population in this area. This would be a good place to hunt if you drew a tag. That being said, I would never let a dog run lose in this area for the threat that it might be attacked by a wolf. I am sure they will up the number of tags to try and lower the population in this area. If you want a good chance of seeing a wolf, both McKeana and Potters Rds are good bets. Just dont be suprised when you do see one.
Post Your Comment
Displaying 1 to 10 of 31 Posts
9/7/14 @ 7:23 AM
SnakeSter
SnakeSter
MEMBER since 7/9/12
No Mani, You certainly didn't miss the point. Ol Sarge was talking about a good place to hunt for wolves and about the Dogs being killed. A lot of us got sidetracked on the compensation thing. I'm starting to believe the comp money started because the state may have thought they let the population of the wolf get out of hand. Everyone started debating(including me) that dogs should or should not be compensated. Then why shouldn't everything that gets killed by them be compt. Should tax dollars be used in this way, ......... It's actually about a good hunting spot/area that's overpopulated with the wolves and domesticated animals. You know we get out of control sometimes. I'm going in the house right now and have the wife spank me.

Post Your Comment
9/6/14 @ 10:08 PM
river_chaser
river_chaser
USER since 10/3/12
Your superior intellect seems to not read so well. no one has elaborated with any reason on wether farmers shouold be compensated or not.

Of course farmers whould be compensated for their losses. Farming is an absolute neccessity to any develpoed society. We also must understand that farming is a high risk / low reward business. One or 2 failed years due to mother nature (and predation) puts a farm out of business. Thus the need for crop insurance as well as government reimbursement for damages caused by wild animals. No one has shown reason otherwise.

Post Your Comment
9/6/14 @ 9:41 PM
Brother of the brush
Brother of the brush
USER since 1/22/12
A not so intelligent reply to a not so intelligent post: Why should a cattle owner get compensated for the death of a cow at the paws of a wolf which took place in a pasture? He or she should except that risk every time the cows are let out of the barn.

Post Your Comment
9/6/14 @ 9:32 PM
big mac
big mac
MEMBER since 2/19/02
I'm a simple man. So please read & understand what I'm saying. Yes, anybody that runs hounds for any wild game takes risk with hounds being hurt or killed, but the state population of wolves is almost triple of the population the STATE legislated. I'm NOT against the wolf!!!! It just needs to be regulated! Big Mac

Post Your Comment
9/6/14 @ 7:37 PM
roofer
roofer
USER since 6/6/04
If the wolf population was at the initial goal of 350 and not 875 or better minimum count, this would not even be a forum.

Post Your Comment
9/6/14 @ 2:15 PM
river_chaser
river_chaser
USER since 10/3/12
Dog owners shouldnt be compnseated for dog losses in the wild, since when we enter the wilderness we take on a variety of known and unknown risks. Risk is the nature of sport and it is considered inherent in the outdoor experience.

That said, the population of wolves is not under control due to the asthetic values and ensuing political activism of a select group of citizens. The fact that higher numbers of domesticated creatures are being targeted by wolves is the direct result of the wishes of a small group of politically active people. These political groups should be taking monetary responsibility for the damage caused by wolves.

Edited on 9/6/14 2:17 PM
Post Your Comment
9/6/14 @ 8:52 AM
SnakeSter
SnakeSter
MEMBER since 7/9/12
Mossy Horns is right. I love dogs, but do not think the tax payers should be paying anything for the death of someone's animal. If I am out in the woods and get killed by a pack of wolves, does my wife get money from the state because I got killed by a wolf? If someone loves their cat or Pot-Bellied Pig, and it gets killed by wolves shouldn't they be compensated also? I haven't heard 1 good point or argument to support this policy. Not trying to argue. Just would like good debate.

Post Your Comment
9/5/14 @ 5:49 PM
Brother of the brush
Brother of the brush
USER since 1/22/12
Sorry Mossy Horn, loosing a hound to a bear is rare when you consider the amount of hounds in the brush.

Post Your Comment
9/5/14 @ 4:33 PM
Mossy Horns
Mossy Horns
USER since 6/15/01
Bear hunters get nothing for a dog killed by a bear. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Im talking about the bear hunters who use dogs. They lose dogs to bears all the time while enjoying their sport. But when a wolf kills one of their dogs while they are bear hunting/running they want the tax payers/sportsman to pay them for the killed dog.

Bear Hunters should have insurance on their animals. Not expect others to pay them for the loss.

Example....... The single mother/father in line for food stamps/government aid.....Txting on his/her IPHONE!!!! How does that make you feel????

If they can afford everything that goes with the sport, they can pay for the loss of a dog.

Post Your Comment
9/5/14 @ 1:50 PM
thechief
thechief
USER since 5/2/05
im just wondering what happens when your hound is killed by a bear??

Post Your Comment
Displaying 1 to 10 of 31 Posts