What has happened in the last few years concerning the wolf population growth has been polarizing.
I feel that the biggest aspect that each side needs to understand is that our forefathers tried to extirpate the wolf. Good or bad, they did it.
The period of no wolf population was quite a span of time. Farms sprung up, cattle, you name it forged a living in a wolf-free environment. Why would they not expand, times were good and there was no threat.
Now, pro-wolf says "wolves were hear first" (imagine that statement coming from Dane County LOL). The pro-wolf people expect landowners to retreat, discontinue livestock production, or put in place non-lethal measures.
The bigger question is, what benefit do wolves provide now that many area of the north are settled and many areas are no longer wilderness? Is it worth having wolves to control "the weak, the sick, the injured" animals (I know cliche'). Must wolves re-establish all former haunts (includes land where the suburbs of Chicago are now by the way).
What is the answer? Who should be footing the bill?
Isn't the easy answer to manage the population and let the population of wolves settle where they can, much like bobcats are managed today? Granted bobcats are solitary, while wolves are pack-like.
Something has to change. WI is not like it was 100 years ago, and population of humans will not stop. Is it fair to wolves to have manipulated areas where they fear nothing? Is it fair to folks in the north forging a living, having to apply all the measures of protecting their animals?
Who truly was "first"?
There is precedence that shows limited hunting and trapping of wolves is sustainable...many areas.
Why can't there be wolf management? How can you possibly allow wolves to continue to expand and seek niche environments when they are no longer available?
This is just one big experiment. Unfortunately it is currently one-sided and the side that suffers, is the side immersed in habitat no longer capable of sustaining a wolf population that is not managed. Those being forced to accept wolves are the ones losing money. Imagine income lost due to the loss of deer hunting alone! Yep, one big experiment. I think you know where am going with that.
I remember when it started, and all the PC sportsmen said, well give em a chance and 350 is doable,,,, I listened to Adrian Wydeven continue with his lie etc,,,, the whole program was a joke
Jeff in MN's Link
That is just in Wisconsin. Nobody knows how many wild critters have been killed and how that affected the economy in the areas affected.
Treefarm hit the mark on this: "Our forefathers tried to extirpate the wolf. Good or bad, they did it." I will add they did it for good reasons.
I wonder how many wolf that the feds or our dnr trap to relocate, dispatch, or pick up as road kills, or get their hands on for any reason get DNA tested. I would like to see the data on those, specifically how that DNA relates to the DNA that was in the wolf that our ancestors exterminated.
Did the wolf that were harvested by hunters and trappers have their DNA tested?
Hoot (or anyone else that had sent a wolf in) -would you be willing to file an open records request? If denied, possibly lobby a prohunter organization to litigate it?
So when we finally got around to a wolf season in 2012, why the low quotas on harvest when any good biologist takes carrying capacity seriously. When deer exceed the carrying capacity in the north, we've seen what the DNR (and some willing hunters) did to them. Double Standard!
So why did the DNR set their management goal so low (350 wolves) and biological carrying capacity so low?? Was it sound biology or was it sand bagging because they knew presenting lower numbers would be more conducive to gaining public support of the reintroduction?
I used to track the packs in Bayfield County and was especially interested in the Flag River Pack since that is the area I hunt. I even had a pleasant email exchange with Adrian W. It was always interesting to learn about the details of this and other packs in the area, but like WausauDoug said, that information is not out there any more. The only information now available to the public is very general and not pack specific. Good wolf information seemed end about 2012-2013. That's around the time of the first wolf season. Hmm...As other posters have stated, there should be no reason to keep this data from the public unless they are protecting or covering up something like how many wolves are really on the Wisconsin landscape.
As I remember it was done in conjunction with Feds removing wolves from Endangered Species list. States had to demonstrate they could have control of the system to ensure wolf populations did not dip too low. If too much SSS happens, or State management (SB602 / AB712 wolf bills) does not demonstrate cooperation and control to ensure a minimum wolf population .... then wolves will likely remain on the endangered species list ... thus prolonging a legitimate hunting season. These State bills just provide ammunition to the pro wolf crowd, making it even harder to reinstate a legal wolf season.
Is there any evidence that state wildlife officials worked proactively and asked for assistance with Feds in managing the wolves? As a biologist/scientist, wouldn't you want to do everything in your power to manage a resource and use all tools at your disposal according to the plan to maintain balance in the ecosystem? That is assuming the management plan is valid and you believe it is because it was drafted from good scientific principles and research.
"If passed, this legislation would only delay the process of wolf delisting and invite additional litigation".
Spoken by Jodi Habush Sinykin, a rabid anti hunting radical left wing environmentalists who lead the legal challenge to stop the wolf hunt in federal court, and parroted by so many of the Bowsite faithful.
It begs the question what are the antis afraid of ? Why would the radical leftist who have fought tooth and nail at every turn for decades against delisting wolves suddenly be concerned that this legislation would delay the very thing they are fighting against? Why is this legislation causing such great consternation among the Humane Society types, that delisting and a hunting season would be delayed? I scratch my head in wonderment?
Its a sad day when some hunting community stand in lock step, arm and arm with the radical leftist anti hunting environmentalist parroting their every word.
HF43
