Wolf tags go on sale @ 12:01am 2/16/21! Clear your calendars for next week!
Wisconsin Hunting Reports/Discussion
Wolf Hunt!
Displaying 31 to 45 of 443 posts
Don’t forget they are now claiming the 350 wasn’t to be considered a cap. Even though I’m pretty sure 1 of the biologists is trying to blow the whistle on that pathetic claim. They will keep moving goal posts and do whatever they see fit to protect predators in this state. Strange, unless you consider it could very well be another form of gun control. Tin foil hat theory, I know. But it does make a little sense when trying to figure out why so much protection for predators.
Bottom line is there’s plenty of wolves in this state to hold a hunt every year and still have a sustainable population. Yes, even after the so called “killing spree”. I’m still seeing just as much or more wolf sign now than I did before the last hunt. I wish the tree huggers would see it but that’s difficult from California and DC. Frustrating and disgusting.
Animals are managed, even if there is not a hunting season. Case in point: bald eagles. Have they recovered ? Yes. Do we now have a hunting season ? No.
Wolves are managed in Wisconsin, hunting season or not.
The management plan was not updated during the terms of 4 Wisconsin governors. Which one is to blame ? None of them.
I'm referring to Tammy Baldwin and Ron Johnson who have joined with two senators from Wyoming to introduce a bill to federally delist gray wolves. Significant bipartisanship without which anything the governor, DNR, NRB and others do or don't do is rendered essentially meaningless.
Mud, what in the world might my "agenda" be? You may notice I indicated support for local wolf management. My comments were not in support of Trouter, just indicating I didn't feel getting personal with ones ID was Germaine to the primary discussion. Your opinion may differ.
Politics certainly are involved to an extent with regards to management but I'm pleased that there is actually bipartisan cooperation within our state in attempting to delist wolves.
The issue with reducing tribal quotas is that they are guaranteed by treaty at the federal level (as affirmed by the Voight decision among others). The state cannot simply say "Since you don't kill your allotment of the quota we're taking it away". Its easy to say that if they intentionally don't fill the quota, they don't deserve it but the reality is that the state can't change it. I don't like using natural resources as bartering chips (spearing quotas, wolf hunt, etc) but they have a legal right to claim their quota. I don't think you'll find many people who like how this is being handled but there isn't much that can be done at the state level and even less at the federal since there is almost no chance of revisiting the treaty and renegotiating anything.
Mudbucket says: The State of Wisconsin has proven for years now that we can manage the wolves without the Federal government, or One Federal Judge, intervening.
I think this is the lone significant point of disagreement between most of us on here. All reasonable outdoorsmen and conservationists agree that the wolf can and should be managed here. The difference is how that management should be handled, and the NRB - Prehn debacle, along with the 2020(?) hunt has given sufficient evidence to those suggesting WI can't manage them responsibly.
Madforlabs misses the point most of the time when it doesn't fit his agenda. Trouter has posted multiple times with his name and WWC Adam's County. I've never posted someone or their group shouldn't have an opinion. I respect his perspective on the wolves issue as much as anyone else.
If you read my posts and read the attached pictures you would understand my question. Is Trouter able to "Advise the Natural Resources Board and the Department of Natural Resources, and do it through OPEN,IMPARTIAL actions."? If you do believe he can, that's your opinion. You being you it wouldn't surprise me if you felt he could.
Like Trouter you like to post the current narrative of your favored political party whenever possible. So I understand trying to provide cover. I'm only reposting his previous comments and how hypocritical some of them are. Continuing to claim wanting politics out of the conversations, while proving to be an activist first is my biggest concern. It's not a once or twice occurance, it's as often as he can. And I'm just posting a few of them.
If someone is concerned hopefully they get in touch with Keri and share their thoughts. That is what the WCC board is for correct?
These are just my opinions. Like a lot of other people on here. I'm not wanting the wolves eliminated. The State of Wisconsin has proven for years now that we can manage the wolves without the Federal government, or One Federal Judge, intervening.
I think you missed the point MFL, you can't scream bipartisan practices out one side of your mouth while it fits your agenda and then the push the exact opposite out the other side.
Once you decide to take a public appointment you open yourself up to this type of review, we see it at all levels.
A highly emotional issue, particularly with those in parts of the state directly impacted by wolf management (or lack thereof). That being said, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Outing a poster by name strikes me as very inappropriate, particularly when done in the context of extreme disagreement.
FWIW. I'm (mostly) ant-mining, can't stand Scott Walker and believe strongly that wolves require local management. What the heck does one have to do with the other????
I googled the name. It sure seems that someone on the WCC should not be so partial...but a quick google search of the name reveals anti-mining, anti-CAFO, anti-Scott Walker, and anti-wolf hunting propaganda all over the internet. I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but I wish people wouldn't blame wildlife/enviro management decisions they don't agree with on partisan politics, when partisan politics drive their own argument.
Apologies for multiple posts. These are some of the posts I was referring to.
"Handing influence to one partisan lapdog consolidates decision making power into one person."
Having one Federal Judge put them back on the endangered list? Not hypocritical at all..
Trouter, "Scott Pitta WCC Adam's County", you have proven time and time again with your posts here and on other social media sites that you can't be open and impartial. That your political activism is more important.
"The Congress accomplishes this through open, impartial broad range of actions."
With your obvious political beliefs and comments you've made clear you can't comply, and will not comply, with that statement... You continue to claim no political affiliation, but your comments clearly paint a different picture.
I also wonder if you have a different set of rules and regulations for hunting and fishing that you can abide by.
With your previous comments , "hunting deer is an exercise in futility", proves what a negative impact the wolves have had.. How are we supposed to recruit and grow the sport of hunting with comments like that?
Displaying 31 to 45 of 443 posts
