Wisconsin NRB & DNR, Not Political, TRUST ME!!!!!!
Over reach by a political party. The way it was always done means nothing in todays political enviroment. Common sense went out the windows a decade ago. With voting comes change With redistricting guidelines to stop gerrymandering comes the right of each persons vote to be counted as one. It is important and to save or state and our country it needs to happen. A closer look into dark money politics if we allow it to happen we are at fault s well. Republican Democrat or Independent time to wake up
Sierra Club states: the organization’s official policy about wildlife and native plant management recognizes that lawful hunting and fishing are an acceptable strategy for the management of natural areas, as long as such hunting and fishing are based on scientific data, consistent with all other management purposes and necessary for the protection of wildlife
Thats a loaded and open ended statement.
Fishing and hunting based on scientific data. Anyone here able to interpret that statement?
Management of natural areas. Does anyone know what that is?
I spent several years with Sierra clubbers. Made several friends and got along with all of them and had a blast conditional that I never hinted disagreement with anyone.
I will never forget being told that old growth forests were essential as the preferred habitat of the TIMBER wolf. YEOWZER!
The SC is eager to dictate your fishing and hunting experience through management policy.
Nope, wasn't at the meetings. You say Counsel's position runs contrary to her organization's mission statement. Certainly possible and problematic.
I didn't bother to check HSUS, nor its position on sport hunting, but obviously can guess it. Not certain how I'd confirm SC and HSUS were "includ(ed) with equal weight in recent DNR...committees." Sounds like you were there and believed so.
I guess current policy decisions might better inform me of this supposed new DNR direction, but my feeling is they are generally too lenient in bag limits for every consumable species harvested, both fish and game, except for deer. It certainly doesn't feel like some nefarious plan to eliminate hunting, and kill the NA model. More like an unfounded conspiracy. Sec'y Cole personally encourages more hunting (and fishing) in the DNR magazine intro, specifically during the Coco.
One might mention the lone exception here, the wolf hunt. But we all know that topic is far more laden with baggage than merely consumptive, or even sport hunting.
Well PRJ - I attended all recent meetings and that was Sierra Club's consistent testimony, as stated by it's representative and registered lobbyist Jodi Habush Sinykin: "NO SPORTHUNTING." Were you at any of the meetings?
You also left out this policy statement: "The Sierra Club also believes that hunting and fishing is defensible only when it is managed in a way that benefits wildlife and ecosystems." In other words if it fits their agenda it's okay, if not then no. It's an open ended statement that never results in any support of hunting, and in real life results in opposition. Have you every seem them testify in favor of hunting or fishing? Never. They do not support consumptive use of animals.
They do not support the North American Model of wildlife management. They do not support hunting heritage in Wisconsin which was the primary point of this discussion.
I noticed you did not mention HSUS. Can you please give us your defense of them and their inclusion with equal weight in recent DNR wildlife management committees? I'd love to hear that.
I stand by my statement 100% and fully believe it accurate. Our hunting heritage is at risk, made even more so by recent WI DNR decisions. If you are unable to fact check my other statements I honestly question your knowledge and involvement in these issues. It's all readily available.
Finbender writes: they (DNR) have given equal weight and representation to groups that advocate the complete elimination of hunting and fishing. Groups like HSUS and Sierra Club.
Sierra Club states: the organization’s official policy about wildlife and native plant management recognizes that lawful hunting and fishing are an acceptable strategy for the management of natural areas, as long as such hunting and fishing are based on scientific data, consistent with all other management purposes and necessary for the protection of wildlife populations. The Sierra Club opposes all sport hunting in national parks, which are set aside for the preservation of natural landscapes and wildlife.
When Finbender inaccurately states one easily verifiable fact, all the other content comes into question, and is less readily fact-checked.
Trouter said: "Hunting heritage is not at risk"
In the DNR's recent wildlife management planning committees they (DNR) have given equal weight and representation to groups that advocate the complete elimination of hunting and fishing. Groups like HSUS and Sierra Club. If that's not putting our hunting heritage as risk I don't know what is.
In fact in one of the more recent committee's the conversation was dominated by those two groups, and the DNR 's representative moderator allowed that to happen. So much frustration came of it that two stakeholder groups that represented our hunting heritage dropped out.
It's pretty sick.
What Trouter said,
Any news from NBC is fake,phony and false
Where does she stand on a wolf hunt and wolf management? I'm going to guess she is against the wolf hunt. Remember when the DNR told us we had to shoot the hell out of the deer to manage them? But the wolf??? Not so much
So much for bipartisan support on this issue.